|
|
|
|
 |

August 29th, 2006, 11:48 AM
|
 |
General
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,013
Thanks: 17
Thanked 25 Times in 22 Posts
|
|
Re: Simple but ironic question about gems and cast
Quote:
Endoperez said:
I thought spell fatique was actually capped at 200 fatique, and thus all the big spells are very easier to cast than thought. I haven't cast any of the big battle spells in a long time, though.
|
Fatigue in general is capped at 200. Any fatigue beyond that causes a great deal of damage. However, this doesn't make spells easier to cast, as the mage must use enough gems to bring the fatigue down to 200.
|

August 29th, 2006, 01:42 PM
|
 |
Second Lieutenant
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 514
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Simple but ironic question about gems and cast
Quote:
Graeme Dice said:
Fatigue in general is capped at 200. Any fatigue beyond that causes a great deal of damage. However, this doesn't make spells easier to cast, as the mage must use enough gems to bring the fatigue down to 200.
|
I was under the impression that spellcasting could only bring you to the threshhold of HP damage, and only fatigue-inducing spells and negative reinvigoration could actually inflict said damage. Never once seen a mage injure himself with spellcasting, even when he was at 97 fatigue or so and cast a spell which would ordinarily bring him all the way up to 200 fatigue.
Fatigue in general is capped at 200. Any fatigue beyond that causes a great deal of damage. However, this doesn't make spells easier to cast, as the mage must use enough gems to bring the fatigue down to 200.
|

August 29th, 2006, 07:05 PM
|
 |
General
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,013
Thanks: 17
Thanked 25 Times in 22 Posts
|
|
Re: Simple but ironic question about gems and cast
Quote:
Vicious Love said:
I was under the impression that spellcasting could only bring you to the threshhold of HP damage, and only fatigue-inducing spells and negative reinvigoration could actually inflict said damage. Never once seen a mage injure himself with spellcasting, even when he was at 97 fatigue or so and cast a spell which would ordinarily bring him all the way up to 200 fatigue.
|
That's exactly what I just said. Mages cannot cast any spell that would bring them above 200 fatigue. They must use sufficient gems to bring the spell down to a fatigue level that would allow them to cast it and end up at only 200 fatigue.
|

August 30th, 2006, 01:22 AM
|
|
Sergeant
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 299
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Simple but ironic question about gems and cast
I'm not sure about this, but shouldn't it be easy to test? Mod a zeroth lvl spell to cause 800 fatigue (therefor need 8 gems) and give it a cost of say eight fire magic. make a god that can cast it, then send your god vs indies w/ only eight gems. Wouldn't that decide it one way or the other?
__________________
Qui tacet consentit
|

August 30th, 2006, 11:15 AM
|
 |
General
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,013
Thanks: 17
Thanked 25 Times in 22 Posts
|
|
Re: Simple but ironic question about gems and cast
Quote:
Frostmourne27 said:
I'm not sure about this, but shouldn't it be easy to test? Mod a zeroth lvl spell to cause 800 fatigue (therefor need 8 gems) and give it a cost of say eight fire magic. make a god that can cast it, then send your god vs indies w/ only eight gems. Wouldn't that decide it one way or the other?
|
You'll find out that the spell won't be cast.
|

August 30th, 2006, 12:44 PM
|
 |
Major
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,007
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
|
|
Re: Simple but ironic question about gems and cast
it is circuitious, not ironic.
it is not ironic.
THE QUESTION IS NOT IRONIC.
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
|
|