|
|
|
|
|
August 27th, 2006, 01:05 PM
|
|
Second Lieutenant
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: North Carolina, USA
Posts: 403
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Simple but ironic question about gems and casting.
First, allow me to make sure my information is correct. You may only use as many gems on a spell as you have ranks in the path. If I have an N4 mage, he can only use 4 gems on any nature spell. If the spell requires 4 gems, he may not add any extras.
Well, the first gem you use increases your path by 1. Does this affect that rule? In the above example, an N4 mage who uses 1 nature gem becomes an N5 mage temporarily. Does this mean that he actually gets to use 5 gems, total?
I have also been wondering how multiple paths and spells work. If a spell is E1N1 and the caster is E3N3, can he use up to 6 gems, AND are his extra levels for both paths added together?
=$= Big J Money =$=
__________________
|
August 28th, 2006, 08:30 AM
|
|
Major General
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: 500km from Ulm
Posts: 2,279
Thanks: 9
Thanked 18 Times in 12 Posts
|
|
Re: Simple but ironic question about gems and cast
1) No.
2) I'm not sure. Test it ...
Added advantage: You'll get to see if the mage uses the gems at all, or prefers to cast some other spell ...
__________________
As for AI the most effective work around to this problem so far is to simply use an American instead, they tend to put up a bit more of a fight than your average Artificial Idiot.
... James McGuigan on rec.games.computer.stars somewhen back in 1998 ...
|
August 28th, 2006, 11:45 AM
|
|
Lieutenant General
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Albuquerque New Mexico
Posts: 2,997
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Simple but ironic question about gems and cast
Those are gems in addition to the required casting cost : if your N4 mage is casting a spell that costs 400 fatigue and 4 nature gems, he can use a total of _8_ gems : the first raises effective casting level to 5, the other 3 are used to reduce fatigue costs. (Note that otherwise, some of the spells that cost 8 gems & 800 fatigue would be essentially uncastable).
Exception is that there is a bug with lvl 1 mages : your L1 mage won't use a gem to cast a spell requiring L2, while an L2 mage will cast a L3 spell using gems.
__________________
Wormwood and wine, and the bitter taste of ashes.
|
August 28th, 2006, 12:23 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
Pretty sure mages can only expend gems from a hybrid spell's first path, as that's the one that determines a spell's effective casting level.
|
August 28th, 2006, 11:18 PM
|
|
National Security Advisor
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Eastern Finland
Posts: 7,110
Thanks: 145
Thanked 153 Times in 101 Posts
|
|
Re: Simple but ironic question about gems and cast
Quote:
Cainehill said:
Those are gems in addition to the required casting cost : if your N4 mage is casting a spell that costs 400 fatigue and 4 nature gems, he can use a total of _8_ gems : the first raises effective casting level to 5, the other 3 are used to reduce fatigue costs. (Note that otherwise, some of the spells that cost 8 gems & 800 fatigue would be essentially uncastable).
|
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.
|
August 29th, 2006, 12:46 AM
|
|
Captain
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 822
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Simple but ironic question about gems and cast
It's true, Endoperez!
Though, I think the AI will happily burn gems to bring you down to a real 200, rather than a capped 200.
|
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
|
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
|
|
|
|
|