[crossfire] [IDEA] Reagents for cast magic

[Anton Oussik]

On 19/10/05, Brendan Lally <
     brenlally at gmail.com
     > wrote:
>
      On 10/19/05, Anton Oussik <
      antonoussik at gmail.com
      > wrote:
     >
      > On 19/10/05, Brendan Lally <
      brenlally at gmail.com
      > wrote:
     >
      > > On 10/19/05, Anton Oussik <
      antonoussik at gmail.com
      > wrote:
     >
      > > > IMO this would make spellcasting less useful, as it would be easier to
     >
      > > > take a dragon and claw through armies of monsters, picking up reagents
     >
      > > > as you go. You can then sell the reagents to the poor spellcasters
     >
      > > > struggling to get enough for a zombie-killing cast.
     >
      > >
     >
      > > You make an assumption that it can't be balanced in game.
     >
      >
     >
      > OK, but you would have to do it so as not to make alchemy even less
     >
      > useful - would you either carry about one easy to find reagent or find
     >
      > an easy to find ingredient, then a cauldron, and then risk your life
     >
      > making something that can cast the spell for you?
     >
     
     >
      Ok, lets consider the following model as a starting point;
     >
     
     >
      there are 5 magic skills, let each of them have their own reagent.
     >
     
     >
      also allow 3 extra (general) reagents of varying price, call these
     >
      expensive1, expensive2, and expensive3
     >
     
     >
      now, each spell would be able to belong to certain skills (more than one)
     >
      the 5 base reagents would only be usable by someone who could use the
     >
      associated skill. The 3 expensive ones would be usable by anyone but
     >
      no spell would use only them.
     >
     
     >
      The base reagents would all be cheap and plentiful (alters to generate
     >
      them for a couple of plat)
     >
     
     >
      I'm inclined to say that expensive 1 would probably be directly
     >
      purchasable (for 50-100 plat maybe)
     >
     
     >
      expensive 2 might be creatable with alchemy with ingredients costing
     >
      500-1000 plat (ish)
     >
     
     >
      expensive 3 would be very rare, and not used or sold lightly.
     >
     
     >
      each spell then would need different combinations.
     >
     
     >
      firebolt might need 1 pyro token
     >
      burning hands 2 pyro + expensive 1
     >
      faery fire 2 pyro + 1 evocation + expensive 1
     >
      icebolt would be 1 evocation
     >
      icestorm 5 evocation + 1 sorcery + 1 expensive 2
     >
      coldfront (a spell to replace icestorm at low levels, without the same
     >
      damage and range progression) 2 evocation + 1 sorcery
     >
      magic missile would be 1 sorcery + 1 summoning
     >
      small lightning 1 pyro + 1 evocation
     >
      steambolt 2 pyro + 2 sorcery +1 expensive 1
     >
      charm monster 5 summoning + 1 sorcery + 1 expensive2
     >
      comet 50 pyro + 10 evocation + 1 expensive3
     >
      meteor swarm 100 pyro + 20 evocation + 3 expensive3
     >
     
     >
      done properly, this would start to look like a periodic table, with
     >
      the start of the table having every possible combination of tokens, so
     >
      that mixing various combinations of reagents, the effects might be
     >
      guessable (ie, a spell needing 2 pyro + 2 summoning would probably be
     >
      summon fire elemental or something like that.)
     >
     
     >
      This could also make the spells easier to document (a diagram rather
     >
      than a big list as it is currently.
     >
     
     >
      The other nice bit about doing that, is that exp could be shared based
     >
      on the ratio of base tokens used, so it would be possible to level up
     >
      sorcery more easily. (in game terms it would make the different forms
     >
      of magic more integrated, and it far easier to have crossover spells.)
     >
     
     >
      If there are only 8 different reagents, then the easiest way to use
     >
      them is to equip them. If there are 'spell reagent' body slots, then
     >
      they can be equipped, and used if equipped.
     
Yes, this seems conceptually easier than the currenly existing model.
This could also be extended into alchemy so that it is just an
extension of the reagent formula + fixing agent. A different fixing
agent should be used depending on what you want to create, so if you
want a potion you use water, other fixing agents for other things.

This would fit in very nicely into existing alchemy model since only
the formulae will need to be modified, existing code and unrelated
formulae can be left untouched.


Another issue I'd like to bring up is grace. getting rid of
spellpoints will make grace stand out. If you ask me the model works,
but it will stand out now that spellpoints are going away.