Hero Revamp

[KGB]

Pillager,

these 'differences' you listed are your own creations. You are inventing things to vehemently object to.

An 'On map' battle spell could behave exactly like a unit that auto disbands at the end of your turn.

I'm not sure what you mean by my own creations. You asked for a list of how a map spell was different than a summoned unit attacking a stack. I listed the ways it's different. None of those are my creations. All of them are differences in mechanic's of the game.

Now, granted, you have not given any indication of how far away map spells would range. So are you suggesting that you have to be in the next square to the opponent use one or do they shoot up to say 2-5 or more squares away? Do they shoot over water? Over mountains? Into cities? Over other stacks (allied and enemy)? Everyone one those questions is legitimate game mechanic differences from normal units moving on a map.

On the other hand, if you want the fireball spell to manifest itself as a single Elemental (seems natural) attacking an enemy stack in the normal manner of combat, then yeah, a fireball spell is exactly the same as an Elemental attacking a stack because it would be a reviewable battle in the battle screen and would behave exactly as a single elemental attacking a stack (minus distance traveled to reach the other stack if you aren't exactly beside the enemy stack). But I get the impression you want it to be something more than a single unit attacking a stack and that you are looking for some kind of mass effect on the enemy.

And this precognitive vision you had, about how the game will decay into fireball slinging, doesn't take into account that every fireball uses up scroll charges, which could be very scarce and valuable resources.

This is *EXACTLY* how the game will evolve. Either:

1) Scrolls will be scarce - In which case person who gets lucky enough to get them obtains a undeserved advantage (unless we pick the exact scroll we want). Also in this case you only reserve them for enemy heroes, not fodder stacks.
2) Scrolls are plentiful - In which case everyone uses them all the time on any decent enemy stack.

We aren't talking about an AI here. We are talking smart players who are going to use this tactic as often as possible based on the number of scrolls of this type they get. I can 100% guarantee I'd be using my scrolls in this manner. And how do I know this? Well Warlords IV has these types of spells. It killed PBEM (basically what Warbarons is) entirely unless players agreed to not use these spells. In online games it turns into a total cat-mouse game where players keep their heroes *just* out of range of each others spells for fear of being nuked followed by a bunch of armies pouring into finish them off. So you end up with heroes who are 100% defensive based because they can't go on offense.

Warlords/Warbarons is based on shared risk. That is, to kill an enemy, you must risk something yourself. A Hero/7 dragons taking on a bat is low risk but it's also low reward. A hero/7 dragons taking on a hero/7 dragons is high risk but it's also high reward. Having riskless attacks (beyond a scroll charge) breaks the model entirely and weighs things VERY heavily in favor of the attacking player.

And this type of cat and mouse game play is all tactical, not strategic. Which requires players have lots of experience with the tactical part of the game to be proficient at it in addition to the strategic requirements.
That is why I said that Warbarons has a serious decision to make when spells come into play on whether it's going to move toward more tactical based (spell combo's, cat and mouse game style) or remain more traditional Warlords strategic based.

I agree that not every hero needs to be able to use spells. So, fighter types wouldn't have a casting box. But, I don't have any problem with a priest casting a lightning spell or a wizard blessing a stack. And I don't think that allowing multiple hero types to cast the same spell invalidates the concept of different hero classes.

Again, I'll mention the fact that a couple of weeks back you talked about not mixing all kinds of fantasy genres together with regard to unit design.

I'd say having Priest cast Lightning/Fireballs and Wizards issuing Blessings goes against everything I've ever played/read in fantasy realms.

Thus you'd just need 2 basic hero types. A Fighter and a Spellcaster. Making a generic Spellcaster instead of a Wizard or Priest then allows the scroll concept to make sense because I certainly don't see a Paladin using Chain Lighting.

Incidentally, with regards to scrolls. How are you envisioning instantaneous use scroll effects like teleport/summon unit/fireball etc working? Just drag to slot, spell auto casts and you select the effect/location? Would you be able to cast as many as you had charges if say your Fireball scroll had 5 charges could you just keep dropping it back in over and over and fireballing over and over or teleporting over and over on the map? Or is it one use of a spell slot per turn?

The advantage of having individual spells + mana pool is that once the pool is used up for your turn, you can't cast any more spells. But you could cast 3 small spells or 2 average ones or 1 big one if you had the mana where your spell slots means you can either cast just 2 per turn (assuming 2 slots) or unlimited per turn (limited only by scroll charges).

KGB

[Pillager]

I'm not sure what you mean by my own creations. You asked for a list of how a map spell was different than a summoned unit attacking a stack. I listed the ways it's different. None of those are my creations. All of them are differences in mechanic's of the game.

I mean that you are largely objecting to assumptions that you, yourself are making, rather than my actual statements.

For example...

But I get the impression you want it to be something more than a single unit attacking a stack and that you are looking for some kind of mass effect on the enemy.

Never said I wanted that.

I am not actually advocating having on map blasting/effects. I simply don't think they should be totally dismissed purely due to a knee jerk reaction. Clearly spells like this would need to be carefully balanced, but I don't think that they are intrinsically unworkable. I do agree that their implementation in warlords 4 was flawed though. If I had to choose between a DLR or W4 based magic system, I would choose DLR in a heartbeat...fortunately I don't need to, Warbarons can (and hopefully will) find its own mystical path.

This is *EXACTLY* how the game will evolve. Either:

1) Scrolls will be scarce - In which case person who gets lucky enough to get them obtains a undeserved advantage (unless we pick the exact scroll we want). Also in this case you only reserve them for enemy heroes, not fodder stacks.
2) Scrolls are plentiful - In which case everyone uses them all the time on any decent enemy stack.

Call me an unbeliever if you like, but I am not buying into your claims of prophetic power.

I'd say having Priest cast Lightning/Fireballs and Wizards issuing Blessings goes against everything I've ever played/read in fantasy realms.

Even in D&D clerics have attack spells, and wizards have boosting spells. Read some Robert E. Howard (creator of Conan) in that world the line between priests and wizards is quite blurry, Conan's nemesis Thoth Amon is a master sorcerer and the high priest of set.

Thus you'd just need 2 basic hero types. A Fighter and a Spellcaster.

This is a bit much. A priest could have a single scroll box and still be able to use armor and a shield. A wizard could have a couple of scroll boxes and no armor or shield option. Add in different skills and abilities for the two classes and they could be quite distinct.

Incidentally, with regards to scrolls. How are you envisioning instantaneous use scroll effects like teleport/summon unit/fireball etc working? Just drag to slot, spell auto casts and you select the effect/location? Would you be able to cast as many as you had charges if say your Fireball scroll had 5 charges could you just keep dropping it back in over and over and fireballing over and over or teleporting over and over on the map? Or is it one use of a spell slot per turn?

I was envisioning that a scroll placed into a casting box would be locked in place until the start of your next turn (when it would be booted to the hero's inventory).

The advantage of having individual spells + mana pool is that once the pool is used up for your turn, you can't cast any more spells. But you could cast 3 small spells or 2 average ones or 1 big one if you had the mana where your spell slots means you can either cast just 2 per turn (assuming 2 slots) or unlimited per turn (limited only by scroll charges).

Hmmm...not sure I understand this fully. Are you proposing that a scroll provides mana each turn, that a hero could use to cast spells? Would each hero have a personal mana pool that would slowly fill? seems somewhat complex, but it could probably work. You really wouldn't need scrolls though, you could just have magical income attached to items and hero upgrades.

[LPhillips]

Pillager, it would be nice if you'd focus on positive debate, rather than offensive debate. I don't know of another way to ask it, but you seem both antagonistic and defensive. Passive-aggressive perhaps.

KGB's points on overmap offensive spells:

Warbarons battle strategy is based on risk. To harm, you must risk being harmed. Offensive spells cast without risking the caster in battle do not equate to fair risk. It's a violation of the game's basic premises.

If these spells can be cast frequently, the game will become defensive. This isn't blind conjecture; it's an intelligent conclusion. You can stop ridiculing him for being "a prophet" because he makes intelligent predictions.

If they are expensive/infrequent, they become an overpowering tactical issue. You'll have to describe how this could be avoided, rather than insist that it's not a definite conclusion. Perhaps it's not, but the burden of proof would be on you.

Points he seems to have considered obvious and not bothered describing:

Summoning a unit is different than a spell that attacks like a unit because a summoned unit has value. If you summon a demon, you certainly don't want to suicide it immediately against another enemy stack. You want to use it to your best advantage.

A spell that does not have a different effect than attacking with a unit does not impact the game in a positive way. There's no point, indeed, in implementing a fireball spell if it is the same as sending an elemental into battle. It's just an unnecessary level of complexity without significant benefit.

Conclusion:
Magic should be implemented very cautiously.

[Pillager]

Pillager, it would be nice if you'd focus on positive debate, rather than offensive debate. I don't know of another way to ask it, but you seem both antagonistic and defensive. Passive-aggressive perhaps.

Thanks you for your input Mr Phillips. Do you see the irony in the above statement? I sure do.

[KGB]

Pillager,

I am not actually advocating having on map blasting/effects. I simply don't think they should be totally dismissed purely due to a knee jerk reaction. Clearly spells like this would need to be carefully balanced, but I don't think that they are intrinsically unworkable.

I'm not saying they are intrinsically unworkable either. My comment is that based on the scale of game that Warlords and Warbarons is aiming for vs say Heroes of Might and Magic they make no sense. Those types of spells make sense in a game where you are focusing on tactical battles/tactical maneuvering rather than a game with overall strategic feel and a fairly abstract battle system (ie fight order is about the only control you get).

This is *EXACTLY* how the game will evolve. Either:

1) Scrolls will be scarce - In which case person who gets lucky enough to get them obtains a undeserved advantage (unless we pick the exact scroll we want). Also in this case you only reserve them for enemy heroes, not fodder stacks.
2) Scrolls are plentiful - In which case everyone uses them all the time on any decent enemy stack.

Call me an unbeliever if you like, but I am not buying into your claims of prophetic power.

There is nothing prophetic here at all. This is nothing more than basic economic theory related to supply and demand.

In other words, when gas (magic) was plentiful and cheap (1960's-1970's), people drove huge cars, didn't care about gas mileage, drove anywhere/all the time (cast spells all the time) etc. When gas became scarce (after oil embargo as we move toward peak oil), people start driving smaller cars, caring about gas mileage, driving only when necessary (saving scrolls for hero stacks).

Why would you think it would turn out any differently than how everything else works?

So when the magic model is implemented a design decision will have to be made on plentiful vs scarce with an understanding what that's going to do to the game.

Even in D&D clerics have attack spells, and wizards have boosting spells. Read some Robert E. Howard (creator of Conan) in that world the line between priests and wizards is quite blurry, Conan's nemesis Thoth Amon is a master sorcerer and the high priest of set.

AD&D always makes the distinction between Arcane and Divine magic. You can't cross cast (unless you are multi-classed) or cross-use items/scrolls even though some spells appear in both magic spheres. So there is never a Priest casting Fireball/using a wand of Fireballs or a Mage casting bless.

I've never read Conan. It sounds like Amon is a dual classed caster.

This is a bit much. A priest could have a single scroll box and still be able to use armor and a shield. A wizard could have a couple of scroll boxes and no armor or shield option. Add in different skills and abilities for the two classes and they could be quite distinct.

I wasn't even imaging a Wizard not having the ability to wear armor. I think it's getting too complex if a Wizard finds armor and can't use it or a sword and can't use it. Players expect to pick up and use any item they find regardless of suitability. Or at least prior Warlords games always allowed this and never made any class distinctions on items.

Also wizards definitely needs armor slots for robes.

I was envisioning that a scroll placed into a casting box would be locked in place until the start of your next turn (when it would be booted to the hero's inventory).

Kind of annoying if you want to leave a spell/scroll turned 'on' for several turns in a row like Chain Lightning while you still have charges. You have to go back and manually re-add the scroll every turn and it will be extra annoying if you forget to do so before attacking or ending your turn if you are on defense.

Hmmm...not sure I understand this fully. Are you proposing that a scroll provides mana each turn, that a hero could use to cast spells? Would each hero have a personal mana pool that would slowly fill? seems somewhat complex, but it could probably work. You really wouldn't need scrolls though, you could just have magical income attached to items and hero upgrades.

Some confusion here. I was asking about spell slots and whether you could use a slot more than one time per turn. You just answered no, one slot, one spell.

Then I was contrasting that with the DLR model where you have a pool of magic to cast from each turn. You can allocate that pool anyway you like. Say the pool is size 20. You could cast 3 spells of cost 5,8 and 7 OR 1 spell of cost 20 OR 2 spells of cost 9 etc. In other words you can cast as many/few as the pool allows so you have flexibility over what you do based on need. The fixed spell slots removes that and assumes each spell is equal in value since they all consume one slot.

A couple other questions:

1) The DLR model forces players to buy their spells with ability points. So you have to chose which spells you want to cast and hence make some tough decisions with your points. But the upside is you don't have to wait for a random scroll to appear with the spell you want/need so there is none of the I need a Knife but I've got 5 Forks issue. So players make strategic decision based on need. Are you envisioning players get random scrolls and you made do with what you get or will you select the power of the scroll when you acquire it (as in you find a blank scroll, what spell would you like to place on it)?

2) Since you have to acquire spells in DLR you certainly can't cast them at L1 and the better ones require points be saved for a several levels to get that spell. This balances out the better spells from being used by new heroes. Are you envisioning a 'level to use' feature on the scrolls or will any fresh hero be able to cast the mightiest of spells if he finds a scroll or his buddy hero drops it off for him? I hope there will be some kind of level requirement to use better scrolls even though that may appear complex.

I consider the DLR answer to these last 2 questions to be the right one because it places the decisions all in the hands of the player rather than in blind luck of the draw and limits abuse by low level heroes.

KGB

[Pillager]

I am going to move this discussion over to a new 'magic system ideas' titled topic. We have strayed pretty far from discussing a hero revamp.

It is my hope that more people will put forward some ideas. I feel that most of this discussion about magic has been very critical and negative....dwelling on what can't work and why. Can we please have a little more what can work and how to implement it?

I am not easily intimidated, but I feel like the response to my ideas has been quite reactionary. Let's brainstorm, encourage new ideas, rather than attempt to crush them. I am worried that the tone of the current dialog will discourage players from putting forward ideas of their own.

And KGB, would you consider shorter posts? Like making one or two criticisms at a time instead of five? I suspect we are building a dense verbal barrier that may be insulating us from other points of view.