Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: Mana Discharger

Hybrid View

  1. #1

    Mana Discharger

    Mana Discharger
    Circles: ?, Protection
    Description: Any enemy wizard casting a spell that targets your wizard specifically(ie some strategic spells), loses thrice the mana the spell he cast costs.

    This one is wild. I'm not sure what element to put it in. Life springs to mind just because it's totally defensive. This could be a very powerful spell and might be over the top. Still, I thought we'd discuuss it.

    What do you think?

  2. #2
    Archmage of the Inner Ring ampoliros's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    3x is OP any way you spin it, IMO.
    If this spell were in MoM it would be Sorcery - which says Water to me.

    I think it might be OP as a Global no matter what. Making it a City Enchantment might be better.

  3. #3
    This sounds like a "Grounding" effect (re-directs the spell's effects away from the wizard). It seems like a world-wide Counter Magic kind of spell (except 3x mana vs chance to fizzle). Depending on how many wizard-as-a-target spells there are, it might do better as a city spell.

    I don't recall MoM having wizard-as-a-target spells. Generally you cast a spell that affected you and had repercussions on other wizards (Just Cause?). Is this something that's been discussed on these boards? I'd appreciate a pointer to it, if so. I'm not too keen on casting spells directly on other wizards, and I'd like to see what other people had to say.

  4. #4
    Mage’s Assistant
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    MoM did have Drain Power spell(Death) that targeted a specific wizard. Maybe some others too, but at least that existed.

    As for WOM, we already have the Charm Sorcerer Lord spell concept, so I'd guess it's a fair bet that spells can specifically target wizards.

  5. #5
    Good point. I didn't play much with Death magic. I typically played Sorcery/Nature/Life/etc. and the spells in those spheres were (from what I recall) more passive in relation to rival wizards.

    I had read through the Charm Sorcerer Lord spell (not really a fan) and wasn't sure whether the wizard-as-a-target had been in a discussion somewhere. (I wanted to read through it to get my head right and try to get onboard).

    ---------- Post added at 01:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:27 PM ----------

    So how does it determine whether you can cast the spell?

    Wizard 1: Starts casting a big-bad spell @ Wizard 2. Has 150% of the mana required to cast the spell
    Wizard 2: completes casting Mana Discharger
    Wizard 1: Spell "completes", but now it requires 300% mana (which Wizard 1 doesn't have).

    My guess is that Wizard 1 would have to get some notification that the mana cost has changed. But if it's a spell that took him 10 turns to cast, his mana is spent and he can't complete the spell?

    I could also see this spell called: Feedback
    Feedback blasts the enemy wizard for a loss of 200% mana of the spell cast (or down to 0 mana). (This would address the 'changing mana cost')

    ---------- Post added at 01:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:32 PM ----------

    Also, the text of the spell is a little unclear. Does the Wizard protected by the spell actually get affected by the spell cast on him?

    Wizard 1 : protected by spell
    Wizard 2 : casts "Make Wizard play Foozeball" loses 300% of the mana cost

    Does Wizard 1 play foozeball, or is the entire spell negated?

  6. #6
    Mage’s Assistant
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Well, as I originally envisioned it it's like this:

    Wizard 1: Starts casting a spell at Wizard 2(pays mana normally per turn of casting).
    Wizard 2: Completes Mana Discharger.
    Wizard 1: Spell completes.(between Wizard 2 casting his spell and the completion of Wizard 1's spell, it costs 3x the mana per casting turn. Thus, supposing the spell normally takes 10 rounds of casting(each round costs 10 mana due to your Casting Skill, as the spell costs 100 mana in the end), it will still take 10 rounds even with the 3x manacost. However, each round of casting the enemy spell is active, you pay 3x the mana. So, if you've cast for 4 rounds(and thus paid 40 mana out of 100), your progress is 40%. Mana Discharger takes effect. Each turn after this costs 30 mana to increase the spell completion by 10%(due to how much your Casting Skill is. Thus, turns 5-10 cost 30 each, for a total of 6x30 = 180. Thus, the total amount you paid for the spell is 40+180 = 220. Hence, the amount of actual mana you pay depends on when the Mana Discharger effect takes place. Meaning, the if the MD-effect happens in the final turn of casting, you'll end up paying only a little bit more than normally(supposing a 10 round spell.) Furthermore, like in MOM, if you lack the mana to cast the spell, you'll just have to cast for more turns, until you get enough mana. Again, this is supposing spellcasting works like in MOM where you pay the mana cost in small bits, turn by turn, depending on the amount of Skill you have.

    So, to simplify, the effect of the Mana Discharger takes place each casting turn. This is because it's an "upkeep" type of spell rather than an "interrupt" type of spell. (Thus, the "defending" wizard casts the spell on himself, and each turn pays X mana so the effect continues. Hence, it's more likely to prevent enemies from casting spells on you as it's ineffective mana wise, but if they really want to affect you with a spell, they can do it if they're willing to pay the extra cost. From a player's perspective, it may seem that you're paying the upkeep cost for absolutely nothing, but if the AI(or human if multiplayer) takes the detrimental effect in account, it has an actual use that you(as the MD-caster) won't notice. Of course, if the AI doesn't take it into account, you will feel the satisfaction of it wasting it's mana)

    Furthermore, if Mana Discharger is cancelled(as it's an upkeep spell), the enemy's manacost for the spell reverts to normal. This is to prevent micromanaging(normally if an enemy cancelled such a spell and the effect persisted until the end of your casting, you'd be tempted to begin casting the spell anew since that'd mean that you'd just pay the 100% manacost for the rest of the spell, instead of the 300%. This way it saves effort on the player's part, optimization wise.) This is assuming spellcasting works like in MOM, where you add to the spell each turn(and pay the mana only as the spell progresses, IIRC). Effectively, you pay 3x the mana when casting that particular spell if the effect is up. If the effect goes down, you'll continue paying 1x the cost.

    Any spell effect that would hit the target wizard of a spell(in this case, the wizard who is protected by Mana Discharger) affects him normally. So it's a detrimental spell to annoy the casting of an enemy, rather than a pure protection spell. This is because the original concept of the spell was that you had to pay the upkeep cost for it each turn, rather than a counter spell.
    (So yes, the wizard does play foozeball )

    Anyway, this is how I envisioned it. Of course, it doesn't really have anything to do with how the spell will actually end up in the game, but that's the original concept anyway.

  7. #7
    OK, to begin at the beginning:
    We haven't actually discussed spells that target an enemy Sorcerer Lord, but I think we should have them. Charm Sorcerer Lord is an interesting example and I think we can come up with more.

    However, we're not going to have spells like “Break Sorcerer Lord's Legs”. The spells that can directly effect a Sorcerer Lord challenge his magical or mental abilities in some way. They deceive him or slow his research or make his spells harder to cast. I think this is an interesting idea, but we don't have to do it. The spells aren't set in stone yet

    Now, if we do run with this idea then a number of defensive spells should be available to counter their effects. I think this could be a good one. (Although 3X could be unmanageably OP).

    Moving on:
    Tiavals is very close in his explanation of how the magic system will work and obviously understands his own spell pitch very well, lol. To clarify I'll give you my own little explanation on the current vision of the magic system (brace yourself for a MoM flashback).

    Each spell has a set cost in mana (duh...). When you cast a spell you spend as much mana as your casting skill allows you to each turn. (Actually you'll be able to divide the mana you spend each turn between casting and making magical items, but we can ignore that for now.) Now, the math in Tiavals' example is quite correct, so I won't go over it again. The difference is just that spells don't have a set number of turns required to cast them. It's just spell cost divided by mana spent per turn. So, if you've cast Y% of a spell already and the cost goes up you will pay the difference to get the remainder of the spell cast.

    The spell would be cast as normal. So, the target wizard may or may not play foozeball. Mana Discharger doesn't make the spell succeed or fail, it just makes it more costly to cast. So, you cast it. If all the target wizard's magical defenses fail he plays foozeball otherwise he busts up his foozeball table in a rage. (OK, he might not do that, but he might. Think about whether or not you loaned him the table before you cast the spell.)

  8. #8
    The name of this spell sound like some type of magical device that helps a woman during her menstrual cycle. Mana Leak, Mana Drain, Mana Shield, Mana Sieve, Mana Barrier, or Mana Dispersion sound way better to me.

  9. #9
    Archmage of the Inner Ring ampoliros's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Quote Originally Posted by Troy_Costisick View Post
    Mana Leak, Mana Drain, Mana Shield, Mana Sieve, Mana Barrier, or Mana Dispersion sound way better to me.
    Or Mana Short (to use an electrical term)

  10. #10
    That makes sense from a historical MoM mechanic (since in MoM, if you ran out of mana, it just extended your casting time based on your mana regen and/or skill). I assumed the spell performed normally, but thought I'd throw out the question anyway.

    But from a simplicity standpoint, it'd seem to make more sense to do the check only at the end of casting (rather than every turn) in the Feedback mechanic I mentioned. That would also keep the casting time stable.

    The MD spell as described is double-punishment: It costs extra mana and extends casting time based on the skill level of the wizard casting a spell against it (since skill translates to "mana used per turn" and mana costs are dramatically increased). Particularly if the Wizard casting a spell against it has a relatively low skill, small mana pool, or has little incoming mana/turn.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts