Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[de5me7]

I listened to the two dorffortress chats yesterday nad though about the unanswered question of magic. One of things that was discusses was whether magic should be included, hsould it be in adventure mode, and how would it remain magical.

I have a suggestion
You can select a magic user class
this class can still weild swords (gandalf does, screw dnds ideas about wizards)

so initally u survive like any other character. but with some armour hadicap

to get magic you must meet and make a deal with a diety. maybe u do this by praying at some temple (part of the fun could be finiding hidden temples.

Depending on the ethics of the God the deity will demand payment. This payment maybe completeing and immedate quest for them, it maybe giving them something, or more intersting yet it may be a debt that they get to call in what ever way they choose at a time that suits them. The deity then gives u a magical power of their choosing. The power or spell should be in balance with the cost of getting it.

Id give the character a max number of spell slots or debt slots, and there maybe issues with dealing with gods of very differnt ethics.

the powers or spells them selves ought to be interesting and destructive. The player shoulnt use them constantly for achieving trvial goals but in suitable scenarios.

e.g. you may get a spell that allows use to momentarily raise the water level in your vacinity by 1 z level. So you may lure a megabeast down to the river  and then attempt to drown the bugger.

Spells that effect your environment create more possiblities for catastropie and there for fun.

Another possiblity would be to have spells that affect psycology. Since df already has fay moods and beserk spells that could induce such affects on targets coud be fun.

I know magic is along wy off in terms of df development but i thought id post this now whilst it was in my head.

also sorry but i cant find the link to dorftalk 1 & 2

[Bricks]

http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/df_talk.html

It's not exactly hiding.

I would say that you were better off posting this in Suggestions, but there have been lots of magic topics there lately.  Anyway, magic is something so far off and controversial that it is dangerous to touch.  The idea of a "magic user class" is going to piss off almost everyone who reads this, as the idea of a player class, especially for magic, is something that DF is trying to avoid.  Deity-based magic has been discussed, and overall, it is believed that it should be a possible source of power, but not the only one.  Magic, I hope, won't utilize spells so much as specific influences you can use, based upon the spheres already in game and how they will interact.  For example, a spell utilizing water and death could cause an attacker to sputter and drown, or metal armor and weapons to rust.  That's my two speculative cents, and its a volatile market.

[zchris13]

A volatile market, indeed, Bricks.

It isn't a good idea to make topics about Magic this early on.

[SquirrelWizard]

I'd like to correct a common misconception in regards to your dnd comment. This is regarding 3.0-3.5 rules, not this 4th edition crap involving buying pokemon cards to enhance your character's skill repitoire.

In dnd Wizards weren't proficient in swords, its not that they couldn't use them (you were at a -4 hit penalty if you used them without the proficency). if you were an elven wizard you automatically got weapon proficiency longsword or longbow (one or the other, I dont remember exactly).

But let us be honest here, most casters like wizards and sorcerers typically dont use melee weapons. If they have to it means that something has gone wrong and that they're already at a major disadvantage. A good wizard would rely more upon spellcasting than their weaponry. A smart wizard makes contacts, supplies them with detailed intelligence and supportive magic, while maintaining exit strategies and back doors.

The funny thing is, if you multiclassed with wizard/X typically any weapon proficencies you needed (assuming nonexotic weapon types) you'd often pick up as the base proficencies gained when you get your first level of multiclass.

so yes, wizards dont use swords, its a matter of practicality than it is a strict rule enforcement.

[de5me7]

i wasnt really trying to dig at DnD rules. What im digging at is the sterio type (largely adopted by video games) that wizards must'nt use swords. An i think this sterio type originates in 'peoples view of DnD'. the wizards they guy with out a sword.

[Neonivek]

i wasnt really trying to dig at DnD rules. What im digging at is the sterio type (largely adopted by video games) that wizards must'nt use swords. An i think this sterio type originates in 'peoples view of DnD'. the wizards they guy with out a sword.

Not just Dungeons and dragons... a lot of it has to do with the fact that wizards are often projected as very OLD people.

[Vester]

Also: Gandalf.

i wasnt really trying to dig at DnD rules. What im digging at is the sterio type (largely adopted by video games) that wizards must'nt use swords. An i think this sterio type originates in 'peoples view of DnD'. the wizards they guy with out a sword.

The thing is, they don't use swords because, really - what would you rather do, stab an orc with a pointy object that might kill him, or twist the fabric of time and space to destroy both him and everything he cares about?

[Venatius]

I'd like to correct a common misconception in regards to your dnd comment. This is regarding 3.0-3.5 rules, not this 4th edition crap involving buying pokemon cards to enhance your character's skill repitoire.

Considering the entire issue you just brought up is relevant to 4th edition as well, was there any purpose to that additional opening shrill, besides trying to appear elite by dragging in the entirely tangential fact that you reject having spell descriptions formatted in slightly more narrowly spaced rectangles than before?

[Dakk]

I think DF wizards should be also able to get legendary in fighting skills, I mean, why not? D&D rules don't really apply to DF since they're there to keep the board game balanced. A DF wizard should be able to do all that, but doing that and still being good at magic would take some pretty long time, plus, with skill rust things would still be somewhat balanced, you'd have to at least train once in a while to keep your skills.

[Reasonableman]

Heh, and then we get into the issue of, if I can do magic, why not just magic myself up knowledge of sword-wielding and orc-stabbing? Magic is, at the moment, a big nasty can of possibly Hand-Waving, A Wizard Did It scenarios. And yes I've been on TVTropes lately. Don't judge me.

Anyways, the point being that, magic can do, well, anything. Because it's magic. The question is, what does our Toady lord and master -want- magic to be able to do? And that largely hinges on what sort of fantasy world (or, possible fantasy worlds,) he wants to create (or, allow us to create.)

Still, the idea of gods being directly tied to magic may not be new, but the idea is intriguing to me anyways, particularly in regards to adventure mode. Suppose the best you could do was pray to a god of the appropriate sphere for a miracle, and maybe, if you've been a devout follower, he'll grant one. Or, maybe, you go and devote your life to studying his/her/its teachings, and you are eventually given arcane power and made his/her/its champion. Or or, perhaps you are an evolved human with latent psychic ability that you mistake for magic. Or or or, magic is as generic as possible and by uttering certain words and holding your hands juuuust the right way you can cause a stupidly large explosion for no really explicable reason.

[Bricks]

I'd rather see more things like "praying at your last breath for strength, with understanding that you are swearing to be that god's underling" and "cursing Odysseus with the wrath of Poseidon for mutilating you."

[KaziArmada]

so yes, wizards dont use swords, its a matter of practicality than it is a strict rule enforcement.

Maybe YOURS dont...Frankly Im running a Wizard now who despite any penaltys has managed to just be a absolute demon with a Broadsword...
I reject your Reality, and Subsuitute my own.

[forsaken1111]

I'd like to correct a common misconception in regards to your dnd comment. This is regarding 3.0-3.5 rules, not this 4th edition crap involving buying pokemon cards to enhance your character's skill repitoire.

Considering the entire issue you just brought up is relevant to 4th edition as well, was there any purpose to that additional opening shrill, besides trying to appear elite by dragging in the entirely tangential fact that you reject having spell descriptions formatted in slightly more narrowly spaced rectangles than before?

Too true. "Oh noes, the spells are in a new format! Must be pokemons BLARG BLARG" unreasonable hatred gets old fast, nobody is making you play anything you don't want to, Squirrely man. In both 3.0/3.5 and 4.0 wizards can handily wield swords without penalty, and indeed in 4.0 there are some paragon paths focused specifically on that.