Print

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

[Neonivek]

your example about the quilt makes no sense. what I am saying is more like if you ask a god for a quilt and you get one made out of golden thread, you go and brag about it, and someone stabs you and steals it.

Or you just sell it, buy a better house, and live a life of luxury thanking that diety.

The quilt makes no sense because your example made no sense.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Gah! My reply!

Neonivek: Tell me, how does healing magic work IRL? Frauds take your money and leave town before you wise up.

Magic doesn't exist in real life and Simulation doesn't nessisarily refer to real life circumstances. It means that the game is first and formost a simulation in otherwords it is trying to simulate something.

When a simulation includes effects that can only be decribed as "Gamey" then you are taking the game outside it simulation aspects. The key is to allow a game to have balance while at the same time allowing that balance to be organic. Giving healing magic its own unique flaws is a very game idea but not a very good simulation idea because there is no reason why it should be that way.

Since magic doesn't exist, we can make it pretty much anything we like. I'm not saying it should be random, like you imply I think later, but it should have (logical) costs. It all boils down to how magic works. Does it inexplicably break both entropy and TAANSTAFL? If not, it counts as balance.

In DF, we can and probably should make healing magic balanced against not having it, ie mundane healing

That is looking too close to the picture and being unable to see the entire thing. The first and foremost image you should have is for the whole game and balance healing magic as it is in respect the everything else.

If healing magic completely topples mundane healing then all that means is that it completely topples mundane forms of healing and you do not need it anymore. No different then not needing fishermen because there is no water.

There are a few big differences. Fishing can be done in the cavern waters, which can be found anywhere, and doesn't break the game. This is beside the important part.
We evidently have different views. I think there should be multiple viable options for anything. You don't. I'm unlikely to convince you to change your mind and you sure won't change mine.

This is low fantasy, and having a few dwarves who can easily patch up any dwarves who didn't die within minutes of getting injured(and, if deployed into the field, many or most of those) would ruin both the low fantasy and the grittiness of DF, IMHO

Your statement however was that Low Fantasy was the sheer number of people who have magic. This arguement would make sense in my "It is about how important magic is to the setting" however in this case it is not.

So "Low Fantasy" is irrelevant. So let us rewrite this

"having a few dwarves who can easily patch up any dwarves who didn't die within minutes of getting injured(and, if deployed into the field, many or most of those) would ruin the grittiness of DF, IMHO"

The Grittyness of the setting is still contained and is no different then if you had legendary doctors capable of curing and wounded individual, remember this is also an "Epic" game and thus legendary life saving doctors are perfectly in its perview. The key to battles is that people are going to be killed, maimed, and injured. Something that doesn't change.

The difference? Suddenly only instadeath things have a chance of permanently hurting dwarves with the right tactics. It might not be easy, but nothing in DF is so that's hardly a discouragement.

Make a high fantasy mod

Mod arguement, instantly invalid

Hey, I wanna kill aliens. Have Toady add them! No saying it's best left to a mod, that's invalid!
I'm saying that if you want a higher fantasy than DF, you'll be able to make a mod, just like with every other setting difference. Must DF make every setting in one?

If there's only one good choice, there's less of a game

Choice is not a possitive or negative in it of itself, nor is the limitation or expansion of choice. There are plenty of instances within dwarf fortress where there really is "One good choice" and where the strategic decisions are dictated to you because of circumstance.

There are times when there are obvious bad choices, like flooding your fortress or making an unarmoured militia. That's not what I'm talking about. There should be multiple options. A game without choices is a movie you need to press a button to advance, and a game with only one good choice (or series of choices) is barely better. Again, though, I'm not going to convince you and you won't convince me, so we might as well drop this issue.

If healing magic is overly easy, say if it just takes a day of dorftime, it would make doctors less useful than beekeepers

Yes but why is that a bad thing? There are professions even more useless then Beekeeping in the game already. Should we, for example, require dwarves eat cheese to live in order to give the Cheese makers a job?

Cheese makers are very useful, just not for a fortress. Doctors would also still be very useful, just not to a fortress supplied by a magicial expert in the art of curative arts.

Cheesemaking is useful--it multiplies the value of milk and lets it be stored better. It's better than milk, and milk is an easy, free source of food. If doctors are in every way inferior to magical healers, they're just taking up migrants and disk space,

After all, doctoring requires everything from time to lye to thread to potential labor, and has chances of failure, AND requires four or five skills, AND is rather limited in what it cures

Effort doesn't always equal pay off. Many of the alloys in the game are a waste to make but are only
Cheese makers are very useful, just not for a fortress. Doctors would also still be very useful, just not to a fortress supplied by a magicial expert in the art of curative arts. out of choice. As well once again it would mean that doctors are not helpful for your fortress.

Well, regardless of what you and I think this should be...effort SHOULD pay off, and there SHOULD be multiple choices available. Since we're constructing a magic system, why not make it take these into account?

The problem isn't an issue of "easier vs. harder," it's about a single thing having the power to save your fort if used and to kill it if not

Then once again we are talking about strategy. Healing becomes useful and thus healing becomes part of the games strategy.
[/quite]
Being able to save a great dwarf who would have inevitably died should have some cost, or it makes danger one step short of meaningless. "Losing is Fun," not "Magic will solve all of your problems!"

As well you are seriously overblowing the importance of healing. Healing will not save dwarves in the midst of fighting. It is a aftersiege healing method almost strictly. Unless we are to overblow healing magic to the point where a healer can spam instant heals from a mile away non-stop in bulk... but that is an exageration at best.

Keep reading...

Imagine if every injured dwarf, from the legendary axedwarf with his arms amputated by a dragon to a hauler whose finger got broken by a flying boot,  could be made very quickly good as new--not crippled, no loss of productivity, no chance of later death from infection or neglect. If you don't see the difference this would make, I'm not sure that we're playing the same game. For me, lots of useful dwarves would have been saved.

It would certainly make a very large difference but not the kind of difference you are thinking of. You will have to send those dwarves out, get them killed against enemy armies, and the game is only going to be getting more deadly.

A lot of this idea of "Lots of survivors" comes from the way the game is currently where sieges are a very safe prospect and where megabeasts are rather simple beasts outside the few super toxic ones.

It is a big difference. Even if every dwarf in combat is either dead or A-OK, which incidentally won't happen, there's plenty of other uses. Oh, boulders are hitting smiths on the head? Set up a new trauma center on the forge level! Problem solved, get back to work! And surely you won't claim that combat doesn't leave wounded and even crippled dwarves?

Now, since we're Bay12, imagine what happens WHEN we give four or five clerics defensive training and steel armor before sending them into battle alongside the militia.

You would have dead Clerics and then you would have no more healing magic and you would have to rely on your doctors that I hope you kept up with training because they are useful.

As well this relies on the clerics functioning on the same wavelength as Necromancy (as in, instant spammable nonstop magic). If they had to do as much as a touch in the middle of battle that would be a huge risk. Can they just fling their healing? Well I hope they don't get swamped while they are taking cover. Healing isn't going to cure terminal battle disadvantage because you thought your charge was unbeatable because you trained four battle healers.

That.
Is.
Balance.
You're arguing that I'm wrong except in the circumstances that I'm arguing shouldn't exist! You don't get it, do you? WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THE ONLY CIRCUMSTANCE IN WHICH MY ARGUMENT AGAINST UNBALANCED MAGIC IS TRUE...IS MY DEFINITION OF UNBALANCED MAGIC!!
Ahem.

As well five healing mages/clerics? If this is a world where a fortress can throw five clerics with potent healing magic out into the middle of battle... They you deserve every bit of healing magic you obtained.

If you attract one, you can easily attract more. That's assuming that healers can't teach each other, too, like all magic currently can be.

The soldiers would be healed as they're harmed, and unless healers are given a conspicuous immunity to healing magic, they'll heal each other

The healers probably can heal themselves. Of course given how the game goes it means the cleric is pretty much going to die.

Imagine an evil biome, but the corpses have metal arms and armor, quite possibly superior to your own.

Actually I have no objection to this. Toady you should make this happen.

Now imagine that you're the zombies. Not very hard, huh?

Mind you I know what you mean. Except you know what? In this situation the game simply has to be made to recognise that healing magic exists. Healing isn't going to, for example, douse fire off a man.

It could, however, heal the man of burns repeatedly until someone else came to douse the flames, then once more for good measure. Not pleasant, but they'll be none the worse for the wear once they're doused.

Healing magic shouldn't be the core of your medicine when you get it, but it shouldn't be worthless either

Sure it can be the core of your medicine. The objection of "Mundane magic should be important even with healing magic" is very much based upon "Dwarf Fortress as it is right now" rather then "dwarf fortress as it moves on". If something comes along and outdates a profession because of its sheer might then allow it to. If you embarked on a land where trees give soo much fruit that your fortress will never grow hungry again then just allow it.

You think magic should be at the core of every dwarven fortress? Fine. Your image of DF differs from mine and most others', and your image if dwarves differs from that of most fantasy, but I'm trying to figure out those spots where neither of us will convince the other so we can see them and move on, maturely.

There should be situations where it's useful and situations where it's wasteful or even harmful.

Certainly but those situations should flow from the fact that it is a simulation informed with balance.

It shouldn't be balance for balance sake as well it shouldn't be an arbitrary balance made only to make Healing magic a terrible thing. You have to allow people to rake in their rewards.

If everything in the game came at equal negatives then there is no point in developing something. What is the point of developing healing magic if all that is going to happen is the game is going to saw "Yeah sorry, in order to keep the doctors employed your healing spell just caused that dwarf to explode"

Abyss, no, they shouldn't be random. But since DF is, to me, a game, and we can make the magic anything we want...let's keep TAANSTAFL is mind as we consider magic.
That's really all I I'm saying.

The Docs should be a part of the healing god/godess' priesthood. I agree with BoredVirulence (page 2, bottom of), mana should be introduced as a new resource with a low recharge rate. There should also be a few fundemental spells

Honestly I don't think powerful wizards and clerics really have too much of a place in Fortress mode for dwarves.

Nor do I, but I do think that a player who tries should be able to get a few mages, at least.

At the same time miracles, given by dieties, should be a very miraculous thing and having a person who has a god-given ability to heal the wounded should be treated in game in a similar way it would in most settings where this is not a common occurance. Uttar reverence.

I never pictured magical healing to be common place. Only so much that magical healing shouldn't be diminished simply because it is very useful.

Again, as long as a player can figure out how to get a miracle, I'm fine with that.

It would be like starting a new fortress and one of your geese happens to lay golden eggs... you go "Awsome!" and then the game prompt comes up and says "Opps sorry those eggs gave you cancer, you die". Sure that would "Balance" the goose but at the same time it is rather cheapened.

Well, if there's a good reason for golden eggs to give you cancer,,,

So with respect to that... Mana shouldn't be a resource, it isn't something dwarves trade in. It is something outside the bubble of Dwarven society. Thus I think it should remain outside a Player's, playing fortress mode, perception

I don't think DF should use a mana-type resource at all. Better might be some sort of cost, like healing might permanently drain some dwarf of life energy, or you keep owing the Spirit if the Blessed Waters more and more favors...

This makes sacrifices necessary, and thus wizards far more valuable

I am not sure Dwarves would have a "Court Mage".

Depends on the circumstances and what "Court Mage" means, but pretty much yeah.

In otherwords I see healing magic as a great and powerful thing

But something you can't bank on.

Agreed, but probably not in the same way as you.

My view for Dwarf Fortress is that you can play 10 games and each one your fortress can have a completely different advantage, quirk, or disadvantage then the other. Perhaps in one, one of your dwarves was born from the goddess of fire and thus has flame breath as well as protected from all heat. In another perhaps a migrant happens to be an expert in magical healing. Artifacts express this perfectly, each one having different abilities.

Same applies to the enemies.

It should be a more flexible game but one that doesn't try to take things away because they are too good... only recognising when something is too good and seeing what naturally progresses from it. If the enemy started poisoning their weapons so you couldn't heal them, that would be a perfect example of the game recognising what is happening.

I think that a multitude of magics should be available per world, and any that aren't all trying to kill you can be obtained with some work. Other than that, I agree with you.
Note that I don't think magic's rarity counts as balance.

-----

Let me offer an analogy. Let's replace "healing magic" with "metalworking". I say that there should be some cost so that stone working isn't obsolete for any fortress with a steady supply of metals, maybe needing fuel or risking burns. Your thoughts are mostly analogous to "So what if stone working is worthless? It's not like every fort will have ores!"
Now, what's an analogy for how you see the debate?

[Neonivek]

I am starting to think we were actually argueing different things GreatWyrmGold.

Or at least making points on entirely different ideas of how the game is going to work. At least for some points.

Since magic doesn't exist, we can make it pretty much anything we like.

To an extent but magic also has to be consistant and the gameplay has to flow from that logic.

In a world where magic will not only bite you but is guarenteed to bite you... Only the mad and the crazy would dare learn it... and of those only the lucky would gain any significant skill.

In otherwords you have to make the logic magic goes under consistant and you have to express that consistancy.

If magic functioned in a logical way except with anything that would gain an advantage gameplay wise then there is a problem.

If magic, for example, had difficulty manipulating life itself and just making the grass grow had a big possibility of just destroying the lawn... That would be consistancy. If life magic was so complex that it was far outside mortal understanding, and thus risky, that would be consistancy. But magic suddenly not working right because "Its healing people" is where you break the simulation and magic's own rules. In otherwords "Balance for Balance sake"

I remember a game that tried to create reasons why mages didn't just turn rocks into jewels or gold since it essentially should be no more difficult then any other substance. What they did is gave those substances an actual stake within magic and thus a Diamond wasn't just a diamond but also had its own inherant use in magic and thus is more difficult to create (It essentially makes many valuables quasi-magical objects). (Dungeons and dragons did it by having everything have an "Inherant value" and thus any pernament transformation with magic has to be made at a equal material value)

They created a way to balance the game AND keep the logic within itself.

[GreatWyrmGold]

I am starting to think we were actually argueing different things GreatWyrmGold.

Or at least making points on entirely different ideas of how the game is going to work. At least for some points.

Yup.

Since magic doesn't exist, we can make it pretty much anything we like.

To an extent but magic also has to be consistant and the gameplay has to flow from that logic.

In a world where magic will not only bite you but is guarenteed to bite you... Only the mad and the crazy would dare learn it... and of those only the lucky would gain any significant skill.

In otherwords you have to make the logic magic goes under consistant and you have to express that consistancy.

If magic functioned in a logical way except with anything that would gain an advantage gameplay wise then there is a problem.

If magic, for example, had difficulty manipulating life itself and just making the grass grow had a big possibility of just destroying the lawn... That would be consistancy. If life magic was so complex that it was far outside mortal understanding, and thus risky, that would be consistancy. But magic suddenly not working right because "Its healing people" is where you break the simulation and magic's own rules. In otherwords "Balance for Balance sake"

I agree. All magic should have drawbacks.

I remember a game that tried to create reasons why mages didn't just turn rocks into jewels or gold since it essentially should be no more difficult then any other substance. What they did is gave those substances an actual stake within magic and thus a Diamond wasn't just a diamond but also had its own inherant use in magic and thus is more difficult to create (It essentially makes many valuables quasi-magical objects). (Dungeons and dragons did it by having everything have an "Inherant value" and thus any pernament transformation with magic has to be made at a equal material value)

They created a way to balance the game AND keep the logic within itself.

Indeed. Very neat.


We're getting a bit off the original topic, but...Can you agree that some form of "balance," in the TANSTAAFL definition at least, is more or less required for magic in DF, once it gets fleshed out more?

[Neonivek]

I think that the amount of "balance" the game needs may be much less then it would once seem.

Remember that when magic is in the game, it is a part of the game.

It is hard to think in these concepts but you have to translocate yourself into the future instead of imagining a magic template being applied now.

It will definately need tweeking but everything needed tweeking at some point. I don't think that magic needs to bend too far backwards for the mundane and consider magic and mundane to be equal aspects of the game in my mind with flavor deciding which wins in most arguements.

Dwarf fortress is Epic, Gritty, and fantastic. Except I feel like "Grittyness" stems not from its themes but from the fact that it is a simulation. It is gritty because it is real. It is a game that I'd best describe sometimes as "What if Epic Fantasies were real?"

As well magic in this is meant to be somewhat magical in nature. A great reason to have magic be more inconsistant I feel is not to balance it but to have it fit more within the theme of magic being almost a being in it of itself.

and where Dietific magic (Or rather... powers gods and godlike entities) is a lot more stable but in the hands of beings far outside your control and thus controlled by their whims.

We're getting a bit off the original topic

We couldn't really go forward in this topic without stepping back and discussing the underlying issue.

I feel we are closer to reaching an understanding.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Here's my thoughts.
From a worlds design perspective, magic could be effortlessly solving every issue, not worth bothering with, or anywhere in between. It's all a choice on Toady's part, there's nothing impeding him.
From a game design perspective, DF's "grittiness" is part of what makes it attractive to many, and so should be preserved if possible. Similarly, as most people's image of dwarves doesn't have them using lots of magic, it shouldn't be easy to have magic completely replacing any one industry. However, with effort such a thing should be possible.

Here's some possibilities I can think of to meet these goals.
Magic that one can control should be fairly rare. I don't think anyone will disagree with this.
Magic shouldn't be safe without a lot of effort and/or experience. The laws of nature are not a toy.
Magic follows TANSTAAFL. If you want a big effect, you'll be hurting somehow. If you want to avoid this to some extent, that'll take plenty of effort.

Are these a good basis to begin on?

[Neonivek]

To me the only ones who should be able to rely on magic for, well, everything should be the "Wizard Entities" who are essentially those towered wizards who have the ability to create armies and are basically so magically mighty that they are onto a god in just raw might.

Mortals, lowly mortals, should only just tap into magic with a strong reliance on greater beings or long aged immortals to show the path to greater power. (which is outside fortress mode)

No Fortress Dweller will ever be able to stake claim to true raw power and if they did ever achieve it they certainly have outgrown your fortress.

as most people's image of dwarves doesn't have them using lots of magic

Indeed most people view Dwarves as having magical artifacts crafted through their sheer perfection of craftmenship.

Magic that one can control should be fairly rare. I don't think anyone will disagree with this

I think magic should have aspects of it outside the sphere of control but magic should remain consistant enough that it is genuin skill that can be invested into.

Magic shouldn't be safe without a lot of effort and/or experience. The laws of nature are not a toy

I think it is more about how far up the ladder of magic you go. Magic isn't so much "Manipulating the laws of magic" so much as magic is simply another law nature follows. As well a lot about magic that I can gather from reading threetoe's books is that magic is as much about restraint as it is about actually using it.

Magic has strong concequences for its abuse, it has many pitfalls in its learning and discovery, but there is a safe avenue. Magic in moderation should be safe and that the trick to becoming a master without surrendering your will or perishing is in your ability to remain temperate. Assuming of course that the source of magic isn't inherantly harmful or corrupting, but the risk may not nessisarily lead to death.

It is likely because in order to use magic you have to channel it through you. Channel too much too often and it will go wild. As well magic is often horrific and mind changing and thus training ones mind is just as important.

As well experience should lessen this to a certain extent and diminishing the effects of magic abuse should be possible depending on the circumstances (So if you are cursed because you, a living person, used magic that calls upon the power of the underworld. Perhaps over time you could return to perfect health or maybe it is pernament)

Are these a good basis to begin on?

Somewhat. I also think that magic should be also further seperated by types, spheres, and by origin.

I fully picture that the easiest way to great magical might is just to convince a demon you are worthy and having it teach you its magical spells... but that would also be the quickest way to ruin. I would have absolutely nothing bad to say if the demon eventually ended up possessing your body after you used its spells. You deserve that loss (and if this was a fortress, you deserved to have your fortress burned to the ground).

Concequences can easily just stem from what the magic is.

[GreatWyrmGold]

To me the only ones who should be able to rely on magic for, well, everything should be the "Wizard Entities" who are essentially those towered wizards who have the ability to create armies and are basically so magically mighty that they are onto a god in just raw might.

Mortals, lowly mortals, should only just tap into magic with a strong reliance on greater beings or long aged immortals to show the path to greater power. (which is outside fortress mode)

No Fortress Dweller will ever be able to stake claim to true raw power and if they did ever achieve it they certainly have outgrown your fortress.

I agree with all but the last bit. Given the absurd amounts of luxury and protection a fortress could provide, with work a player should be able to attract one of the big mages.

as most people's image of dwarves doesn't have them using lots of magic

Indeed most people view Dwarves as having magical artifacts crafted through their sheer perfection of craftmenship.

Magic that one can control should be fairly rare. I don't think anyone will disagree with this

I think magic should have aspects of it outside the sphere of control but magic should remain consistant enough that it is genuin skill that can be invested into.

Again, I agree on both points.

Magic shouldn't be safe without a lot of effort and/or experience. The laws of nature are not a toy

I think it is more about how far up the ladder of magic you go. Magic isn't so much "Manipulating the laws of magic" so much as magic is simply another law nature follows. As well a lot about magic that I can gather from reading threetoe's books is that magic is as much about restraint as it is about actually using it.

Magic has strong concequences for its abuse, it has many pitfalls in its learning and discovery, but there is a safe avenue. Magic in moderation should be safe and that the trick to becoming a master without surrendering your will or perishing is in your ability to remain temperate. Assuming of course that the source of magic isn't inherantly harmful or corrupting, but the risk may not nessisarily lead to death.

It is likely because in order to use magic you have to channel it through you. Channel too much too often and it will go wild. As well magic is often horrific and mind changing and thus training ones mind is just as important.

As well experience should lessen this to a certain extent and diminishing the effects of magic abuse should be possible depending on the circumstances (So if you are cursed because you, a living person, used magic that calls upon the power of the underworld. Perhaps over time you could return to perfect health or maybe it is pernament)

I think we're mostly saying the same thing here, just in different ways and levels of detail.

Are these a good basis to begin on?

Somewhat. I also think that magic should be also further seperated by types, spheres, and by origin.

I fully picture that the easiest way to great magical might is just to convince a demon you are worthy and having it teach you its magical spells... but that would also be the quickest way to ruin. I would have absolutely nothing bad to say if the demon eventually ended up possessing your body after you used its spells. You deserve that loss (and if this was a fortress, you deserved to have your fortress burned to the ground).

Concequences can easily just stem from what the magic is.

Agreed. Of course, other entities might also grant spells for different prices, none of which are low enough for the amount of magic done to justify everyday use. I suppose that someone who deals with lots of magical creatures or whatever would use simple beings like random spirits or ghosts to do minor spells so he doesn't need to pay much, demons for spells only a demon can provide the power for, etc.

[blackdaze]

Hmm, my idea would be like the delorian from back to the future.  Could throw in all of your junk throw a system that strips out the magic from it. It could probably use a variation of the selling system from traders and then you could assign a number of points of magic it would cost.  That way with not many materials and a lot of patience you could use it sparingly. Then give magics a relatively high cost random chance for something fun to happen based on skill.  IE, you're trying to heal a severed limb, it works but the limb grows back wooden instead of flesh. Then dwarf just freaks out and hilarity ensues.

I kind of like the two pronged approach though, have hospitals for stabalization(bandaging, crutches) and then have magics for long term curing (limb regrowth, curing mental disorders).  The caveat would be that healing could always make things worse due to the unstable nature but the only way to "possibly" cure some conditions.  I think that would provide a decent risk vs reward and wouldn't make it overpowered but wouldn't be desirable in all circumstances.

[Damiac]

Well Neon, it still seems to me what you are saying in the end is that there will be a lot of wrong ways to use magic, but there will also be a right way.  So, after the initial hilarious trial and error period where we all burn down our fortresses misusing magic, we'll find out the right way to do it, using SCIENCE, and from then on, anyone in the know will have a very powerful tool that wasn't there before. 

I also have to say, I don't know where you're getting this idea that clerics in full steel would just die on the battlefield.  Without any healing magic in the game, I very rarely lose a dwarf in battle to an instant death, except perhaps in the case of lucky goblin archers. However, I do fairly regularly have dwarves come back from those battles short an arm, or crippled for a while.  With healing magic, that's no longer a problem.  So maybe it takes me 4 fortress years to develop that magic, but then the game is that much easier. 

What I would argue is that you should have that tool, and it should be that powerful, but there should be a tradeoff.  Not some weird random exploding dwarf tradeoff, but rather, a significant expenditure of my resources, or a significant buildup of some "Magic Value" or some such, which would encourage attacks.  So at the end of the day, I've got a fortress with healing mages, but as a consequence of obtaining those mages, my military is somewhat underdeveloped, or I'm facing more powerful foes.  I really think it fits in well to fantasy lore that powerful magic is an attractant to monsters and demons who seek that power.  In other words, magic is just another path where the dwarves can dig too deep, too fast, and unleash horrors upon themselves, like with other fun stuff...  but handled carefully, it can be an invaluable tool to your fortress, but a tool that comes at a significant cost, due to its significant value.

You make good points in saying that a lot of things in DF are unbalanced or useless, but I would think ultimately those things should be given some use.  So for example, billon should be worth a little more than its component parts, seeing as how it took extra time to make, because currently it's pointless to make it. We should be moving toward better balance, not further tipping the scales. 

[Neonivek]

I really should deal with the rest of the post but for now this is all I am responding to

Without any healing magic in the game, I very rarely lose a dwarf in battle to an instant death, except perhaps in the case of lucky goblin archers.

A lot of this is a product of how the game currently is. When the game is working you should be losing a lot more dwarves then "rarely"

[GreatWyrmGold]

"Instant Death," not "Period." He's saying that few of his dwarves die to decapitation or bisection.

[hops]

You know, fraudulent magic that give injured dwarves happy thought sounds like a hilarious thing to implement.

[GreatWyrmGold]

And which tricks them into thinking they're okay...and then they work on broken legs...
Very macabre humor. Good for DF.

[Damiac]

Yes, definate +1 to the idea of illusionary healing. Very DF.