<<C'mon guys, throw up would-be evils a little bone.

Throw all of us a bone. Let us have set up Cabals!>>

They're under discussion at the moment, if not Cabals something particularly Sects-y <rim shot>. Sorry, I couldn't help it.

Your friendly neighborhood GM,
Chakram

---

"It's a shame they let the old punishments die out....God I miss the screaming."

Lets be fair too -- It wasn't the 'Fire Cabal' that was evil. It was the 'Clan' that discovered Blackfire and became known as the 'Blackfire Cabal'. So...yeah. And I wouldn't call them evil, I'd call them 'misunderstood'...or something...heh...


~The (Black)Fire Mage Magmus

Just so you don't think it's 4 or 5 people wanting Cabals, I would love to see Cabals, but not in the specialization senses that would detract from initial Guild power (if we have any ::duck::). I had just given up the fight because without GM support, nobody seemed interested at all. I hope the subject undergoes serious thought.

Kahnu, the new old mage

Anabasis,

Aren't you the one that keeps saying that multiple divergant development paths = bad? <g>

Mazrian

<<1) The continuing myth (which was purely player created in the first place) that specialization would require intense development along multiple paths, or that it would in any way affect our current magical power, or <insert alternate theory of doom and destruction should specialization come to pass> is pure paranoid speculation and a total fallacy.

You are, of course, absolutely correct. Never in the history of DR has the majority been downtweaked to make room for the specialty of the minority, and folks should be ashamed of themselves for being so paranoid.

Now if you will excuse me, I need to train my hiding while I can still do it at melee. Laters.

Nev,

Your sarcasm is, as always, a fine source of amusement.

I was going to say that your choice of using the recent changes to hiding were a bad example, but on reflection, I'm going to use it as a good example.

I doubt I would find many here who would agree with the decision to restrict hiding at melee, and quite frankly, I don't agree with it either. If specialization were implemented in the same fashion, by reducing the capability of the majority for the minority, I'd be with you all the way that it was the wrong thing to do. If that were the way it had to go, I'd say scrap the whole idea and spend the dev time elsewhere.

I do not, however, believe that it is the ONLY way that it can be implemented. I think it can be done smartly, and done right, without demeaning the abilities of the majority.

Specialization should be an optional addition, not a mandatory subtraction.

Ana

<<I do not, however, believe that it is the ONLY way that it can be implemented. I think it can be done smartly, and done right, without demeaning the abilities of the majority.

Perhaps. But then again this would be equally in any given specialty design situation. Question is, will the extra mile be walked to find that creative solution, or will the easy route be taken? Not everyone is capable of blind faith and blind trust. I only have the past to go on when attempting to extrapolate the probable course of the future.

Specialization would have to consist of a set of new abilities for the specialist, for example, and not directly impact his casting efficiency in the element of his choice. For one to assume he could get an efficiency bonus then one has to assume that either (a) our spells are currently not as effective as game balance would allow them to be, allowing room for a specialty bonus, but begging the question as to why our spells aren't already at those levels without specialization or (b) our spells are already as potent as game balance would allow them to be in which case specialization potency would have to be obtained by nurfing non-specialty potency.

The only alternative would be some sort of new ability granted the specialist. While this could work, it also has problems. Will the complete list of special abilities that specialist will initially and ultimately enjoy be explained to use in detail from the get-go? If not, will specialization be limited to a single element? If limited so, will we be able to change specializations later?

Clearly, we can't have a system that would permanently close doors for our characters. You don't want to find a situation where you chose fire specialization in good faith based on released information, for example, only to have a new electricity ability released afterwards that would have swayed your choice of specialty had you known it was in the works yet find yourself forever stuck with fire and unable to change paths.

I do not object to specialization in theory, and would love to hear any proposals for specialization which do not nurf non-specialty efficiency and which doesn't impose choices on the mage that would permanently close doors based on those choices.

>(a) our spells are currently not as effective as game balance would allow them to be, allowing room for a specialty bonus, but begging the question as to why our spells aren't already at those levels without specialization or (b) our spells are already as potent as game balance would allow them to be in which case specialization potency would have to be obtained by nurfing non-specialty potency.

How about our spells are as effective as game balance allows(I don't believe this BTW) but some of them could be made more effective yet by providing an appropriate "payment" for the increased power.

Krantos

>>Question is, will the extra mile be walked to find that creative solution, or will the easy route be taken? Not everyone is capable of blind faith and blind trust.

Yes, that is the pivotal question, and I for one do not have blind faith, which is why I want to see it talked about instead of just being demonized.

>>(a) our spells are currently not as effective as game balance would allow them to be, allowing room for a specialty bonus, but begging the question as to why our spells aren't already at those levels without specialization

I'm guessing 'a'.

I very much doubt they code any spell so that it rides the very edge of game balance and global caps. It seems much more reasonable from a design point of view to leave room for temporary bonuses and character growth in a spell, otherwise we would never see any improvement with increasing skill levels.

>>Clearly, we can't have a system that would permanently close doors for our characters.

I agree completely.

>>I do not object to specialization in theory, and would love to hear any proposals for specialization which do not nurf non-specialty efficiency and which doesn't impose choices on the mage that would permanently close doors based on those choices.

I'll be putting up what I'd like to see happen shortly.

Ana

>>Guild diversity would be wonderful indeed, it's distinguishing between people who type "prep fs 6, target chest" versus those who type "prep ael 6, target chest" in an effort to pretend we're diverse that I argue against.

Heh. I'd like to think there's a bit more to it than that, but fair enough.

What would you suggest instead?

Ana

Why is everyone still arguing? Anabasis is right!

<<I wasn't think books...no fire mages, no water mages... Moon Mages don't split their spells up. Rather, Cabals would be set up for something.

I agree with this. Warrior mage special interest groups should be more interesting than being elemental fan clubs. Endless possibilities include a group dedicated to the rediscovery of blackfire, a group dedicated to developing' new targeted techniques, the gnomish genocide cabal, a familiar research group, the elanthian domination league (Pinky, are you thinking what I'm thinking?), the bunny burners association, etc.

Oh, yeah. Almost forgot to post this.

Here's the outline of how I would do cabals.

First of all, let me explain why I'm against a one time choice in specialization. To put it in as simple terms as I can, it's because DR isn't static and neither are the players. The game changes (sometimes quite extensively) over time and the players mature and shift thier views over that time. Making specialization a one time choice is making it too large a commitment for what might get affected many times in the future with no control over the outcome by the player. If you choose a spell you don't end up liking, well, you get another chance in three levels. With a one time choice on specialization, what are you gonna do?

I also do not believe that the theory of opposing elements should be introduced with or without a specialization system. I know some have advocated that if someone were to specialize in fire book to gain a bonus, they should take a hit in effectiveness of the water book, for example. Our spells are simply not well distributed across the books for this to be really more than a punative measure. To really be fair, surrendering effectiveness in one book should mean that you can replace every general spell concept with a roughly equivilant one in another book. This would mean having to carry multiple duplications of spell effects across different books, watering down our spell lists, and wasting precious development time.

My idea is to split it up into six smaller pieces, six degrees of specialization as it were (no pun intended). A player can commit the first degree to one of the six books at 25th level, and gets another degree to place every 25 levels after that. This spreads specialization out nicely over the career of a character, giving the player time to shift his or her choices to their own changing tastes, and the always changing climate of the game.

Each degree of specialization in an element would then impart a minor bonus to... Well... Whatever would be deemed fair by our illustrious staff whether that be harness cost, prep time reduction, target time reduction, or any other idea that they came up with. The important idea to remember is that each degree is a minor bonus. I see it being no more than a three to four percent bonus.

The bonus seen with each degree would stack inside of an element, so putting two degrees into an element would give a six to eight percent bonus, and three degrees imparts a nine to twelve percent bonus. A mage would be able to place the degrees of specialization towards the six elemental books in any way they saw fit, with one exception: No more than four degrees are allowed in a single element.

Since there are only six degrees, a mage can only possibly place a fourth degree in a single element. There is no numerical bonus to the fourth degree, instead, the mage recieves a special ability for that element. I see this most likely being a spell restricted to those who specialized that heavily in the element.

So, a mage with all six degrees of specialization available to them could...

Have a minor bonus in all six elements, or...
Have a small bonus in three elements, or...
Have a full bonus in two elements, or...
Have a full bonus to one element, and a minor bonus to three others, or...
Have a special affinity to one element, with two degrees to spend, or...
Have a full bonus in one element, a small bonus in a second, and a minor bonus to a third, or...
Spend the degrees in any other way imaginable, with the only restriction being a max of six degrees, and no more than four in one element.

Even with a maximum bonus in place, this template of specialization only gives around a 10% bonus to any single book. If they go for a full bonus in two elements (which wouldn't be possible until 150th level anyway) they get another 10% in a second book, but this still isn't really earth-shaking. Even coupled with buff spells, I really doubt this is going to shatter the global caps, or topple the powers of the world.

But that's just my take on it.

Anabasis

<<Having to make a one-time choice might be as limiting(high cost) as you say, but therein may lay the justification for even greater things.>>

Go explain that to all the HH moon mages out there right now.

Gizella

P.S. Ana, I like this idea but everytime any GM has ever spoken to us about specializations they have spoken in terms of limiting rather than enhancing, and it's always been on the basis of which spell book one favors.

I think Cabals would be a great addition to the Warrior Mage guild. Elemental specific cantrips and abilities would really allow a Mage to define him/herself as they would like. The only hang up I see on acceptance of Cabals is people fear of not having everything the Warrior Mage guild has to offer or the concern that unless they join a Cabal, they will lag behind those that do join.

I see Cabal as an excellent opprotunity for RPing. For the most part Cabals could be more form than function. Eyes that glowed with the effect of the cabal you joined; Waterboy's eyes shine a brillant blue like sunlight reflecting off water, or something to that effect. More cantrips that are easier to get because of elemental specialization. Titles and so on for becoming a member of a Cabal. All of which would make it worth it to join.

Then why remain a Warrior Mage that didn't specialize? While a member of Cabal would recieve a plethora of perks, they would also remove themselves from others. Titles that could only be attained by those that have no Cabal affiliation. Cantrips for example, while a Water Mage could a Water cantrip every third circle, an unspecialized Warrior Mage could learn any cantrip from any book every alternating third and fourth circle, by 24th circle the specialist will have 8 cantrips and the generalist 7, not a great difference.

I see abilities created with Cabals in mind the same way. Specialist learn it faster but do not hve the option to diversify their abilities. Take the shield suggestion, even though there was a shield for every element each one functions very differently, the aether shield floats and doesn't need a free hand to use, it blocks targeted attack exceptionally well but does little against physical. Water shield can be altered to serve a variety of purposes. And so with every shield doing something different. The elemental specialist would get their version of the shield ability at 30th circle, flat out, no questions ask, no catches. The non-Cabal Warrior Mage would get it at 33rd with some research but would be able to choose any shield type s/he desired.

It all comes down to choice and being able to pick a path that best suited you Warrior Mage. The only limitations I see is not being able to do every single thing out there. Even me, being of the school of loathing the guild based swing of DR, think that a varible of choices that could be made would do alot to enchance our guilds look. I would equate it to what happened to the Hordes of Chaos in Warhammer Fantasy Battle, if any of you play that. If not, diversity = fun.

"Oderint dum metuant."

"Tremble mortals for the time of Chaos is at hand."
-Archaon, The Lord of the End Times.

Sounds like a great idea, and I still don't understand while no steps have been made to -make- cabals like MM sects. Sects are such a great idea, I never understood why such a diverse guild as the WM one (with six different elemental backgrounds to consider, four if you count just the 'old clans') wouldn't have some sort of associations fore Mage's that 'prefer' a certain element. I'd <3 a Fire Cabal, even if it's just two more cantrips, a title, and some items.


~The (Black)Fire Mage Magmus

We were under-staffed, yeah, I knew that. I dunno though, it seems Cabals with benefits is something a good number of people would benefit from. As far as 'things that need to be done' is concerned, there will always be things that need to be done, or on the waiting list...might as well put something to diversify the guild in an RP aspect as well on the list, not just more spells and what not. And, no addition is always guaranteed to benefit the entire guild. Take the new guild hall on the islands, I personally doubt I'll ever use it. Nor from an RP standpoint, would I ever get a spell from the water or earth book.

Mind you, I know we've gotten more then just spells, but -- Cabals would be a tasty addition none-the-less, to people that feel some sort of diversity would enhance the playing expierence in both form and function.


~The (Black)Fire Mage Magmus

(hrm, wrong signature, le'ts try that again.)

>"Yeah, Cabals would be neat, but as was mentioned, the reason for not working on it at the present time simply IS the lack of resources."

It's not lack of resources, but that Maelona has said flat out that the Warrior Mages are (paraphrasing) so badly developed and as a guild that only core-guild development projects are going to happen for awhile. Untill there is more diversity in just being a warrior mage without any 'sub-guild' structures, such structures will not happen.

-Robert

>"If people from each..."

"Both" might be a more appropriate term, considering.

-Robert

-_"Haha. I'm hilarious."
-Frogspawn

>>The Aether Cabal enjoyed a quiet meeting last week, during which I had the opportunity to make the acquaintance of Laurieana, who joined me in a bit of conversation on the matter of Blackfire.<<

Now...I wouldn't know that much about blackfire...<cough>

~Laurieana

---

....<insert witty and sarcastic comment here>