Re: Re-re-rehashing spellcaster balance, or the thread formerly known as the cone debate

[Mark Wedel <mwedel@scruznet.com>]

Jeffrey Hantin wrote:
> 
> If that's the case, then why should fighting work in every situation?
> I understand it's considered sort of a lowest common denominator, but
> shouldn't there be as many ac -127 mobs as magic immune ones?  After
> all, almost every character develops wizardry as well as physique.

 Actually, there are a fair number of monsters immune to physical.  Of course,
by that time, the players tend to have artifacts or other weapons that don't do
physical damage anymore.

 I think that too many monsters are immune to far too many attacktypes.  I think
some of this is so that a group of friendly monsters don't kill each other
(think if wyverns were not immune to fire)  And some are certainly just so the
monster doesn't kill itself.

 The proposed idea to make monsters immune to their own spells would go a long
way in fixing the latter problem.  The former one is probably sort of self
correcting - yes, 6 big wizards in the same room may kill each other.  But there
really should not be a need to put 6 big wizards in the same room.  Instead of
quantity, just improve that one big wizard and make it tougher.

> Of course, Valriel's following is deficient in another manner.
> Enemy-race demon is handy, respectable avatar, but (Attuned:
> Protection) just doesn't pay, since 'defense' only grants protections,
> and at level 40, protections are easy to come by (did someone say ring
> of Elements?).

 What will happen (I was hoping to put off until I can at least get version 0.96
out) is that protections will be graduated.  It won't be 50%, 100%, -100%, but
anywhere in that complete range.  At that point, being attuned may help you out
a lot if you can cast protection spells in the 60% range where everyone else is
down in the 40's.