One of the three focuses for Fallen Enchantress is Magic. We want the spells to be unique, to feel like casters with enough mana can change the world. We want magic to fill the game, all the sovereigns start with spells though some like Procipinee are better spell casters than Verga. As in Master of Magic you can choose your sovereigns proficiency with the various magic types when you create them.
I’ve attached a PDF of the spells with this post. It includes the normal spells the player can cast, it doesn’t include spell abilities of creatures, spell like abilities granted by equipment and some other special abilities in the game.
I’d like to give a special thanks both to Unacomn for suggesting the Shadow World spell and NuclearNeumann for suggesting the Blood Curse spell. They are fun spells to play with.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I Removed the spell PDF as it is almost a year old and woefully out of date. New spells have been added and even more are coming. check out out dev journal on spells here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ArdQVqLHsI&feature=youtu.be
- Derek 4/11/2012
Just to be clear, I meant that in the nicest way possible.
I think that it might be useful to make a distinction between the types of things that people are asking for, here. The way that I see it, there are two types of changes that we could see to the magic system pre-release.
1) Tweaking of xml values like damage and duration, along with a few new spells that use the same basic code framework.
2) Addition of completely new spells that would require changes to the underlying game code, like dispels and armageddon-type spells.
I'm almost certain that we'll see some of #1, but I'd bet the farm that we won't see any of #2. Because, as marionesi points out, they're just past that stage in development. So, essentially we're stuck with what we have, because any #1-type changes can easily be made on our end, anyway. I'm sure that the team has seen the replies to this thread and gotten the take-home message that lots of people are underwhelmed with the system, as it currently stands. But, that doesn't mean that the cost-benefit ratio for implementing #2-type changes makes sense to them for some of the changes that people are asking for.
Anyway, that's just my 2 cents.
Well we each like different things. The ship editor in GalCiv2 is what got me hooked into the game. And yes I also love the Stratagy part of the game as well. But you could just use the generic ships that come on this list when you have a new tech without having to use the editor. The only real problem I had with Galciv 2 was that there was no TC.
Any details yet on how the terraforming spells will work? Specifically, will it be like Populous where you have to raise a mountain slowly level by level or will it be an instant one shot like WOM mountain raising? I can't remember the name of the quest spell.
Looking at magic proficiency levels, it seems like the intention is to limit access to spells by several factors: the research to actually discover the appropriate spell book technology, the magic research to discover the appropriate spell, and the development of heroes down the same branch (i.e. if you are researching Fire spells, best make sure that your heroes go up the Fire Adept\Disciple branch).
It also means that if you pick up in mid to late game some additional shards of a new type, you won’t be able to use them effectively – you may have gained three new Air shards, but all your heroes are already advanced in levels, and so won’t be gaining new levels any time soon to pick up the requisite Air Mage trait.
It also means that all quest spells have to be straight-jacketed into existing spell books, and so many of the quest spell rewards would be useless to a kingdom that concentrated on one or two magic spheres (e.g. a Water 4 spell when my sovereign handles Life and Earth, plus I have a Fire and Air mages).
To develop a well-rounded mage, all this character would be able to pick up is magic traits.
Instead, why not have the following:
A single line of Adept\Disciple\Mage\Master\Archmage, possibly spread out across levels (i.e. Disciple can be gained at level 3+, Mage at level 5+, Master at 7+ and Archmage at 9+).
Additional magic abilities, such as:
<Magic Sphere> Affinity – <Magic Sphere> spells are more effective.
Channeller – Combat direct damage spells cost X% less mana.
Summoner – Summon spells cost X% less mana.
Spellslinger – Spell casting better penetrates magic resistance.
Ritual Mage – Overland spells more effective. Perhaps some of the more advanced overland spells will require this trait to be cast.
War Wizard – Casts spells quicker in combat (uses less action points?).
These traits would require different technologies to be researched, some of which could be optional.
What this gives is a lot more variety to how wizard heroes can be built, whilst at the same time ensuring that they still have a few traits slots left for non-magic traits.
Coding-wise, what could happen is that spells could have keywords for magic spheres, such as Fire\Water\Earth etc. The same would also apply for identifiers such as “Combat_Damage_Spell”, “Combat_Summon_Spell”, “Overland_Spell” etc. The traits would then affect who could cast the spell, and what its effects would be, e.g. Fireball’s formula might look like (6 + 3 * NumFireShards) *(1 + 0.2 * CasterHasFireAffinity), for a 20% bonus from Fire Affinity.
Although it is hard to comment on the individual spells without seeing the overall shape of the game, a few comments none the less:
Paragon – should there be a limit on how high a level can the champion get from this spell?
Steal Spirit – should this be a Death spell? It seems like a fairly evil thing to do.
Titan’s Breath (Air 3) – the effects seem rather small for a level 3 spell.
Cloud Walk (Air 3) – teleportation being present in only one school of magic seems rather powerful.
Storm (Air 4) – seems worse than Fireball (Fire 3) spell – it’s random, and does less damage. Is this intentional?
Tornado (Air 5) – it’s probably really irritating to have to recombine your army afterwards for the player. It also means that an AI who stockpiled a lot of mana would be really irritating to fight against, as they would just cast this every turn.
Blindness (Death 2) – Should this completely prevent ranged attacks, judging by the name of the spell?
Curse (Death 2) – Seems relatively weak compared to Wither.
Contagion (Death 3) – Seems like a very fast-scaling spell, and easy to abuse by the player; put one spellcaster on a horse, cast this spell, and run away from the enemy all the time. Considering that it is possible to go heavily on the Death shards, this can be very irritating.
Touch of Darkness (Death 3) – what does Intelligence actually help with? I don’t see any spells being influenced by it.
Tremor (Earth 2) – another very irritating spell to go against. Could an AI simply lock down the player with this?
Focus (Fire 3) – seems a little out of place for Fire, considering that overall theme of the school is to do damage. Also, could this affect allies, not just the caster?
Mantle of Fire (Fire 4) – should this be affected by the shards? Also, should this be both a strategic and a tactical spell?
Regeneration (Life 1) – scales really fast, making it meh with no Life shards, but rather powerful with two of them. It seems like it really needs to be a level 2-3 spell, considering it allows a fast unit to just run away and heal up during combat.
Growth (Life 3) – is this the same as Death’s Berserk? Can this be cast on allies only, or on enemies as well?
Shrink (Life 3) – can this be cast on enemies as well?
Freeze (Water 2) – this is almost complete immobilization, and as such, is quite powerful. Compare with other immobilization spells; perhaps this should be at level 3.
Grip of Winter (Water 5) – a powerful spell. If an AI casts it against the player, how can the player react? Can the player prevent this somehow (i.e. an overland enchantment spell that makes it difficult for other to cast Earthquake or this one against them)?
Dirge of Ceresa (Death 4) – considering the power of this spell, it seems as if the Death Adept faction becomes a one-trick pony – it is much more efficient for them to convert all their shards to death, and this spell becomes an “I win” button. This is better than Fireball, for example.
Blood Rage (Death 4) – Any particular reason for why this would be a level 4 spell?
Glyph Of Life (Life 3) – this spell seems like it ramps up its power very fast with additional life shards. Perhaps a base of +10 with +5 per shard is more appropriate?
Blood Curse (Death 4) – a game-changing spell. Can this be cast multiple times?
Pariden’s Return (no details) – this seems like a poor fit for any of the magic schools, really.
Mana Blast (Fire II and Water II) – this seems like a very dangerous spell to have for the AI, who can be stockpiling the mana like crazy at higher levels. It can easily one-shot any of the player’s heroes, which is not fun.
Mana Shield (Earth 4 and Water 4) – seems like another spell that can be easily abused. Perhaps make it a limit instead – e.g. for X amount of magic points spent, a buffer of “X / 5” temporary hitpoints are added to the unit, with X being a fixed value.
Soulburning (Death III and Fire III) – Not as efficient as fireball, but an interesting single-target killer.
Summoner’s Boon (?) – seems potentially over-powered.
Your comments show a lack of understanding of the basic game.
Assuming this was directed at me, care to elaborate? Considering that the "basic game" in question has not been released yet, and the details of its mechanics are quite vague, if not in flux right now, it seems a strange comment.
How much have you played WoM? This game will use those basic elements. The fighting mechanics are fairly well lined out. The magic system is going to be very similar. The only real question that is left is about city building and the tech tree. You just spent a wall of text on criticisms of mechanics and level of spells that is pure conjecture. Quite negative conjecture. How about waiting until the beta opens before making a verdict on every spell in the book? It only seems fair, though you may actually be right about every spell.
I can see if maybe there is a single spell that strikes you as overpowered for its class, if it the same as the spell you know from a different game, but Most of these spells are pretty well thought out in terms of core spells.
Speaking from a make the game interesting point of view, I quite like the idea of specializing in different elements. For example, as in a previous post, you've been researching fire magic, have a couple of heroes who specialize and then you get a few air shards. Great! This will make you have to adapt to the conditions of the world. The player will have to consider changing tactics to deal with a new situation. This is what makes a game fun and interesting.
THIS! Seriously, my head wants to explode whenever I read a post that basically boils down to: I should be able to accomplish everything in the game, every game. I'm constantly seeing posts that argue that there should be no limiting strategic choices - I must be able to [change shards to my original sovereign preference / be able to get all spell books / have the resources that best match my character waiting for me at my spawn point]. What's fun about that? Bland central! Make me choose between meaningful options that close off other avenues of endeavor. If I don't have my shard type next to me early on, make me adapt! I.e., wrest control from another empire, form a trade agreement for control with another empire, or move in a different direction entirely (less magic focused, maybe). These are the scenarios that make games memorable.
Also, for those who seem to think that shards other than your mainline capabilities are worthless, they're not. Shards are always useful as they also generate mana (just like MoM, even if it's not your preferred node you still wanted it), and allow buildings that require a shard in the city. It's just part of the flavor that you'll love some of the nodes more than others. That imbalance is a very good thing for emergent storytelling.
</rant>
But yes, wait and see when the beta hits.
Note that it might be a good idea with my approach to limit some high-level or quest spells to require additional traits: e.g. Fire Affinity, Air Affinity and Earth Affinity for Falling Star, all four elemental affinites for the spell of Mastery, or the "Ritual Mage" trait for the high-level overland enchantments. I just don't think that it's worth adding extra hurdles to getting the basic spells beyond researching them.
They should treat the shards like the Magic Nodes in AOW:SM. In that game if the node is the same as the players specialty then the mana they get from those shards are doubled all other shards they get the normal amount of mana. For Example if my player specialized in Death magic then he would get double mana from Death nodes and normal from other nodes
Also in AOW:SM you could create a mage that specilized in multipule spheres of magic but there is a limit. When creating the Wizard you have 6 sphere slots that you can fill. You can choose to fill them up with just one sphere or several spheres. However the more slots you fill with a sphere of magic the higher level spells you can cast with that sphere. So you could be a Jack of all Spheres if you want but your only casting low level spells for those spheres. Pretty good system.
The problem in the shard system and specialization is not about adapting to the RNG of the game, but that while the game is balanced around each player having N shards or so, player 1 has many shards of his preference and thus can skip most of the research required to specialize in other spell trees, while player 2 who found many shards of other types has to spend it and train everything around it.
This leads to player 1 being superior to player 2, simply because he didn't have to spend so many resources in "adapting".
In most other games, you are not limited so strictly by RNG. If you don't find Iron in your region, you go to bows and large groups instead of metal armor and weapons. If there are no horses, you don't bother researching how to use them. That is adapting: while not getting the No. 1 best option, you can back to option 2 with minimal losses, and not many resources wasted. In this system, you can waste your whole starting strategy just because you didn't find that shard.
No, because while that player with more shards of their type around them might be more advanced magically but that would mean they are lacking in other areas. While that player is advancing in magic, the other player can be advancing in other ways. You do not have to try and compete in that way. They could advance in martial techs which could give them an advantage with their armies or civ or whatever else.
The real problem is that a random map will give the guy with more shards the most gold and lost libraries. That is WoM does this. Maybe the saint from FFH has fixed the map generator, but the distribution parameters are set to control quantity, not logical placement.
Can we get another dev journal to see some more features?
No, the REAL problem is we don't have a dev responding or even another Journal to show that the dev's even care about all the things we're discussing.
Sorry, just had to throw that out there. Please continue.
The real problem is there's 10 000 people who are waiting for FE, and 10 000 opinions on what they should focus on developing. All anybody can do is make their case and hope.
Its just so depressing have to wait around for news on FE. No good games are coming out for a few weeks, which means posting here is all I really have to do. Sure I could spend my time at work working or even go outside with friends, but I have never really been a fan of either of those.
So the real problem is that we just don't know enough about FE. Still, things might be extremely fluid at this point on the development process, causing them to not want to post about game factors that may change later (like what happened during WoM).
It really comes down to needing some new screenshots to drool over. Is that too much to ask?
I have an anwser to this delima. Just say that my opinion is the only one that count and everything will be right as rain.
hmmmm so is it out aready?
I think we all agree that having interesting trade-offs is savoury, and we all want them in the game. However, in FE one will have to specialize his sovreign before the game begins, and this may change the picture. Taking Civ iv as an example, you may adapt your strategy depending on whether you have horses rather than iron or copper close to your capital, and it's fun. But imagine for a moment that you can pick a civilization with the "sea power" trait, that allows you to build powefull sea units, and you find out you start in the middle of the continent... this feels different to me. In this case, players would either not choose such a specif trait before the game begins, or simply reaload the game n times until they get to start near a shore.
The bottom line is that the ability to create and customize the sovreign before the game starts may require a cautious analysis about the impact of randomness on a player choices, since your starting position may actually cripple too much the effectiveness of certain starting traits. One thing is that you don't have the starting position of your dreams, another thing is that your starting position makes you unable to use some/most of the traits you have chosen at character creation... but maybe what I am saying is obvious
I will play on maps that I made. They are balanced and allow for a variety of strategies, if you have the will to power to use them.
I agree that random map users will not be as lucky and I hope they fix that for you people.
Personally I perfer a bit od randomness from the random map generator with the abillity to put player/Dev made maps into the roster to be randomly picked as well.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
