Sunday, 2nd October 2016, 00:44 by goodcoolguy
@archaeo: The so-called charms reform was nothing so well-reasoned as "well, spells should not be like equipment for reasons... of design..." It was a bizarre jumble of conflicting commitments. There was talk about how charm-like spells are too cheap mp-wise for some characters, but existing commitments to a spell system where casting costs, spellpower, and failrates are all tied to a single number, the spell level, meant this was an insoluble conundrum. There is absolutely no reason it has to work that way and plenty of reason to think it's not good for it to work this way. There was talk about how max mp costs don't fit the crawl spell model, which again comes down to the same commitments to a particular spell model which does not work especially well. Then there's the fact that there already is equipment that gives you spell effects, e.g. +blink, +inv, rmsl, and spells that already have the quality-of-life persistence supposedly so problematic for every other charm-like, r/dmsl. (Perhaps we should also include -cast among offenders re: spells as equipment, since switching gives you all your spells back.)
The truth is there are plenty of games with spell models that include persistent effects that cost max mp and they generally work quite well, a hell of a lot better than the crawl model. In a game where you can literally gain spells by putting on certain equipment, some spells really do stay on in the way equipment does, people fill forum threads with earnest posts about how you should recast spells constantly while you explore, "charms reform" was not the right place to put on the fantasy hipster hat insisting on a bright line between equipment and spells that never existed and get all contrary where other games have been successful with a simple, convenient model that could easily be imported to crawl.
The Original Discourse Respecter
- For this message the author goodcoolguy has received thanks: 4
- dowan, duvessa, Hurkyl, Seven Deadly Sins