Hexes and Charms

[snow]

Invisibility isn't a hex. Also there's no way in hell sure blade is a hex so why is it a hex and charm in game?

Charms target you and your allies. Hexes target enemies. This is how things are intuitively. Now I'm presuming the game branches from the intuitive for balance reasons and you want enchanters to have invisibility because it goes with the play style. The split isn't working and I think at this point the opposition is pretty clear. It keeps coming up in the IRC, I keep seeing threads about it on the forums... what gives? Why is the split STILL here? What was the reason in the first place? It's doing more damage than good to be honest.

[absolutego]

the split is very unintuitive, but it hasn't done any "damage" besides breaking one background (and maybe somewhat harming some builds, i guess). the problem *does* persist, since nearly all of the good stuff is in charms, and hexes are still very unreliable. but it is a work in progress. i think the plan is to nerf charms by making stuff more dependent on spell power, and buffing hexes by lowering the target's MR when a hex fails (or a similar scheme). both make sense. and the split was necessary, as has been argued many times.

for charms, i'd personally make haste (and maybe deflect missiles) level 7 and leave it at that.

[snow]

You're forgetting the fact that there is no logical reason for invisibility to be a hex.

[Galefury]

It's magic.

Maybe it projects an image of you not being there into the mind of all who see you. And boom, it's a hex.

[galehar]

Charms target you and your allies. Hexes target enemies.

No, you've got it wrong. From the spell schools reference:

Hexes are spells that affect things and monsters (usually negatively).
Charms are things that positively affect yourself, having amulet ("charm")-like effects.

That's why branding spells were initially hexes. They've been moved to charm because of Cr, but they should be hexes. Invisibility is an hexes because it fits the enchanter playstyle. The flavour can works. It can affect the space around you or the light giving a predator-like invisibility for example.

[absolutego]

it's all a bit of a mess, and the flavor somewhat shoehorned, but it's the way it is not to break things too badly, which is a good logical reason. it started as target yourself vs others (invisibility was pure charms at one point in trunk, if i recall correctly, and later charms/hexes), but the focus moved to crusader-like vs enchanter-like, as galehar said.

[snow]

Invisibility still would fit into charms given Galehar's adjusted definitions. Being invisible positively affects oneself. This is an ugly mess.

Look the problem is if you split enchantments there are going to be far more charms than hexes. Calling a few charms instead hexes and trying to warp definitions to make it fit just doesn't work. The split isn't even needed and even proponents of it admit it breaks things and is hard swallow from a flavorful perspective. If you want to make invisibility a hex you'd have to rename it mass blindness or something similar and have fun reworking sense invisible, ring of invisibility, etc.

If you argue the invisibility is a hex then you can use the same argument to make any charm a hex... at that point why have two schools?

[dpeg]

snow: If you want us to actually change anything, you are not doing yourself a favour.

The split is just a first step, and we will go on from there. It will take a few iterations to get right, but we have to start somewhere.

[LunarHarp]

Silence is a charm used as a debuff against monsters. I suppose it is cast centered on yourself but it is also strange.

It seems to me like the split right now is charms for the crusader play style of magic boosted basher, while hexes are all great for the stabber. This is regardless of whether the spell is a buff for you or a debuff to monsters (e.g. Tukima). It is working pretty well mechanically even if the theme isn't quite there yet.

Also, when you are viewing a monster the message still says "this monster is _______ to hostile enchantments." No more enchantments means this doesn't make much sense anymore. On the other hand, this message is a lot better then the confusing "monster is _____ resistant to magic" back in 0.5. Maybe something like "This monster is _________ resistant to non-damaging magical effects." (should i report this on the tracker? it is pretty unimportant in the grand scheme of things)

[Katak]

I just wanted to poke in and say that I prefer Invisibility in the Hex school, so I can actually cast it on my early stabbers.

[absolutego]

Also, when you are viewing a monster the message still says "this monster is _______ to hostile enchantments." No more enchantments means this doesn't make much sense anymore. On the other hand, this message is a lot better then the confusing "monster is _____ resistant to magic" back in 0.5. Maybe something like "This monster is _________ resistant to non-damaging magical effects." (should i report this on the tracker? it is pretty unimportant in the grand scheme of things)

god no, it sounds horrible. :p

now that the "enchantments" school is gone, there's no problem in using the word as a synonym for hexes when appropriate! it's understandable in that context and sounds much nicer, i think.

[snow]

I'm not asking for any specific change and I know it takes time to get things right. It just bothers me that the split makes no sense thematically and breaks things mechanically. I just don't understand what was supposed to be accomplished by it. Did you want to make it harder for a crusader to pick up a hex and harder for an enchanter to pick up a charm? They're going to do it anyway.

Also sorry if I came off a bit rude. When you split schools like this players will still play as they did before and just have lower dodge instead or something to compensate for training two schools instead of just one. That's basically what the split has done to me... my crusaders and enchanters now have lower dodge because there was a pointless school split.

[galehar]

Have you read the link I posted? There is a theme to the split, it's described in the document. There are a few exceptions which doesn't quite fit in the theme for gameplay reasons. Invisibililty isn't the worst one, it is easier to fit it in hexes than to fit branding spells in charm.
If you don't understand the reason of the split, you might want to read the wiki page about it.
Charms is still the stronger of the 2, and most casters will still pick it of course. But they won't get free debuffs with it. And enchanters will have to spend some more XP. Have we nerfed SpEn? Damn...

[TGW]

I don't see why the game still pays lip service to the self vs. other split when it actually mostly uses the much better positive vs. negative split.

Silence should be a hex in either system, but hey.

[roguelikedev]

I just wanted to poke in and say that I prefer Invisibility in the Hex school, so I can actually cast it on my early stabbers.

Agree. Putting Haste and Invisibility in different schools is very reasonable, as the glow issue meant only stabbers used Invisibility anyway.

[absolutego]

Charms is still the stronger of the 2, and most casters will still pick it of course. But they won't get free debuffs with it.

but did they bother? confusion has a niche, but i don't see higher-level hexes getting much use. tukima's dance, maybe?

all a high-level spellcaster (dedicated or not) needs to pick up haste and the rest of the charms goodness is about 11 or 12 skill levels. anyone should dabble, as long as they find the books, so the problem persists. if haste is so good (and it is, despite the nerf), it should be harder to cast.

as i said the heart's in the right place, but right now the split hasn't changed anything much.

Silence should be a hex in either system, but hey.

that actually makes sense, and would shift some weight from one school to the other.