Thanks for the comprehensive response. Let me address a few of your points and gauge whether there is any interest in this as a complementary season over a complete overhaul, because there are certainly things here I know I would want to see.

>There are a couple inconsistencies in your first post... you
>can't dispel these spells, but then one is easy to dispel,
>etc.

This was a miscommunication. A shaman's 'dispel' or a mage's 'cancellation' has no effect on the dam redux, however specific counter skills can effect it.

>But mostly I want to address your underlying assumptions,
>because I think they're the problem.
>
>First up, as has been noted, I'm not buying into a system that
>removes the exploration aspect of wands or the
>need-to-go-get-stuff and the strategic windows that creates
>aspect of wands.

Noted. It does require a complete shift in thinking and balancing and may not be what the game is ready for right now.

>>Additional changes:
>>This system is balanced by introducing the following
>changes:
>>- Some warrior classes and orcs are given abilities with low
>>chances of success to remove mage protections. These can be
>>2-3 round abilities based on spec. Warriors now have to
>choose
>>to go for pure damage/lag (current), remove the spell by
>using
>>the associated removal technique, or risk total shield
>>removal. Example: 'Sunder', a new axe spec skill, has a 3
>>round lag time and a 33% chance to remove a major dam redux
>>spell
>
>As a thought, that probably empowers ganging.

Eh. Bit of a weak argument here.. I could say the paladin revamp probably empowers ganging because a paladin acts like a mongoose while his friends lag and beat on an opponent. The thief's new arcane path empowers ganging by allowing a thief and his warrior buddy to maledict a knocked out opponent more, etc.. So not really going to address this argument.

>>- Deathblow is changed to no longer provide increased
>damage,
>>but a chance to remove the major dam redux spell
>
>I can't get behind this. More on this below.
>
>>Pros:
>>- Mage classes are made more competitive at lower levels and
>>can stand toe to toe with more physical-reliance classes. A
>20
>>warrior that just specialized will find a 20 mage that has
>dam
>>redux more formidable.
>
>In a sense this is a positive, but I don't think any of the
>mage classes are UNcompetitive at those levels.
>
>Some of this is level advantage; mages in general are much
>more likely to be a low penalty race than a warrior is. A
>level 20 warrior who just specialized probably has a level 29
>necromancer in range, not a level 20 one.

My belief is that by empowering mages with dam redux at an earlier stage that can be used without consequence (lower tier spell), there will be a greater share of high-exp mage races chosen due to increased survivability during the ranking process.

>>- Solo, group, and raid combat is made far more reactionary,
>>strategic, and interesting for both the mage and the
>opponent
>
>I think it's more that you won't dare defend or raid against a
>bigger group. That is to say, this would be more true than it
>is today. If there are three of you and one of me, it's easy
>for two of you to lag me and one of you to crack my DR.

I'm fine with a mage not standing toe to toe with three raiders, but having a chance to die just like non-mages. They can still do things that most physical classes can't to escape, like cast word.

>>- RBW's have a chance against full dam reduxed mages. No dam
>>redux mages have a chance against RBW's. None-mages have a
>>chance against RBW's
>
>The problem with this is that non-mages are mostly what kills
>RBWs.
>
>Along similar lines, the better magic-using warriors do as
>much killing as RBWs do (including of mages) and die a lot
>less.

I can get behind this - certainly RBW's have their share of sacrifices. I don't think deathblow is a fair countermeasure to this sacrifice because of the wide spread of effectiveness based on opponent class. However, I don't have any better solutions so I will contest.

>>- Mages are finally given a similar level of risk vs. reward
>>as physical classes. By this, I mean that a mage's dam redux
>>is no longer guaranteed, just as a warrior's skills are
>never
>>guaranteed to succeed
>
>This is incorrect. You're giving them the risk, but not the
>reward.

The reward comes in the form of increased utility (read post 1 that outlines the proposed spell effects), having a reliable, unlimited source of dam redux on you at all times, and saving some aspect of the down time that comes with re-gathering the same item from the same npc/hidden location with no thought, little risk, and zero fun.

>Status quo: warriors tend towards high kills, high deaths,
>mages tend towards lower kills, lower deaths.

Agreed.

>Your version: warriors are the same, but now mages tend
>towards lower kills, higher deaths.

Disagreed. Less downtime means more hunting and killing time, which can lead to higher kill counts for mages.

>>- No need to have down-time between fights restocking dam
>>redux
>
>This, to me, is a downside.

Why? I absolutely hate having to rely on a limited set of charges to be competitive in a fight before I have to take time to get more. I know I'm not the only one. From your perspective, what are the upsides to this system?

>>- Mages will die more. Top tier gear will circulate more.
>>Everyone deserves to wear the mask of Anadau. Death to the
>>mage is offset by the lack of wand re-gear time
>
>I think it's more that people wouldn't really play mages as
>much. Lots more risk, no more reward, except in your world
>Battle can't really deathblow me as a mage, which means less
>risk as I gang them down.

Let's be honest - a gang is a gang is a gang. You already have countermeasures in place to prevent gang success - this proposed system can be appended to suffer from the same or worsened drawbacks of anti-gang code.


In addition to this post, I'd really like to get your thoughts in introducing some aspect of this system or at least some of the utility spells I've proposed. I'm all for giving more strategic options to mages as well as more ways for a warrior to countermeasure. At the very least, I'm proposing a third layer of PK complexity from the current leading effective strategies of 1) stun or 2) stat redux, which to me would be something fun to have in the game.

-E.