Been discussed in a battlefield thread but was hoping to elicit a response from one of the usual suspects here, either Daev or Zulgh (though anyone else on the staff is of course welcome and encouraged to opine), and perhaps give a "No way, here's why" or "It's being considered" or "Yeah man! NCR!" or something inbetween.

Thanks in advance.

Assuming that we want creative integrity in Thera;

Bards are not badass. They are not bloodthirsty Orcs, or deadly assassins. They are mystical minstrels that are supportive or demoralizing in nature, inspiring or discouraging. They are NOT badass powerhouse killing machines. Leave that to classes who are actually badass. It almost seems like bards are a pet class of an immortal or two.

That's not to say they shouldn't be able to land solo kills, but not in the apocalyptic, extremely powerful, instant way that they do. If there is ANY class that should be slow (not necessarily unpowerful) in killing, it is the bard. There is no value given to the game by having bards be so powerful. It does not make creative sense, and there are other combos that DO make creative sense, where one can have that power. Having something that is powerful make no creative sense causes people unsuspend their disbelief and become less immersed, and a number of problems arise from that.

When Malthalia, the female battle rager elf was coherently slurring drunk death by singing threats at me, I was completely unable to take the character seriously, and it just reeked of powergaming with a side dish of rping for the immortals/cabal.

Really, the only reason that bards are so uberpowered (dare I say overpowered?) is fiend. Replace the mechanics of fiend with something that makes more sense and isn't as immediately deadly (perhaps something fun, but deadly if used appropriately) and bards will be looking good from the balance standpoint and creative.

If the concept of fiend is desirable, perhaps something that occupies (have to defeat before targets can be changed) and debuffs and confuses (two ideas: making hit allies, hit self occasionally) dealing fake hitpoint damage until the victim is knocked out or the fiend is defeated.

Just looking at this thread, the most badass characters (battleragers) in Thera complaining about getting destroyed by bards is funny in a sad way. On a side note: shouldnt ragers be resistant to mental in some way.... a BattleRager, I would think entails having a strong will. (by the way I've never played a rager, and am often hunted by them)

And I'm not even that good at them.

Leave them the #### alone.

If you have a problem with how fiend works, you're going to have to ask yourself why the banshee of lore was considered scary and how it probably shouldn't instantly kill with it's wail.

If you've ever been in any sort of live music concert, you understand how the bard class works and why it works emotionally, and why it should have up to and including fiend. This doesn't even require you to even like the music being played.

>Assuming that we want creative integrity in Thera;
>
>Bards are not badass. They are not bloodthirsty Orcs, or
>deadly assassins. They are mystical minstrels that are
>supportive or demoralizing in nature, inspiring or
>discouraging. They are NOT badass powerhouse killing machines.
>Leave that to classes who are actually badass. It almost seems
>like bards are a pet class of an immortal or two.
>
>That's not to say they shouldn't be able to land solo kills,
>but not in the apocalyptic, extremely powerful, instant way
>that they do. If there is ANY class that should be slow (not
>necessarily unpowerful) in killing, it is the bard. There is
>no value given to the game by having bards be so powerful. It
>does not make creative sense, and there are other combos that
>DO make creative sense, where one can have that power. Having
>something that is powerful make no creative sense causes
>people unsuspend their disbelief and become less immersed, and
>a number of problems arise from that.
>
>When Malthalia, the female battle rager elf was coherently
>slurring drunk death by singing threats at me, I was
>completely unable to take the character seriously, and it just
>reeked of powergaming with a side dish of rping for the
>immortals/cabal.
>
>Really, the only reason that bards are so uberpowered (dare I
>say overpowered?) is fiend. Replace the mechanics of fiend
>with something that makes more sense and isn't as immediately
>deadly (perhaps something fun, but deadly if used
>appropriately) and bards will be looking good from the balance
>standpoint and creative.
>
>If the concept of fiend is desirable, perhaps something that
>occupies (have to defeat before targets can be changed) and
>debuffs and confuses (two ideas: making hit allies, hit self
>occasionally) dealing fake hitpoint damage until the victim is
>knocked out or the fiend is defeated.
>
>Just looking at this thread, the most badass characters
> battleragers) in Thera complaining about getting destroyed by
>bards is funny in a sad way. On a side note: shouldnt ragers
>be resistant to mental in some way.... a BattleRager, I would
>think entails having a strong will. (by the way I've never
>played a rager, and am often hunted by them)

I like bards too. But I don't something which is called a bard but does not have the core nature of one (a perception which is colored by the very high degree of archetypal consistency found in the game with the other classes).

About the rock concerts; I agree until you the point of fiend.

Songs are inspiring, or demoralizing for sure. The *general* concept of the fiend does make sense for a bard creatively, not disputing that. However the type of power fiend gives bards when viewed in the context of the powers of more "badass" characters does not make creative sense. The up front, instantly deadly, low interaction, low avoidability type of ability such as the fiend is aberrant to the archetypal bard and but would fit for, say, a powerful Shaman empowered by an evil deity. Not a hypnotic troubadour.

To go "real life"; it'd be like watching a movie seeing jet pilots consistently kick a bunch of commandos asses in firefights with no other indication of the pilots being particularly special. Sure we could make a mage do better in straight melee than a rager, and call it magic, but... it's breaking the archetype which is part of what we like about the complex fantasy world. In this case the bard is breaking it's archetype and becoming something it shouldn't be.

One more analogy. If you have ever played Magic the Gathering, you know about the five colors.

It's like having a loxodon cleric in white that taps to hit your opponent for one damage.

It's not as bad having a fire elemental in white that taps to hit your opponent for one damage, but it's still pretty bad.

What it should be like is a loxodon cleric in white that taps to heal you for one life.

I can't take any bards seriously in this game because they're like powerstick one trick ponies with little expressed creative value.

I like transmuters too. But I don't think something which is called a transmuter but does not have the core nature of one (a perception which is colored by the very high degree of archetypal consistency found in the game with the other classes).

Spells that shift shape are beneficial buffs and intriguing transformations sure. The general concept of neurological disruption does make sense for a transmuter creatively, not disputing that. However the type of power it gives transmuters with viewed of the context of the powers of more "badass" characters does not make creative sense. The up front, extremely deadly, low interaction, low avoidability (due to duo, sneak, and highly niche non-limited svs paralysis gear) type of ability such as neuro is aberrant to the archetypal field medic mage and would fit for, say, a powerful Anti-Paladin empowered by demons to ravage with terror. Not a sadistic mad doctor casting spells and ripping bodies to shreds that actually require a high precision and concentration to even take effect.

I can't take any transmuters seriously in this game because they're like powerstick one trick ponies with little expressed creative value, in both gangs and solo. (this part is implied in what you wrote)

Do you see where I'm going with the above?

It's an opinion. An opinion not related at all to game balance.

If you change or remove grand nocturne as it is you remove the bard's kill sealing ability outside of the opponent being a complete idiot letting you spam damage songs, especially at the high levels.

Bards also in many many other types of literature tend to suck horrible ass. There's freaking webcomic characters based around this archetype.

Bards are not hypnotic or psionic attackers even if the imms would like to liken them similarly. Emotion will always get a quicker knee-jerk reaction than logic. Politicians know this, marketers know this, and bards simply take it to the extreme. The grand nocturne is really intended to be your worst nightmare. What you do to fight your worst nightmare as a player is your decision, up to and including taking the courage edge, overcome distortion and the anti-repertoire edge.

I know you don't want bards to be deadly anymore purely because of your opinion. But since you're already balancing them mentally to the other archetypes of each class, neurological disruption would have to be changed or removed, as well as mental jolt. And healers would have to lose gate and you'd have to edit several item progs to fail for them. You'd also have to make solipsistic shielding for invokers default, and I could go on.

>I can't take any bards seriously in this game because they're
>like powerstick one trick ponies with little expressed
>creative value.

I think the most vicious thing about this song is that if there were 50 healthy heroes at Market Square talking to Joe-Bob the Bumbling Immortal, you could sneak in, and in singing one song, kill 10 of them.

That's kinda sick, even if you could only do that once a day.

Because the possibility that it COULD happen does not make it even ####ing REMOTELY near 'likely'.

There's one thing that kills all fiends regardless of power: Tank better than them. Especially if you dodge or have a cursed weapon.

Putting out a ton of damage also suffices. The damage reduction on fiends is so high it's more how many times you hit them not how much damage you do.

flee;q return;heal heal;heal heal;heal heal;works for any class, and mages can just buy time with this until their INT kills the fiend. Unless it's a conjurer, then they're stuck with magic missile but unless the fiend is powerful magic missile works better than what some warriors, thieves and assassins get even.

Most communing classes don't care about the fiend itself, they care about whoever is coming after them to the hometown, or wherever they gated to.

I could go on, but dying once to a fiend in your life does not an overpowered song make. You need to take tragic, which nerfs just about every song in the bard repertoire to neutral and/or bad, except debuffs and lullaby, to get a powerful fiend consistently. On top of that you need several edges to really make it terrifying. By the time you've taken all those edges between explore and hero XP, unless you're sucking imm #### for edge points you probably have given up any of the other edges that might have saved you from half the things that can kill you. That means only Empire and Outlander can really consistently make use of this configuration, and in Empire you have to be friggin' Elite slot to do it. Everyone else has to do it opportunistically on a missed bash, pincer, assassinate, or get around tracking conjurer servitors.

My posts are not simply about my opinion, but are based on the largely agreed upon gospel of fantasy. This isn't mathemetics, there is bound to be subjectivity in what I am saying, but I try to keep it as objective as is possible within the limits of such a subject. That is, my "opinion" is for the most part an *explanation* of how the bard being a badass killer doesn't fit in with the fantasy setting.

Your example regarding transmuters doesn't stand. A transmuter is not a field medic mage from a creative standpoint... it's a physiological specialized magus. Mages at their peak are supposed to be very powerful. They are supposed to be badass and powerful in that way, because arcane power is limitless and spells are spectacular in nature... yada yada yada. We could get into a discussion of "what is fantasy" so we can pin down what does and doesn't make sense, but I think most creative people have a feel for what it is and isn't so it would be pointless, other than to illustrate how a common pattern does underlie a "subjective" subject.

By your logic we could replace bard and fiend with thief and steal, and the argument would be just as strong. Not so, because the argument is not based solely on opinion, but on established fantasy archetypes that are generally agreed upon. We know that brigands steal. I was articulating what the archetype of bards are, and that it is not that of an uber badass superkiller as fiend enables them to easily be.

What I say is based on indefinite facts, so it is some fact and some opinion, I suspect more factual for those who are of a creative bent.
It is indirectly related to game balance because game balance takes into consideration type of power and power level, and what I say is speaking to type of power (maybe a bit to power level).

If Grand Nocturne was changed, obviously there would have to be a suitable replacement in line with bardic nature. If that means an absolute decrease in power, so be it.

Yes, Grand Nocturne is your worst nightmare. It is not a demon that is summoned from the depths to claw up your body in physical combat, follow you around trading blows and kill you. As I touched on earlier, an illusionary fiend, unlike an actual fiend, should be less bodily and instantly lethal, and more psuedo mentally disruptive- as a nightmare should be- attacking allies, self, becoming neurotic. I'm not sure where edges are involved, but for what it's worth I'll say that on a simple power balance level I'm not sure if the edges cut it or not.

I never said I didn't want bards to be deadly, I like bards. I don't want them to be deadly in the *way* they are. But they probably could use a toning down in overall power level too.
I want them to be changed because I want to enjoy the game more, that is a fact, not an opinion. And that desire is based largely on the indefinite consensual facts of "what is fantasy". So bards should not be looked at because that might mean we have to look at other classes for creative integrity? That doesn't make much sense. The bard is the most glaring example of a lack of creative integrity, to the degree that, by the same standards, a change may be desireable for the bard but not worth the effort on other examples.

>My posts are not simply about my opinion, but are based on
>the largely agreed upon gospel of fantasy. This isn't
>mathemetics, there is bound to be subjectivity in what I am
>saying, but I try to keep it as objective as is possible
>within the limits of such a subject. That is, my "opinion" is
>for the most part an *explanation* of how the bard being a
>badass killer doesn't fit in with the fantasy setting.

I think your version of fantasy is ####. There's Western fantasy, and then there's also Eastern Fantasy, Middle Eastern themes, and even more obscure ones.

Personally I like my fantasy firmly Western with a medium dose of Eastern and a light dose of Middle Eastern. That balance changes based on where you are in Thera but is more or less consistent.


>
>Your example regarding transmuters doesn't stand. A transmuter
>is not a field medic mage from a creative standpoint... it's a
>physiological specialized magus.

####. If you can have an opinion so can I, and I don't think transmuters should have much more depth than haste monkeys, just like how you don't think bards should be able to seal kills on dumb characters.

And I still don't think transmuters should be able to put out as much or more damage as an invoker, outmelee warriors without A/B/S and maladict as well or better than a poison thief or necro. Their only limitation is they are limited in scope against incorporeal undead, elementals and constructs.

But guess what? They do. They are also far more lethal than bards.

Mages at their peak are
>supposed to be very powerful. They are supposed to be badass
>and powerful in that way, because arcane power is limitless
>and spells are spectacular in nature... yada yada yada. We
>could get into a discussion of "what is fantasy" so we can pin
>down what does and doesn't make sense, but I think most
>creative people have a feel for what it is and isn't so it
>would be pointless, other than to illustrate how a common
>pattern does underlie a "subjective" subject.

And bards are not?

You *did* read all the literature half the original bard songs came from before the bard revamp into CF themed songs? Lord of the Rings? Dark Elf Trilogy? Wheel of Time?

Not all of them had powerful bards, but some did. They aren't just faggots that are jack of all trades and master of none. If they were they would have to be revamped from singers to an extremely broad class programmed with entirely random yet balanced skillsets that you would have spawn into your skill tree around level 20 just like shifter forms due to varying backgrounds.

The term 'bard' is rather broad. This just happens to be CF's bard. Bard could be a celtic drummer boy, it could have been a troubador slipping his #### into chastity belts, etc.... and these are sufficiently reflected in the primary repertoire you choose at birth.

>
>By your logic we could replace bard and fiend with thief and
>steal, and the argument would be just as strong. Not so,
>because the argument is not based solely on opinion, but on
>established fantasy archetypes that are generally agreed upon.
>We know that brigands steal. I was articulating what the
>archetype of bards are, and that it is not that of an uber
>badass superkiller as fiend enables them to easily be.

Yes. But that's still all your opinion. I rather like CF bards as they are.

Plus, there is literature, however vague to you, of people doing exactly just as many destructive and illusory things with songs. Glance over a review or Youtube of Reyvateil in an Ar Tonelico game. Those bitches have even more restrictive game mechanics than bards in CF but they can be just as destructive and illusory.

>
>What I say is based on indefinite facts, so it is some fact
>and some opinion, I suspect more factual for those who are of
>a creative bent.
>It is indirectly related to game balance because game balance
>takes into consideration type of power and power level, and
>what I say is speaking to type of power (maybe a bit to power
>level).
>
>If Grand Nocturne was changed, obviously there would have to
>be a suitable replacement in line with bardic nature. If that
>means an absolute decrease in power, so be it.
>
>Yes, Grand Nocturne is your worst nightmare. It is not a demon
>that is summoned from the depths to claw up your body in
>physical combat, follow you around trading blows and kill you.

What the ####ing hell do you think Power Word Kill is? Fatigue?

Newsflash: They're mental attacks. Guess what they also do? They kill.

The bard is making you believe you're dead, this is why your corpse has a look of horror on it's face while it's untouched. Power Word Kill works exactly the same way, you're ordered to die, against your sense of self-preservation, with overwhelming negative energy.

>
>I never said I didn't want bards to be deadly, I like bards. I
>don't want them to be deadly in the *way* they are. But they
>probably could use a toning down in overall power level too.

FYI it's only in the extremely recent years a signifigant portion of the playerbase has figured out how to use bards remotely competently. Prior to that the most deadly bards were consistently elven bards in Fortress and that's not saying much.

>I want them to be changed because I want to enjoy the game
>more, that is a fact, not an opinion.

Fiend is the last thing I'm worried about fighting a bard. In fact, most of their crap can't kill you unless they curse you with a scroll. For them to consistently land a kill on you they have to damage you first and then sing it, unless you're a dumb character and dumb characters don't as a whole actually have all that many weaknesses last I checked.

And that desire is based
>largely on the indefinite consensual facts of "what is
>fantasy".

I'll say it again: Too broad, too unspecific, not a good basis for a change, class revamp or rebalancing.

So bards should not be looked at because that might
>mean we have to look at other classes for creative integrity?
>That doesn't make much sense. The bard is the most glaring
>example of a lack of creative integrity, to the degree that,
>by the same standards, a change may be desireable for the bard
>but not worth the effort on other examples.

Then you my friend need to find a new game, bottom line.


Bard Repertoire Clarifications:
http://forums.carrionfields.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=6&topic_id=23735&mesg_id=23735&page=

Two things.

First, bards are not "mystical" minstrels. Songs are *not* magic, and bards can do no magic of their own. No spells, no casting. Yes, they can use some mechanical magic, but so can everyone to some extent. This is important because bard songs, and thus being vulnerable or resistant to them, is entirely non-magic related.

Second, I'm fine with how bards are for the most part. Fiend included. My point is that ragers should be like everyone else in this particular regard, and able to fight bards in the same was, using resist_mental. Having at least some access to resist mental would just put the rager on the same footing as the rest of the playerbase, and as bard songs are not magic, there's no reason for them not to be.

In short, not looking to change bards, rather looking to give ragers what they should already have, the ability to use resist mental, a non-magical set of abilities.

I don't think that logic really holds for me.

Let's take the shaman's earthquake commune. It's not magic. Most characters can get immunity to it (fly potion, etc.). Some Battle are already have this racially. (Some Battle are racially immune or near-immune to grand nocturne.) Battle that don't have this ability naturally probably can't get it. (Like Resist Mental.)

Or let's take a druid's primordial vengeance. Not magical, but most PCs have a way of fixing it (help from a healer out in the wilderness) that most Battle don't (their cabal healer isn't in wilderness)

We really could list all day things that Battle doesn't have a good answer for or doesn't have the "standard" answer for that aren't magic -- that's part of being Battle.

Quote: "First, bards are not "mystical" minstrels. Songs are *not* magic, and bards can do no magic of their own. No spells, no casting. Yes, they can use some mechanical magic, but so can everyone to some extent. This is important because bard songs, and thus being vulnerable or resistant to them, is entirely non-magic related."


This is exactly why Ragers SHOULDN'T have an easy out against them. Ragers already have enough power without having to do anything except have the head. They don't need a boost against one class who happens to actually match up well against them, through NON-magical means.

Every time somebody pushed bards into the bardnote-poem-writing, Inn-sitting, support-only class I feel compelled to post this link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oq84WO_zubQ

Maybe your bards are not badass but some people like to play singing scoundrels or drunk brawlers.

Taking out the consideration for if resist mental or mental attacks are magical or not.

Why should a cabal full of people fuelled by irrational burning hatred have a resistance to mental attacks when by CF logic generally berserk and frenzy make you VULNERABLE to EXACTLY such an attack by disabling your logic centers?

This isn't an argument that ragers are constantly vuln_mental but rather that due to the logic above resist and svs mental as well as speed and careful planning should be plenty to kill a bard.

If ragers want to bard kill, they should be thieves or assassins or taking the appropriate legacies, not giant/duergar warriors. And arial warriors already have some pretty decent inherent protection by their int.

You have resist anyway to handle the damage, and there's no reason to nerf mental jolt or fatigue against ragers either. There has to be some kind of 'magical' affect to get around spellbane. If it's not communes, it's songs.

I don't see you posting 'they should get anti-magic shell because spellbane isn't good enough'. (with anti-magic shell being analogous to resist mental regardless of it's actual mechanics as a prep, and spellbane being svs mental gear.)

There are also assassin edges that make you resistant to this stuff under martial trance, and overcome distortion for this crap. Not to mention repertoire resistance edges. If edges didn't exist you might have a point.

Bard Repertoire Clarifications:
http://forums.carrionfields.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=6&topic_id=23735&mesg_id=23735&page=

I think non-magical save vs. mental gear would make more sense for characters who care about mental attacks.


Related to this, roughly when does save vs. mental = "resist mental?" I always imagine the save vs. mental actually helps with warding off the actual effect of a song, whereas resist mental would reduce the effect, if it should happen to land. But, somewhere along the line it seems like these two merge. I just want to know where that is.

Why should ragers only have access to save vs. mental gear and not resist mental? Or are you saying that you'd just change the whole system and take out "resist mental" for everyone? If so, well, I don't think I agree with that either, as I think it would give bards a boost they surely don't need.

>Why should ragers only have access to save vs. mental gear
>and not resist mental?

Because Battle doesn't have access to prep items in general?

I mean, there's always going to be stuff that Battle doesn't get access to and everyone else does.

"I mean, there's always going to be stuff that Battle doesn't get access to and everyone else does."

Yeah, anything magic. Which is huge. Enormous. But the idea behind it isn't "let's make life as hard for ragers as we can, and so we'll take out prepping", it's "ragers don't like magic, so logically they can't use anything magic to prep."

The thought process shouldn't be "We don't want them to be able to do most things, so we'll make them hate magic and such, and anything else that helps them."

The thought process should be (and I think it is): "They hate magic. What logically flows from that? Anything magical is shunned."

You don't need a reason for a rager (or anyone) to use something. You need a reason to take it away. And there's no reason to take away a prep for something non-magical such as mental attacks. Just like seaweed.

With spellbane and resist mental, you'd really be nerfing that class.

Technically speaking...

A priest could offer a battlerager resist mental, but Brages don't trust those godly hocus pocus powers either

-S

Well, Battle can't use pills or potions currently whether they're magic or not.

The one resist mental item I can think of that's neither seems pretty obviously magical to me.

I'm not saying a special non-pill food type like seaweed will never be created for this category, but it's not something I'm currently planning to do. I've seen a lot of cloud/fire Battle live through grand nocturne, etc., and I'm not currently convinced there's a strong balance need for something here.

This isn't about fiend, but rather fighting bards and mental attacks in general. Getting echoes and all the other songs sung successfully against you on the first try, almost all the time, is something only ragers really have to deal with, because everyone else can get resist mental. Doesn't seem right, given the change when all things being magical became split up and mental is not magical. Nocturne is just one song, and gets talked about because it's flashy. But most ragers I know get spanked by bard songs generally, even if they aren't giants. I'm just suggesting that ragers get to be like everyone else in this regard. They can defend against spells, they should be able to defend against mental attacks. Nothing special for them, just giving them the ability to get what the others have.

What about adding like a giant only resist mental helmet to the game. Kinda like magneto's helmet he uses on Professor-X, not sure if the reference hurts or helps my case...

That which does not kill us,
makes us stronger.

I'm not sold, but that does remind me of another resist mental item I'd forgotten, and by that roundabout way something else I've been meaning to post. Separate thread for that on the way.

Someone put it to me this way:

A. that ragers are already HEAVILY disadvantaged against bards, including but not limited to:

1. No recall/transportation
2. No healers
3. Bards strip ragers of ALL their powers outside the village
4. Can't gank down the bards

In light of all these, I don't think it's necessary to add yet another handicap against ragers and not let them use resist_mental. It's heavily weighed towards the bard without it.


B. I would roll up a bard to mass-kill ragers and show how lopsided it is, but then that's already been done SEVERAL TIMES.

C. It's not only about fiend, it's about all the bard songs, including but not limited to fantasia/echoes/lullaby.

I think you're approaching this all wrong.

Battle will not be given liberty to use pills or preparations. That's really not going to change. Like Daevryn, I'm not sold on letting them prepare through items. Exclude seaweed because it really isn't affecting them with regards to PK oriented preparations.

A better approach would be a "Rite" or "Test" of sorts that allows members of battle to mentally strengthen themselves. Whether this is done via an Edge, Quest skill or another means is up for debate.

This is also "just a thought."

I don't recall Bards being "THAT" difficult and I haven't watched any recent members of Battle get smashed by bards. Ghrummin did fine against them, Woldrun did "ok" and considering Berserkers, you should never really get caught with your pants down if you're using all of your cabal tools to your advantage.

I think if we are ever to see this, it won't be sold in a protected city, if its sold at all. I could see a repeatable quest to do a ritual to strengthen your mind (Obvious caveat: someone has to program it, meaning it gets put at the bottom of the idea pile). I could also see it being sold by some kind of rager-friendly herbalist somewhere that isn't a protected city for a steep price.

Why are you making it much harder for a rager to get resist_mental than for anyone else? It's clear you want it to be more difficult than for anyone else. Why? Mental is *not* magical. It should be like seaweed, perfectly fine.

Nobody is suggesting making all of the current resist mental items non-magical (though they probably could be, as a question of logic) but certainly some of them should be, and the one sold in the protected city actually makes the most sense since it would force the rager to give up a wear slot. That's more of a drawback for a rager than for anyone else, given the rager relies on equ with virtually no other preps, whereas everyone else can make up for losing a wear slot with magic or other benefits.

Putting it up for sale in a protected shop essentially gives any competent villager the ability to have resist mental 24/7 provided they can get gold. As has been said by Nep, gold solves enough problems that we don't need to add more things to that list.

Other ideas, I'm all for. While I agree the item you're thinking of does have an interesting drawback for a villager, I think different drawbacks would be more villager-y.

Lastly, I think it should be more difficult for a villager because its a work around for a weakness (which has grown considerably over the last couple of years from what I can tell) that was deliberately designed into the cabal.