Considering fly can be landed in combat using a wand.. May be just remove all fly wands/staves?

Some classes cannot cast fly and need fly staves and wands for certain things.

Yes, I know you can't quaff them in battle and that they are less convinient than wands/staves. So that would be a small downgrade to wand/staves users. IMHO fixing the exploit is worth it.

If a player comes up with an untraditional use for a spell/skill, why is that automatically an exploit?

If the implementors wanted to prevent fly from being used in this manner, it would really be no trouble at all to make it a trusted spell.

This pales in comparison to the old rescue exploit. It doesn't grant you command denial, it doesn't give you a certain kill, it doesn't even make it a certainty that your buffet will lag or move the character. All it does is add another minor tactic to the game. Is that such a bad thing?

I just didn't like the original idea to make "fly" a spell that requires trust, so I proposed something else. BTW, you don't even need to remove fly wands if you want to prevent that (ab)use of the spell, just add a check so that fly fails in combat, even if you use a wand to invoke it. Much like teleport.

Then fly couldn't be cast on a target in combat that *wants* it.

For example, someone being tripped to death. Watch a competent healer or transmuter for a little while and I guarantee you'll see that scenario come up.

Sure, you could as easily word the person in some of those scenarios, but sometimes you can't, and sometimes you really would rather not for various reasons.

If I agreed this was an exploit and without countertactics, which I really don't . . . I still don't think the solution would be to weaken the classes that have fly as a class ability to fix it.

>Then fly couldn't be cast on a target in combat that *wants*
>it.

The idea was not that the target of the spell must be out of combat, it was that the caster must be out of combat. If you are not fighting, you can cast fly or use fly wand on everyone you want. If you are fighting and you use a fly wand on someone, the spell fails.

>
>For example, someone being tripped to death. Watch a
>competent healer or transmuter for a little while and I
>guarantee you'll see that scenario come up.
>
>Sure, you could as easily word the person in some of those
>scenarios, but sometimes you can't, and sometimes you really
>would rather not for various reasons.
>
>If I agreed this was an exploit and without countertactics,
>which I really don't . . . I still don't think the solution
>would be to weaken the classes that have fly as a class
>ability to fix it.

Albiet to a lesser degree.

I see it like old-school assassins utilizing cure critical or the staves skill with healing staves to raise the hit points on a victim so they could assassinate. Are there any (or many) other situations where you would *not* want cure critical/heal cast on you *unless* you were strangled by an old-school assassin (after carefully reducing your hit points from full)? Not really. And yet the class was re-balanced to take this tactic into consideration - a rebalancing that actually increased the relevant tactics involved because it allowed the victim more opportunity to ward against the assassinate (lowering their hp without threat of the assassin healing them).

Likewise, allowing a saving throw against the fly spell used against you by someone who is presently fighting you may be seen much like the old assassin tweak - re-balancing a class to take a tactic into consideration - a rebalancing that will actually increase the relevant tactics involved because it will allow the victim more opportunity to ward against the buffet (by attacking first).

Anyway, I don't want to beat a dead horse. It seems like you've weighed in that the impact of an invoker using fly in this way is too remote and/or the results are not effective enough to merit allowing a saving throw. I can see that, but I also see merit in the idea, as well.

Not to blow sunshine up your ass or anything, but you've always been one of the posters that I enjoy reading and discussing with even if we don't always agree.

I don't think a saving throw on fly when cast specifically by someone fighting you would be a terrible thing. There'd still be a chance to sneak it past saves, and there'd still be a chance to slip it in before combat or with flee/return tactics.

That said, I'm not certain this is a change that needs to be made, but if it were, I wouldn't say that was wrong either.

---

I originally dreamed up Champion's Stand as a Knight cabal power back around the time we stripped Squires out, and I can't for the life of me remember why it didn't happen then. Point being, as tje "father" of that power, I think I can say pretty definitively what it's supposed to be. A very good power and a very good strategic tool, absolutely. Purely unbeatable? Probably not so much.

---

Exercise for the reader: Think about all kinds of interesting thing the invoker can do to a paladin he knows isn't flying . . .

Depending on the circumstances, for the most part I don't fear quicksand or pits too much. Then again, I've never had a ton of problems doing a drop all;flee when needed. I'd rather have to regain my preps and spare weapons than regain my entire set. I never understood why people just stand there spamming flee and lagging the #### out of themselves when all you have to do is ditch the extra weight.

There's a lot more on my list than the things you mention.

what if I'm in quicksand and I want to make myself fly? I need a wand. Is that so wrong?

Because if someone is going to use a spell/skill/whatever against you in an aggressive way, you should have a means to counter that "tactic". Was an assassin casting cure critical on an enemy to raise him to 100% health so that the assassin could assassinate an "exploit"? No, but it was an unintended use for a spell that re-balanced the class and resulted in cure critical and staves being removed.

The point is, allow the invoker continue to cast fly in the middle of combat if you want to keep the tactic in the game and give the invoker that kind of power, but at least give the victim a saving throw against a spell he absolutely does not want cast on him. In other words, make it a trust spell like metabolic slowing.

I agree completely. To me, if any spell can be used *against* the target it should be a trust-only spell. Word of recall is trustonly, namely because otherwise people could use it as an inter-thera summon by wording people to huge gangbangs...similarly, if you're going to use something agressively the game should account for this by allowing a save vs spell. If I know the last thing I want the guy to do to me is cast flight on me I'm going to try my best to resist that. Its similar to using haste staves on impaled people to get demo damage on them...I just don't like the idea of it. Its an underrepresented tactic but that doesn't mean it isn't abusable. Likewise, they said you can save against pwk'ing yourself but I sure as hell never have, even with divine saves against those level 1 pwk rejuv berries in the holy grove, I don't like the idea of being forced to quaff something my character *KNOWS* (from watching other people die to it) has a moderate chance of outright slaying you. Granted you can drop it and etc, but what if you're laggy? Then you get like a 50/50 chance of dropping dead? I just don't like it, no kill should be that easy.

Where does the "if it can be used against" limit stop? For me, it has to be something that's common enough for more to be gained than is lost. For instance, as I was trying to suggest below and Nepenthe said more clearly: It's going to be at least as common if not moreso that someone will be getting tripped to death and incredibly thankful that a nearby healer/etc. makes them fly and possibly saves their life. If you're being tripped to death, you're going to have trouble putting in trustall. Obviously, most of us don't walk around with trustall up normally. Word of recall is trust-based because it's a fairly common spell that can be used offensively in *many* situations. As well as the type you described, word could be used to pop the tank out of a raid and get other raiders beaten like red-headed stepchildren. Or in a dozen other ways that might not get people killed, but would drive people nuts. Buffet is really the only reason that fly would be vaguely offensive. Fly/Earthbind is a red herring, since it takes so many rounds and every class which can earthbind (even by wand) can also do something else that does more damage than earthbind, in less or equal time.

The idea of "anything that can be used *against* a person, no matter how underrepresented" would end up with tons more spells being trust-based. Invoker shields should be trust-based, since Marans would rather be "hurt" by fire damage than be immune. Sanctuary should be trust-based, because maybe that mage would rather put up barrier (which does have at least one advantage over sanc off the top of my head, as rare as it might come into play). Awaken should be trust-based, since it could allow the pking group to control exactly when the sleeper will wake up, and start the fight then with something that can't be used on a sleeper (eg. trip). I'm sure if you thought about it, you could think up plenty of other examples... but these will very rarely come into play, while the times when you don't have time to make yourself trustall, and need the help are much more common. And this isn't even mentioning the weaknesses that would come from someone being able to tell when you're trustall.

Oh, and as for the pwk vial... first, suggest isn't 100%. Second, you can drop the vial or do various other things to keep yourself from drinking it. If you don't resist two suggests, and if you don't manage to do something to mess them up like dropping the vial or just getting away, you're (probably) dead, sure. But there are dozens of other situations where if you're slow and/or stupid, you can die quickly. Oh look, there's an 8 person Imperial group. I'm laggy. I'm bashed to death, gangbang code or no. Damn, that sucks. Will you complain for an hour, or pick yourself up and grab new gear? That kill isn't as easy as it seems from the victim's point of view, just like it isn't as easy to get together an 8 person gang as it is to die to one when it finds you.

I agree with the sentiments within. Putting trust on every ability that could potentially be used against you would just annoy everyone. It's reserved for abilities like Metabolic Slowing that are commonly considered a double-edged sword.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

The only reason why you would cast fly on someone you're fighting is if you are going to use it aggressively.

What is the problem with allowing a player the option to have a saving throw against the fly spell if it is cast on them while in combat with the spellcaster. Not while outside of combat. Not while in combat with a 3rd person while the caster is unengaged. While in combat with the spellcaster, where the spellcaster is casting an aggressive spell on you.

The only problem I see with modifying fly in this way is that it somewhat reduces the power of Invoker buffet because it gives the victim another tactic -- attack the Invoker first. Thus, modifying fly in this way actually increases the relevant tactics, not decreases it.

I'm not talking about "trust" classification eliminating the fly spell altogether while "notrust" is utilized. I am talking about it allowing a saving throw in the one situation where it is almost certainly used aggressively. That all being said, I see your point - it's a slippery slope. You mentioning invoker shields and sanctuary, however, (1) neither of which can be cast on a person you are presently fighting, (2) the detriments of which are so attenuated that it requires a real stretch of the imagination to see how they might be used "aggressively", and (3) are class-specific spells, *not* the effect of a wand like invoker fly (leading to questions on whether invokers as a class were balanced with this consideration), lead me to believe that you do not see mine.

Just to start, I was replying to Bolderath, who *was* talking about making fly a trust-based spell. But since you're not suggesting that, we'll leave it behind.

Is there a way to make a distinction between "casting on someone I'm fighting" and "casting on someone I'm not fighting, while I'm fighting"? Because it's pretty reasonable to be in a situation where you've been attacked, but you still want an ally to be flying. Not common, sure, but really how common is it that someone "offensively" casts fly on you during combat. I think the wands were designed with such situations in mind otherwise they wouldn't be usable while fighting.

I think this is a neat tactic, and smart of the invoker. However, since this requires a wand, there are several ways to stop it once the fight is going: Lag the invoker, or blind the invoker, or if you know what he's doing you might even be able to reduce his dex before he gets the wand out of his sack. Almost every class has the ability to do at least one of these things.

As for my examples, they were the first that came to mind for me. If I or you spent time at it, we could probably find some more common examples. But to address your arguments, 1) fly can't be used during combat except when wand-based, which means the prevention methods I listed are possible where they aren't with class-based skills, and 2) does "fly/buffet" really happen that often? I can't remember it *ever* being done to me, and 3) buffet is class-specific as well, and at least as important in the tactic as the wand is. To me, having the effect need a wand is a disadvantage of the tactic, not an advantage.

I do see your point, I just don't think this tactic is as widespread or effective as you seem to suggest, nor is it unavoidable. Even if the invoker *does* get you flying - buffet on a flyer is hardly an instant kill. It's better, sure, but more often than not another spell is still probably a better choice for the invoker. The only case where it really turns a fight in my opinion is that of CS, and CS is so powerful that I don't think it loses that much by having this one tactic that can be used against it.



"I wake up and I see,
the face of the devil.
And I ask him:
'What time is it?'"
- Diamanda Galas

None of your other examples are on the same degree, besides maybe awaken. I also never thought awake should immediately whbring you to the upright position, similar to wake really, if someone wakes me up I magically and unavoidably spring to my feet? If anything, it should wake you to the resting position. As far as fireshield, being immune to anything is never a bad thing and I can never imagine someone voluntarily fireshielding a maran against fire damage. The difference between a solo poisoner and lag and an 8 person imperial gangbang is digustingly vast. First of all, the latter requires eight people and if I'm lagging badly I'm much less likely to get caught up by a roving massive gang. Its not quite the same when you can't see the person. Its not complaining, really, I simply think that if you can resist being dispelled or blinded or cursed why can't you resist flying?

As I said to Balrahd, those were the first examples that came to my mind. If you thought about it you could probably come up with more common ones.

As far as awaken goes, maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong... but the sup works how it works, I don't see that changing. It's probably related to the "wake" command which is much better bringing someone to standing than resting, for practicality purposes. If your group leader wakes you because your group is moving on or because enemies are coming, it's much better for the group if you can move with them.

As fireshield goes, how many times have you been grouped with some idiot who takes 10 minutes to realize that they're using a weapon that can't harm what you're fighting? I have plenty of times. The same type of guy easily can not see that the fire weapon they're using is healing the Maran that you're *trying to kill*. Now if you're an invoker you don't have to word the groupmate when he's still helpfully bashing away, you can flee, come back, and fireshield the Maran. This isn't going to happen often, but does that sound unbelievable to you? Is it going to be more rare than fly/buffet... probably. But is fly/buffet that common? And if we're looking for uncommon examples, where do you draw the line?

I think there's a big difference between resisting a spell like fly which is mostly beneficial, and a spell like dispel or blind which is mostly bad. I can think of situations where I'd want to be dispelled or blinded, but I still wouldn't want them to be done without a save.

Oh, and as the poisoner goes, the 8 person gangbang example is an extreme example. How about two thug thieves walking up to you and trip/cheapshotting you to death? That's much worse, really. For a poisoner to make the poison, get the vial, and make the suggestions work isn't as easy as it looks from the victim's perspective. And I don't see what you mean about lagging badly making you less likely to be caught up by a massive gang... to me it increases the chance that you won't get a chance to react and run like hell if the gang comes into the area you're in.

As far as the 8 man gang or whatever, if I'm lagging I tend to be in a more discreet place. I know they're after me, that makes them less mobile then a bunch of single guys coming after me. Unless they have a summoner (in which case, if I have good saves I still should be able to react), I have all the time in the world to word/teleport before they reach me. With the fly/buffet thing, I don't know, I see it a lot. Partially because a maran power makes it so that you are flying just about all the time, so either you don't use your powers or you are vulnerable.

As far as the 8 man gang, I was just trying to make the point that if they do catch you, you're as good as dead. If you want to be picky, two thug thieves are about as deadly as it gets for someone who doesn't fly and isn't generally in forests.

As fly/buffet goes, you seem to be misinterpreting what I'm talking about. How often do you see someone cast fly on you, in order to better buffet you?

That you cast buffet on someone because they fly is one of the *points* of buffet, and doesn't mean much to this thread. Maran having a power that makes them fly is a good thing, just as cloud giants being able to fly is a good thing. It may make them more vulnerable to buffet, but it gives benefits in many more situations. If you see people cast buffet on people who fly... so what?

necromancers and their zombies? People caught in quicksand by vokers? Groupmates of a wand/staff user?

A fly wand is materially different to a staff and to a potion. For a start, wands are more weight/charge efficient.

/Begin Rant

First of all, just to begin with... how many invokers do you really deal with? Sure, there are a bunch around, but certainly not enough to "remove half the point" of Champion's Stand. Second, Champion's Stand is incredibly good. I'd rank it among the top 5 skills/spells/sups/powers still given out in the mud not counting questie stuff.

Okay, so there's one way that comes to mind to stop it... if you allow yourself to get into quicksand or allow an invoker to cast quicksand in front of you, then allow him to get the first "attack" on you by making you fly, since it obviously can't be cast in combat. To my mind, this is not a "weakness" that is going to come into play often at all, and there're plenty of ways to avoid the situation entirely or prevent the fly. Now, if he has arcane backup, it could be unpleasant... but that pair (prepped) would be fairly lethal for almost any solo character in the game.

If they figure out a way to kill you, good for them. It wouldn't have been my first idea, and you've probably given a new tactic to a few invokers. If you know what they can (and probably intend to) do to you, and you don't prevent it/get out, the blame is squarely on you, not your Virtue. Champion's Stand is great, but don't get so dependant on it that you don't know what to do if someone finds a difficult way around it. Be thankful for all the insanity that it already does, without preventing this one rare "weakness".

/End Rant


"If I had wings,
Would I be forgiving?
If I had horns,
Would there be flames to shy my smile?"
- Dark Tranquility

Likewise, I think considering the fact that flight is supposed to be a benefiticial spell, I shouldn't have to earthbind myself to prevent it, at least you can save against buoyancy. I don't consider it a flaw in the virtue, because the idea is that if you _choose_ to fly, then you _choose_ to deal with the penalties of flight. My problem is that you really can't choose.

Not really, evildoers are not bound to solo fights so when I retrieve or defend you can tend to believe there will be an invoker around and unfortunately, a transmuter as well. By the way there's at least three other ways to accomplish the exact same thing, all reliant on the fact that you won't hold still while flying. That combined with flying people and then earthbinding them (to prevent them from flying after fleeing, or to get some extra damage) or flying people then buffetting them, I think flight itself should be one of those spells that you have to trust someone to put on you. I'm not overreacting or giving any tactics away, I simply think considering the mana cost and inability to recast CS that you shouldn't be so succeptable to being thrown around. Buoyancy comes to mind as well.

Evildoers aren't bound to solo fights, sure. Neither are goodies, including most paladins. On the other hand, CS completely screws solo warriors trying to fight paladins, among others. If there's usually an invoker and a transmuter around and opposed to you anytime you're involved in a raid, you have bad timing. Neither is all that common (though with all the insane love they're getting, trannies are getting there). In truth, I'd be inclined to say that it's more likely an evil will be opposed by a paladin.

However, that isn't the point. The point is that I expect the Imms believe the times when fly is semi-offensive are uncommon enough to make it not worth the pain that would be taken by it requiring trust. By your logic, invoker shields should require trust, because a fireshield would prevent a Maran from healing from fire damage... but the loss for people who couldn't get shields from an ally nearby without having trustall up would piss off alot more people than the rare Maran who gets annoyed at not healing.

CS has so many advantages, I don't think it needs to be "tweaked" any further. Enjoy having such a sickly good power, instead of being disappointed by the few ways to get around it.


"Freedom's just another word for
nothing left to lose"
- Janis Joplin

Fair enough, I agree it is very good. I disagree that its 'sickly good' or that it screws warriors, in truth I approach combat from a different standpoint though.

If the only way you can land kills as a warrior is through lag or permalag (permalag requires ganging, so shame on that individual), then that's lack of versatility on your part. Bleed out paladins, break their weapons, make them drop their weapons, or just outright take a pace in another direction. If they follow, they're not in a champion's stand. Not that tough really.

Even as a duergar warrior, there are dozens of things you can do besides cranial, pincer, or bash to kill a paladin. Depending on virtues, I've never really found paladin's all too scary. Every virtue has a downside and they have no real means of permalagging you. Plus, you can count on fighting them in every raid which makes planning easier. If you've ever played a paladin you know how best to beat them, as a warrior or as anything else.

Let's define perma-lag as command denial long enough to kill the person - under the right conditions trip/cheapshot, bash, neuro, a necromancer with a ghoul, fear poision, just to name a few off the top of my head could do the trick. Furthermore, while there might be a dozen ways to kill a paladin, one of the surest ways as a warrior is to make sure the paladin doesn't get a single command in before they are dead. How to contrive that situation either as part of a gang or solo is left to the reader.

>then allow him to get the
>first "attack" on you by making you fly, since it obviously
>can't be cast in combat. To my mind, this is not a "weakness"
>that is going to come into play often at all, and there're
>plenty of ways to avoid the situation entirely or prevent the
>fly.


An invoker can fly the paladin in the middle of a fight (edited):


*** BEGIN SNIP ***
441hp 273m 683mv 31500tnl>
Aginal parries your searing light.
Your searing light wounds Aginal.
Sparks fly as a beautiful silver claymore named 'Hope' strikes Aginal's shield of electricity.
Aginal fades into existence.
Aginal's burning touch devastates you!
Aginal has some small but disgusting cuts.

<411hp 273m 683mv 31500tnl>
Aginal gets a "special wand" from the girdle of endless space.
Aginal has some small but disgusting cuts.

...

<528hp 233m 683mv 31500tnl>

Aginal stops using the cube of force.
Aginal holds a "special wand" in his hands.
Aginal has some small but disgusting cuts.

<528hp 233m 683mv 31500tnl>
Aginal zaps you with a "special wand".
Your feet rise off the ground.
Aginal has some small but disgusting cuts.

...

<564hp 217m 734mv 31500tnl>
Aginal utters the words, 'bjyyzh'.
Aginal buffets you with a controlled blast of air!
Aginal's blast of air sends you flying!
On the Docks


A dockworker is busily moving cargo to and from the docking ships.
A dockworker is busily moving cargo to and from the docking ships.
You flee from combat!
Aginal's buffeting ANNIHILATES <<< you!
That really did HURT!

*** END SNIP ***


Personally, I thought that was a bit screwy when I first saw it, as well. And an invoker being able to "cast" fly in the middle of combat is in no way effective solely against paladins with champions stand. It gives an automatic "vuln" against storm giants, for example.