quote:

---

Original post by xMcBaiNx
yeah... but an area spell that looks like a ligthning bolt won''t work, unless there''s some energy wave that goes out

---

Yeah, you would need to draw different effects depending on the area of effect/number of targets, but that should be really easy. For lighting you would just draw 1 bolt to each target, for a fireball you would need 2 cases: (1)if there are multiple targets(as I did in my first example), shoot multiple balls (2) if it is an AOE, draw a big fireball with a particle explosion or somesuch.

quote:

---

Original post by ShiNoDebiru
Abjuration [Abjurer]: specializes in spells that protect, banish, or block.

Enchantement [Enchanter]: Imbues the recipient with some property, or grant the caster power over another being.

Evocation [Evoker]: Spells that manipulate energy or create something from nothing.

Illusion [Illusionist]: Spells that alter perception or create false images.

Necromancy [Necromancer]: Spells that manipulate, create, or destroy life or life force.

Summoning [Summoner]: Spells that summon a being or item from another area.

---

Copied straight out of the AD&D Player''s Handbook. You forgot Divination and Alteration.

It seems so - but, then again, who would want to be a diviner? Adn alteration could be handled by another group(s)

Regarding the actual construction system, you could implement a time limit constraint on the construction of the spell. Like as soon as you connect two runes together, a timer begins and when it is over the spell is activated. Wizards of higher level have more time to construct their spells, and hence can make more powerful spells if need be.


But i don''t really play rpg''s too much, so just ignore me

I don't like the time element. It would allow players with better typing/controlling skills to make their characters more dangerous, and isn't that what role-playing is supposed to minimize?

I'd rather see higher level characters be able to string more runes, or to force less compatible runes into more volatile combinations. Maybe the more powerful spells would involve contrasting components that are disinclined to work together, so that the skill would be in the mastery of the runes, rather than in the ability to complicate spells. Anyone can try to cast a Huge Goblin-Only-Killing Neutron Fireball Lightningstorm, but only the most powerful wizards could actually manage it with any frequency. Lesser mages would experience fizzles, or even some kind of backlash or unintended results.

After all, a dynamic system like what's taking shape here allows for slight errors and deviations to result in modified effects. How cool would it be if you tried to imbue arrows with fire magic, but wound up accidentally incinerating them? I have to think that a clumsy spell can occur just as easily as a clumsy swordstroke, so weaker mages have to avoid the Axe-Proof Psionic Armor of Thorny Vengeance spell just as knights have to hold off on the Flying, Twirling, Shoulder-Dislocating Disengage Half-Moon Eyeball Chop of Pain.

This could be done pretty simply by just having one or two of the runes used fail, and not be incorporated into the spell. For instance, the targetting rune could fizzle, leaving you with random lightning strikes, or the duration rune could crap out, giving you Blazing Hands that lasts for half a second.

[edited by - Iron Chef Carnage on April 2, 2003 11:02:56 PM]

One more thing, I'd like to avoid the temptation to make this look like a computer language. It's a good way to think about it, since the system will finally have to be converted into code, but when it's implemented, I would like it to be a little arcane and cryptic. Make it hard for players to figure out just what they're doing.

Certain spells could be learned from NPCs or books, but there should be a way to screw up the syntax of the "sentence". If you get them in the wrong order, the effect should change, and when you look back at it, you should be able to say "Damn, instead of casting 'Sword of Demon's Bane', I just sent out 'Demon's Sword of Bane', making that bad guy three times harder to kill!" Same three runes (maybe a fourth to get the possessive in there) but wildly different results.

That's a fairly abstract idea, and I doubt the system will reach a point where it becomes a design concern for a little while, but it's something to discuss, and maybe bear in mind when making future decisions.

[edited by - Iron Chef Carnage on April 2, 2003 11:11:31 PM]

Quick set of questions:
you have this spell "language":

Is this "language" finite ? Warcraft 3 has a "finite" spell language, allowing only 10 points to be allocated around 4 spells if you are maxed out.

Is the language countably infinite ?
This would in the line of D2 where you have plenty possible spells with functionially infinite points to be placed in them.

Is the language uncountably infinite ?
This would be where you create your spells from a theortically infinite string and have an infinite string of points to put in them. *looks around at the dazed expressions*

uhm...
Say you have a runes- it can be any one of a infinite combination of shapes and colors(idea: drawing runes and colouring them- different shapes and colors do differnt things)
And they can be strung together infinitly many times.
(this is all THEORETICAL now)
That would be uncountably infinite, I think.

If anybody here has taken a abstract algebra course, please feel free to weigh in and correct me.

What all that says, to me at least, is that if you have a uncountably infinite spell language, it is very powerful.
A countably finite language is not quite as powerful, and a finite langauge is alot weaker.

Think of the difference between integers and reals.
Integers just dont have some numbers like PI. So its "weaker" than the reals, which do have PI. And of course a finite set has a finite number of elements, which weakens it greatly.

My ending statement is: what would you rather play ?
A theoretically uncountably infinite spell world, or a countably infinite spell world, or a finite spell world.

The opinion I have is that being a wizard where I had acces to an uncountably infinite set of spells would be really bloody cool.

Holes in this system ?
1: Practically: nothings infinite in a computer.
2: Theres not much difference between 1.00001 and 1.00002, so fine distinctions won''t matter a humoungous amount.

I''m not sure what else would give out many problems...
Ideas ?




~V''lion

Bugle4d

Perhaps a two part process:
Spellcrafting and spellcasting.
Spellcrafting isn''t done mid-combat, you create the spell (using runes ) or learn it from a scroll.
Then in combat you cast a spell from your learned spells (an everquest-like 10slot quick-cast would probably be good).

And as for higher-levels, better spells, you could do it like this:
Limit each rune to a certain level of damage. (like say a fire 1 rune can only do up to 50 damage)
Then limit the length of spells (made by chaining runes).
So a level one mage could only do 2 runes, like:
(Projectile-Forward)->(Fire1)
At level two, you could do
(Projectile-Forward)->(Fire1)->(Earth1)
or
(Spread-Forward)->(Fire1)->(Earth1)
or
(AreaEffect)->(Poison)->(DoubleDistance)

some things you could do to prevent (Fire)(Fire)(Fire)(Fire)(Fire) (etc) from being the most powerful spell.
A. Limit a spell to a certain number of runes per type.
Like you can only have 3 fire runes in one spell. (This would be good for making specializations, like a Fire Magi could have up to 5 fire runes, or a Earth Magi could have up to 5 earth runes)
or B. Adjust the damage by how many runes of that type are in the spell
So the first Fire1 rune does 100% of its max damage. The second does 50%. The third does 25%. (and so one).

Just some ideas. If you don''t like em I''ll probably use them someday

quote:

---

Original post by Vlion
Quick set of questions:
you have this spell "language":

Is this "language" finite ? Warcraft 3 has a "finite" spell language, allowing only 10 points to be allocated around 4 spells if you are maxed out.

Is the language countably infinite ?
This would in the line of D2 where you have plenty possible spells with functionially infinite points to be placed in them.

Is the language uncountably infinite ?
This would be where you create your spells from a theortically infinite string and have an infinite string of points to put in them. *looks around at the dazed expressions*

uhm...
Say you have a runes- it can be any one of a infinite combination of shapes and colors(idea: drawing runes and colouring them- different shapes and colors do differnt things)
And they can be strung together infinitly many times.
(this is all THEORETICAL now)
That would be uncountably infinite, I think.

If anybody here has taken a abstract algebra course, please feel free to weigh in and correct me.

---

You only need two different symbols to generate an uncountable number of strings of countably infinite length (Cantor''s diagonalisation argument). A finite string from a countably infinite alphabet has countably infinite possibilities. A finite string from a finite alphabet has only finite possbilities.

For practical purposes, you only need a (large) finite set of possible spells anyway - ultimately your players will only be able to generate a finite number during the course of the game, and similarly the number of symbols they''ll be able to use is also finite - in fact, if you want them to have any sense of control over the spell creation process, you want them to keep re-using the same symbols rather than having new ones for every spell. After all, it''s generally possible to hold a perfectly good conversation without using even as many as 50 symbols...

A thought for spell appearance: why not allow players to choose the appearance of their spell - either by having a family of "appearance" runes (possibly hand-crafted by the mage to get specific images) or by allowing the player to specify directly when the spell''s created - in either case, casting the same spell twice should produce the same visuals, but remixing the spell would allow the visuals to be changed.

Another thought: wildcard runes and spell fragments - have placeholder runes that effectively say "to be specified when cast" and then have spell fragments that are essentially argument lists for wildcarded spells - with fragments potentially being compatible with more than one wildcarded spell, and obviously more than one fragment being compatible with any given wildcarded spell. Obviously, type mismatches, unused arguments or insufficient arguments would cause the same sort of problems as omitting or adding the same runes to the original spell.