Shattered Kingdoms

This is pretty straight-forward, and I'm actually very surprised that it never occurred to me earlier. If sorcerers were limited to only one charmie at a time, they would remain a very powerful class, but would suddenly not be so OP. They could no longer walk around with Lathron + Losquaty or Lathron + Waish. Melee characters would actually have a chance (still not a great one) against a sorc and would be able to stand toe-to-toe with the melee that the sorc brings to the fight. Furthermore, this change would make using charm person on PCs much less common. In order to use it offensively like that, a sorc would have to enter battle without a charmie, and this would leave him vulnerable. Lastly, this would be a step towards limiting the "NPC wars" aspect of the game. And while it's cool that there's a class that can solo almost every part of the mud, I'm not sure things should be that way.

Good idea or bad idea?

I voted yes for all the above mentioned reasons.

Having recently played an elven sorcerer I can attest to the fact that you don't need 2 charms to get stuff done in the game.

The only problem I might see with it would be in its coding. Currently charms, dominates, pets are all flagged as "charmed" and due to the fact that sorcerers can have store-bought pets and charms a new controlled NPC flag might be required to impose this sort of limit. This is all assuming that there isn't some hidden flag which can't be seen by us mere mortals.

Dulrik has artificially limited eight animates and two controls, so I don't see why this isn't possible.

I heavily favor this change; one other consideration left out is whether or not wand-charming counts against that total -- for all intents and purposes, it doesn't now -- and I don't think it should under this new imposition. In other words -- a sorcerer can only "hold" one charm.

I actually just came back to this thread because of I thought of this consideration. I agree with you that it'd be fine for a sorc to be able to zap charm on a NPC and then cast charm on someone else. This has a much more limited application than actually holding two charms. Though I don't think sorcs would need this as an option in order to remain a very strong class.

The more I think about this idea, the more in awe I am at how simple and elegant a solution it is. This change would do so much to make sorcs less god-like, but it would keep them as one of the strongest classes. The added bonus of lowering the amount of NPCs in pvp is great, too. Of all the proposed changes floating around on the threads, Dulrik, I personally think this one should take top priority. I can't see any downside to this change. If there is one, though, I'd hope someone would bring it to my attention. Everyone knows sorcs are OP, most people don't like the amount of NPCs in pvp (especially when it comes to sorcs), and it'd be very difficult to argue that this change would leave sorcs underpowered. I've played primarily sorcs, and I can assure everyone that they will more than hold their own in pvp after this change.

I'll also point out that currently only two races can hold two charms at a time -- deep-elves and humans. This change will only affect those two races, and people who like to polymorph into those two races with scrolls or wands.

Well, naturally you know I'm going to be opposed. There's a reason I chose deep-elf for my race, and it wasn't because I wanted to get murdered by 50% BoGs (Yeah, that favorite quote wasn't edited). Any real warrior PC does NOT have problems with charmies unless they're kit out with really good weapons, just on account of the fact that charmed PCs (In addition to the fact that they can be cancelled/dispelled/remove compulsion'ed/easily petrified) can't be buffed up defensively as well as NPCs, so unless they're defensive with a shield they don't last long against smart PCs.

Besides, there's approximately zero other sorcerers besides me utilizing double charm (Or charm in combat, because despite all the recent ramblings about it, casting charm in combat is NOT as good as most other options). Is it really that pertinent of a balance issue given that playing a sorcerer is such a finesse class? Without allowing for two charms, there'd be zero reason to ever play a deep-elf sorcerer unless you were just masochistic.

The poll voting options are a bit misleading, also: Sorcs don't NEED multiple charms to be viable, but if you take away the option, then you eliminate most of the reward of choosing higher INT races for sorcerers without taking away the heavy drawbacks for choosing those races.

With 25 int, you can use casted polymorph and have as much or more concentration left than any other race you might have chosen, and you'd avoid BoG. Sprites/gnomes/elves can't even cast gate while holding charm and MI, and humans don't live long and are more affected by the majority of damaging spells. I don't know how much concentration your super special spell requires, but you're able to cast that a bunch, too, while holding all necessary spells. Deep-elf might still be the best choice for sorcerer.

Honestly, Edoras, delf sorc cruxi might be the most OP combo in the game now that necros got nerfed. Don't you want things to get a little more challenging? You can't possibly think sorcs would suddenly be underpowered, or that delf sorcs in cruxi would suddenly stop wrecking faces.

So you're saying that sorcerers should be OP because if they weren't no one would play deep-elves. Biased much? If you have problems with 50% BoGs then complain about that, not the limitation of holdable charms.

I could say the same about an elf sorc (which I played recently); why would I want to get raped by iron, hellfire and FoD if I can't hold 2 charms. QQ.

Honestly, Edoras, I expected more from you. Your argument is mostly (or solely) based on the fact that you're currently playing a delf sorc.

edit: Apologies if I seem overly harsh. It wasn't my intention.

I'd go with making it impossible to order changes in stance first. That'd do a lot to bring sorcerers and ultimately necromancers in line.

wat


Elves get 24 charisma, in other words, a beastly charm save, less than a combat round order lag and spell resistance. In return they have iron weakness and negative energy weakness. Worth it? Maybe, especially if you join a trib. I played an elf sorc before Antiira, and I'd still have him shelved if I hadn't forgotten to log into him one month: I enjoyed playing him, and actually intended to join the Hammer with him and own faces.

Sprites get the same intelligence as elves, and nice charisma as well, but they're size tiny, have higher natural dex, also have spell resistance, and are annoying. Drawbacks are cold iron weakness, the same INT as elves (Not far below humans, but enough to be annoying) and being globally reviled for being a sprite. Still, the most defensive of all sorc races if you can get access to ironguard.

Halflings are essentially sprites, but one size larger, no cold iron weakness, and crappy INT. Bad choice for a sorc overall, but the most defensive if you don't have ironguard access. Half-elves are like halflings, except with a little more int as a trade-off for no magical resistance. They're probably the worst race for sorcerer, because while they're the most defensive, they trade off too much offensive power.

Humans have the most INT save deep-elves, and that comes at the price of having lower charisma than all the other classes, and no spell resistance either. Usually the best choice for balanced offense and defense.

Deep-elves have the most INT, allowing them to carry two charms at once at the cost of most any other cast spell. They also have spell resistance, faerie fire, and the same charisma as humans. Their drawbacks are the heaviest, however. In addition to only being allowed as dark-aura (and therefore reviled by all light-auras) and having the cold-iron weakness applied to them, paladins totally destroy them with a spell that casts in barely over half a combat round. The only way to avoid that spell is to polymorph (which, naturally, loses them all the other bonuses they would normally get from being a deep-elf and runs the risk of them getting dispelled and owned anyway) enchant for MR, or just risk the chance of getting tagged and owned. Deep-elves are the perfect example of the "glass cannon," trading their defenses for offensive strength. Take away their strength of multiple charms, and you kill the benefit that makes the heavy drawback of utter destruction that is BoG worth it.


Finally, I'm going to say something that a lot of people will probably disagree with.

Against skilled/prepared players, especially in larger, longer group battles, sorcerers are not that powerful. I don't want to go into details because I don't want to give away all the weaknesses of the character I'm playing.

And yes, changing stance would make the whole double charm thing a lot less dangerous anyway. While I'd rather see the AC bonus of mood defensive fixed instead of removing order stance, making stance unorderable would be the easiest fix to implement that would alleviate the "NPC wars" syndrome.

Please tell me if I've gotten your argument down correctly:
1) This change would make it so people wouldn't roll deep-elf sorcs
2) If people wouldn't roll deep-elf sorcs, then deep-elf sorcs are underpowered
3) This change would make deep-elf sorcs underpowered
4) If this change makes deep-elf sorcs underpowered, then it is a bad change
........
This is a bad change

Why the first premise is wrong:
I meant to say polymorph from a scroll or wand. Obviously it doesn't work if it's casted. My bad. But the point still stands. You know where the OP wands of polymorph are. You know where to find blank scrolls. If you really don't like being a deep-elf, just turn into that elf cruxi you seem to have wished you rolled. Neither I nor Snuffles needs a breakdown on what the benefits/drawbacks are to playing each race/class combo. I'd still say delf is the best choice against a majority of opponents, and against people with BoG you can just zap polymorph. The extra concentration is still extremely useful in many scenarios. If I were making a darkie sorc after this change, I'd go delf, and it's not because I don't understand game mechanics.


Why the second premise is wrong:
Even if elves made better sorcs than deep-elves after this change, and even if everyone rolled human/sprite/elf/gnome after the change instead of delf, that wouldn't show that delf sorcs are underpowered. They could still be (and, in fact, obviously would be) a very strong race/class combo.

And I've played sorcs. They're fine in large-scale pvp. Among other things, they get a quick-cast, low-mana, low-concentration, group-affecting blindness spell, for crying out loud.

Edoras, do you think maybe it's possible that the fact that you are playing a deep-elf sorcerer is affecting your judgement about what would be overall best for the game?

On a final note, try putting some reflex on your gear.