Re: Re-re-rehashing spellcaster balance, or the thread formerly known as the cone debate

[Jeffrey Hantin <>]

> > In my opinion, there is sort of a dual problem with mages.  What they
> > are strong against, they dominate completely; what they are weak
> > against, they are virtually helpless to deal with.  The problem seems 
to
> > lie both in spells of mass destruction, and the proliferation of magic
> > immunity among tough (exp > 50000) monsters.

> Some people would say that this situation is great.  "Why should
> magery work in every situation?"  I like to use mages myself, because
> I think spells are great fun, but my chars are usually pretty facile
> with the sword after a reshuffling of equipment....

If that's the case, then why should fighting work in every situation?  
I understand it's considered sort of a lowest common denominator, but 
shouldn't there be as many ac -127 mobs as magic immune ones?  After 
all, almost every character develops wizardry as well as physique.

> > orcs and goblins with holy word, then switch.  Valriel used to be nigh
> > impossible to start a cleric on (ever tried to pound a demon to death
> > with holy word at wisdom level 1?  how often do you find a lone
> > demon?), until undead became a general target of holy power, at which

> Actually, I put in some maps which should make it unnecessary for
> Valriel's spells to work on Undead anymore.  Valriel's followers can
> go beat up on imps.  There are two or three maps now with imps in
> them.

Of course, Valriel's following is deficient in another manner.  
Enemy-race demon is handy, respectable avatar, but (Attuned: 
Protection) just doesn't pay, since 'defense' only grants protections, 
and at level 40, protections are easy to come by (did someone say ring 
of Elements?).

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To submit a bug: http://bugzilla.real-time.com
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: 

> For additional commands, e-mail: