This is an idea I've had since bards first were introduced, and we've just started fleshing out the design. However, I assume this is going to be a controversial change so I wanted to alert you to it and give you an idea on the direction where we're going. This is not set in stone, though I'm fairly sure we're going to do it. We are seriously considering allowing bards to take alchemy and enchantment, irregardless of whether they are in communes or cities (though they would still need to meet the low magic/high magic prerequisite). This would not mean they would get a clone of the skillsets, however.

For example, enchantments for bards would be different (perhaps enchantment would be split into specializations) insofar as they would (obviously) not be able to enchant cosmic or elemental spells, nor have some of the other specialized enchantments like being able to enchant statues, paintings or magicrowns. They would however, be able to enchant special music boxes and horns/trumpets/pipes.

Likewise, bards with alchemy would not be able to use all the potions that nature alchemists would use (perhaps through branching alchemy into specializations). Bard alchemists probably would not be able to do purgatives, element potions, vitae, philosopher's stone, etc. However, they would be able to brew certain magical teas and possibly magical ales.

Obviously, this would have a big impact, so please let us know your comments and concerns!

This sounds neat and useful. If they have the basics of each, then there's the possiblilty of commune vs. city conflict.

What would the new magical items (ales, teas, music boxes) do? Just as a hint? Similar effects or totally new ones?

This sounds like a big change.


I like change. LET'S DO IT.

Well, this sounds interesting (especially having done the switch from a Low Magic to a High Magic bard for a change and new experience in the game) and would possibly clear up some dependability of communes and cities from one another. I'm just curious as to these specializations and how they'll develop to differ from Cosmic/Elemental enchanting and Natural Alchemy. Wonder how much it is to get an enchanting circle in the commune.

I'm not particularly fond of this idea. Actually, I don't like it at all. From an alchemist's point of view, it's essentially taking something unique to those guilds that take Nature as a skillset and splitting it up. We essentiallyIt'd take away that uniqueness between forests and cities, since I'm guessing if bards are getting alchemy, that means alembics will be stuck into the cities too and pentagrams shoved somewhere into a commune. I dunno, pentagrams always had that city/highmagic feel, and for a forest, it just seems like it'd be bordering on/would be offending someone by having it there. Unless we're trying to make cities and communes the same, I'd like to keep that uniqueness between them. Sure, it'd open up more possibilities for city vs commune conflict, but that conflict was always there, you can blame the players for not acting on it.

me likey

First question, do these magical drinks and such work the same as in SIP 'curative' or will systems need major major updates?

I am against this idea as this removes one of the unique aspects and makes bards able to have any trade but maybe forging. Variety is where most of trade stems from, but this would just make bards cover most everything anyone needs.

I bet if they called the skill 'Notenchantment' and 'Notalchemy' but contained the exact same abilities and ideas listed, most of the complaints would vanish.

Well, the first question is, why do we need this? The answer is we dont, with kegs and cube, there's an easy supply of enchantment and refills, there's no problem with the communes or cities waging war on eachother, what about the RP, Alchemy is Nature and Lowmagic, not just lowmagic, and Enchantment is Cosmic Elemental and Highmagic, last time I checked the cities dont go around worshipping Faethorn, and the communes wheren't too hot on Cosmic and Elemental planes.

Not saying that adding in new tradeskills specific to bards to do these wouldn't be bad, just saying, they dont need to change alchemy or Enchantment. Hell, why not just combine their enchantment stuff and teamaking into a standalone tradeskill unique to bards, kind of like Forging to warriors, wont need to break anything.

Adding a new trade like glassblower or something wouldnt be bad, but yeah we dont need trade clones.

Maybe give them different name?

Concocting or something for "alchemy"

Imprinting for "enchantment

The idea is we dont like things that are in fact mostly the same skill. Teas that cure are still like alchemy. We want something new and different. But I think I will let this topic go awhile before reading it again.

Then have them not do curing, make them do buffs

Depends on how much of a 'clone' of alchemy/enchantment these skills are. I mean, I see no problem with bards getting an 'alchemy' skill that only has health, mana, bromide, antidote, and mending potions, with the rest being special teas/ales. Sounds quite interesting, really.

The problem of city dependence on communes for alchemy isn't really fixed if the bards can't make all the potions. You can't really fight without phlegmatic, for instance.

That's actually how I pictured the admin doing this. Though I still don't understand the big deal about calling it Alchemy/Enchantments. If the reasoning is based on RP, that same RP can be used to make it 'okay'.

We won't be creating new cures or enchantment-clones that have the same ability as the currently-existing ones, but with just a different syntax or name. Where shared, they will be the same potions and enchantments currently produced. The new abilities would provide entirely new effects.

I hate to be a downer and to pop in on this, but I think you should stop adding things.

Well you have told us what they won't be able to do, but nothing really about what they will be able to do. All we know is they can't do most of what Alchemy and Enchantment does, but they can makes other things. You have had this idea for over a year and are seriously considering implementing it, which means you have a pretty firm concept in your mind of what these new enchantments and teas and ales can do. Unless you share that vision with us, we can't give you a valid response to if we like the idea or not.

If it is a clone of already existing skills, I don't like it, but you said it's not a clone... so... what is it?

I will say, though, that Lusternia is already bloated with healing/afflictions. I know you are against new afflictions being put in the game and I for one am thankful for that having gone through coding and recoding of systems just to keep up with and reduce system lag. However, another set of, or two sets of, cures for afflictions is worse. Assuming they have their own balances that is at least 2 more healing queues about to enter systems and lag people out even more in high spam combat read:any combat that is not 1vs1. Even should they use existing balances, it is checks and queues and do I drink a purgative or do I watch a ballerina in a music box to cure my affliction.

If the idea is to allow more dynamic conflict between forest and city, then the solution is to allow all trade related objects (ovens, forges, alembics, pentagrams. etc.), I realize some of these are already public across the orgs, to be owned by any org, or allow "mini" versions for manses. Heck, you can even limit what is make-able in the mini versions so as not to completely nerf the unique-ness of city/commune trades.