Alchemy and Enchantment for Bards

by Estarra

Back to Common Grounds.

Unknown2008-05-27 02:37:49
If we're making the spec, why not just make it a skillset by itself, and dont bother changing Alchemy or Enchantment, I dont see how that would be any harder, if you make NotEnchantments with new skills and effects, and maybe a few carry overs from Enchantment, and NotAlchemy with like health, mana, bromide, mending, and new skills. Make them not use the alembic or pentagram but something else, like a Music Circle or something inside the bards GH.
Druken2008-05-27 02:37:53
I think this sounds neat. Obviously, Estarra wouldn't spring something this huge on Lusternia without also giving us the option of tweaking it (or, if we really hate it, removing it altogether).

I say bring it on!
Munsia2008-05-27 02:39:15
The option of removing it won't be given. I can 90% Guarentee that!
Unknown2008-05-27 02:43:53
QUOTE(Malarious @ May 26 2008, 09:05 PM) 515492
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.

Aren't Bards supposed to be some kind of Jack of all trades?
QUOTE(Salvation @ May 26 2008, 09:15 PM) 515500
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.

Agree 100%
Rauros2008-05-27 02:46:36
I approve this idea. Bring on the bard alchemists!
Everiine2008-05-27 02:55:33
I see no reason to open up enchantments to Forests and Alchemy to cities. Both have done fine and found ways around that part of the game. I'm against that which tries to devalue the uniqueness of cities and forests.
Munsia2008-05-27 03:04:01
This is merely a stage in the direction that the admin are trying to do to make the cities and forests unite against each other. Then again, Lusternia lost it's big fun a couple years ago.
Malarious2008-05-27 03:07:23
I never thought I would have to say Munsia might be right.

Lets fix what we got and make sure everythings all peachy before we add new stuff.

We have a broken class, some bards who want to change their focus, and a slew of minor problems on top of it.
Urazial2008-05-27 03:08:19
I don't see how a trade really enriches a city or commune, to be honest. There is no real need for one org to exchange anything with another org as it is now excluding alchemical and enchanted items. When Urazial looks at a vial of say, choleric, he doesn't get all misty eyed and think about Glomdoring. I can't imagine someone getting all stoked and patriotic about the latest acquisitio enchantment picked up either.

While I'm not fond of new trades which deviate from traditional alchemy and enchanting, I think this idea would open up new dynamics. As it is, only two guilds in Glom are required to have Nature/lowmagic, with the rest free to choose as they like. Since that is the similarly the case in the other three orgs (with the appropriate skills, of course) I would have to say that a trade really doesn't add much to the culture of any org. If it's a matter of competition, well, welcome to the joy of tailoring, bookbinding, artisanry, jewelry, and cooking.
Unknown2008-05-27 03:10:21
I think the main concern of people is that adding in something that has always been city based into the communes is demeaning, and likewise to the cities getting something that's always been commune based. But I dont think anyone really dislikes the idea of a bard getting a new tradeskill(s).

Wouldn't it be easier to make bards the option of taking a base tradeskill, call it NotAlchemybutNotEnchantment, with a few skills, like maybe health and mana from alchemy, and like disenchant, and a few sigils from enchantment, with some new ones, and then have it spec into Teabagging and MoreNotEnchantment?
Xavius2008-05-27 03:15:38
Cooks have wanted tea longer than cities have wanted alchemy! No giving it to them first. They can have tonics and poultices. tongue.gif

Definitely approve of the concept, but as they've posted above, you've mostly said what they won't do, and not a lot on what you intend for them to be able to do. Flavorwise, great, make health potions and regen enchants more readily available, but what's in the works for the rest of the skillset?
Xiel2008-05-27 03:16:54
^I'm up for what Tenqual said up there too. Go go bard things.
Unknown2008-05-27 03:18:15
Cooking already works fine, and I dont know how the admins want it to go, else I could probably post what I think would be good for the specs. There's very little information released on what they're like, besides them being alchemy and enchantment based.
Eventru2008-05-27 03:28:44
Just as Estarra said, it's only being drawn up now - so it's not exactly set in stone what everyone gets, so it's hard for anyone to say really.

If you have suggestions, though, for unique teas or enchanted musicbox ideas, that fall in the realm of bard enchantment/alchemy, I'm sure someone will listen! biggrin.gif
Gregori2008-05-27 03:29:15
My big issue with this is people seem to be looking at one side of the coin and not the other. Most people posting do not write their own healing systems, yet they all complain on clans about how their bought healing system lags in mass combat spam, breaks, does not perform in certain circumstances, then they dance and say "Yay!" for something that will undoubtedly aggravate the issue they complain about, just so they can have more dynamic conflict, which can be achieved without making Lusternia more bloated than a Windows XP installation. /runon sentence

The average player should not be required to own a top of the line computer system in order to compete in a text based game.
Shiri2008-05-27 03:33:50
QUOTE(Estarra @ May 27 2008, 02:16 AM) 515474
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!


I like the idea in principle. Two concerns, though, one of which you should be able to address.
1. I hope monks will get something to make them useful/stand out too! But I guess that's a long-term thing.
2. Why would they not be able to do many of the things the other side does? Vitae I can believe, but purgatives are important. So are cosmic/elemental spells (which are most of it, and people already need to find enchanters to get these - they're not cubable on 1 charge.) I don't see the point of half-arsing this. Either we're trying to fix the awkwardness that keeps org dynamics as they are now or we're not. If we are, we need to do it properly and let each org be able to make things people need. If we're not I don't see the point of this.
Unknown2008-05-27 03:54:21
My personal opinion...

... give the bards something, but NOT this.

Maybe give them the ability to apply potions and enchantments to food or something, but, not an alchemy-like or enchantment-like skill.

The reasoning?

It makes the orgs rely on each other. It encourages roleplay, for people backstabbing their cities and communes to sell potions and enchantments to enemies.

Don't take away what makes cities Cities and communes Communes, please.

/end comment
Evette2008-05-27 04:42:46
ok, I only skimmed what everyone else has said, so if I repeat anything, forgive me.


I like the idea because as of right now... There are not nearly enough alchemests around to fill the basin's need to potions. I have to look for at least 3 IRL Days for one, unless I catch Kundu while.. omg he is online. As far as enchanters go, when I need one, tell telperion are you here, are you busy. Although this might be because I am from Celest and a bit byest, but it was the same while I was in Glomdoring.
I don't like it because this will add further stress to the city vs forest war that everyone but me is craving apperlantly. While it would be nice for a commune or city to be able to support itself, one needs to EXPLORE, and make friends with people within the basin that do not belong to their city. It sucks to play a game where everyone hates each other. 2. Bards? Why bards? I still feel bards, while unique, still have too many open ends and need no more extras. 3. Fix the lag, and other varous problems that people are having with Lusteria. We just finished getting monks out not too long ago.. Please, you're changing things faster then I can keep up with them. I'm tired of having to keep my head down cause I have no idea what the hell is going on. sad.gif
KThanks for hearing me out
Ashai2008-05-27 04:45:47
I like Estarra's plan a lot!
Saaga2008-05-27 10:13:33
Scheme more of these kinds of things, dear Estarra!