New Dwarf SLIST proposal

[Divebomb]

One thought about the skills, it might be neat to implement a "master" of certain styles (sword/shield, dual, 2hander) and stash those trainers in some odd location level appropriate for the dwarf to find, like perhaps a trainer in clanghammer for one skill, and maybe a trainer somewhere else for another skill, This would also be a great way to send people off to zones that might be underutilized otherwise.

It's not a bad idea, but once one person knows where they are, everyone knows where they are and it loses all mystery. I'm certainly not opposed to it, but it's not going to be a grand affect unfortunately.

My apologies on the disarm proposal, it was getting a little late (well, it's late now too) and I was trying to get an idea across. What I was trying to get across was an idea for actually being able to "resist" being disarmed, since there really isn't any way to prevent disarming except for being first to the punch.

Firm Grasp does this. The proposed "Shieldbuckler" does this as well.

As for sword/shield style, I think that giving the same hit/dam bonus that dual will get would be appropriate, with block being it's own ability also available. Logic behind this, you're only getting one weapon's worth of attacks as opposed to 2 weapons worth. The other weapon's use is sacrificed for block.

Eh, I think this debate would be revealed in playtesting. Do the combinations of each style balance or is one more powerful when you take all the skills into account.

Cause critical doesn't really have a place on the list. Flavor wise, it just doesn't seem like it belongs. (Hums the sesame street "one of these things isn't like the other tune")

It does when you think about them as priests. You don't get much more offensive priest spellish than the "cause X" spells. (yes i made up the word "spellish" )

Umm, dual wield isn't on the slist....

Heh, I can't believe nobody noticed that until now. I added it to level 10, where it currently is.

The imbue ability should check for spell_weapon as opposed to magic IMO, as I've found weapons that don't ID as magic but are spell_weapons.

"dwarf is able to imbue a magical non-spell weapon with a spell (item becomes no-drop, personalized, timed) "
Right from the description on the first page. "magical NON-SPELL weapon"

Imbued affects would be neat if they were more flavorful than just a damage spell, something with functionality like "spellcleaver" (dispel magic) seems a bit neater than "really pointy" (cause serious.) Another twist that might be interesting would be type specific effects, IE 2handers can get earthquake whereas a comparable 1hander would get a single target nuke.

I'm not opposed to any of this. Again I remind people that certain spells are cast on their targets regardless of where you want them to be case (like armor and shield). Dispel magic is a good choice, but is it too powerful? Something to be considered. There are certain spells that should never ever ever be on spell weapons (except maybe as quest prizes). Death field for instance...

[Slart]

Btw, slart, do characters get lev/8 parries & lev/8 dodges, or is it just lev/8 of the 2 together, however it feels like applying them. Right to the point, is it pointless to have redundant dodge/parry skills?

It's level/8 of the two together, but that doesn't necessarily make having both dodge and parry redundant. Having both gives you two chances to avoid each attack. Think about how often you really hit that limit once you're past, say, level 24. Trust me, having both still helps. Having a third skill would still help...even if we didn't increase the limit.

[Lairian]

Edit:

I've forgotten simple math. I retract statement.

[Teach]

Another thought about the imbue, how much damage really does cause serious do? I foresee this skill being used very little when it's limited to magic only (no elfie enchant) and then consumes the weapon (just had someone explain timed to me). Even for a roleplaying perspective a dwarf creating a weapon that is impermanent seems kinda odd.
The balance of certain spells should also be considered I agree, but the fact that dwarves have been stripped of all combat spells but cause crit, means that the casting will be done through weapons.
The use of a skill like imbue should create an advantage, but at a price. If the spell effect isn't huge, and it destroys the weapon, dwarves will stick to weapons already in the game. Especially consider the level of 40 for the first imbue: At 40 I know I'll have a pair of elfie enchanted blinding swords, and a pair of elfie enchanted flamestrike swords, and those won't go away on me.

What's the possibility of having some sort of discipline that really emphasizes the antimagic nature of a dwarf. Functionally speaking a 5 point save at level 23 or whatever level, in afterthought is kinda pointless. To put this in perspective, at level 20 5-8 points of saves isn't too hard to come across, and if I understand the save system correctly, this means that there's a fairly trivial chance for a spell to land for full against any PC. (this going on the understanding that saves go by 50% +-(level difference *5%) a 5 save is nice, but I doubt the actual usage. What may be a better alternate would be something akin to sanc, except applies to spell damage only. Or maybe a skill that applies. By level 40 I imagine it would be safe to say that the average player has at least 20 or so towards saves, (myself having a base 40 save). Any fight that a dwarf will be in at this point will plain and simply save except in the extreme roll.

(babble babble babble )

I still think a flying tackle would be good.

So, on the thought of "quest" style trainers, what's the system when it comes to trainers, do they have to be unkillable? It would be kinda neat to only be trainable until you're x many levels bigger than a certain aggro mob when it no longer attacks.

Anyway, that's my 2cp for now

Teach

[Divebomb]

Another thought about the imbue, how much damage really does cause serious do? I foresee this skill being used very little when it's limited to magic only (no elfie enchant) and then consumes the weapon (just had someone explain timed to me).

First you have to realize spell weapons always cast at the level of the player, so a level 40 cause serious does more damage than a level 15 cause serious. Spells are also free hits. Depending on how you plan your weapon masteries the best weapon for you might be an imbued magical weapon of your mastered type. It all plays in together.

Even for a roleplaying perspective a dwarf creating a weapon that is impermanent seems kinda odd.

The dwarf is forging the power of the magic resident in the weapon (hence the magical). Unfortunately, that magic is unstable when forged out and while releasing a great power in the weapon, makes it go poof after awhile.

The balance of certain spells should also be considered I agree, but the fact that dwarves have been stripped of all combat spells but cause crit, means that the casting will be done through weapons.
The use of a skill like imbue should create an advantage, but at a price. If the spell effect isn't huge, and it destroys the weapon, dwarves will stick to weapons already in the game. Especially consider the level of 40 for the first imbue: At 40 I know I'll have a pair of elfie enchanted blinding swords, and a pair of elfie enchanted flamestrike swords, and those won't go away on me.

At 40 you'll have the blinding swords... only if your mastery is in that type. Are you willing to sacrifice your weapon type for levels 1-40 in order to get those swords from level 40 to what? level 50? Again, you have to look at all the skills together, not individually. The design is based around the weapon masteries, the other skills serve to enhance that focus. Imbue may or may not be useful depending on how you play your character, but that's what makes this design so playable - the variations that are opened up to you.

I went with the defensive magics for the priest dual-classing, I thought it was more interesting that way. I threw in cause crit because even priests have to defend themselves with something. If you don't like that idea, I would rather pull cause crit than add more damage spells.

What's the possibility of having some sort of discipline that really emphasizes the antimagic nature of a dwarf. Functionally speaking a 5 point save at level 23 or whatever level, in afterthought is kinda pointless. To put this in perspective, at level 20 5-8 points of saves isn't too hard to come across, and if I understand the save system correctly, this means that there's a fairly trivial chance for a spell to land for full against any PC. (this going on the understanding that saves go by 50% +-(level difference *5%) a 5 save is nice, but I doubt the actual usage. What may be a better alternate would be something akin to sanc, except applies to spell damage only. Or maybe a skill that applies. By level 40 I imagine it would be safe to say that the average player has at least 20 or so towards saves, (myself having a base 40 save). Any fight that a dwarf will be in at this point will plain and simply save except in the extreme roll.

It's a free ability that costs the dwarf absolutely nothing, gains him something, and merely requires setting up a trigger or typing the command every X level. (Think about "hover"). No, 5svs isn't a big deal, but when it's free, are you going to NOT use it because it doesn't rock your world?

I still think a flying tackle would be good.

Bodyslam is pretty close.

So, on the thought of "quest" style trainers, what's the system when it comes to trainers, do they have to be unkillable?

Yes

It would be kinda neat to only be trainable until you're x many levels bigger than a certain aggro mob when it no longer attacks.

Didn't really understand that part...

[Everybody]

It would be kinda neat to only be trainable until you're x many levels bigger than a certain aggro mob when it no longer attacks.

If I'm right, he's saying that it'd be neat to be able to only train at a mob once it's no longer aggro to you, i.e. when you would then no longer have to worry about dying to it. Although aggro trainers would be interesting to include for their own sake.... If it worked out, you could limit when people could access certain "special" skills by making all the trainers of those skills a certain level and aggro. Which is, of course, hard to enforce, when areas are going in.