Exclude

[Anathema]

I know people dont want to hear anymore shaman ideas, so I will make this short.

75 mana is a ridiculous amount to spend on this spell, especially when compared to say heal and sanct.

Additionally, I cant get the spell to over average skill level, so I literally have sat there casting it like 6 times to get it to work, at which time I dont have the mana to fight the mob I wanted to kill.

Oh yea, the spell also doesnt last very long.

Is there any way to make the cost, skill level and duration similar to say sanct? I mean its a cool spell, but it only gets used in those rare circumstances where you need to kill a dragon.

Shuger

[Anonymous Mammal]

Oh yea, the spell also doesnt last very long.I don't know if it's due to the recent changes or not, but my memory tells me that exclude lasts longer now than it had in previous years. It certainly lasts long enough to kill whatever it is that gave you the reason to cast it to begin with. I can't recall what my exclude's skill level is at, but I don't have many failed castings.

And as you stated in another thread, the bonus given by max int increases your max mana, so what's another 75 mana?

[Anathema]

I don't know if it's due to the recent changes or not, but my memory tells me that exclude lasts longer now than it had in previous years. It certainly lasts long enough to kill whatever it is that gave you the reason to cast it to begin with. I can't recall what my exclude's skill level is at, but I don't have many failed castings.

And as you stated in another thread, the bonus given by max int increases your max mana, so what's another 75 mana?

75 mana makes it more expensive than sanct or heal or silence or quiet... thats the point.

And I am glad that you dont fail that often. Apparently your shaman is more skilled than mine (of course I dont know who that is). If you fail once or twice it is actually a bit of mana. And fighting mobs requires more mana than fighting pcs, as mobs have more than 400-500 hps.

[Anonymous Mammal]

75 mana makes it more expensive than sanct or heal or silence or quiet... thats the point.The point really is that exclude is NOT sanctuary, heal, silence or quiet. It is a completely different spell that has a completely different effect. I think that the mana cost weighed against its affects are justified.

And fighting mobs requires more mana than fighting pcs, as mobs have more than 400-500 hps. An average shaman has what? 300-350 or more mana?
Rift costs 15 mana and does an average of 100 points of damage (give or take).
Exclude costs 75 mana.
Average shaman mana (350ish) would allow for 1 exclude and at least 18 rifts. That equals out to an average of 1800 points of damage. Toss in damage done by regular swings (even for a single classed shaman) and you could easily do over 2000 points of damage in the course of 18 rounds it would take you to cast all 18 rifts.

Granted, this does not take into account things such as sanctuary or protection spells on the opponent, but that's what fetishes are for.

[Anathema]

The point really is that exclude is NOT sanctuary, heal, silence or quiet. It is a completely different spell that has a completely different effect. I think that the mana cost weighed against its affects are justified.

An average shaman has what? 300-350 or more mana?
Rift costs 15 mana and does an average of 100 points of damage (give or take).
Exclude costs 75 mana.
Average shaman mana (350ish) would allow for 1 exclude and at least 18 rifts. That equals out to an average of 1800 points of damage. Toss in damage done by regular swings (even for a single classed shaman) and you could easily do over 2000 points of damage in the course of 18 rounds it would take you to cast all 18 rifts.

Granted, this does not take into account things such as sanctuary or protection spells on the opponent, but that's what fetishes are for.

Good point, sanctuary, heal, silence and similar spells are more useful. Again your assumption is based on not failing Exclude 5-6 times.

[Anonymous Mammal]

Good point, sanctuary, heal, silence and similar spells are more useful.They may have more uses, but are not necessarily more useful.
Again your assumption is based on not failing Exclude 5-6 times.True, but if you fail that many times in a row, you still could regen your mana either by sleeping or meditate (if you care to take that chance) and recover your lost mana before you even begin the fight. And if you don't have that option, you'll probably be inclined to not fight.

Exclude is a very cool spell. It's not easily obtained by non-shamans as it doesn't pop on random potions, wands, staves, scrolls, relics or even fetishes. Spell crystals, perhaps, but those are not that easy to obtain. Exclude on spheres is only limited by the amount of shamans imprinting the spheres.

To summarize: I just don't think there's anything wrong with exclude as it is.

[pitt]

As far as I'm aware, exclude is the only spell that is not practicable to superb, or at least better than mediocre. Is there any real balancing reason to have it like this? It is certainly irritating when you lose concentration so many times you have to sleep for 10 ticks just to regen the mana before you start the fight you were anticipating. Makes it a real clincher in mobmastery, at least..

Anyways, I can't really see how being able to practice it to superb would be any kind of a problem. Also I tend to agree that the duration is a little short.. Sanc duration would be fine though ::whistle::

75 mana cost is the smallest issue, IMHO!

[Anathema]

As far as I'm aware, exclude is the only spell that is not practicable to superb, or at least better than mediocre. Is there any real balancing reason to have it like this? It is certainly irritating when you lose concentration so many times you have to sleep for 10 ticks just to regen the mana before you start the fight you were anticipating. Makes it a real clincher in mobmastery, at least..

Anyways, I can't really see how being able to practice it to superb would be any kind of a problem. Also I tend to agree that the duration is a little short.. Sanc duration would be fine though ::whistle::

75 mana cost is the smallest issue, IMHO!

I was just voicing all of the concerns. I agree Pitt that if we didnt fail so much 75 wouldnt be a problem. Apparently AM has a shaman bigger than your 50 and my 45+ that never seems to fail. I fail all of the time with max int and wis for what that is worth.

Also, I dont think it is like those other spells, just trying to find basis of comparison.

[Anonymous Mammal]

No, I do fail it from time to time. It's just not as often as you make it seem. I fail naturalize about as much as you seem to fail exclude if that makes it any better. :)

[pitt]

I have far from max int and wis!

Speaking of which, if you'll indulge me on a bit of a tangent, thanks Tynian for your clarifying note about rift strength depending on both int and wis. I was really confused why my thunderclap seemed better but my rift definitely worse. I might need some trains (;)) but it's good to know I can fix it.

[Belsambar]

They may have more uses, but are not necessarily more useful.
True, but if you fail that many times in a row, you still could regen your mana either by sleeping or meditate (if you care to take that chance) and recover your lost mana before you even begin the fight. And if you don't have that option, you'll probably be inclined to not fight.

Exclude is a very cool spell. It's not easily obtained by non-shamans as it doesn't pop on random potions, wands, staves, scrolls, relics or even fetishes. Spell crystals, perhaps, but those are not that easy to obtain. Exclude on spheres is only limited by the amount of shamans imprinting the spheres.

To summarize: I just don't think there's anything wrong with exclude as it is.


Actually, there's a limited fetish that's exclude but fetishes were neutred so it's still self only. Oh well.

[Anonymous Mammal]

Actually, there's a limited fetish that's exclude but fetishes were neutred so it's still self only.Yeah, I know about that one. It pops in Riverdale Plantation. But my point was that it doesn't pop on RANDOM items. And yeah, it kinda sucks that fetishes like that are self-only casting, otherwise they could be a bit more useful.

[Grale]

Exclude it's a unique spell, with a unique effect that is purpose-driven. If it costs a lot and fails often, so be it. Personally I'm jealous that shaman's have it at all, especially give that it doesn't pop on random scrolls, wands, staves, etc. Unless I have a friendly shaman make me a sphere for it, I have no access to it at all.

If it costs 75 mana, so be it. Do you have any idea how much mana portal costs (to use an example)? If I've just been in a bad fight, used up a pile of mana, and I need to get out of a zone in a hurry, I may not have the 90-100 mana I need to portal out of there... or even more if I've got a friend along. Portal also fails an awful lot until you get to a very high level, so that factors in as well.

My point is just that unique spells cost a lot of mana, and that's the price we pay for a skill no one else can use - portal and exclude included. I don't think there is any real reason to change this.

Cheers,

Grale

[Anathema]

Exclude it's a unique spell, with a unique effect that is purpose-driven. If it costs a lot and fails often, so be it. Personally I'm jealous that shaman's have it at all, especially give that it doesn't pop on random scrolls, wands, staves, etc. Unless I have a friendly shaman make me a sphere for it, I have no access to it at all.

If it costs 75 mana, so be it. Do you have any idea how much mana portal costs (to use an example)? If I've just been in a bad fight, used up a pile of mana, and I need to get out of a zone in a hurry, I may not have the 90-100 mana I need to portal out of there... or even more if I've got a friend along. Portal also fails an awful lot until you get to a very high level, so that factors in as well.

My point is just that unique spells cost a lot of mana, and that's the price we pay for a skill no one else can use - portal and exclude included. I don't think there is any real reason to change this.

Cheers,

Grale

No doubt you do not fail portal as often as I fail exclude. I agree with Pitt, if you are going to make it so expensive we should at least be able to practice it to a decent level.

Yes, it is a cool and different spell, but it has limited use and because of the high fail rate and high cost, its not the kind of spell that you can keep up often.

[Sarai]

No doubt you do not fail portal as often as I fail exclude.

Exclude doesn't stick you on 3rd floor masters from time to time. Portal fails in a different way, it's not so much failing the casting, but the spell going wrong.

I don't see comparing exclude with portal tho. And frankly, I don't see why it couldn't be practiced higher. A spell like sanc or heal will be practiced thousands of times in the course of levelling a character, and I think it starts higher as well. Exclude is that spell you use a few times here and there. I doubt it would make shaman too powerful if that spell worked more often then it failed.

[Anathema]

I agree- I didnt choose portal as the basis of comparison.

And actually, your portal stuck me in Demon Realm, not masters:p