Forums » The Enchanter

Enchanter Charm Mechanics

    • 157 posts
    February 5, 2015 6:57 PM PST

    How should our charms work? What happens when it breaks? Buffing your charmed mob and equiping it with gear?

    • 233 posts
    February 5, 2015 9:13 PM PST

    I know at one point they talked about things like having multiple charmed creatures.

     

    I personally prefer charms that don't have a random length only because it makes them mostly useless in groups which should be most of the time.

     

    I could see maybe a random length charm that leaves the mob at 75% strength and a static duration charm that leaves the mob at 50% strength. This way if you want to be wild you get some perk but you still have something reliable to use when wild is not an option. 

    • 333 posts
    February 6, 2015 6:59 AM PST

    Personally, i don't think chanters should charm in this game.  Charm = pet and pet's should remain a magician's skill.  Remove the pets and give the chanter a little dps to offset the lack of pet.  I am raiding current content on my enchanter in EQ because the class is almost impossible to find and love playing the enchanter, but make the class the different enough that's it's uniquely pantheon's enchanter, not pantheon's version of another game's enchanter.

    • 157 posts
    February 6, 2015 7:19 AM PST

    I personally didn't do a lot of charming in EQ1. I enjoyed doing group stuff & rarely soloed. I know this is not the case for many other Enchanters, though.

    • 1012 posts
    February 6, 2015 7:24 AM PST

    To Reht's point, if enchanter's have charm, I think charm should break randomly like EQ so the Summoner (Mage?) in Pantheon is the master of the pet.  However, I also believe that the enchanter is the master of mind control, which should include mes/charm.  However, they should also not have the non-attacking Sword/Shield pet like EQ that could be a static summoned pet.

     

    To Xonth's point, a good enchanter in a solid group could maintain a charmed pet and mes in EQ, it was dangerous yes, but the benefits of having a charmed mob's damage within the group far outweighed the risks.  Especially at launch, charming in Unrest as either a Necromancer/Enchanter could seriously up the experience gain as charming a green con mob would easily outdamage any melee class.  That benefit should come with serious risk/reward consequences though.  A "skilled group" could gain experience quicker; whereas, a group who was not paying attention would have TRAIN TO ZONE!!!!  I also liked EQ's mechanics in that if a mob was green/blue to the player you had much less chance for resists and a greater chance for the charm to last longer (although it still could break instantly).

     

    Further on your point Xonth, I understand your reasoning and I could see the benefits of having a charm that lowers a mob's strength to X% but wouldn't randomly break especially in bad groups (or less than perfect formations such as a duo with no healer); however, the difficulty producing a charm like that would be scaling percentages to not create overpowered pets.   I believe it would be much more of a hassle for developers and gameplay than a benefit to enchanters.  Again, EQ as an example, if I charmed a Barbed bone skeleton in Unrest that could hit for 80ish, even at 50% damage it would be hitting for 40ish and with no risk of breaking charm, which would be majorly overpowered as no melee/pet class could come close to that type of damage until approxiately 15+ levels higher.

     

    I realize I would want the enchanter charm mechanics to basically be EQ (cloned), but for things that work, I wouldn't want to reinvent the wheel.  That does not mean though that Pantheon can't expand on other ideas to make Pantheon's enchanter unique though.

     

    • 353 posts
    February 6, 2015 7:28 AM PST

    Charms arent really my cup of tea. but that being said i dont believe in the random duration charms. now depreciating values i do believe in. if we charm or mezz a mob then the effect of the next charm or mezz whould be lowered.

    • 157 posts
    February 6, 2015 7:28 AM PST

    should taunts work on a charmed mob before the charm breaks? say i get the notification that my charm is about to fade, should the tank be able to pre agro the mob so when it breaks, it attacks the tank instead of the Enchanter?

    • 1012 posts
    February 6, 2015 7:36 AM PST
    Keiiek said:

    should taunts work on a charmed mob before the charm breaks? say i get the notification that my charm is about to fade, should the tank be able to pre agro the mob so when it breaks, it attacks the tank instead of the Enchanter?


    When I played a warrior, I enjoyed protecting the enchanter by pre-taunting mes'd mobs in EQ; however, a charmed pet would most likely be coded as a player character and be "protected" from agro generating skills/abilities/spells, so I'm not sure how you could pre-taunt a charmed mob.  If there was some way for it to be designed into Pantheon though - I would like it.  Perhaps having the message + the ability to taunt would be the compromise between randomly breaking charms and permanent charms.

    • 157 posts
    February 6, 2015 7:45 AM PST

    In EQ1, you could give a charmed mob a weapon or piece of armor using the trade window, but i dont believe you could take it back unless you killed it. Should you be able to unequip items that you gave to a mob before the charm breaks? Or should you even be able to equip your charmed mob at all?


    This post was edited by Keiiek at February 6, 2015 7:56 AM PST
    • 353 posts
    February 6, 2015 8:13 AM PST

    1. no pretaunting, tanks instead should get an instant aggro "Oh crap" button they can use for such things.

     

    2. gear up the mobs i say. it will provide me with fun to go back to newb zones and make my own bosses. a few pet toys, a couple blue diamonds, some gear... mem blur and hide. then watch when the unsuspecting Newbs see the Uber skelly with its neat looking gear mwahaha.

    • 157 posts
    February 6, 2015 8:40 AM PST
    Gawd said:

     

     

    2. gear up the mobs i say. it will provide me with fun to go back to newb zones and make my own bosses. a few pet toys, a couple blue diamonds, some gear... mem blur and hide. then watch when the unsuspecting Newbs see the Uber skelly with its neat looking gear mwahaha.

    I agree totally, but should you be able to remove that stuff as well, if you so desired?

    • 353 posts
    February 6, 2015 8:41 AM PST

    after you kill it

    • 466 posts
    February 6, 2015 9:17 AM PST

    I stil remember one occurrence in the City of Mist.

    We were 2 Enchanters in the group. One with a charmed Golem parked in camp and pulling/rooting, me with another charmed pet and emergency mezzing.

    It has been extremely wearing on the nerves because we couldn't allow 1 second going slack and unfocused.

    But God this was a massacre - the rest of the group just looked with a dropping jaw how we dispatched even pulls of 3 hardly needing anything more than  a little supporting DPS :)

     

    Even if I was not very keen on charming (unless in a group), I would be very disappointed if the Master of Glamour and Mind Manipulation was not able to bend lesser minds to do his bidding.

    • 139 posts
    February 7, 2015 5:41 PM PST

    Duration of charm should be somewhat based on mob level vs. enchanter int with some randomness involved.  When a mob breaks, the chanter should have an extremely large amount of agro (play with fire you may get burned sort of thing).  I loved charming mobs in EQ.  Vanguard a bit of the fun was lost due to mass amnesia.  It all goes back to the risk vs reward matrix for me.  Charming a very dangerous monster to do your bidding should be a very powerful weapon, that very well may cost you your life.

    • 70 posts
    February 8, 2015 1:37 AM PST

    I don't believe Enchanters should be capable of direct damage, Charm should be the only mechanism.  I agree that it should come with a load of agro.  If you started controlling my mind and making me beat the hell out of my friends, you could be sure that I'd be coming after you at my earliest opportunity heheh. 

     

    Did anyone play the Bureaucrat in Anarchy Online?  Now THAT was great Charm mechanics.  To charm anything significant, you had to build the charm up through multiple tiers of spells (programs), then you had to maintain them or if they all fell off you'd have to build up the dominance of that mind again.  I like the idea of charm not being simple as it's a powerful tool.  I don't think that the Enchanter having a charmed mob in any way diminishes other classes having pets.  If it's sufficiently challenging, not every Enchanter will take advantage of charm.. especially if they're challenged with CC..   as it was in early EQ.  I think the lull and mind wipe lines of spells will be valuable for Charm.. and the concept of mind wipe really appeals to my inner Enchanter! :)

     

    I forgot about Unrest charming!  That brings back some really great memories.  I vaguely remember charming one of the yard trash that had a unique capability that was valuable.  Good times!

    • 157 posts
    February 13, 2015 5:23 AM PST
    Jitai said:

    I don't believe Enchanters should be capable of direct damage

     

    Why should a chantie not have a direct mind attack?  If we are masters of the psionic, then would we not be abel to deliver a powerful balst of mind destructive energy?

     

    Obviously we should not be anywhere near the power of the wizard types, but it seems to me that we should have some sort of damage spells, possibly though low in power, they are nearly unresistable?  Makign us useful in some situational combat when creatures are hard to damage?

    • 70 posts
    February 13, 2015 11:09 PM PST
    Exmortis said:

    Why should a chantie not have a direct mind attack?  If we are masters of the psionic, then would we not be abel to deliver a powerful balst of mind destructive energy?

    In my mind (pun) I see direct damage as a fireball, lightning bolt, etc.  I agree with you, though.  If it's within the realm of psionic, it should be considered.  The exaggerated point of my post was that I think Enchanter damage should largely based upon Charm.  I liked the purity of the early EQ Enchanter. 

     

    I think non-Charm based spell damage should go through the following filters: 

    - Is the proposed spell psionic based?  yes(pass), no(fail)

    - Is it clearly psionic based?  yes(pass), no(fail)

     


    This post was edited by Jitai at February 13, 2015 11:12 PM PST
    • 208 posts
    February 14, 2015 10:20 AM PST
    Exmortis said:
    Jitai said:

    I don't believe Enchanters should be capable of direct damage

     

    Why should a chantie not have a direct mind attack?  If we are masters of the psionic, then would we not be abel to deliver a powerful balst of mind destructive energy?

     

    Obviously we should not be anywhere near the power of the wizard types, but it seems to me that we should have some sort of damage spells, possibly though low in power, they are nearly unresistable?  Makign us useful in some situational combat when creatures are hard to damage?

     

    A Tae Ew Archon's world dissolves into anarchy...

    • 70 posts
    February 17, 2015 11:19 AM PST

    I'd like to be able to make a mob dance while we beat the hell out of it.. that would be a blast!  Or maybe have it hold up an imaginary skirt and prance around...

     

    On a serious note, I think it would be a good indicator to have an 'ethereal collar and chain' on a charmed mobs neck to indicate that it's charmed.  A good alternative dynamic indicator would be to have an animation of the mob shying away from any friendlies if not currently in battle.

     

    I wonder if charm could be made very powerful, but have charisma specialization/gear balance whether an Enchanter has a focus on powerful crowd control or powerful charm ability.

    • 70 posts
    February 22, 2015 9:45 PM PST
    Jitai said:

    I wonder if charm could be made very powerful, but have charisma specialization/gear balance whether an Enchanter has a focus on powerful crowd control or powerful charm ability.

    This has been answered by 'mana types'.  Brilliant idea!

    • 695 posts
    March 1, 2015 11:17 PM PST
    Keiiek said:

    should taunts work on a charmed mob before the charm breaks? say i get the notification that my charm is about to fade, should the tank be able to pre agro the mob so when it breaks, it attacks the tank instead of the Enchanter?

     

    Not off the bat... but as each skill get better, their abilities will work on charmed mobs.... (?)

    • 58 posts
    March 6, 2015 3:17 PM PST

    I just wanted to chime in on this. Enchanters are masters of mind control. So taking away the ability to charm would be detrimental. Since they are a magic based class then the mechanics of charm should work off of this as well as based on level difference.. Meaning the level of the mob as well as the amount of magic resistance said mob has directly affects the enchanters ability to control it. The higher the resistance of the mob and the higher the level then the tougher it is to control it. This really goes back to random duration charm. I do not feel like Enchanters should have a fixed duration charm. Charm should be the toughest ability in the Enc skillset since it yields the highest risk vs reward. If someone wants a fixed duration pet then play a magician or necro. Mind control is the sole ability of an Enchanter. The stronger the Enchanter becomes with levels and gear then the stronger his mind control. I am not really sure what should be changed with the charm mechanic comparing it to EQ. The ability to charm multiple mobs at once sounds kinda interesting. I disagree with fixed duration charms altho maybe some kind of ancient spell or high level quested spell with something like a 30 sec unresistable fixed duration charm that requires a rare or expensive component and a very long recast might be cool. Maybe even include some kind of pet buff with it such as 100% haste or a crazy high damage shield or proc. I just really feel like the abilities of the enchanter should directly be related to the strength of it. Gear and levels should directly relate to the enchanters ability. Charm should also be tied to a specific statistic very similar to the charisma statistic in EQ. This gives us goals to achieve in making our enchanter more powerful. If we want to maximize our charm ability then we need to obtain the stats to do so either by questing, raiding, grouping or even camping that obnoxiously rare npc that has that piece of stat gear we need. I know I compare most things to EQ but that was the one game that got this class right :)

    • 70 posts
    March 7, 2015 5:55 AM PST

    Well said Xaleban.  I agree that nothing should be granted where charm is concerned (mezas as well).  The most amazing aspect of the EQ Enchanter for me was that some people were very good enchanters and some people just weren't.  This dynamic exists for Enchanters more than any other class.  You just couldn't fake it.  Where charm duration and strength are concerned; I like the idea VR came up with on color.  It would make sense that if I want to specialize in Charm and offensive psionic abilities I might focus on red psionics.. the more aggressive psionic.  If I want to lull and memwipe and mez I might focus on white.. the more calming psionic.  I think that's brilliant.  It is consistent with the 'cost of magic' dynamic and will allow for another layer of character uniqueness.  Where Charisma is concerned; I do understand that based on AD&D charisma is linked to all things of the mind and coercion.  However, I wonder if all things of the mind should be aggregated into one attribute.  Wouldn't 'focus' or 'will' be more appropriate to determine how long a charm (or mez) should affect a foe?  I can see that charisma would determine how powerful your presence is to establish the control, but is focus what allows you to maintain it?  The struggle of your mind against that of your target?  Something to consider..

    • 466 posts
    March 8, 2015 3:08 PM PDT
    Jitai said:

      The most amazing aspect of the EQ Enchanter for me was that some people were very good enchanters and some people just weren't. 

     

    I respectfully but very strongly disagree.

    In EQ there were only good and very good enchanters.

    And it couldn't have been otherwise. By design there was no other class that was able to generate an immediate and horrible wipeout than an enchanter.

    The natural selection made it so that (potentially) bad enchanters died out LOOOOONG before 30 or so.

     

    This is also the reason why I have always considered that the EQ enchanter design was the best, the most differentiated and most realistic class design ever.

     

    • 70 posts
    March 8, 2015 5:57 PM PDT
    Deadshade said:
    Jitai said:

      The most amazing aspect of the EQ Enchanter for me was that some people were very good enchanters and some people just weren't. 

     I respectfully but very strongly disagree.

    In EQ there were only good and very good enchanters.

    And it couldn't have been otherwise. By design there was no other class that was able to generate an immediate and horrible wipeout than an enchanter.

    The natural selection made it so that (potentially) bad enchanters died out LOOOOONG before 30 or so.

    This is also the reason why I have always considered that the EQ enchanter design was the best, the most differentiated and most realistic class design ever.

     

    We're saying the same thing Deadshade :)  there's nothing to disagree with here.  I agree that after a certain level, if they weren't adept, they wouldn't be able to continue playing the class.  My main point (and here we're also in agreement) is that the dynamic in EQ that made some people suited to the Enchanter class and some people (who aren't really interested in putting in the time and attention to detail) just couldn't play the class, is something that's desirable and should also exist within Pantheon.  Charm specifically should be high risk.  Any Enchanter who doesn't fully understand the dynamics of charm should be repeatedly pummeled and killed by their enemies.  I'll be interested to watch it happen heheh.