Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Non-combat magic

Mangoose

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Messages
24,716
Location
I'm a Banana
Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity
So it's combat against an omnipowerful enemy.

That's a terrible oversimplification.

Is your local police department an omnipotent enemy?
I didn't realize my local sheriff were walk-through-walls ghosts or Dagon.

Just because something is guaranteed to kill you doesn't make it omnipotent.
Well that's true, Cthulhu would be omnipotent if not for Old Man Henderson.
 

baturinsky

Arcane
Joined
Apr 21, 2013
Messages
5,526
Location
Russia
This argument is pointless. The borderline between combat and non-combat IS ambiguous. Especially when it comes to stealth and/or non-lethal methods.
 

Mangoose

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Messages
24,716
Location
I'm a Banana
Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity
I didn't realize my local sheriff were walk-through-walls ghosts or Dagon.


Well that's true, Cthulhu would be omnipotent if not for Old Man Henderson.

Wow, look at all that straw you dragged in here with that argument of a response. Well done.
I didn't drag the straw in, I was just making a hat from straw that was brought in a few posts above me.
 

DalekFlay

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Oct 5, 2010
Messages
14,118
Location
New Vegas
Morrowind's teleporting magic and various other non-combat magic uses really set the standard for 3D application of this, IMO. I don't think travel has been done better in any other 3D RPG in general, and the magic part is a big part of that.

I also liked it in Divinity 2 when you could read peoples' minds during conversation.
 

bloodlover

Arcane
Joined
Sep 5, 2010
Messages
2,039
Balancing magic and making non-combat magic attractive is easier in PnP. In video games it's rather restricted but it can still be done.

A good way would be to make an alternative for magic, like technology (kind of like Arcanum) and replace basic spells with gadgets. You can identify, bring back to life, buff, open locks with bombs, make a weapon that does insane dmg, make some robots to compensate for magical summons, make some goggles that see in the dark or invisible enemies etc. Basically most shit that a magic user can do, a techie can too. Of course there have to be advantages and disadvantages to each but this would be a good idea to start.

Non-combat spells can also be for the lulz. They could be used just for fun instead of specific tasks. Casting levitate and shooting at Vivec's guards comes to mind. Or telekinesis to throw object around and distract some guards.

I think the reason why most people would rather take the pew pew spells instead of non-combat ones is because games are in the end action oriented. For most people, turning a guard into ashes is more appealing than using a charm spell or an invisibility one to steal the key.
 
Last edited:

DalekFlay

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Oct 5, 2010
Messages
14,118
Location
New Vegas
I think the reason why most people would rather take the pew pew spells instead of non-combat ones is because games are in the end action oriented. For most people, turning a guard into ashes is more appealing than using a charm spell or an invisibility one to steal the key.

If I could expand on my previous comment with this in mind... I think Morrowind is somewhat unique in that most progression is tied to making money. Yes skills level as you use them but training is much faster, and generally training is the best way to get attribute multipliers. Also, directly important to this discussion, new spells are learned by purchasing them. So you don't need to choose teleport over fireball, you just have to buy teleport to make your life easier. I think this is critically important in any game trying to have any non-combat skill that doesn't directly impact questing, like say Fallout's speechcraft does.

In essence the more freedom the player has to define the character role the more place non-combat skills have. Restrict the player and they will choose combat or quest related skills every time. Let the player grab a skill without hurting his combat effectiveness and he can experiment and get something with non-combat benefits.
 

bloodlover

Arcane
Joined
Sep 5, 2010
Messages
2,039
Learning spells by purchasing never made sense to me. Buying spell scrolls, potions, gear it's all fine. Paying a trainer to teach you a new skill or how to advance in one is also ok but learning a spell through buying seems out of place.

Also, I think that non-combat spells should have impact on questing, making them more useful overall l and not just situational. I mean what would be the point of buying a spell that you only use once or twice in the entire game?
 

Slow James

Savant
Joined
Dec 10, 2012
Messages
271
Location
Louisville, KY
This argument is pointless. The borderline between combat and non-combat IS ambiguous. Especially when it comes to stealth and/or non-lethal methods.

I cast detect magic. I sense a magically locked chest as well as a magic key hidden high in the room. I cast reveal to show it to me, then telekinesis to fetch it. I then cast detect and disarm trap on the chest to prevent getting blown up. I use the key to open the chest and pull out a spellbook, which teaches me the new spells of levitation and Read Thoughts.

Oh my God, you're right. If I put that right next to casting fireball in Diablo sixty seven times, I wouldn't be able to tell the two apart!
 

baturinsky

Arcane
Joined
Apr 21, 2013
Messages
5,526
Location
Russia
I assumed that borderline between "borderline between two things is ambiguous" and "those two things are absolutely same" is quite evident. Was I wrong? Or am I just too new here to realise that you are trolling?
 

Norfleet

Moderator
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
12,250
Create Gold: This spell transmutes lead nuggets into gold ones. Unfortunately, the reagents cost as much or more than what you can sell the nugget for. This spell can still be useful if you find the reagents on the wilderness.
Of course it does. If it didn't, the world economy would have collapsed. I would imagine the relative values of gold and said reagents are specifically dictated by this relationship, since if it were not true, mages would create gold until it was.
 

TigerKnee

Arcane
Joined
Feb 24, 2012
Messages
1,920
Create Gold: This spell transmutes lead nuggets into gold ones. Unfortunately, the reagents cost as much or more than what you can sell the nugget for. This spell can still be useful if you find the reagents on the wilderness.
Of course it does. If it didn't, the world economy would have collapsed. I would imagine the relative values of gold and said reagents are specifically dictated by this relationship, since if it were not true, mages would create gold until it was.
I remember False Coin in SI being super completely broken though because it was the other way round.

I guess in this case, the resulting product is "fake" but it's not like the game makes a distinction between them and you aren't punished by having guards come after you yelling HALT for using counterfeit money. Lost opportunity?
 

laclongquan

Arcane
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
1,870,144
Location
Searching for my kidnapped sister
Just need to get dat memory going.

1. Unreal World. ALL rituals and incantations are non-combat.

A very good examples of noncombat magic.
To get it out of the way first, the only magic ritual you can use in combat is a special chant you use to stop bleeding immediately. Only one among 12.
A ritual to raise effectiveness of a class of weapon (iron). Slightly more accurate and damaging I think. IT take time and reagent to cast (a burning fire).
A ritual to raise healing skills to help post-combat healing. It take time so not recommended in combat, and 95% of the time you tried casting it a hostile interrupt your action.
Several rituals to raise different skills: swim, healing, survival skills etc...
Several rituals to help normal action: make fire easier, sleep better/safer,

Overall those noncombat magics help affect the RNG rolls, or straight raise the skills.
 

oscar

Arcane
Joined
Aug 30, 2008
Messages
8,036
Location
NZ
Arcanum's spell that let you summon and speak to a dead soul provided a few alternative solutions I believe.
 

Slow James

Savant
Joined
Dec 10, 2012
Messages
271
Location
Louisville, KY
I think making wizards "jacks of all trades at the cost of spellpoints" is also a wrong approach, as it makes them (or other classes - depending on how costly magic is) rather redundant. That's another principle I tried to adhere to when compiling the list in the OP: to avoid overlapping too much with other class abilities.

I always liked the "magic against magic" approach. You have a magic lock? Design your game to let the wizard take care of it. You have a normal lock? Design your game to let the thief take care of that.

This could be done with opportunity costs to using magic or limited skill tree points, but I don't like either of those approaches. The better thing is to have more important things for your wizard to be doing.

If a fighter has foraging skills, let them do that while the wizard scries for nearby threats or items of interest. If a ranger has scouting abilities to do this instead, then have your wizard do something wizardly - brush up on that 1,000 year old dialect that you are barely fluent in, or re-read old spellbooks to see if your spellcraft can be improved or leaf through a history text of the area for any references to the arcane or sit there and meditate while channeling the power of the cosmos and get yourself in tune with your arcane nature... all of these make more sense (and should be rewarded accordingly in gameplay for both the wizard and the party) then having a wizard playing magical Mary Poppins.
 
Last edited:

Slow James

Savant
Joined
Dec 10, 2012
Messages
271
Location
Louisville, KY
I assumed that borderline between "borderline between two things is ambiguous" and "those two things are absolutely same" is quite evident. Was I wrong? Or am I just too new here to realise that you are trolling?

I'm not the one strolling into a thread and saying discussion is pointless because I can't tell the difference between two things.

I merely gave you an example where there is zero ambiguity. Do you see now why having a conversation is worthwhile? If not... here's the door, muchacho.
 

Damned Registrations

Furry Weeaboo Nazi Nihilist
Joined
Feb 24, 2007
Messages
14,980
Would any one single individual be able to fight off an entire city's guard singlehandedly? Nope. Not even with a freaking tank, as can be seen on World's Craziest Police Chases 97 or whatever.

That's a terrible example. The guy wasn't even using the weapons and was only stopped because he didn't know how to drive the fucking thing and got hung up on a concrete barrier. The city sure as hell didn't stop him, and if he had instead driven to city hall and fired some shells into the building, they couldn't have done anything about it. I'd also argue the power difference between a high level adventurer and the town guards they often surrender to is more akin to someone in a military helicopter vs a police squad out in the sticks whose biggest piece of equipment is an unarmoured van.

Even if the guards could theoretically bring down an adventurer through sheer numbers, the difference in power would break their morale far too quickly. It doesn't matter if 1000 6 year olds could exhaust a tiger and then bury it with their corpses, all they're going to do is flee in terror while they get picked off.

Finally, the actual issue isn't who would win in a caged deathmatch, but whether or not the guards can stop you from doing whatever you're trying to do. Which is usually something along the lines of 'go through a door'. Which they clearly couldn't stop you from doing, since there's like 2 of them and the PC could probably kill 20 before reinforcements show up.
 

baturinsky

Arcane
Joined
Apr 21, 2013
Messages
5,526
Location
Russia
I meant, while there are non-ambiguous combat and non-combat situations, there is a very wide border between them. And when it comes to things on that border, it's unproductive to argue whether they are more combat than non-combat or otherwise.

Is it combat when you sneak by enemy? When you sneak by and leave armed bomb behind? When you sneak buy and press button that kill him? When you just press a button that kills something somewhere? When you try to pick lock when the rest of your party fends off enemies?

Answer is - it does not matter. Unless there is some specific situation when it does.
 

Slow James

Savant
Joined
Dec 10, 2012
Messages
271
Location
Louisville, KY
That's a terrible example. The guy wasn't even using the weapons and was only stopped because he didn't know how to drive the fucking thing and got hung up on a concrete barrier. The city sure as hell didn't stop him, and if he had instead driven to city hall and fired some shells into the building, they couldn't have done anything about it. I'd also argue the power difference between a high level adventurer and the town guards they often surrender to is more akin to someone in a military helicopter vs a police squad out in the sticks whose biggest piece of equipment is an unarmoured van.

Even if the guards could theoretically bring down an adventurer through sheer numbers, the difference in power would break their morale far too quickly. It doesn't matter if 1000 6 year olds could exhaust a tiger and then bury it with their corpses, all they're going to do is flee in terror while they get picked off.

Finally, the actual issue isn't who would win in a caged deathmatch, but whether or not the guards can stop you from doing whatever you're trying to do. Which is usually something along the lines of 'go through a door'. Which they clearly couldn't stop you from doing, since there's like 2 of them and the PC could probably kill 20 before reinforcements show up.

Does it ever make sense to do that? To wantonly kill people just because they are in your way?

Besides, one thing I have always thought video games (and even PnP) failed at was to show how frail your average human is. If you thought my tank example was faulty, then how about the popular video of the two guys decked out in full Kevlar and armed like members of Blackwater robbing a bank and having a shootout with the local police, taking down countless officers. They were brought down because all it takes is one well placed bullet in an exposed area to immobilize or kill someone.

Sure, it's possible you could fight ten guards on one, but to realistically shrug off those blows, you would need such heavy armor that you would be too slow to prevent being overwhelmed. And if you aren't a walking cage, then all it would take is one well placed arrow from an archer on top of a tower to take you down enough for everyone else to pile on top and slit your gullet.


You could try and code all of these mechanics, derive stats and systems to make sure the player could fight but would almost certainly die... or you can say what every sane human being says every day "I don't want to go on a thieving/murder spree right here in front of the cops." Which do you think makes more sense to put in a game?
 

Slow James

Savant
Joined
Dec 10, 2012
Messages
271
Location
Louisville, KY
I meant, while there are non-ambiguous combat and non-combat situations, there is a very wide border between them. And when it comes to things on that border, it's unproductive to argue whether they are more combat than non-combat or otherwise.

Is it combat when you sneak by enemy? When you sneak by and leave armed bomb behind? When you sneak buy and press button that kill him? When you just press a button that kills something somewhere? When you try to pick lock when the rest of your party fends off enemies?

Answer is - it does not matter. Unless there is some specific situation when it does.

I think it does matter. Are you sneaking past the enemies because if you are caught, you will fail your objective, or because it will result in a fight?

If it is because you will have to fight your way out, that does little to encourage using non-combat spells (or non magical skills for that matter), since with the right build, fighting is almost categorically easier, which makes these skills a hassle to use instead of being the smarter skills to use.
 

Damned Registrations

Furry Weeaboo Nazi Nihilist
Joined
Feb 24, 2007
Messages
14,980
That's not a comparable situation though. Normal people can't wrestle fucking gorillas or bears to death either, adventurers can. If I can punch a fucking bear to death, I should certainly be able to make some pissant guards shit themselves when I demand to be let inside the mayor's manor. You're not going to get ten guards piling on your at once, you're going to have 9 guards running for the hills because you cut their captain in half in the first 3 seconds using a sword that is made of perpetually burning dragon bones. And your MAGIC armour weighs less than their's does and behaves as though it's the stuff cavalry wears a normal person can hardly walk in.

And no, given that level of power discrepency I don't think my character should give a fuck, especially if he considers the cops to be corrupt anyways (or is himself a murderhobo). It'd be like a member of a brutal gang having some waiter in a restaurant ask him to stop smoking. Sure, the waiter is technically the authority, but it's not like he can actually do anything himself, and if someone twice his size tells him to shut the fuck up unless he wants his face cut open, he's unlikely to press the issue. Likewise, 2 shitty guards in front of some corrupt merchant's manor shouldn't be able to force a cutscene where my giant-slaying warrior mage meekly leaves so he doesn't get in trouble. Or a couple of thugs watching the door to a gangster hideout, or a bouncer for some elitist elven bar, etc. This shit pops up in games way too fucking often.

If a guy showed up at a fancy restaurant in full military gear, the correct response is not 'You can't come in sir, we have a dress code' and the response to THAT definitely shouldn't be 'dang, wish I was cool enough to get in and talk to the owner'.

If there really is a strong enough force of guards to stop the player (and they can show up in time) then have the game produce them after I raise hell, not this horseshit where you don't even try.

And worst of all, by far, is when you surrender to the guards so they can throw you in prison/execute you. What did you have to lose by resisting exactly?
 

DalekFlay

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Oct 5, 2010
Messages
14,118
Location
New Vegas
Learning spells by purchasing never made sense to me. Buying spell scrolls, potions, gear it's all fine. Paying a trainer to teach you a new skill or how to advance in one is also ok but learning a spell through buying seems out of place.

Also, I think that non-combat spells should have impact on questing, making them more useful overall l and not just situational. I mean what would be the point of buying a spell that you only use once or twice in the entire game?

It's not about the "realism" of buying spells from a trainer (though I think that's fine personally), it's about making the choice of non-combat spells less punishing to the player. A lot of people in this thread seem to focus on "choosing a non-combat spell over a combat spell" rather than if non-combat spells are actually interesting and entertaining. So I'm saying maybe in a system like Morrowind's, where the only thing between you and having both at the same time is a wad of cash, people are more interested in taking the non-combat spell and seeing how it works. There's no loss of combat aptitude in doing so like almost every other RPG.
 

V_K

Arcane
Joined
Nov 3, 2013
Messages
7,714
Location
at a Nowhere near you
That's not a comparable situation though. Normal people can't wrestle fucking gorillas or bears to death either, adventurers can. If I can punch a fucking bear to death, I should certainly be able to make some pissant guards shit themselves when I demand to be let inside the mayor's manor.
There's a bit of a faulty logic here. Adventurers are (demi)humans, and if within a given setting it's possible for a (demi)human to reach such power level, anyone in there right mind and with the right resources should have prepared for that kind of threat. For example, by enlisting, among other measures, (demi)humans of similar power as their guards.
Of course, theres the case of PC being the chosen one (tm), and thus unmatched in power, but that's just lame.
 

Alex

Arcane
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Messages
8,750
Location
São Paulo - Brasil
---GREAT LIST IS GREAT---

All in all, Ultima 7's magic system manages to get your imagination going, but fails to deliver in several instances. Many of the spells are just aesthetic, like fireworks, or weather. Quite a few, like telekinesis, could have been useful if dungeon exploration was a bigger aspect of the game (and if the dungeons themselves were worth exploring). Frequently, the more exotic spells are only useful in a very specific instance of the plot, which makes them more of a mcguffin than a spell. Some of the spells could have been give more use if certain aspects of the game were systematized. For instance, if the game kept track of how well liked you are, the charm spell could have been very useful outside combat. In the end, many of the non combat spells in this game are as useful as baking bread. So they end up being more of a setting element than an actual ability.

Well, I wanted to tackle a few more games, but this took long enough. I will try to tackle Ultima 8 next, but I need to go to sleep now, so maybe tomorrow.

Edit: I posted an incomplete version earlier. Sorry about that, only realized it when I posted this one.

Nice breakdown of the of U7/SI spell list. Two commentaries to make:

1) Reagants. As part of the AD&D system that Ultima closely followed, reagents being required for magic seemed like a great idea. However, it results in hording and being stingy with magic instead of feeling like you had it as a powerful tool. This was lampshaded with the Ring of Reagents in the Silver Seed, which removed the need for reagents and had magic only use mana. Ultima 8 had a crazy (kind of cool) approach, where there were three different magic systems to juggle, one using reagents to cast, one using reagents to create single-use totems and another using totems which had infinite uses without reagents. However, I think the best approach was in Ultima 9 (PERISH THE THOUGHT!), where reagents were required and used to first put a spell into your spellbook, after which they simply cost mana to cast. This more aligned with 1E DnD, where new spells could be researched or even created by the player, but could often cost very specific ingredients for the learning.

2) One thing to consider for the Ultima games is that it presupposes a magic-using main character. Much more could have been done to make the non-combat magic less plot required and more integral to the way the game was played inherently, but, at the same time, the fact that it existed at all likely could be traced to the concept that the Avatar is a uber warrior/mage/rogue type that can do pretty much anything with preter-natural skills.


Ultimately, both reagent and Vancian casting make non-combat casting difficult to implement. You either learn silly spells that might only apply once in a blue moon, or you burn valuable materials simply because you couldn't find a way to flip a switch across a canyon. I think a more balanced approach, where simple spells (such as most non-combat utility spells and low level combat ones) cost mana alone, while more powerful spells require the use of materials and/or can only be used sparingly. This would eliminate some of the risk/reward out of learnign and keeping handy more utilitarian spells and would simultaneously avoid spamming nuke spells in combat as the "go to" option.

Sorry, I haven't had time to go over any other game yet, but I wanted to reply to this.

I really like the idea of reagents. But sometimes, they become only busy work. I will try to go over Morrowind's magic system eventually, but one thing I really liked about it is the way alchemy reagents are placed throughout the world. As some of the very first mage's guild quests reveal, there is a certain logic behind the placement of reagents. You can actually learn the best places to look for this kind of mushroom or flower by looking at the vegetation around you. This kind of detail is pretty nice. But once you have understood that, there is very little point in doing it again, or several times. It is a bit like replaying an adventure game.

Having the reagents not be spent, or being only spent once, is one way to fix this. But it makes it pointless, for instance, to find a big cache of a rare reagent. Maybe if we had a way to abstract away recollecting reagents where you've found them..

Also, I disagree on your comment about vancian magic. In fact, vancian magic might make it a lot more "balanced". Not in the meaning that classes are equivalent, or even equally useful, but in the meaning that their way to deal with problems are actually different. In fact, if the game had actual consequences for delaying, leaving the dungeon and such, it would be possible to have researching about where you are going be an important part of gameplay. For instance, you wouldn't need to memorize a spell to open doors if you are going into a cave, but stone to mud might be very useful.

Also, I don't mind magic being an important part of the plot. That can be pretty fun! But if that is all that a spell is, then that spell is just a mcguffin, not a real spell.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom