I have a question or two...

[wyrmwrath]

I saw the following in the announcements post:

- Magic system changes:

* NPCs ignore timelocks
* Harm is timelocked
* Trueseeing duration halved
* Bigbies range duration halved

This raises thre questions in my mind:

1) Why do NPC get to ignore the time lock system? I thought the reason was to prevent spamming of spells, but now the NPCs get to?

2) Its says bigbies range duration halved, doe that mean range AND duration, or the range of bigbies spells have had thier duration halved?

3) Why half the duration of True sight?

[DM_Kev]

1. We want greater emphasis on the power of NPCs. Also remember that the PCs are to be made to look like they are no match for many opponents. And the final reason would be to make some NPCs tougher, amking party play more of a challenge.

2. When I say range i mean ALL bigbys type spells. The effects duration of these spells are now halved.

3. Because i've had a lot of valid complaints from Rogues/spies that they are finding it impossible to watch groups because there is always character/s with true seeing on.

[Argon Balros]

i think it would be better to alter true seeing so it only made the invisable visable and not those that are hiding as when someones hiding there standing behind some cover or blending into the crowd.

but i can understand how this would be dificult to impliment.

[Blackwind]

Now that is a very good point!!

[Argon Balros]

thanks but like i said i think it would take a lot of work to impliment so its upto the development team if they think its worth it.

[DM_Kev]

I do think your idea is better.

I will poke Aule when he returns from America at the end of the week :)

[Luthianna]

But.... if you make it so true seeing only lets you see invisible people.... doesn't that turn it into the (lower level?) spell "see invisibility"? ;)

[DM_Olórin]

also a good point.

perhaps the purpose of "true seeing" is not so literal as its name suggests. "true perception" might be more like what it does. An omni-cognizance spell if you like.

Perhaps it shouldnt be on all the time. After all it is durational. using it when in a combat area makes perfect sense, with invisible enemies on the prowl, but having it on 24/7 seems like overkill. Even soldiers put their weapons away and remove their battle gear when not fighting.

I think shortening the duration as we have done is fine. The only wizards who have it on ALL the time will be those who rest un-necessarily simply in order to cast it again. I think the fact that its on in Tharbad a lot of the time at the moment is mostly because characters are just returning from Tolfalas and have been using it to detect the tigers.

[DM_Kev]

Someone spotted the prob before we did :P

Looks like we are going to have to rely on people not to walk everywhere with true seeing on.

[wyrmwrath]

another option might be to make it a personal spell so only the caster can use it, but leave the duration alone. This way even fewer PCs will be able to see the sneaks as they spell wont be castable on others.

[Danae]

When True Seeing is being used in the inn of Tharbad, it is most likely because of the recent plague of thefts there... as such the rogues shouldn't complain because it is their own fault people get paranoid :p

I think True Seeing should get a slight change, to make it more true to real D&D rules. TS should not pierce the hiding skill, as hiding is not related to magic and thus not detected by this spell. On the other hand, TS definately should remove the 50% concealment bonus which is granted by Improved Invisibility. I never understood why Bioware didn't remove that huge error in any patches yet. It also should negate Darkness, and Displacement effects. Lastly, some illusions should be ignored by someone who has this spell active.

The duration of True Seeing is 1 minute/level in D&D, so rather short.

[Zooropa]

How about changing the spell so it would increase the characters listen/(search?)/spot -skills? The higher the caster lvl, the higher skill bonus (like GMW getting better by lvls for example). Lets say a wizard could spot a same lvl rogue half or less at the time after casting TS. How does that sound?

[thromnombulax]

Personally, my pp-capable chars are as like to pp unstealthed as stealthed ; it can be achieved from a (very) small distance away "on screen" so as not to arouse too much suspicion. Being stealthed just means that you are less likely to be "distracted" by a "hello there" (because you are a PC).
As i've said elsewhere, if you want to spot the pick buy skill ranks in spot. If your class has low skill points , tough ;
1) it will be stronger in other areas,
2) when the char was created and as it develops we all have the option of increasing INT and therefore increasing the skill points/level!!
How will "true seeing" aid a mark who is picked from the rear (so to speak) ? Maybe there should be a new spell "spot a thief" :)

[Beeline]

There is an answer, to make trueseeing same as see invis, but with +15 or 20 spot. If you focus on spotting etc with your char, then trueseeing will act pretty much the same as it does now, if not, then sneaks will be able to sneak from you. Its a proven way to get round the problem.
And 1 minute per level is dead on, its a powerful spell that negates the abilities of sneaks completely, thus unbalancing characters such as rogues or rangers with sneaking abilities. A sneak has no chance, not even a 20 or 1 roll to hide from it but most other abilities, spells etc have an auto success or failure chance so shortening the duration would balance things out more evenly, IMO;)

[stormbringerii]

Well I'm going to tackle this from the spellcasters point of view. Shortening the duration is ok by me. I'll just memorize another one if i really think it is necessary. As for it negating a rogues ability to sneak up on the enspelled individual, yes it does, and I say so be it. I have spot as a cross class skill. Tough for me? no because i have true seeing. I'd like to point out that at 16th level I fight not even nearly half as well as a fighter, and only half as well as clerics and thieves. I can't wear armour. I can't use most weapons. I can't heal, and I can't cause the damage that a sneak attack can with a weapon (which i will point out requires no rest and is basically an unlimited use skill, which is the way it should be.) I have to use my spells, which are limtied in the number that i can cast, limited as to how I can cast them (timelock), and also on this server limited as to range/duration in certain cases. Basically halving the duration of True Seeing is fine by me, as it is a very powerful spell. But thats just it..it *is* a very pwerfuls spell accessible only by those who are very accomplished int eh arts of magic (priestly or arcane). If we keeping reducing the damage/range/duration of spells we'll soon see UTT2 as a no magic world and not a low magic one. Each class has its own strengths and weaknesses, we as players just have to learn to play to them. Cant sneak up ona person with truesight? Then use a disguise, pose as a friend whatever. Cant beat that pesky fighter with death magic (duh thats a no brainer) then use mind spells. That rogue/assassin/spy bothering you use truesight. Lets get creative not just reduce spell effectiveness.

[Beeline]

The question remains, would in Middle Earth, the average mage be able to spot anything else in the world regardless of its ability to sneak or hide?
IMO, bioware have tweaked mages to succeed in a single player game, thats why so many spells seem so powerful - who would argue a knowlegable mage can beat every other char type hands down, with the slight exception of clerics.
However - a mage in D+D is primarily, and usually a support character, not one to do loads of damage and solo missions, but one who makes the group hes with more powerful, resilient or tougher in general.
Middle Earth had very few mages, it was a very low magic world, with great power in very few. The tweaking of spells can only have made the world more in keeping with ME.
And bear in mind, over a 24 hour period in MERP you can rest enough times to get all your spells 15 or 20 times over, they are intended as once per day, but as a mage you get boat loads per day - a fighter type character has no such boat loads per day abilities, perhaps Ki damage(although a much weaker ability when compared to a mages full spellbook) and no doubt would argue mages have too much power already.
As NW has brought us the epic levels, they have added many single player elements to make a soloer powerful enough to survive, but at the same time added abilities that have unbalanced the multiplayer game such as dev crit, and bigbies. MERP is trying to re-balance this out, whilst trying to keep it similar to how we all think of Tolkiens Middle Earth. Good luck guys, i like the changes, but mages might not.

ps. truesight very powerful yes, but at level 11 it actually takes very little acomplishment to get Truesight spell.

[Beeline]

pps. its "creative" mages, who beat everyone, walk round permanently truesighted, bigby you for lord knows how many minutes/hours, spam IGMS or ice storms at everyone, and take feats like expertise, shield efficiency and epic mage armour that have caused these changes, if mages were more responsible, and used their magic sparingly they would have been left alone i think...

[morez]

ONE QUESTION:

can truesight spot hidden characters or not?

there are always different answers!

some say yes of course but I still doubt that it can spot a hidden char because i remember in UTT1 when i was sneaking with Cuferedir (hide and move silently skill was about 40! or even more) the mages with trueseeing couldnt spot me!!! i am sure

[Lorien]

Trueseeing can definitely see through HipS, I know this, so I assume and believe from personal experience it can see characters in stealth mode too.

[PureLojik]

I'm pretty sure it sees through everything if left as it is in NWN.

Sees through Darkness
Sees through Sanctuary
Sees through Invisibility
Sees through Hiding

[stormbringerii]

Originally posted by Beeline
pps. its "creative" mages, who beat everyone, walk round permanently truesighted, bigby you for lord knows how many minutes/hours, spam IGMS or ice storms at everyone, and take feats like expertise, shield efficiency and epic mage armour that have caused these changes, if mages were more responsible, and used their magic sparingly they would have been left alone i think...

Whoa!! Lets hit the brakes here! My response wasn't an attack it was stating a mages point of view and the arguments to back it up. What you're describing as creative is actually a powergamer, which is very much discouraged here. Furthemore at no time did I actually disparage the changes that have been made here. As for other character classes not dishing out the damage uh hello? F/WM? Crits falling out their butts that routinely deal 75+ damage? No rest needed for that one. As for soloing a mage, well thats great in the single player campaign but here it just doesn't happen. Why because it can't happen. A mage dies. Alot. Trust me, I know from personal experience. And honestly I have no problem with that. UTT2 *is* a low magic world, and I love it that way. Its a challenge, not just for mages but for everyone, and that is why the player base is the way it is, great. All I'm suggesting is that its looked at from both sides of the fence. The changes *have* made the world more inline with Kevs concept and thats great. I play a mage and I still agree that what has been done has been necessary. As for mages beating everyone ask Remus how close our fight was. He was a 9th level fighter andI a 15th level mage. I got lucky and beat him. And I mean lucky. Anyways, without dragging this on all I ask is that its looked at from both angles.

***Maybe this thread should be closed as the relevant question of truesight seeing through Hide has been answered***

[DM_Olórin]

I like this bloke.... a happy mage that understands why we did what we did to the NWN magic system... now why arent there more.... :D

[morez]

Originally posted by PureLojik
I'm pretty sure it sees through everything if left as it is in NWN.

Sees through Darkness
Sees through Sanctuary
Sees through Invisibility
Sees through Hiding

I really trust you there but the strange thing is that i am definetly sure that once one woth truesight hasnt spot my hidden character which opened doors in front of him
that's fact so i just wonder....:eek:

ps.: maybe it was a bug

[Argon Balros]

Originally posted by DM_Olórin
I like this bloke.... a happy mage that understands why we did what we did to the NWN magic system... now why arent there more.... :D

as this is suposed to be a low magic world would'nt more mages be bad or do you mean to replace mages we have allready that moan :)

[wyrmwrath]

a mage in D+D is primarily, and usually a support character, not one to do loads of damage and solo missions, but one who makes the group hes with more powerful, resilient or tougher in general.

I can only assume you havent played a mage tabletop, or at least not a high level mage table top Beeline. The mage can level a party of three or 4 PCs at about 11 or 13 in a table top game...IF the DM has given him access to the right spells or he has researched(again this is about the DM giving him acess) the right spells. In any table top game, ighters start the toughest in the early levels and switches to mages in the later levels. The only flaw in a mages strength is what is available to him and that he has to know when the fight is starting, a mage caught unaware is likely done for.



As NW has brought us the epic levels, they have added many single player elements to make a soloer powerful enough to survive, but at the same time added abilities that have unbalanced the multiplayer game such as dev crit, and bigbies.

While I agree Devestating crit is a silly feat, bigbies spells have been in the game since first edition. Couldnt tell if you thought the had been added by bioware or not.


Since I have 2 PCs one a warrior and the other a mage, I can say that there are several facts concerning the balance that KEv and the developers have struck.

1) no way a mage can solo, warriors can always solo. This doesnt mean they can or cant inevery nest of critters because some quests, areas are to tough for any single pc of any level that can get to the area in question.

2) mages are nearly just buffing machines in groups. Its more effecient to beef up the fighters than try to blast the foes with spells. The time lock makes spells that might be perfect against the undead or ice dragon you are facing a one use only power/skill.

3) no way a mage can go toe to toe with clerics or fighter type (not sure about rogues) of a challanging rating or even moderate if the opponent if fully equiped. Thats very different from the tabletop game.

Now all this doesnt mean I think Kev is wrong with the actions he has taken, those are just the facts the mage faces. Yes the mage has been kneecapped with respect to the power they have. Id even say maybee a bit too much, but they are still fun to play.

[Lorien]

Argon - I think Olorin means why don't we have mroe players with this attitude.

Wyrmwrath - as someone who's played PnP for 20 odd years, including many high level mages, woth complete access to spells I've found that they are at their most effective when used primarily to support the party with some hard hitting spells to hit those more powerful enemies.

With regards to balance -

1) This is a tolkien world and should therefore be low magic.
2) Spells are/where very unbalanced in PvP, this is quite understandable when considering that although the game has multiplayer options, all the playtesting was done ofr balance in the single player capaigns.
3) You say Bigby's has always been there - yes it has, but then DnD was designed as a co-operative party game, not a PvP game. Its a lot easier for a PnP DM to balance things out by carefully picking the encounters of monsters you meet, the problem we had in UTT1 was that Mages where nigh on invincible - cos they were powered up for a solo campaign and could blast their way through almost anything they spawned, and certainly most players they met.

[ghost81]

I would say (as a player of a fighter) that it isn't easy to solo as a fighter, and its definitely not worth it.

The rewards are less and you have to give way to parties if you meet them. With the xp script we have you get 50% if not in a party.

So I wouldn't get too hung up on hte fact that a Mage can't solo at all - as after all the development teams aim has been to discourage soloing.

[SNarfel]

Originally posted by DM_Olórin
I like this bloke.... a happy mage that understands why we did what we did to the NWN magic system... now why arent there more.... :D


hmmm, there are more, yours truely included. Played a mage for the main part on MERP. No complaints and fully understand and accept why the changes to mages and spells have been made.:) .

May be its a case of, happy people not making a noise about it and the ones that arnt doing so.:)

[DM_Olórin]

aye i wasnt suggesting that he was alone out there :) its just we usually only hear negative stuff about the magic system on the forums :P

[Argon Balros]

lorien i know what olorin meant i was joking i;m sorry if it was not apreciated but my sense of humour deteriates a little past 3am.


Ow and happy St Paddys day :)

[wyrmwrath]

None of the following comments are gripes:

Never said soloing with a fighter is easy, just possible. As for worth it, you UKers keep forgetting that those who play in the US time zone are small in numbers, abd grouping option are limited if non existant. A few EXP is better than no exp, and there are always quest to be turned in in the low and mid levels. In my time zone there are rarely "groups" to give way to on the server.

If the Developement team really want to limit soloing further, clerice and fighters are where they shoud be focusing thier attention. Mages and rogues are sufficiently hamstrung.

As a player also with a few (nearly three says the ancient gamer geek typing this babble) decades under my belt too, ill just have to chalk the difference in experience up to personal play style and campaign quirks. I have had a wizard or two able to deal with the other 4 in the party when an illithid turned them into unwilling meat puppets. Granted there was some creative environmental usage too, but the wizard was the only class that could have done it. Again, I say its just a play style and campaign difference that colored your and my experiences.


With regards to balance -

1) This is a tolkien world and should therefore be low magic.
agreed, but that doesnt mean that the mage should have spells elimenated or chopped into weaker versions, emplacing a rest system that made it near impossible for a mage to rest more often than sat once a game day would make the mage dangerous if well rested, but weak if he has been at it a while. I have always felt that warriors should deal no where near the damage totals a mage can, but they should be able to do it all day. Mages should be able to level a battle field, for the most part, then have to take a nap for a week. Examples are Merlin in the excaliber movie that had to sleep for weeks after great magics. Mages are artillery in fantasy combat. A single soldier shouldnt be able to stand face to face with that. Now a small fire team should neutralize the magical howitzer with little effort.

2) Spells are/where very unbalanced in PvP, this is quite understandable when considering that although the game has multiplayer options, all the playtesting was done for balance in the single player capaigns.

I agree the game engine made PCs created crazy powerful for the 3rd or 3.5 edition D&D rules. Spell like time stop would be great if theh had a radius smaller than the entire server that it affected. Removal of such spells is justified. However if the game world it to remain true, I feel the balance should be between the PCs and NPCs. PVP shouldnt be a consideration.
If PC A faces off against PC B and PC B is a mage, PC A should be at a disadvantage in an Arda setting because magic is BOTH rare and powerful. If PC A needs to defeat a mage (see PC B), he should, based on the realities of the world setting, gether allies...AKA the newly returned Gandalf the white in Fanghorn facing Gimli, Aragorn, and Legolas. They knew they were in the pooper, and knew they needed to act as a group to have a chance. Yes I know it was Gandalf, a Maia, but the example still holds.

3) You say Bigby's has always been there - yes it has, but then DnD was designed as a co-operative party game, not a PvP game. Its a lot easier for a PnP DM to balance things out by carefully picking the encounters of monsters you meet, the problem we had in UTT1 was that Mages where nigh on invincible - cos they were powered up for a solo campaign and could blast their way through almost anything they spawned, and certainly most players they met.
Again I agree the mages un UTT1 were nuts, I think that has lead to an overreaction on the DEV teams part to make the mages to weak. Doesnt mean I dont have fun playing my mage or that I think them evil *******s. Well not for that anyhow, but the mayors quest in Laketown, that they get evil ******* name tags for!

Overall I like the server and that can be seen by the fact that I have a level 18 warrior (which would never happen if I didnt enjoy the server) and the fact that I still play a mage. Its just that its a common gripe form non mages that mages are too tough on MERP servers. My answer they are supposed to be. Ther are supposed to be big bang but no staying power. Warriors are moderate bang and great staying power. Those are he roles the archtyes are made for.

Nuff said

[SNarfel]

Just carrying the discussion on.. no jibes intended


I disagree with the opinion that a fighter should be at a disadvantage to a mage in an Arda setting as Magic is rare but powerfull in Arda.

If that argument is followed through to it logical conclusion then there should be no mages on the server as the only ones in ARDA were very powerful and very very very few, carry the ratio through to MERP and.. well result is no mages.

I think the approach taken by the dev team is reasonable from the perspective that the only true mages are those mentioned in LOTR. The PC mages on the server are... if you like... very poor imitations and wanna be's of the afore mentioned LOTR mages.
As such they would require several thousand years of study to get even close to the likes of Gandalf even if they were that way inclined and could live that long.

Intresting discussion though... good material for exercising the old grey matter.

[DM_Kev]

From my view of everything, mages already have the ability to be very dangerous indeed.

A smart mage is more than capable of beating a fighter 1 on 1. We only allow immunity to fear, so a mage can be confident that many of his spells will work. I also cannot see why a mage cannot beat 2 fighters 1 on 1.

Nowhere does it say that mages must buff their whole party. Im quite happy to see a mage stocked up on protective spells for themselves and then a heap of offensive spells.

No offensive spell is weaker. I concede on Bigbys because we added a save to it, but thats about it. We have shortend the durations on spells which hold people - thats fair enough. Being stuck for caster level x rounds (6 seconds) isnt everybodys idea of fun. No spell deals less damage. All we have done is added timelocks so they cant be brainlessly spammed. That timelock was reduced to 20 seconds because we did feel mages were getting a slightly bad deal.

Another point im always making is that im perfectly entitled to remove all the magic from the game and create entirely new Middle Earth style magic, which would be very low power compared to the toys we have to use at the moment. But i wont do it because I know nobody would play here.

As for fighters and mages and who should be tougher, I say leave tings how they are. Creating a class which is obviously better than the other leads to mass selection of that class. We saw it on UTT1 - Lots of Mages since they had access to all the equipment fighters had to make high AC's. Ok, so theres lots of fighters on this server - thats actually good, since the large majority of people in middle earth would be melee weapons trained. The number of spell casters you could count with your fingers. That is the same situation we have on the server.

To be an effective mage requires intelligence. Not just in character, but as a person too :) That was at the core of my plan.

[stormbringerii]

Originally posted by DM_Kev
From my view of everything, mages already have the ability to be very dangerous indeed.

A smart mage is more than capable of beating a fighter 1 on 1. We only allow immunity to fear, so a mage can be confident that many of his spells will work. I also cannot see why a mage cannot beat 2 fighters 1 on 1.



Kev, I agree whole heartedly with everything you said except the above quote. A mage who is *fully buffed* stands a chance of beating 1 or maybe even 2 fighters, that chance increases signifcantly if said fighters are at range. A mage unbuffed with a fighter at medium range or closer is screwed. The fighter quaffs a clarity potion (very easily available) and runs up and knocks mage down and pummels him to death. I know becasue this is how the majority of my PvP deaths occur. The fighter in question can be several levels lower than the mage and this still works well. If on the other hand the fighter is ar long range the mage *might* stand a chance if he can get improved invis and a stoneskin or greater defense up in time. A mage has absolutely no chance of defending against knockdown, as discipline as a cross class skill is paltry at best and there are no items that grant immunity to knockdown. (Again I totally agree as I find it unreasonable that a mage A) should have anywhere near as high a discipline score as a fighter and B) I don't think items should grant constant complete immunities to anything. At best they should grant a good saving throw bonus vs the specific effect, or a general save bonus) So the mage vs. fighter debate realiy is fairly lopsided in favour of the fighter. The spells that we have access to are still very powerful however, and with a fighter or two for body guards mages are still more than capable of dishing out devastating amounts of damage and wreaking terrible havoc on their enemies. But I still say that even a smart mage will get his ass whooped by a remotely intelligent fighter of more than 1/2 his level. :)

P.S. This is a rather good debate isn't it? :)

[wyrmwrath]

Another point im always making is that im perfectly entitled to remove all the magic from the game and create entirely new Middle Earth style magic, which would be very low power compared to the toys we have to use at the moment. But i wont do it because I know nobody would play here.

If a player is playing because the magic is powerful. he isnt playing to RP a MERP PC mage. I am all for removal of the casting classes, and POSSIBLT making them prestige style instead. hell Gandalf was a hell of a swordsman. Granted he had time to learn, but I see that as a made with a few warrior type leves at least, matbe even a warrior with a mage prestige class (and all further leveling in the prestige class)

Harm was weakened on the damage it does. Maybe others havent really inspected.

I say if you want to balance the PVP mage versus warrior dynamic, remove potions that arent PC made from the server. Then the warrio cant use clarity, invisibility(if he has found them), heals (since D&D healing kits dont heal damage ill not even mention them), haste (uless they have the one type of boots that can be found with the ability), wisdom, strength, dex, con buffing unless its class related like a barbarian rage, ...etc.

No where are there potions that will raise a mages attack bonus and allow him to wear armor to fighter levels. PVP just favors the warrior unless range is such that the warrior has to run a few rounds. Not a gripe, nota shame on you, just an observation of fact that comes to mind everytime somone says how powerful mages are.

[Prophet7]

*Sighs* This is about clerics, not wizards. I think clerics are a little too strong at the moment, but just a little. Harm has a timelock now (very good move), but I also think the spell Word of Faith should have its duration slightly shortened. I've casted it at really tough spawns and watched as fighters take their time slowly chopping up the monsters. But once again I stress slightly. As a mind affecting spell it doesnt work on undead, and on opponents that are very hard to kill WoF usually runs out before the last couple are killed. *Just my opinion*

[Argon Balros]

yeah now that sorcerers have been weakened their seems to be more clerics.


but i am certain the only way to make this a low magic world as tolkien made it would to completly remove magic remake rangers so they don't get magic or perhaps just have anyone who wants a ranger use rogue class.

but i think that the majority of people on this server want at least some magic perhaps another poll is in order :)

what i'm really trying to say is that its near on impossible to ever get the magical balance completly right in a world that should'nt really have any pcs with magic but you've done a dam good job so far dev team :)

[wyrmwrath]

I agree

[SNarfel]

You will NEVER get the balance exactly right, it's the nature of the beast.

Before mages were too powerful. Now it seems Clerics "may" be slightly overpowered. Tweak the clerics a bit more and likely another class will be slightly overpowered.

One class will always be slightly more powerful. Maybe what needs to be decided is which class WAS powerfull AND common in Middle Earth and then make MERP akin to it.

oh.... and I certainly wouldn't want magic removed totaly, it would remove too many fun options.


:)

[stormbringerii]

Remove magic completely? At that point all you have is fighters and thieves running around. I think we are doing fine jsut the way we are. As we progress things will get tweaked more and things will balance out. As Snarfel said you'll never get the balance just right but by tweaking clerics a bit more then we'll see a closer balance struck.

[ghost81]

I don't think this needs a poll - even those of us who play non-magic users don't really want to see magic removed from the world, and things are much much better than in UTT1 where if you were in a party with a mage you might as well just sit and read as by the time you even got close to your enemy they were dead - indeed this happened to me a great deal until all the timelocks were added in UTT2.

[Guyror]

I personally think mages are still very powerful. However they do require abit of thought to be most effective. The careful use of spells can allow all members of the party to get involved. I tend to use very few damaging spells and more restrictive spells such as holding, slow and fear. They are still exceedingly effective if used with caution. And apart from a few accidents with 'fear' I think it works very well.

I would hate for magic to be down graded more, however I would tend to agree that there are currently a disproportionate number of clerics running around. Especially those with access to the trickery domain, which obviously means that there are a lot of followers of cheeky gods out there.

I think I remember initially hearing from someone in the know, that the server was meant to be mainly fighter and rogue types with a few mages and clerics. Which would fit in with the general middle earth ethos. I have no problem with that and hope it will eventually level out.

[Argon Balros]

so who exactly is the cheeky god is he who the cheeky girls pray to :)

and mages should need to be cleverly played in order to be efective as mages should be clever.

[DM_Kev]

I have already stated that we will not remove magic. Although I value quality over numbers of players, too many players would leave, even those who feel bound to this place now.

Making UTT2 itself was a gamble as to whether people would take to it, but we won that one. Removing magic would be a gamble we would lose.

[Beeline]

My thoughts on clerics;)
I agree, clerics are too easy to powerbuild, trickery and earth for invis and stoneskin - rogue levels for stupid sneak(would a cleric ever sneak, no, hes in your face rainin holy blows down in the name of his gods) - heals a plenty so being damaged is not touch and go - some very powerful magic in the form of negative protections, death spells and some powerful buffs - dispells too for coutering that nasty mage who tries buggering up your party. All in all Cleric is a very powerful class, but is very abused too.
Traditionally a cleric in D+D would have to work harder than most other players to play his character well and keep it in line with its chosen gods, it is a nightmare character to play sometimes.

IMO nerfing clerics is not needed, but responsibility is - so it falls to DMs to talk to players with a cleric, and be sure they chose it for the right reasons, and not because its a safe bet. Perhaps question them on their thoughts toward their gods, why they chose the domains and if they fit with the characters background, chosen valar and alignment etc. Also IMO do not allow both trickery and earth domains(why would any cleric ever not have healing as one domain????) and disalow rogue multiclassing(it is known to be a powerbuild the cleric/rogue cross) - It would also be prudent to set a minimum charisma level, as most clerics i had examined had 8 or even less charisma and a traditional DM would never allow that!!
Some clerics will have considered what ive said and are therefore playing the character responsibly, but as my time as a DM pointed out to me, most clerics have no idea which valar they would have chosen, or why they had chosen invis/stoney domains other than their the most useful and powerful.
Just my thoughts to keep the discussion rolling...

[DM_Kev]

Further work on the manual will discuss suitable classes/stat combinations.

Please dont be scared by this! The unsuitable class combos will be of no surprise to many im sure. The points raised above on clerics will be used aswell :)