Roles of Magic Users

We still don't know if any units other than channelers (civ leaders) will be able to cast spells. If they can, which I hope is the case, my guess is that they'll have the same "no canned units" aspect that Brad has already discussed in his unit production thread, so you'll be free to build all those mage types and more. If we can build 'regular' mages at all.

Good point GW Swicord about the possibility of no "real" mages other than the channelers. but technically, for future reference, what i mean by categories is that any mage unit could fall into these 7 or more. Example: you call a unit a "priest" could be primarily a supporter with diviner abilities. Or you could create a magician who uses bombardier spells with Illusionist spells.

In Noob terms, the roles are just a way to, quickly, define what a particular mage unit is best for.

Beg pardon, I wasn't trying to scoff your post at all. I want to be able to build 'mage regulars' and I'm sure I'll end up with some schema or another to categorize them.

I guess you caught me doing some passive-aggressive nagging for both more info on the magic front *and* assurance that channelers will not be the only spellcasters in the game.

Some of the roles overlap in functionality (Supporters and Augmenters).  A couple might be too narrowly-defined (Mage Killer, Diviner) to be worthwhile unless very cheap to get.

Whether that is good or bad (or not an issue) I have no idea yet - and won't until we have more info about actual gameplay.

For sake of discussion, let's say having overlapping roles or magic schools was just horrible and we absolutely had to avoid it.  In that instance, I'd probably reduce the list and go with something like:

Buff

Debuff

Healing

Damage

Might consider separating Damage into categories like summoner, AoE or DoT Damage, burst (single-target, high-impact) Damage.  In a pinch, might even fold Damage into Debuff and Healing into Buff, leaving only two categories.  The first hurts enemy targets, the second helps friendly targets - and they both have spells to match those roles.

[edited: changed 'DPS' to 'Damage']

DoT is more accurate, since obviously 'seconds' have no factor in turn-based gameplay (or shouldn't anyway, defeats the purpose).

generally spells would come in singe shot damage, with maybe a few that deal damage over the course of several turns, but they wouldn't be as common as they are in a RTS game.

somebody should get a breakdown of all the master of magic spells > just for arbitrary comparison to see 'what has been done' as well as any similar fantasy game spell lists

At least we know that Brad has read them all...

I think there is a strategy guide for MoM that lists all the spells, but it is hard to come by.

Yeah, I was looking.  Sadly there isn't a solid spell or random event FAQ anywhere that I can find.   The strategy guide is great and all, but it isn't in a format that we can share here on the forums (unless somebody has a pdf)

I probably should have just said "Damage" instead of DPS for that bullet point.  Thanks for pointing out the issue with terminology.

If they implement DoT** attacks then I'd still consider (possibly) having that as a seperate role for my casting unit(s) if I were trying to better organize my minions.

** For example:  Consider spells that have effects that span across multiple turns as well as spells that have a different effect for each of several turns that they are in effect.  Giving us a true sense of damage of time in a turn-based game.

Sorry GW Swicord, wasn't trying to sound defensive. i was just trying to be more specific.

Good point.

Mages and classification in general, not elemental specific:

Sorting mages is tricky, it depends on personal flavour and what angle one choose to take. The OP describes sorting only based on what can be accomplished (if it is a support mage, only support spells etc) and that can make them very narrow. Another way is to give the mage a source of his/her power and let that be deciding on what can be accomplished (a fire mage could for example both cast exploding fireballs and be able to peek through distant burning fires to divine their surroundings). The later case can lead to, if it is too strict, that a number of fun spells can't be placed in a suitable power domain (example again, an enchanted broom that can sweep by itself could be considered to be air magic, but an air mage might find it both easier and faster to use a controlled gust of wind).

I have thought about this for quite some time, ever since I fell in love with mage type characters. What I find most appealing is to just say that a mage have magical powers and that all spells are available, but learning them is tricky and takes time. Mages are then allowed a high degree of freedom in which spells to choose, even if they only know a few. They can be generalists but also choose to specialize in spells related to a role like divination or combat, in which case they will be more versatile there (a generalist might learn a simple one target attack spell, while a combat specialist might broaden the options with AoE spells, DoTs, long range spells and mix in other elements just in case a foe should be impervious to one type). The classification of mage roles then exist as a way to describe what they have learnt so far, but it doesn't limit multi-roles or future development.

A thought about conjuration. All the other types seem to me to be aimed towards a certain job, but not the conjurors. To me the list feels a little like: we have peasents, soldiers, rulers, priests and humans, each do their job. Aren't summoners supposed to be able to summon different beasts with unique powers? If so, maybe a conjurer can bring forth creatures that could both bombard and use tricky illusions. Conjuration should be a mean, not a classification itself, at least if magic is classified according to what it can accomplish. Isn't a mage who summon a magical bird to act as a spy a divinator? Isn't a mage who summon a fire elemental with a scorching flame aura a bombardier? Isn't a mage who summon a spirit to protect and heal an ally a support mage? It is how I feel anyway.

nameing convention is 100% up to us as players in this game, since we are required to give our mages or whatever the name they hold.   I just wish we'd get confirmation on how exactly that works.   If you recall (or have read) its still vague exactly how mages are handled.   Maybe they won't even get to pick the same spells as the channeler?   They could get their own set of 'unit spells'

I thought we still weren't even clear on whether any units other than channelers *could* cast spells. What did I miss?

I wasn't specific to the game elemental, what caught my attention was the line:

but technically, for future reference, what i mean by categories is that any mage unit could fall into these 7 or more. -Fenhiro, reply#2

If Elemental will have mage units or not I can't say, but I hope there will be since it is neat. Perhaps something like in MoM, where they have ranged attacks or certain abilities with limited charges. Even if only the player (channeler) is the true wizard, I see no problem with the lore to have weaker mages around, maybe they draw their powers from the channeler (the reason doesn't matter).

If you recall (or have read) its still vague exactly how mages are handled.   Maybe they won't even get to pick the same spells as the channeler?   They could get their own set of 'unit spells' -Landisaurus, reply#12

I think you are right. Probably any magical wielding units will have their own unique spells regardless of who their channeler is. It is fair for all and it will be easier for the devs to balance these units.

(edit: i really should learn to make proper quotes, doh!)

The Quote button at the bottom of each reply will start you out with a full, attributed quote down in the edit box. If you select part of the post (like I did above) and click the Quote button, you get the partial quote without attribution.