zebatov wrote:
I needed to take a deep breath to read that one. Basically the point of this post is that you think people are whining about wanting realism yet you think having stackable spells would be unrealistic. We've also gone over this. That casting the same spell twice should reset the spell. Casting two different spells, should not. Therefore, they together, would technically be stacked. Therefore they should just allow for the stacking of one spell to save from having an over-abundance of "lasting-effects" spells of one type in your inventory.
Personally from a role playing perspective I think by far the most 'realistic' way to settle this issue would be to make it so that when you learn a higher level of spell it effectively replaces the lower level of spell thus making it redundant and even removing the option to use the lower level spell from your inventory.
This could represent the characters increased level of experience and mastery of the basic magical abilities they have learned and should be applied to all spells with generic effects - for example 'flash bolt' (20pts damage) should essentially represent the character developing a greater level of mastery and understanding of fire magic thus replacing 'Flare' (6pts damage) - afterall, in 'reality' with a massive Ogre bearing down on you would you tackle it with a 'flare' spell? No, you'd bring out your biggest guns.
Lets be honest, at higher levels does anyone use entry level spells like 'Flare', 'Defend 5%' or 'Feather 50'? The only real application I can see for these lower level spells is for powerlevelling and if were honestly interested in in-game 'realism' then thats something we should probably look to abolish. The spells have little other use at higher levels because of the way the game levels up the enemies you face so why not get rid altogether? If anything having to trawl through a long list or largely useless spells in your inventory in order to find the one you actually want to use or put in your quick menu is a nuisance.
There are only a couple of instances where this could be a problem - basically those instances where it may actually be good tactics to use a weaker 50pt fire attack spell rather than a 70pt fire attack spell so that you have enough magika in a combat to summon a creature and a decent shield as well, but this reasoning doesnt apply to feather spells as they are not combat related.
The average sword at higher levels weighs something like 44 so 'Feather 50' is of no use whatsoever unless that sword really is the only thing you intend to pick up and carry, so with that in mind if you have access to a 'Feather 100' spell then this should replace 'Feather 50'. This is more realistic than stacking and the fact of the matter is that youre only really arguing
for stacking as a means of power gaming - in this instance so that you can carry as much loot as possible. Its not really possible to argue that stacking spells is 'realistic' when your character can already carry more than a top level olympic power lifter and still run, jump, swim without sinking like a stone or swing a sword with as much efficiancy as he could unladen.
In any event I think weve both made alot of effort to discuss the merits/lack of merit of an issue that really isnt that important to the current game and shouldnt be a big priority for the next instalment. My puny Mage can only lift 280 but can create a potion of strength that raises that to about 470 and has feather spells that increase that further still to about 670. Like someone else said earlier on, does anyone really
need to carry that mush stuff? I doubt it.
