My Intelligent Cause

[MrCarb]

I read somewhere that the cause spells had been made int dependant, but having played both a human and a drow shaman (only to level 30ish, granted) I can't see any difference between the damage ranges of serious, critical or harm. I'm thinking that either I'm mistaken about the int thing, or that there is some bug preventing it from operating, or that it is a very small multiplier. If its the third one I have to say that it is unlikely to make many people put up with the crappy hit points, crappy defences, crappy pk ranges and crappy weapon ward of the drow shaman. Those causes definately needed toning down for humans and duergars, but I think the Drow causes need to be something approaching the old ones if Drow is going to be viable choice, especially after what happened to dispel magic (which again, was entirely neccessary). When you cast a spell that cost twice as much mana as most afflictive spells, takes twice as long to cast and has twice the chance of failure it is kindof disheartening when you get a 'maul' out of it.

[Vanisse]

i haven't played shamans much but i'd suggest taking your chars to 50 before saying anything about balance.

[MrCarb]

Someone should write a simple algorithm that just posts that on every thread. Anyway, much as it would be a marvelous scientific undertaking I'm not going to spend 100 hours or so getting two characters to 50 just to confirm my already strong suspicion that the one I wanted to play is a total gimp. Sorry for wasting your time.

[E-ant]

none of the shaman races are noob

[Erlwith]

your question has been answered many times before. drow shaman are not gimped. do some board research, or take vanisse's advice and find out for yourself. snide comments just make you look dumb.

[Groq]

I've taken a shaman to 44 before not 50 yes.. but 44 drow shaman and I would much rather play any... ANY shaman with more more health.. I didn't notice any difference which makes me think a drow shaman it worth playing paelgrim. I would play a human or fire or duergar before playing a drow unless your going for healing.

[Adebaldi]

I doubt drow get less hp than human, because of the 1 prac per spell/skill. Also auto-sneak is rather nice for outlasting classes.

[kento]

In a lot of situations in this case, however, the actual number of hitpoints is irrelevant, as opposed to the ability to defend. Which Drow absolutely lack as shaman.

[MrCarb]

My question wasn't about whether drow shaman are at a disadvantage - that's a judgement I've made for myself and one I retain despite popular opinion saying otherwise. I was asking whether the intelligence dependance (that I heard about briefly) was actualy put in place because I couldn't see it in effect. I've searched the forum and couldn't find this question "Answered many times before" (you can show me the massive library of intelligene/cause discussions if you like, Erlwith, or perhaps you didn't bother actualy reading the question, as is the AR way). "Experiment for yourself with both characters at 50" is perhaps a reasonable answer, but I'm really not going to do it any time soon.

If there WAS an appreciable difference in cause damage then I think I'd like to play a Drow, going into level & HP disadavantages but with a little more bite than most shamans. But it is becoming clear that for some reason or other policy prevents anyone from clarifying.

Oh, and I'm pretty sure that Drows do get singificantly less HP than humans, though you're right that it is not so pronounced as one might think due to the one-prac on a class with alot of spells to learn. As Kento points out, however, the defences are a big problem. But to re-iterate - This is not what I was asking about, and I immediately regret mentioning it.

[Erlwith]

[MrCarb]

Oh my god. Did you just not read the last post too? The one where I explained that I wasn't asking whether Drow shaman were a good choice, and that you responded to with a discourse on why Drow shaman are a good choice? Concerning the intelligence thing, the implication seems to be that you know what's going on but won't tell me, which I suppose I have to deal with. Sure took alot of posting for you to get across your "I'm not telling" message though.

[Vanisse]

instead of flailing around wildly, think of it this way. there are two possibilities:

1) everyone knows but you, and don't want to tell you
2) nobody knows and neither do you

either way, isn't the most logical answer to find out on your own? but no, you don't want to invest time to learn...

???

[MrCarb]

I'm playing a drow shaman at the moment (which is why I've asked). I've invested alot of time into it already (perhaps not by AR standards, but more time than is healthy at any rate). I asked partially out of curiosity, and partially, I confess, because I was thinking of playing a different race.
Now, if you guys don't know the answer, as far as you know I might have (quite helpfuly) pointed out a bug. In that case you surely wouldn't immediately be so rude about it. I mean, how stupid would you look if it turned out there WAS some kind of bug? I'm assuming, then, that you do know.

Answering this particular issue requires not just playing a Drow shaman, but playing a drow shaman, and the other shaman races all at high ranks and drawing comparisons. That is a tough, time consuming experiment to pull off (one in which I've already done a large chunk myself), and I don't think it is unreasonable to ask if anyone else can give any input to a collective solution; you know, if you just happen to know anything. I don't know a great deal about AR compared to many of you, but when someone asks for advice about a class I've played I'm usually more than happy to give it to them. Do you think I'm doing something wrong when I do that? It is apparent that I'll get no answer other than my own, but I swear this to you: If someone asked this question and I knew the answer I would answer it in the clearest terms I could, and I don't think anyone would resent me for it.

[Groq]

When my drow was at 44 I didn't see much of a difference in harm or any causes to be honest but I didn't rank it up to 50. I would say that you should play a drow for the sneak/ blah blah blah rather than try to play it for the larger causes because I don't think there is much of a difference in causes. Not that I saw.

[MrCarb]

That's quite helpful. Thanks

[Vanisse]

what makes you leap to the assumption that there is a bug?

first off, damn you for guilting me into doing research for you. i haven't found any evidence on forum or in the helpfiles linking int to harm. if you would like to point out where that is, i'll rescind whatever offended you even though i have no idea what was possibly offensive.

secondly, i can understand not having enough time to play a character (god knows i have no time to play morts lately myself) but suggesting that your pair of level 30 shamans is reason enough to file for a bug and the implication of imms gratefully groveling at your feet ruffles my feathers.

anyway, what is wrong with experimenting with a character that might not be the greatest powerhouse in ar? there are always benefits of playing a less used race/class combo even if it's just for the learning experience. and taking a char to 50 is a good thing despite the piles of pre-50 deletes all over the graveyard. i'd keep the char you've expended countless hours in and just take it up slowly whenever you have the time. that way you can answer your own questions without being frustrated by anybody else.

(that last paragraph is what i meant by my last post. sorry if you got mad for no reason over it, i had to rush off to work.)

[Adebaldi]

Drow might get a bit less hp, but should get a lot more mana, which through cures translates to much more hp. I ran out of mana with my human shaman even at 50. I guess it depends which suits your playing style more, but I wouldn't defenately call drow shamans useless.

[MrCarb]

I didn't try to guilt you. I didn't assume that there was a bug, I merely pointed out that if there was one you would look very silly. I didn't want any imms to grovel at my feet. I didn't file for a bug. This is just fabrication.

I'm not sure exactly where it was posted; in fact I noted the possibility that this change never went in in my first post. If I did imagine it then I thought I would be told as much fairly quickly and would perhaps look a bit silly for misreading an earlier post. I could live with that.

My ideal scenario would be that someone competent (perhaps Slade, Pip, even youself, Vanisse or one of several others) had played one recently and could offer some quick insight. I think the main problem here is that I think it's fine talking about most game mechanics and you think it has a negative effect on the way people play and/or behave on the forums.

If somone asked me "Do drow dark knights get a bonus to lightning bolt." I would say "They certainly didn't when I played one, and I don't remember it being added." Not "Play one to 50 and see, you lazy sausage."

You do make a good point about the character not having to be my main character. I shan't delete him.

[Vanisse]

for gods sakes stop taking everything i post as a personal attack. evidently sarcasm/humor never gets across on the internet (i get what you mean vertas).

from now on i am not posting anything constructive whatsoever.

[MrCarb]

I'd be amazed if your humour can get across a garden fence, let alone the internet.