Using spells and transformations ICly, 'Trends' On CoTH.

[Azheron]

While we're on the subject, I've always wondered if a mage trained in illusionary magic could use a kind of polymorph spell on themselves, but retain thought? Like a mage casts sheep on himself, and hides in a farm to not get killed by an assassin, as one example. Much easier than completely turning yourself invisible for extended periods of time I'd think.

I would say... Yes? I mean, in Warcraft Three, the polymorphed target would be able to move by himself, no? And the spell "Hex" allows you to move by yourself, in game mechanics, so I'd say it would be possible. But I believe that in sheep form he/she wouldn't be able to cast spells, so you couldn't control the time you were a sheep.

I don't know, just sounds reasonable to me.

[Beltharean]

Makes sense. I don't really play magic characters myself, but it's always been in the back of my mind, heh.

[Harmonic]

You guys are doing it again, saying what people can and can't do.


But yes, this is a tricky one. In the books, you CAN actually use it on yourself, and do a variety of other forms. However, I'd probably say here, you'd have to be one hell of a practiced mage to be able to pull this off. This is a spell that requires alteration of your entire body, as well as being able to reverse it to your original form.

[Azheron]

You guys are doing it again, saying what people can and can't do.

FFF-
Wow. I didn't even notice!

:/

[BountyHunter]

While on the topics of illusions, I kind of follow a few simple rules with them as I may very well love illusion magic.

1) Illusions can not touch or harm anyone physically.

2) Illusions can not be sustained for long periods of time.

3) Illusions can not be any greater then ones own ability.

With these restrictions, I tend to try to use illusions in a way which isn't regarded as Godmoding or anything of the sort. Despite illusions being able to touch or harm anyone physically, I believe you can mask something with an illusion, making it seem larger then it would. Making something invisible by the use of illusions? That would be very, very hard. You'd need to create the illusion of the area behind the person for them to actually seem like they're not there. Thus, I wouldn't go hiding a large axe in the form of a small sword, that'd be too hard.

But, this is just my two cents. Actual Polymorph which changed the shape of a character into something else wouldn't be regarded as illusions in my opinion. That would be more in the realm of Alteration/Transmutation. Even so, casting it on yourself wouldn't be hard but you'd leave yourself very open to attacks in the mean time until it wears off because, as far as I know, sheep don't have hands to cast magic with.

Not to force anyone to obey these things, this is just how I'd play my characters.

[Azheron]

Would making illusions "Physical", able to touch and that, make it harder to cast? Meaning, would illusions that are not physical be easier to cast?

[BountyHunter]

Creating something which is physical is conjuration, you could however hide your illusion over say, a rock, to cause the sensation of feeling the illusion but the area around the rock would be unable to be touched.

But, as I said, everyone does things differently. Illusions can mean something for one person while they mean a completely different thing to others.

[Bovel]

This discussion comes up alot and especially around cultist; "Can I do necromancy even though my avatar is a warlock?" (..and not a death knight? -Added with WotLK)

Back on my retail realm this was also a constant gibbering discussion. And it's always end in one group basing their RP on what is possible while the other shape theirs by what is plausible. Both sides are right but for something working in a viable roleplay enviroment you have to balance between both to what will make most RP. (Which is not always easy to predict.)

Essentially I agree to Rensin's comment on this. Follow -one- class as much as possible, even if your avatar is a warlock but you want to roleplay a necromancer, avoid using demons and so on. That ruins the illusion of being a necromancer even though your character might have started his or her magical career with demonology.

But there is always two important factors when it comes to magic; "Magical affinity - do you have it?" & the format of the ritual/ceremony/spell/magic.
Most game mechanic spells require that your character have a magical affinity, IE the ability to cast magic. Quite a few rituals and such require this aswell.
But to every rule there is an exception, in this case quite a few. Some rituals do not require a character with magical affinity to take part cause either there are other magical reagents involved already or some divine ceremonies invoke the intervention of a diety (or demon).
Alchemists trap arcane properties from plans in potions, so they can sort of use magic without having the affinity. This goes for inscriptors and runers aswell, that can trap basic spells into a scroll or use a rune which is also a kind of magic that does not need the character to be magcially gifted.


So what is the rule of thumb in all this?
Limit and specialize your character, instead of being overpowered he or she might be especially skilled or knowledgeable in something very specific, for example how my mage-turned-warlock only dabble with demons for the fel to power his original frost magics.

[Harmonic]

Well. To be blunt, you can't be a necromancer if you're a DK or a Warlock... you're either a DK or a Warlock.

You'd have to work at becoming a prestige.

But yes, all in all, that's what I'm trying to say. And yes, Bounty-Hunter, you bring up a good point. And Azheron, at the point where an illlusion become a physical manifestation, it ceases to be an illusion, and is therefore -immensly- harder to cast. Sometimes, it transcends into a different type of spell all together... perhaps one that might now even be castable by a mage. Just remeber to work within the realm of realism. As in, a mage may be able to recreate a fire breathing dragonhead with magic, but to summon one would probably require some amazing Arch-Mage that's the top of their game.

[Nexi]

I understand the frustration. Whenever I see people arguing about something like this (or anything for that matter), I leave those channels.

Can we, then, decide on an official view of how much overlap exists between Warlocks and Magi? As I mentioned in another thread, I have a char who has ICly gone from Magi to Warlock, and from Warlock to Necromancer, but would she still ICly be able to cast the spells she learned in Dalaran even though Blizzard didn't give those spells to the Warlock core class and vice versa? I recall being called out by a few users for RPing Kimee as being able to cast something as simple as a Frostbolt... if only they knew I have RPed her as making portals too! I haven't done it in a while, of course, but only because I hate being yelled at. QQ

[Dilly]

Obviously the game's mechanics reflect blizzards view on how WoW works, or else they wouldn't include them. We aren't pen and paper here.

With all due respect, I have to disagree here. D: That's... pretty much the whole problem. Everything's been so "screw lore" ever since WoW came out. Yes, that is how they want -World of Warcraft- to work, a game dedicated to people who want awesome spells with catchy names and flashy animations to be all "Look at me, I'm powerful!" in raids. Last time I checked, CotH wasn't about that. :< I mean, there are spells that don't make sense -at all-.

However, I agree with the rest. :B Though I believe one should keep their character's power in mind when doing things. Since... For example. It would take a hellishly powerful Druid to create a storm or turn their skin into bark. I imagine it would be the same with Warlocks summoning/controlling Infernals or Doomguards. I mean... Even if the character knew how to start doing any of these things, there's the possibility that the huge power drain will kill them unless they're like... at the peak of their power.

Well, anyway. Just my opinion. :>

/lame

[Unahim]

I think there's already a rule in place that helps in these situations: respect.
If the person using a spell and the person undergoing said spell both respect each other, things get a lot easier. The one casting the spell will be respectful enough to leave openings, to give the other person a choice and a way to fight back.

Then, the person undergoing the spell, needs to have enough respect for the first person to not start quarrelling about it. The caster was respectful enough to leave openings in his ability, so now it's time for him to either accept the spell, or just use one of the holes in the spell to "dodge" it if you don't like it.

This prevents conflict: Ok, yes, the spell might not have had any effect, but at least you're not contesting the others right to even cast the spell. Generally speaking, dodging a spell causes a lot less discussion than stamping your foot on the ground and loudly proclaiming the spell to not even exist.
As an added layer of respect, if you dodge a spell like this out of principle, give the other person something in return. "Mess up" on purpose, let your character trip or something, just throw them a bone.

I believe most conflicts can be avoided if mutual respect is the highest virtue for both parties.

I hope what the message is coming across clearly, it gets a bit confusing with all the "the person that this, person who that, etc..."... in hindsight I should have given them names.

[Baltaj]

I think there's already a rule in place that helps in these situations: respect.
If the person using a spell and the person undergoing said spell both respect each other, things get a lot easier. The one casting the spell will be respectful enough to leave openings, to give the other person a choice and a way to fight back.

Then, the person undergoing the spell, needs to have enough respect for the first person to not start quarrelling about it. The caster was respectful enough to leave openings in his ability, so now it's time for him to either accept the spell, or just use one of the holes in the spell to "dodge" it if you don't like it.

This prevents conflict: Ok, yes, the spell might not have had any effect, but at least you're not contesting the others right to even cast the spell. Generally speaking, dodging a spell causes a lot less discussion than stamping your foot on the ground and loudly proclaiming the spell to not even exist.
As an added layer of respect, if you dodge a spell like this out of principle, give the other person something in return. "Mess up" on purpose, let your character trip or something, just throw them a bone.

I believe most conflicts can be avoided if mutual respect is the highest virtue for both parties.

I hope what the message is coming across clearly, it gets a bit confusing with all the "the person that this, person who that, etc..."... in hindsight I should have given them names.

Well... I don't know. Not all spells can be dodged... and besides, starting to "break the rules" and acting like a godmoder just because your opponent did something you judge not do-able seems just like the beginning of a bigger discussion than would be the one about the do-ability of the very spell of your opponent.

[Unahim]

Well... I don't know. Not all spells can be dodged... and besides, starting to "break the rules" and acting like a godmoder just because your opponent did something you judge not do-able seems just like the beginning of a bigger discussion than would be the one about the do-ability of the very spell of your opponent.

Well, it doesn't have to be a dodge, just any way to resist it or undo the effect is fine.
And you're not godmoding either. The above system wouldn't work if you're using the attack/defense rolls of course, but if you're not you're free to choose if you're hit or not.
Dodging/avoiding something once does not constitute godmoding under those rules, especially if you resolve to make it up to the other person in a subsequent "round" of combat.

Also, if your opponent launches a spell at you that is so strong that you apparently can only get out of it by godmoding, then your opponent seems to be godmoding himself, so the discussion about dodging it shouldn't happen either way because either:
1) Your opponent is a godmoder, making him an unsuitable RP partner to begin with.
or
2) He is not a godmoder, and you can feasible dodge/avoid one spell/effect without looking like a godmoder yourself.

I do see where you are coming from though, but starting a discussion just because your opponent avoided one attack(no matter how cool you yourself thought it was) just doesn't seem very respectful to begin with.

[Azheron]

And Azheron, at the point where an illlusion become a physical manifestation, it ceases to be an illusion, and is therefore -immensly- harder to cast.

My thoughts exactly.