[Next Message in Time] |
[Previous Message in Time] |
[Next Message in Topic] |
[Previous Message in Topic]
Message ID: 5786
Date: Sat Aug 28 23:02:16 BST 1999
Author: J.R. Hyde
Subject: Re: Mana
>Seems I'm arguing about this everywhere I go.
>
>People have this mistaken assumption that more mana = more
>spells. That is not the case. The amount of mana a caster
>has determines the number of spells he can cast without
>resting/meditating. The mana regeneration rate determines how
>many spells he can cast over a given period of time. You can
>have 100 mana or 1000 mana, if your mana regeneration rate is
>unchanged you will still cast the same number of spells/hour.
>Thus, more mana is advantageous in a single fight; it is not
>advantageous over the long term (if you use that advantage in
>a single fight, you pay for it with longer downtime).
>
>e.g. Your party tries to take and hold a room. The cleric
>has 500 mana. You attack and are only able to clear the first
>half of the room before the cleric is out of mana and must
>meditate. The cleric meditates. By the time he is at full
>mana, the portion of the room you've cleared has respawned.
>
>The typical reaction to this type of scenario is "damn, we
>could've done it if we'd only had more mana." This is not so.
>Say the cleric had 1000 mana. You attack and are able to
>clear the entire room, with the cleric finishing OOM. The
>cleric meditates. By the time he is at 500 mana, the entire
>room has respawned, and now the scenario is identical to the
>previous. More mana lets you take the room once where you
>could not before (single fight), but it does not enable you to
>hold the room (long term).
>
>So I would say the use for the song is if you can forsee a
>situation where you need additional mana for a single fight.
>Start singing it before, let the casters top off, then start
>the fight. That should let them get one or two extra spells
>in for just this one fight (after they've cast the first few
>spells, you don't need to keep the int/wis boost up). Having
>the effect last longer would be more convenient, but not
>advantageous.
>
>--
>John H. Kim
>kim@...
>
>