Tip: Crusade’s reduced mana cost helps your whole group
Posted14 January 2017
Last Updated On20 September 2018
ByNewsby
Paladins, remember that the new changes to Crusade (1618) no longer has a cooldown or increasing mana cost! Keep it running for 18 mana per minute and it adds a base Heavy Damage Weighting (lots more with blessings lore) and Flares to your ENTIRE GROUP! via Nairdin
On review of Crusade (1618) it was determined the increasing mana cost was not quite aligned with the benefit of the spell. Crusade has been changed to a fixed cost (18 mana) 60 second duration spell and will no longer have a cooldown period in which mana costs increase.
Viduus
Date: 11/04/2016 10:11 PM CDT
From: VANKRASN39
Subj: Re: Crusading gets more affordable!
While you have Crusade fresh in your mind, can you detail the Blessings Lore benefits for the damage weighting please?
Date: 11/05/2016 02:40 AM CDT
From: MENOS
Subj: Re: Crusading gets more affordable!
While I am still not sure I will bother casting it (chalk one up to balance by way of upkeep annoyance), this seems like a positive change for people who do use it.
Sweet is the sound of the pouring rain, And the stream that falls from the hill to plain. Better than rain or rippling brook, Is a mug of beer inside this Took.
Date: 11/05/2016 08:09 AM CDT
From: PEREGRINEFALCON
Subj: Re: Crusading gets more affordable!
>> While I am still not sure I will bother casting it (chalk one up to balance by way of upkeep annoyance), this seems like a positive change for people who do use it.
Agree with both sentiments. Since this spells debut, the only time I’ve used it was last week in the necropolis as I was the under-powered guy in a capped group (being only 87) and was trying to contribute to the group effort.
Maybe I’ll use it more going forward given I don’t have to keep track of a cool-down on top of mashing a key to recast every 60 seconds. But generally speaking 60 second spells tend to be wasted spell slots for me for unless they are utility in nature (e.g. old haste my wizard would use to eat herbs but I never kept the spell up regularly when hunting).
— Robert
A powerful whirlpool is suddenly overtaken by a windy vortex!
Date: 11/05/2016 08:32 AM CDT
From: PEREGRINEFALCON
Subj: Re: Crusading gets more affordable!
Just to provide some more constructive feedback as to what would make this a spell I would be more likely to use going forward…
Even a spell duration of 3-5 minutes would put this spell more on my radar to use. The problem with 60 second duration spells is that it means I pretty much have to cast it while already in combat. The benefit isn’t great enough that I would want to cast it instead of 1615/1630/1614/disabler CMANs which have a reliable direct and tangible effect on my opponent – it’s just not worth giving my opponent the additional time to do something to throw this spell up.
Given that, this means I need to cast it before combat. With a 60 second duration the spell may very likely run it’s course before I even encounter my next enemy (likely not but why waste time casting and burning mana so I can get the 20-30 second tail end of the spell when I do find my next group of opponents? With a 3-5 minute duration I can cast the spell outside of combat and expect I will get to use it for at least a few combats before the spell runs its course. Even if there is a cooldown period at that point at least it’s a more practical design / setup (from my perspective).
Hope that helps with my perspective on 60 second buff combat spells in general.
— Robert
A powerful whirlpool is suddenly overtaken by a windy vortex!
Date: 11/05/2016 09:06 AM CDT
From: THORNBROOK
Subj: Re: Crusading gets more affordable!
Thanks for this. Up until now I had only been using it in “boss” fights. Namely the arena in which I’d use on it champion 2,4,5. I used it in the necropolis and now I’ve been using it in addition to reim boost attack for the emperor. For those that use lich and are of a sufficiently high level I can think of two approaches to using the spell in its current duration. :Spellactive would just keep it going always but at 18 mana a pop likely you’d be higher level to not mind the mana usage. Another approach would be to have a simple script that only casted it while not in combat and when mana is greater than X, whatever you deem your surplus mana amount.
Any info on the lore component of the weighting?
Date: 11/05/2016 09:09 AM CDT
From: THORNBROOK
Subj: Re: Crusading gets more affordable!
Robert,
In response to your thoughts on which spells you’d use in combat do you regularly make use of infusing your weapon with 1615? That would free up your opening cast to be something else, possibly even Crusade.
Date: 11/05/2016 10:20 AM CDT
From: ALLENM20
Subj: Re: Crusading gets more affordable!
I wish this was like divine shield and zealot. I use a polearm so I don’t use divine shield and I don’t need the as boost or want the DS decrease of zealot. Seems like crusade would be a great alternative for folks like me if it lasted 5 min and made ya choose between the 3.
As I gaze over the horizon, the wind tugs at my cloak and whispers, “Adventure” in my ear.
AIM: Kaight (Matt) GS4
Date: 11/05/2016 01:37 PM CDT
From: PEREGRINEFALCON
Subj: Re: Crusading gets more affordable!
>> In response to your thoughts on which spells you’d use in combat do you regularly make use of infusing your weapon with 1615? That would free up your opening cast to be something else, possibly even Crusade.
I infrequently infuse my weapon with 1602-Pious Trail.
1615 is a bit situational for me right now. I typically use it on aivern when they get stunned by my partner before they dive (so out of reach of weapon and shield).
My usual opener is Shield Bash or Feint, followed by an aimed attack to the head. The opener sets them up (or tags them with shield bash so both my partner and I get credit) and then the ambush frequently finishes them off.
I’ll also use 1615 in place of feint/shield bash for a few combats if my stamina is low to give it time to recover (I use 1607 to replenish stamina as well so this only happens when things get a bit crazy).
All that said, I haven’t really used 1615 as my infused spell (other than maybe when the ability first came out), since it has been awhile, I’ll give it a try and see how I like it now. Additionally, I’ll go out of my way to cast 1618 more frequently just to see if the benefit offsets the tedium of having to continually refresh it.
Thanks!
— Robert
A powerful whirlpool is suddenly overtaken by a windy vortex!
Date: 11/05/2016 01:45 PM CDT
From: FALAN
Subj: Re: Crusading gets more affordable!
<3
Out of curiosity, is there any more talk of our 50th spell slot?
__________________________ – Kobold in Disguise Falvicar, Blade of the Night
You swing a silver-edged black veil iron katana at Sevynne!
* Sevynne drops dead at your feet! * Sevynne just bit the dust!
Date: 11/05/2016 08:19 PM CDT
From: GS4-VIDUUS
Subj: Re: Crusading gets more affordable!
Out of curiosity, is there any more talk of our 50th spell slot?
Having seen behind the curtain I now give the following advice to all players. Suggest new ideas as often as you can, and be as detailed as you can. I always found it was helpful to lead with imagery and then dive into technical details. If you feel your idea fills a gap that needs filling, explain the need and breakdown the solution. It’s rare, but when players hit upon a good idea and rally behind it, it tends to be an easy sell and just a matter of time until implementation. Even when an idea doesn’t get adopted, the discussion sometimes exposes problems in the game that lead to solutions that weren’t previously considered. As an example, for a long time I considered the paladin mana costs to be unbalanced because you could spend more mana spelling up on a capped paladin than a capped mage, mostly due to the cost of 1612. When all defensive buff durations were normalized, the problem went away. I’ve since realized that it was probably never seen as a problem because it was never discussed as a problem. Had there been a post on why paladins spent 500-600 mana spelling up at cap, when pures only spent 300, it would have probably been given a closer look. The same deal with 1640. You had a spell, it wasn’t practical in many ways for a fighting class, you explained the issues with the old version, then came together to put forth a solution that worked for most everyone. Doing it that way allows us to be sure that we’ve committed to the right solution and that it can be balanced in a way that both works for your class and addresses gaps.
So, will there be any more discussion on your 50th spell slot?
Viduus
Date: 11/05/2016 08:37 PM CDT
From: KRAKII
Subj: Re: Crusading gets more affordable!
“When all defensive buff durations [that are not Bard-Songs] were normalized, the problem went away. I’ve since realized that it was probably never seen as a problem because it was never discussed as a problem. Had there been a post on why paladins spent 500-600 mana spelling up at cap, when pures only spent 300, it would have probably been given a closer look.” — Viduus
Fixed that up for you.
.
So, let’s talk about “mana costs for four hours of spells” versus “four hours of Renewals” [at roughly 11 minutes apiece, at cap] and “cast 11 mage spells at a time” versus “Multi-Song Penalty” [for more than like 6 spells, at a time]…
(I’m perfectly willing for this to be in the Bard category, or Magic Systems, or whatever.)
Date: 11/06/2016 01:05 AM CDT
From: SVEN2010
Subj: Re: Crusading gets more affordable!
Cool- so here’re the opportunities for development with Paladins as I see them-
1) We could stand to be less one-dimensional. On paper, we have a non-combat benefit or two- field raises and increasing the duration of bless. In actuality, people often don’t want our raises (we can argue all day long about whether or not people are right to feel this way, but that’s the lived reality). The fundamental problem is that the things we offer are offered by other professions already. We’ve got nothing unique.
2) We could give the profession more depth if we had more of the site/bane divide that clerics have, and if the deity-specific messaging of our spells were as inspired as that of cleric spells. I never feel like a Paladin of X Deity, I just feel like a Paladin. That’s a big swing and a miss in a profession that already feels woefully generic.
3) We might be more interesting if less of the Paladin circle were devoted to generic buffs. Right now, 13 of the Paladin base spells are pretty generic buffs of some sort. That’s….excessive, and it adds to the very generic feel of Paladins.
4) As far as our offensive, beginning-of-combat spells, we have 1602, 1614, 1608, and 1618. That’s….also excessive. The sweet spot is to have fewer setup spells but let them do more. Merge 1602 and 1614; and 1608 and 1618, etc etc.
5) Reduce the number of short duration spells. GoS Paladins who use zealot basically spend their whole hunt renewing spells and sigils. It’s rough. Does Zealot really need such a short duration? Does 1607? (Keep the stamina regen benefit up long-term and just make the one time stamina point boost something that stays on a timer)
General Spell Slot Thoughts:
1650: Allow Paladins to add temporary bane to weapons that don’t already have it. Keep it reasonable- AS boost or allow them to add a common flare. Give access to a single uncommon flare based on CONVERT status. (based on the crit table of that deity’s 1615/1630)
1640: Mild chrism-like effect when used on someone converted to a deity of the same Pantheon.
1625: 50 Paladin spell ranks- allow for permanently sanctifying a shield. Add a TD boost, double flares, etc. Also allow a way to toggle between double plasma flares and double flares of the deity’s crit table, or, after say 75 Paladin ranks, code it so that the Paladin’s bonded weapon will flare whatever flare table is most effective against the target (if there is no vulnerability, then it would default to plasma/deity-specific)
1617: Boost the AS benefit or reduce DS penalty against living or undead foes (based on smite/bane alignment)
1615: Better deity-specific messaging (we can do better than colors)
1614: Deity-specific messaging
1613: Smite-Aligned deities get DS boost as now, Bane-aligned get an AS boost instead. Zelia is random.
1612: Deity-specific messaging
1611: Deity-Specific Messaging
1610: Deity-Specific Messaging
1609: Deity-Specific Messaging. Also provide phantom CMAN ranks to shield maneuvers. Paladins need this part of them fleshed out and made more impactful in order to help diversify hunting strategies.
1606: Deity-Specific Messaging
1605: Deity-Specific Messaging; increase benefit moderately against living or death foes based on smite/bane alignment
1604: Allow the Paladin to choose to give sanctified weapons double flares of their diety’s crit table instead of plasma, if they so choose.
1601: Deity-Specific messaging
Date: 11/15/2016 04:07 AM CST
From: DAID
Subj: Re: Crusading gets more affordable!
Thanks for this change. Even in the old way I did find myself using 1618 somewhat when hunting creatures that generally got splatted or stunned on the first encounter. In that context, setups like 1615 take actually more time, because you have to cast the spell in front of a creature. Still, I’d get it cast a few times, and then it’s one of these “sometimes on, sometimes off” spells and it just gets annoying to upkeep it.
1618 still suffers like any spells we cast in combat, which is that 1603 kind of has to be active, so then it becomes 6 seconds to cast the spell and more upkeep.
I’m not sure how popular a version of 1603 would be that lasted the duration of a regular buff spell but added +3 mana to any spell cast (it could base upon EVOKE use or something). Some will surely lament that you can cast more than one spell in the 30-second window, so there may be some kind of trade-off we can consider between the status quo and my solution. I mention this so we can think about paladin upkeep while hunting. 1603, 1617, 1618, 117, 140, CMAN SURGE for many, interlace 1607…I don’t necessarily mind but it’s quite a lot to keep track of.
Date: 11/15/2016 08:08 AM CST
From: SVEN2010
Subj: Re: Crusading gets more affordable!
Why do you need 1603 up to cast your Paladin spells? I realize that 8% hindrance isn’t nothing, but even if a cast fails, your second cast is successful 92% of the time. So 6 seconds is generally a worst case scenario.
Casting 1603 every time first means your best outcome is your worst case scenario without it.
Date: 11/15/2016 08:44 AM CST
From: KRAKII
Subj: Re: Crusading gets more affordable!
Even with only 3 or 4% chance of failure, I have distinct memories of seeing, “armor hindrance, 1=FUMBLE, hindrance, armor” on consecutive cast attempts. (Which REALLY sucked when we were talking about a 25-mana RepelUndeadTrue, let me tell you.)
So 8% is nothing to sneeze at.
.
Does Faith’s Clarity/1603 apply its bonus to itself, when cast?
Date: 11/15/2016 10:47 PM CST
From: DAID
Subj: Re: Crusading gets more affordable!
>Why do you need 1603 up to cast your Paladin spells? I realize that 8% hindrance isn’t nothing, but even if a cast fails, your second cast is successful 92% of the time. So 6 seconds is generally a worst case scenario.
I’m used to playing a pure in robes. I don’t like hindrance. Even 8% against, say, Crusade, is about 1.5 mana. So you only pay 2x the mana for it to not fail, and then your 1615 “set up” doesn’t instead set you up doing nothing for 3 seconds (though, as it’s soft RT you can run away I suppose).
For Judgment, which I use pretty much constantly for bandits, the mana failure cost is now up to 2.4, and you’re sure to find bandits within 27 seconds.
Also 3 mana to a paladin is nothing. I just get annoyed casting it all the time.
And since you said “Paladin spells” I’ll leave out the obvious part of MnS which practically cannot be cast without 1603, taking off my armor, or a sanctuary.
Date: 11/15/2016 10:49 PM CST
From: DAID
Subj: Re: Crusading gets more affordable!
PS: Hindrance when casting 1603 is one of those major face palms that drives me bonkers on principle.
Date: 11/18/2016 12:27 PM CST
From: SVEN2010
Subj: Re: Crusading gets more affordable!
Right, but let’s play out the numbers here.
If you always cast 1603 before you cast another spell, then you’re always waiting at least 3 seconds before you fire off the real spell. And 8% of the time, you’re waiting 6 seconds.
If you drop 1603 and just cast the spell you really want to cast, it’s instant 92% of the time. 8% of the time you fumble and have to wait 3 seconds before you cast it- which is what you’re doing 92% of the time by always casting 1603 first.
So casting 1603 is actually putting you in a worse position than not casting it.
Date: 11/18/2016 02:02 PM CST
From: GS4-ESTILD
Subj: Re: Crusading gets more affordable!
SVEN2010
If you always cast 1603 before you cast another spell, then you’re always waiting at least 3 seconds before you fire off the real spell.
This is only true if you only cast one spell every 30 seconds (the duration of Faith’s Clarity (1603)).
GameMaster Estild
Date: 11/18/2016 03:23 PM CST
From: KRAKII
Subj: Re: Crusading gets more affordable!
“Waaal,” <spit> “Y’all only had th’ one critter…” </Texas Ranger>
Date: 11/18/2016 06:35 PM CST
From: PFLATS
Subj: Re: Crusading gets more affordable!
While we’re talking about 1603, mind taking a look at my thoughts on buffing the unloved Armored Casting?
True enough. Still though- we already have 2-3 setup spells to cast every time. The extra 3 seconds hardly seems worth it for 8% of hindrance reduction.
In my mind, 1603 is for the 100s. Say, for example, if you want to use 117.
Date: 12/26/2016 06:59 PM CST
From: DAID
Subj: Re: Crusading gets more affordable!
Also, as long as I had just brought up 1603, I gave someone in town a full spellup on my paladin. I had to cast 1603 three times, because not every major town hangout is a Sanctuary.
This is one more example of how 30-seconds is a ridiculous duration for this kind of spell.
Sure I guess I can take off my armor but I’m a paladin. In fact, I can cast fine, as long as I cast Faith’s Clarity each 30 seconds.
Date: 12/26/2016 07:42 PM CST
From: PEREGRINEFALCON
Subj: Re: Crusading gets more affordable!
>> This is one more example of how 30-seconds is a ridiculous duration for this kind of spell.
+1 on this!
Let’s make 3 minutes the new 30 second / 60 second norm for spells like this and 1608.
— Robert
A powerful whirlpool is suddenly overtaken by a windy vortex!
Date: 12/27/2016 03:58 PM CST
From: DAID
Subj: Re: Crusading gets more affordable!
>> This is one more example of how 30-seconds is a ridiculous duration for this kind of spell.
>+1 on this!
With a little thought, I have a specific proposal. When fully active, 1603 has the caster cast as if they are on a Santuary (no hindrance). However, like Manna, once the caster is either 1) Attacked or 2) Makes an attack, the spell begins to dissipate. In the 30 second dissipation window, it behaves exactly as it behaves now.
This does several things:
A) Allows us to spell ourselves or a companion up as though we are on a sanctuary. I can’t see anything extremely abusive or out of class for this.
B) Guarantees you find a creature before the timer starts
C) Even if it’s a spell of war, insists that at least the first spell cast is never hindered.
D) Still requires it to be recast regularly in combat (but with an assured outcome)
Date: 01/04/2017 04:08 PM CST
From: ALLENM20
Subj: Re: Crusading gets more affordable!
Any chance you can provide some insight on how effective Blessing Lore is for increasing the damage weighting effect Kona?
I know the wiki says it starts out at heavy damage weighting.
As I gaze over the horizon, the wind tugs at my cloak and whispers, “Adventure” in my ear.
AIM: Kaight (Matt) GS4
Date: 01/05/2017 10:10 PM CST
From: SVEN2010
Subj: Re: Crusading gets more affordable!
HDW (+10) +1 per 30 skill.
So at 120 skill, you’d get +14 weighting (very heavy)
Date: 01/06/2017 07:34 AM CST
From: DRUMPEL
Subj: Re: Crusading gets more affordable!
>HDW (+10) +1 per 30 skill. >So at 120 skill, you’d get +14 weighting (very heavy)
Does this damage weighting also function like it does on weapons – meaning, is there damage variation?
I have a razor sharp elven broad axe I pass between low level characters and it’s HDW (+10) and the added damage varies between +2 (or +3, lowest I’ve seen) to +10 on any given swing. Does the same happen with this spell or is it always a guaranteed +10?
Curious since I’ve got a paladin I’ve been playing and he’s, I think, 5 spells away from getting 1618. Though, I doubt he’d make much use of it seeing as it only lasts 60 seconds.
-Drumpel
Date: 01/06/2017 08:56 AM CST
From: SVEN2010
Subj: Re: Crusading gets more affordable!
I haven’t heard either way, so I would just assume it’s variable.
All weighting is static up to decent I believe, so you’re going to see more variability at higher lore values.
It’ll be a while before you can afford to use 1618 with any reliability, but at later levels you can afford to keep it up for a while if need be.
Date: 01/07/2017 02:38 PM CST
From: PFLATS
Subj: Re: Crusading gets more affordable!
A thought on 1603:
How about enabling multicast on the spell but not making the spell stackable otherwise. Starting off, you get 30 seconds as normal. Once you get to 25 ranks SMC, you can have 1 minute of 1603 for 6 mana, and at cap you can have quintcast, giving you 2:30 duration for 15 mana. I guess 3 minutes if you go wild with SMC enhancives.
It would be a nice boon for people who are already training SMC past 24/25/30, and an incentive for everyone who hasn’t.
Date: 01/07/2017 02:39 PM CST
From: PFLATS
Subj: Re: Crusading gets more affordable!
edit: Actually, building it on multicast is a bad idea. That would kill the discoverability of the buff. Just use the 25 rank breakpoints but build it into the spell to always be longer.
Date: 02/27/2017 12:36 AM CST
From: RBALDWIN
Subj: Re: Crusading gets more affordable!
I find myself not using this spell at all, anyone else? Maybe once in a blue moon when I remember it, but honestly refreshing an 18 mana spell even 2x post cap is taxing on a given hunt.
Date: 02/27/2017 07:50 AM CST
From: SVEN2010
Subj: Re: Crusading gets more affordable!
I use it, but the challenge is that we already have so many setup spells. If I have a group of enemies, it’s:
