Spells: Pacify duration incorrect for timeline

[Goregasmic]

Originally Posted by Zuranthium [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It wasn't viable. Already wasn't reliable to begin with on most blue-con mobs. Hence the mountains of people, who did have high Charisma, talking about how much Lull sucked and how jealous they were of Harmony.

Harmony is dirt cheap, AE and cannot fail or even get resisted. Even with lull not sucking the advantages (outdoors) are obvious. The only AE lull ench get is 300 mana with a significant cooldown and comes with all the drawbacks of ench lulls.

7mins lull is great in general though.

[Zuranthium]

The AoE aspect wasn't the draw of Harmony. What mattered is Harmony actually worked. It COULD get resisted though (this is another thing that needs to be changed on p99). Not exactly sure on the level limit, but a Level 5 Druid couldn't just go Harmony a Level 50 target. At least not after very early classic, when they changed a few previously unresistible spell lines to be resistible by deep red cons.

All other lull spells in classic were quite weak. Very high resist rate, which lead to a critical fail frequently. Unless you were near a zone line or had a Cleric to rez (or were a Necro with FD lulling undead), it was generally not worth risking lull if you weren't able to break a camp with root/mez to begin with. Lull was mostly just something you would hope to high roll with to save a bit of time/mana, since if it worked a lull meant casting less root/mez. If it didn't work after the first couple casts, which was common, then you'd usually just stop.

ALSO, regarding this theoretical "7 minute Pacify duration", the Lull line is supposed to have a chance of ending early, every tick.

[nilbog]

I've recently done a lot of research on lull type spells, and have some validating questions.

In classic, lulls seemed to have a tiered resist floor which would mean lvl 50+ npcs were completely immune. Is there any research or additional input about casting a lull type spell on a 50+ npc?

Did low level lull type spells have level caps on what they could affect? For example, could a cleric cast the lowest level 'lull' spell on a level 40 npc, or would they need to cast calm or pacify for a chance to succeed?

Could bard lull (Kelin's Lugubrious Lament) work on mobs that cleric/ranger lulls couldn't? Or did it follow the same logic.

Were there specific mobs that were notably immune to lull? I discovered 14 different npc races which should always be immune to lull spells, but these are 'guard/city' type races.

[Wayward]

Ranger lull? Harmony is unresistable, innit?

[Crede]

Originally Posted by Wayward [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ranger lull? Harmony is unresistable, innit?

Rangers can calm animals. Not the same as harmo as it works indoors.

[Wayward]

Originally Posted by Crede [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Rangers can calm animals. Not the same as harmo as it works indoors.

Ah yeah - but that's the same as all other Pacify though, at least that's what I thought. That the class doesn't matter, the Pacify spells all work based on the same mechanic, just with different level of mob it will work on and a different Frenzy radius.

[Wayward]

ie: from Live

Calm Animal
Classes: RNG/31, DRU/15
Mana :45
Duration: 7 ticks

Slot 1: Frenzy Radius(5/50)
Slot 2: Reaction Radius(10/50)
Slot 3: Pacify

Casting Time: 2.5
Recast Time: 5.0
Recovery Time: 1.5
Skill: Alteration
Spell Type: Beneficial
Target Type: Animals
Resist: Magic (no adjust) Range: 200
Interruptable: Yes
Deleteable: Yes
Dispellable: Yes
Time of day: Any
Location: Any

Pacify
Classes: CLR/36, PAL/49, ENC/35
Mana :100
Duration: 7 ticks

Slot 1: Frenzy Radius(1/55)
Slot 2: Reaction Radius(1/55)
Slot 3: Pacify

Cast on you: You feel your aggression subside.
Cast on other: Someone looks less aggressive.
Wears off:

Casting Time: 3.0
Recast Time: 6.0
Recovery Time: 1.5
Skill: Alteration
Spell Type: Beneficial
Target Type: Single Target, Any PC
Resist: Magic (no adjust) Range: 200
Interruptable: Yes
Deleteable: Yes
Dispellable: Yes
Time of day: Any
Location: Any

The only discernible difference is the Frenzy / Reaction radius

[Zuranthium]

Some evidence of Harmony not being completely unresistible: "Harmony worked 90% of the time and never ever aggroed on failure" / "Harmony seems far superior to me, not only because it's AOE, but because it is resisted so seldom." / lots of talk here about occasional resists. I specifically remember needing to cast Harmony several times on a red con goblin in classic before it would stick.

Originally Posted by nilbog [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Is there any research or additional input about casting a lull type spell on a 50+ npc?

I haven't yet found a player precisely saying "lull resists 100% of the time on Level 50+ NPC's", but literally every post from a classic Enchanter or Cleric says "don't even bother trying to use these spells at high levels" - https://web.archive.org/web/20010207...ML/052139.html / https://web.archive.org/web/20010206...ML/003538.html / https://web.archive.org/web/20010823...c&f=9&t=005368

Originally Posted by nilbog [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Did low level lull type spells have level caps on what they could affect? For example, could a cleric cast the lowest level 'lull' spell on a level 40 npc, or would they need to cast calm or pacify for a chance to succeed?

There doesn't seem to be any level cap. Lots of talk about Pacify being a waste of mana and mainly using Lull (but both failing most of the time).

Originally Posted by nilbog [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Could bard lull (Kelin's Lugubrious Lament) work on mobs that cleric/ranger lulls couldn't?

I assume you've seen this thread, detailing almost everything that needs to be changed (the exception being damage spells, which were given lower resists specifically for players over level 50 - I didn't save the link where Abashi or Absor on the official forums posted about the change; I also randomly saw Atol's Spectral Shackles being patched to resist less).

Bard lull should work on all targets and cut the target's magic resist in half for the resist check, while having a minimum 6% resist chance at all levels. When searching through countless posts, Bards notably are not complaining about their lull song, in comparison to Enchanters and Clerics all calling their lull spells trash.

[spoil]

I notice in all these classic discussions of the lull spell line, there's not a single mention of the word "charisma."

So I would expect a level 54 enchanter with 83 CHA trying to use wake of tranquility on a pack of level 50+ mobs in upper dogs to consider the lull spell line to be suicidal. They didn't know anything about the game. This is pretty useless anecdotal evidence.

No chanter on p99 is running around with less than 200 CHA or trying to lull high level velious mobs below level 60. Find a post of a level 60 enchanter with 255 CHA struggling to lull mobs 10+ levels lower in the classic era.