Sounds intruiging for certain. Of course question is, what sort of things can you imbue the magical weapons with ? Will it just be +x,+y,+z and +-so-on ? Or might other effects be added as well ? Of course now i wonder, how many types of weapons will there be ? How many types of raw resources to work them from ? And will there also be quality of the items depending on what you have to make them with ?

Also Driders Schmiders ! They shall be nothing compared to my imperious legions !

Quoting Vandenburg, reply 24

Bears? Who wants bears? I say Pegasus Knights!

 

BEAR CAVALRY!

Edit:

Well they are a pain in the ass to turn into mounts.. besides just because they are magical doesn't mean they are there.. Just means that outfitting anyone with them is going to be a slow process.

But what do i care, they will be trampled underfoot by my legions ! ... of course not highly trained legions..

Edit: No.. Human Legions ! With Steel Equipment.. well okay,, bronze perhaps, do you know how expensive steel can be ? And bronze might just be for my elite legions.. the rest might get copper.. If it can be supplied.. and it's not too expensive..

Well, Brad has described equipping units with enchanted gear, and strong in-game "modability" seems to be a major design theme, so I think this is a reasonable hope. Given the back story scraps I've caught so far, the typical D&D paladin might not work directly--AFAIK, the closest things to gods in this game will be the dragons, and they're "more like forces of nature." But special abilities for a unit that require direct blessing from the channeler (and perhaps a manna maintainence cost) seems like a great idea to me.

I do so hope that I'll be able to set up my own Theocracy.

Nothing to stop a proclamation, but putting some punch behind the claim might not be possible, or at least not until very late in the game. I only said "might not work directly" because I've seen nothing about religious systems for the back story. I'm getting steadily more interested in how they're going to connect the single-player campaigns with the single-player sandbox, modding abilities, and multiplayer. Classic D&D paladin types might be easy in single-player sandbox, but maybe the multiplayer mode will require players to agree on potential unit types before starting a given game.

One of my early favorite characters was a somewhat silly paladin named Winthrop. Shortly after hitting 7th level and unreasonably lucking into a holy sword, he got to excessively feeling his paladin oats during one very bad day in some hills occupied by a Greater Cyclops. Being that sort of fellow, he actually fell back to the rear of the fleeing party, told them to run hard while he did what he could to distract the horrid thing. I was fully prepared to kiss the character goodbye--it seemed like a real moment for it. But the DM had some house rules, including a long, weird critical chart. Whatever he did behind the screen put Winthrop literally in the mouth of that Greater Cyclops, where a big chomp took him from full hits down to just 3. I made a saving throw to keep my grip on my holy sword, another for the chance to make an attack with it, and then hit the top end of those weird critical charts. The DM decided that the massive critical bonuses plus holy sword plus attacking the thing's soft palate meant that Winthrop lobotomized it from the inside. It was glorious, and thankfully the fleeing party was still close enough to come back and heal Winthrop from the damage he took when the thing fell over with him in still in its mouth.

I like paladins. And I really hope we'll get big size ranges for tactical units.

There's been far lesser men proclaiming themselves as gods.

If bears are good enough for Red Alert 3, bears are good for any game! 

Welcome to the Bear Cavalry Crusaders!

BEAR CAVALRY!

I wasn't holding up RA3 as a good game, just as a good example of games bringing in bears. 

That's just hilarious.  I almost have to wonder if he deliberatly 'nudged the scales' there or something.

Well, a good DM would never let you know.

Looks like I have to support the request for Inquisitors in an other thread. There's too much heresy around here and adherence to a false faith.

Pegasus Knights!

I am curious to know how the Channeller will gain back the essense burnt off making such Enchanted Armories, the ongoing growth of his City(s) and the surely constant need for battlefield Magic's?

One assumption that comes directly to mind is the control of more and more Crystals. That thought though could have some major drawbacks. One such drawback might be the loss of control of said crystals, either due to the attrition of war or will this essence be so essential that it will be imperative to make sure and keep any captured crystals on finds, at all cost, even if that cost is a slowing or possible actual stopping of your cities/empires further growth for what might be extended periods.

And while it's not been stated, I think it's fair to say that you'll not be spending essence for run-of-the-mill battlefield magic and the like, so don't worry about that. I think you'll be spending some variety of mana or another.

I was about to balk at "never recuperate" because I didn't see how that jibed with "grow in power over time." But now I want to know if you're speculating about "essence" vs. "mana" or if I've missed some dev chat. The distinction seeems to have *lots* of interesting potential.

Maybe one way your "essence" might grow is through sustained control of a Shard, which also provides "mana" flow for ordinary spell-casting and maintenance. So you still might effectively 'recuperate' from restoring lands or enchanting a hero, just not quickly and not if you lose control of your Shard(s).

Now, if you never spent any essence, you'd have X1 in essence, but if you did, you'll be back down to X. Spent essence never gets returned, but you do increase in power - how you choose to spend that power is entirely up to you.

Also, it's to my understanding that mana and essence is seperate things. Mana is something you use to cast spells. Essence is a part of "you", the channeler. Again, this is all just what I've read into the articles and dev comments. I could be completely wrong.

Edit: In a nutshell, 'essence' seem to be what makes you, the channeler, the channeler. By transfering essence and imbuing your heroes, you'll allow them to cast spells, for example. This doesn't make them channelers, because their essence is finite, while yours supposedly grows.

So I would spend essence to make an alchemist or artificer, and then they could train others?  Or such specialists would have to train in order to tap my mana pool for their own uses?  I'm not being deliberately desnse, but essence seems to be a VERY important concept.

[pun alert]

One could say that the difference between essence and mana is one of the essential concepts of the game.

Alright. Again, let me repeat that this is just my interpretation of things. I could be way of the mark, and may mittens or Froggie strike me down if I am.

You, as the channeler can spend essence to imbue others - for example, into an alchemist or artificer (if those are available, of some sort). But they CAN NOT spend their essence, or mana, to imbue others in turn. The channeler is the only one that can imbue others with his essence.

You will be able to imbue others to become spellcasters. You can make one of your heroes into a mage, but he cannot in turn imbue others to become mages. How mana will work, I do not know, but presumably, they'll be able to cast spells just like you. Wheter mana will be global, specific to their element (i.e. "fire mana", "water mana", "life mana" etc.), or if every caster have their own mana pool, I have absolutely no clue.

I GM a long running campaign.... Spiders and Driders always get a great reaction from my players, UTTER FEAR!!!!

I love'm