Forage as an AA skill

[kiztent]

Dont whine that your enchanter, shadow knight or wizard can go into a forest or some other outdoor zone, and tell which of the THOUSANDS of plants in the zone possibly has the stupidly rare yew leaf on it. If it takes a druid a fair amount of time, with 200 forage skill, to find a couple, then your Warrior would very likely take all day and all night to possible find one.

That's a remarkably bad point. If you are referring to me specifically anyway. Aside from the fact that I'm opposed to a foraging AA, I have a ranger with maxed forage who is perfectly capable of surviving in any zone you might want to forage in (though he isn't keyed for any at this time).

Not every class is going to have something that makes them super cool for tradeskills. And the part that I bolded is just non-constructive, and bitter-sounding.

Why should certain classes be bottlenecks for tradeskills? I personally don't care to see a foraging AA since I don't see foraging as a bottleneck to anything (2 exceptions duly noted). I'm not talking about every class being equal. Foragers forage, which helps baking. Well and good, but nowhere is foraging required to bake. This is fine by me. I'm all about options, I'm all not about roadblocks.

And maybe I have a sour taste in my mouth about people saying interdependancy as a key word for "my class needs to have everything", but there's a good reason for it. I've heard it quite a few times. Maybe you never had to deal with the holy trinity mentality, but to me that's all the worst of dependance and the cause of a lot of misery in the game. But honestly, you're attacking me when I agree with you.

[Lilosh]

Dont whine that your enchanter, shadow knight or wizard can go into a forest or some other outdoor zone, and tell which of the THOUSANDS of plants in the zone possibly has the stupidly rare yew leaf on it. If it takes a druid a fair amount of time, with 200 forage skill, to find a couple, then your Warrior would very likely take all day and all night to possible find one.

That's a remarkably bad point. If you are referring to me specifically anyway. Aside from the fact that I'm opposed to a foraging AA, I have a ranger with maxed forage who is perfectly capable of surviving in any zone you might want to forage in (though he isn't keyed for any at this time).

I was not specifically targetting you, although looking back, perhaps I was subconciously using classes you could identify with. Would you prefer I used a Warrior, Necromancer, and a Paladin? If it takes your ranger, or my druid 3 hours to ge a yew leaf or a dragon egg, then Grump the Ogre hasn't a chance in Hades of finding the right leaf among thousands, or delicately extracting the egg from the nest.

Not every class is going to have something that makes them super cool for tradeskills. And the part that I bolded is just non-constructive, and bitter-sounding.

Why should certain classes be bottlenecks for tradeskills? I personally don't care to see a foraging AA since I don't see foraging as a bottleneck to anything (2 exceptions duly noted). I'm not talking about every class being equal. Foragers forage, which helps baking. Well and good, but nowhere is foraging required to bake. This is fine by me. I'm all about options, I'm all not about roadblocks.

And maybe I have a sour taste in my mouth about people saying interdependancy as a key word for "my class needs to have everything", but there's a good reason for it. I've heard it quite a few times. Maybe you never had to deal with the holy trinity mentality, but to me that's all the worst of dependance and the cause of a lot of misery in the game. But honestly, you're attacking me when I agree with you.

You ask "Why should certian classes be bottlenecks for certian tradeskills?" Because not all humans, halflings, elves, ogres, and dorfs are created equal.

Not every person, or every class , or every race has the same talents, abilities, or gifts. You chose your race as you chose your class. If I choose a iksar monk, I can't make a haversack. If I make a halfling druid, I will never be able to sell Thunderous Heraldic to my warriors. I choose to play a human bard, and I will never be able to make enchanted metals and mana vials. I choose a human warrior, and I will ever forage.


I am glad that we agree about the folly of everyone being allowed to forage. But , as the saying goes, the devil is in the details....


-Lilosh

[Railina]

and tell which of the THOUSANDS of plants in the zone possibly has the stupidly rare yew leaf on it

Try the Yew tree, it's a pretty safe bet you won't find yew leaves growing on a sycamore. "well how does he/she know which one is a Yew tree?" I'd think the xp requirement for leveling from 51 to 52 represents enough experience to tell one tree from another, but if that's too much of a stretch, how about "Here's the yew leaf i bought yesterday for 100pp, yep the leaves on this tree look almost exactly the same" *puts on silvery mask* Yep, identifies as "Yew Leaf"

Inter-dependance, means that people are dependant on each other

And when dependance is one-sided, it isn't interdependance. What does a druid need for tradeskills which only a warrior can provide? Refer to the enchanter rant for more details.

Well for one, they have the highest potential strength of any class

Not true, warriors with max AA cap strength at 305, meanwhile your druid with max AA caps wis at 355, making him far better at learning any tradeskill, not just smithing. Also note that no melee or hybrid class has the ability to get any stat above 305, while int/wis casters can raise int and wis to 355, both of which are primary stats for all tradeskills.

If we want to get technical, one of the reasons for innate metabolism(name?) is because non dru/ranger/iksar/bard/ woodelf don't get forage, so you don't use up your food that often

Innate metabolism balances a racial disadvantage for xp. Vah Shir and Halflings consume food at a greater than normal rate, for the cost of leveling from 51 to 52 3 times they can totally buy off this disadvantage.

Similarly, Iksars and trolls require 20% more XP per level than all other races, in return they get racial regen. for 15 AA points, any melee class can gain 6/tick regen. For 3 AA any class can gain 3/tick regen. This sounds an awful lot like a race-defining ability (and one for which those races pay a hefty penalty) is available for a small AA cost.

dit: Funny, i don't see many bards or rangers defending their "class defining" ability to forage, nor iksar or (non-druid) woodelves. What i see is a great many members of the only class which can port into a hard to reach zone with rare/unique forages (WL, CS) or more easily gain access to even harder to reach zones with rare/unique forages (WW, and all its connecting zone which are SO much easier to reach by Succoring across SG) defending their hold over certain tradeskill related markets.

Come on now, now you're just being bitter.

This may be bitter, but it is also a statement of fact. I don't see anyone here defending their "Racial Forage" but there are an awful lot of druids defending their "class defining ability" to pick things up.

If the did implement this I am one druid that would quit playing probably, I don't think I'd be alone

Riiiiight, because foraging is the reason you play a druid.

2 stacks of morning dew for a mistletoe cutting sickle isn't that bad considering

considering. . . that a race uses an item for thei cultural which they can't get for themselves.
considering. . . that foraging classes/races have such a lock over another race's cultural tradeskills.
considering. . .that this is what you're defending as a "class defining ability"

If they ever do implement this as an aa you can be assured that the coding will only allow foraging of non zone specific forages... i.e. you'll get your veggies, fruit, berries and pods of water and some roots, that is it.

Iksars and Woodelves can forage zone-specific items at level 1 with 50 skill, in fact, many iksar quests *require* zone specific forages, why would someone spend valuable AA on an abilty which is less valuable than creating a level 1 toon?

I'll be darned if some wizard with 30 forage is going to be pulling things out at random that take my 200 Foraging Druid HOURS to find.

with 30 forage, how much longer do you suppose it will take to come up with a rare forage than it does at 200 skill? That time investment is already built in, you need not restrict it further.

[Niellya]

Forage as an AA skill ?!

Next thing you know warriors will be asking for weapons that proc other classes' spells !!!

Next thing you know warriors will be asking for weapons that proc other classes' spells !!!

And I thought my sarcasm last page was good....

/kneel

And while I'm down there.... /ROFL


Railina, I was on the fence on this issue, figuring it is a bit frivilous, because I can just spend 2 minutes to make a toon starting with 50 forage.... but after reading your arguments, I am convinced as heck.

This needs to be an AA, I haven't seen someone beat down every argument that well in a discussion in quite some time.

[Sebilrazen]

Similarly, Iksars and trolls require 20% more XP per level than all other races, in return they get racial regen. for 15 AA points, any melee class can gain 6/tick regen. For 3 AA any class can gain 3/tick regen. This sounds an awful lot like a race-defining ability (and one for which those races pay a hefty penalty) is available for a small AA cost.

I believe the iksar also have an amount of natural ac that also needs to be considered, along with a trolls natural strength/sta

I don't see anyone here defending their "Racial Forage" but there are an awful lot of druids defending their "class defining ability" to pick things up.

That may be because of their inherently low <i>capped</i> skill. They may seldom use their forage ability, maybe they do, I won't make a generalization. However, they might realize(think) that the time/reward ratio isn't worth it for them.

If the did implement this I am one druid that would quit playing probably, I don't think I'd be alone

Riiiiight, because foraging is the reason you play a druid.

I enjoy the roleplaying aspect on numerous occasions, and it does fit into the story I weave when i play, I even tie emotes to the hotbutton that I made for foraging. It's part of my character.

considering. . . that a race uses an item for thei cultural which they can't get for themselves.
considering. . . that foraging classes/races have such a lock over another race's cultural tradeskills.
considering. . .that this is what you're defending as a "class defining ability"

considering...first statement is erroneous brownies and faries in Lfay drop it
considering...there needs to be an economy in the game or they should just have every level 1 mob drop every spell and planar item you'll ever need
considering...Druids and ranger epics <b>require</b> foraged items and are the only classes that can gain a skill of 200

Iksars and Woodelves can forage zone-specific items at level 1 with 50 skill, in fact, many iksar quests *require* zone specific forages, why would someone spend valuable AA on an abilty which is less valuable than creating a level 1 toon?

exactly...just make a level 1 toon...I didn't get forage till lvl 4...and if all you want is the forage ability you're level one toon can stand in Gfay and forage dew...all of the <b><i>cultural tradeskill required zone specific</i></b> forages you are talking about are ground spawns anyway, so see you can go forage them if you want too i've picked up, not foraged, misty acorns, morning dew, yew leaves, oak bark, and the list goes on, in fact that's probably why they have ground spawns, and if it's not a ground spawn it can be looted usually, ie drake eggs, so you non foragers can get your cultural tradeskill items, you can forage, from level one, it's just not automatic, and at the level that you'd get foraging from aa you can kill the mobs you need for <b>Cultural</b> since that is what we've shifted too see i saved you all those valuable aa points that you could've spent on something better than a lvl one toons ability...

[Railina]

I believe the iksar also have an amount of natural ac that also needs to be considered, along with a trolls natural strength/sta

Iksar AC is balanced by inability to wear plate armor. Ogres have nearly the same starting strength and higher staring stamina. this arguement is invalid, these are the only to races with a higher regen, and the only 2 with an xp penalty.

That may be because of their inherently low capped skill. They may seldom use their forage ability, maybe they do, I won't make a generalization. However, they might realize(think) that the time/reward ratio isn't worth it for them.

Has anyone argued here that AA forage should cap at 200? i have niether made or seen that claim, the highest anyone claimed as a reasonable number (for 9aa, total) was 100. Were i to add this as an AA, i'd place it in general, 2 ranks, each rank giving 25 points of forage skill, 25 skill in forage seems to me to be worth about the same number of AA as 4 points in any stat. (as a side note, this would allow classes with forage to raise their skill to 250, just as innate regen allows trolls/iksar to increase their regen rate further)

considering...first statement is erroneous brownies and faries in Lfay drop it
considering...there needs to be an economy in the game or they should just have every level 1 mob drop every spell and planar item you'll ever need
considering...Druids and ranger epics require foraged items and are the only classes that can gain a skill of 200

your first claim is valid, although it is a *very* recent change
your second claim does not bear on the argument at hand, nor is it a valid comparison. You would find an analagous situation (and a case of interdependancy) if mithril studs/bonings/etc could only be made by highelves in the Koada`Dal forge.
your third clain, while true, is meaningless, the steps of getting your epic have nothing to do with either tradeskills, or the arguement in progress.

[kiztent]

I believe the iksar also have an amount of natural ac that also needs to be considered, along with a trolls natural strength/sta

Iksar AC is balanced by inability to wear plate armor. Ogres have nearly the same starting strength and higher staring stamina. this arguement is invalid, these are the only to races with a higher regen, and the only 2 with an xp penalty.

Well, sort of. It used to matter in the mid 30s, when SKs used to wear darkforge, but Iksar got their own equivalent added, they have their own hate and fear armour (warriors and SKs respectively), and checking my magelo, they can wear the same thurg quested I do (and I don't think any of the higher end armours have a no iksar limit). Can't comment on the differences in stats/ac etc.

Iksar shaman can't use a JBB, but that's about the only major disadvantage I can think of - but I don't play a handbag.

[Sebilrazen]

your third clain, while true, is meaningless, the steps of getting your epic have nothing to do with either tradeskills, or the arguement in progress.

Really? Then what other <b>classes</b> can you think of that <b>*require*</b> foraged item(s) for their epic? Besides the classes that are given it as a maxable ability? And if Forage is meaningless as it pertains to tradeskills, why do you want it?, besides from the obvious desire to make your skilling up easier/cheaper? Or to make phat plat selling your cultural items?

your second claim does not bear on the argument at hand, nor is it a valid comparison. You would find an analagous situation (and a case of interdependancy) if mithril studs/bonings/etc could only be made by highelves in the Koada`Dal forge.

No bearing? Hmm...as far as tradeskills go it does have a bearing, when the local enchanter(s) can charge for making a vial of mana(evien when you provide the reagents), or for enchanting a stack of gold, clay, or (insert choice of substance here)...or your local HE tunare cleric can charge you for imbuing some emeralds(again I've provided)...why shouldn't I or a ranger(or to a lesser extent iksars, bards, WE) be able to charge for the time we spend in a zone specifically looking for those items? Hours in PoJ looking for fruit, days in PoG finding planar oak. it becomes a function of time, if I want an imbued emerald I find a cleric that isn't busy and pay them for their <b>time</b>, if I want some mana vials for wu's I go buy a stack of pearls and vials and pay an enchanter for their <b>time</b>, if people making rods for PotC want dragon egg oil the either kill a dragon and pray one drops or they pay me for my <b>time</b> giving all classes the ability to forage would devalue rangers, druids and the other foragers(yes I meant to type it like that seeing as it's dru/ranger 200, bard 55, iksar/WE 50)

. (as a side note, this would allow classes with forage to raise their skill to 250, just as innate regen allows trolls/iksar to increase their regen rate further)

I wouldn't want forage 250, at 200 I always forage something, that is besides the point. And regarding the <b>racial</b> ability of regen and xp penalty, increased regen = lower downtime = more time to fight, get xp, sure the other classes get this as an AA, but so do the classes that already have it, they improve their ability even farther, so it's still less down time, here is that time thing again

I respect your desire to have the ability to get your own tradeskill items, it's a sign of self sufficiency. But each <b><i>class</b></i> has its own strengths and weaknesses, I will never be able to fight a summoning mob with out being owned(ask the corrupted seafury cyclops). The debate between classes is old and pointless, I'd love an aa that allowed me to increase xp from a mob by 10 percent, or maybe increases the chances of a certain mob drop appearing&lt;----not very likely eh? So I can forage better than the racial foragers and bards(if they wanted to make it more realistic they'd remove the bards ability to forage and increase the racials to 75 at least) but i'm not asking for that. I just want it kept the way it is, it works

[kiztent]

Not every class is going to have something that makes them super cool for tradeskills. And the part that I bolded is just non-constructive, and bitter-sounding.

Why should certain classes be bottlenecks for tradeskills? I personally don't care to see a foraging AA since I don't see foraging as a bottleneck to anything (2 exceptions duly noted). I'm not talking about every class being equal. Foragers forage, which helps baking. Well and good, but nowhere is foraging required to bake. This is fine by me. I'm all about options, I'm all not about roadblocks.

And maybe I have a sour taste in my mouth about people saying interdependancy as a key word for "my class needs to have everything", but there's a good reason for it. I've heard it quite a few times. Maybe you never had to deal with the holy trinity mentality, but to me that's all the worst of dependance and the cause of a lot of misery in the game. But honestly, you're attacking me when I agree with you.

You ask "Why should certian classes be bottlenecks for certian tradeskills?" Because not all humans, halflings, elves, ogres, and dorfs are created equal.

No, that's not what I said. I said tradeskills overall. And you are confusing different abilities in tradeskilling - which I am not opposed to - with bottlenecking tradeskills - which I am opposed to.

Let's consider smithing (I'm going to discuss pre-may 8 smithing). Dwarves have the best racial armour there is (old cultural they did anyway). Makes perfect sense. Cultural outcasts, half elves have no racial armour, but they CAN get to 250 smithing without undue extra effort. Makes sense. Humans being kind of bland and less violently xenophobic than any other race out there can make the most flexible armour (and anything that fits a gnome and a ogre is flexible, youbetcha). Makes sense. Elves, both the naturally superior dark and woefully inferior light have a bent towards casters, and both can supply their casters with flexible smithed chain mail. Makes sense. There are marked advantages and disadvantages to choosing a particular race for smithing, but the skill progression is not hindered by race. And since it's before May 8, everyone can peacefully skill to 242 on fine plate which is not a race or class dependant recipe.

On the baking front, a ranger who periodically empties his bags of foraged stuff and makes berrie pies, pound cake, muffins, vodka and root beer is going to have an easier time skilling baking and brewing up than someone who has to buy components, but we're not talking about people following rangers around begging for vegetables because they can't skill up in baking without them. Maybe they can't make a specific recipe without them (hero sandwiches), but the option to skill up is unhindered.

You will note that I have detailed a fairly decent set of differences in one skill that DOES NOT HAVE any bottlenecks. It's not like, from a tailor's perspective, wu's (the only real skill progression item from 110ish to 158) became iksar only and the other races needed to find another skill up path.

In the same way, forage AA is dumb. It does not remove any stupid wastes of time - in terms of skill progression. If you want to make those yummy hero sandwiches, you need a forager - cool. But you don't need a forager to get to 250 - also cool.

[Sebilrazen]

<b><i> Yay Kiztent</i></b> :mrgreen:

much more eloquence and brevity than I'm capable of. GM'ing a tradeskill does <b>NOT</b> require foraging for any of them, only for making the cultural items, which we have established doesn't need forages, it needs forages <b>*OR*</b> groundspawns, <b>*OR*</b>drops

[Shjinn]

Foraging

1. Generalizations

When someone sees one person or a few selling foraged items, they assume that all foragers are all greedy folks who are only out to screw over all non-foragers and make mad profits off their foragers and/or screw themover and make skillups faster because they can forage.

Common Forages: Look in bazaar. It's cheap. If you are so cheap you won't pay a few plat for a stack of vegetables, man..create a lev 1 Druid Wood Elf. That's free. You'll also discover how hard foraging and what a time sink it really is.

Rare Forages: I'm a 250 Tailor and need some rare forages. I'm a Wood Elf with max foraging skill. But guess what? I BUY all my rare foraged items. It is a stupid time sink even for people with the skill. Do I seriously want to spend 4 hours to forage 1 Yew leaf? In fact, last time I went to WL, I ended up with 9 Yew leaves in 4 hours. I ran across 8 randomly on the ground (I actually starting looking in the last hour when I wasn't getting any foraged). People who have forage dont' have too much of a disadvantage. So you people wanting it obvious do NOT know what foraging involves.

I also need Oak Bark. I always Imbued my Emeralds for Solstice Robes in Kithicor. In the time it took me to cast imbue 100 times and med up 4 or 5 times, I'd average 2 Oak Barks. In that time, I would have found more (during the day), walking around the zone. I also buy Oak Barks because it is a time sink even for Foragers.

2. I want..I want..I want more!

This thread is full of people (and also full of people who aren't...not focused at you) who always want more and more and more for their chars. These people won't ever be satisfied until their chosen class gets every single useful ability, including non tradeskill related. You picked a class. Deal with it or start a new one that more closely matches what you seek. But don't whine about you not having something and another class not. Every class has its advantages and disadvantages in the WHOLE package, not just tradeskills. And no class is perfect and some may be imbalanced. A 65 Warrior may not be the best tradeskiller choice, but he doesn't have too hard a time getting a group in High tier PoP planes, does he? Either adjust your style to do what you want with your chosen classes, or start a new char. A Druid may not get groups easily, but has advantages for tradeskilling. And so on.

3. More AA's Abilities Does Not Solve Problems

As someone stated earlier, essential Cultural forages have already been adjusted by SoE/Verant so that people without forage can hunt for them. Yes, Morning Dew may have been a later change. One point for you.

But..think about the same type of people who demand new abilities also closely guard their own abilities. It will not be feasible for SoE to give such an ability like Forage to all classes. They would get so much negative feedback and potential loss of money due to people being so ticked off (not at forage per se, but what they perceive as perhaps the last straw) they quit. Imagine if they Pie Baking as an AA ability. I think half the Halfling population would throw fits (and then quielty ask if they make good pie).

4. We Need a "I Hate All Classes But Mine" Forum

For these people who do. Let them vent in there so the same old class hating posts dont' come up. They'll try to come up with every rationale to not like a class or put it into a bad light. Well, whoopie-doo. Really, people who do class bashing is beyond me. Grow up and realize that a class a person picked doesn't define who they are irl or in game. If you hate something so much to bash something so much, perhaps it is time for a break from EQ. It amazes me how seriously and personal people get about bit and bytes.

5. Forage is Not the End All

I realyl don't think it is. There are perhaps other battles to be fought that many more people could get together and lobby SoE with. But this one is getting out of hand and silly. I personally loved the idea of having potions enchant metals. I think that is one issue both the end user and creater agreed completely. How about that?

Shjinn
250 Tailor

(stupid coffee jitters typos...ya...that's the ticket.

[Quinner Sparrowhawk]

Not to be inflamatory but if you really want to be able to have every skill, play AC. The fact that I can not have everything in one character is why I play EQ. Class Differentiation makes the game interesting. If I want to be able to forage and track, I play a druid or a ranger. If I want to rez, I play a cleric or a paladin.

I think this desire for forage as an AA skill comes out of a perceived dependency on it to play the game. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to need to forage to play the game. Period. You may desire foraged items to make certain goods but that is because you desire to craft goods. Tradeskills are not a requisite part of the game. They may enhance gameplay for you but it is not required to make it to level 65.

Besides, it's not like the foraged items are no-drop. What this rant sounds like is sour grapes over having to pay someone else for foraged items. And applying logic to the situation does not work because EQ is a game with a predefined set of rules that go beyond those of the real world.

Now, if your arguement for Foraging as an AA were to be successful, then please argue for the following AA skills to be added.

Dual-Wielding - Casters are supposed to be very dextrous so why can't they learn to fight with weapons in each hand? In fact, SK and Pal should have this too since they already know how to fight with weapons in one hand.

Alchemy - Come on, shouldn't anyone be able to mix some herbs together?

Tracking - Think of everything that would have to be remembered in casting a spell, those skills could logically be applied to learning how to track.

Hide - Every child already knows this one, so my toons should be able to eventually acquire this skill. (Ok, except for Ogres maybe)

As you can see, I can make a case for several class specific skills to be added as AA skills. This may be one of those things you just have to accept as is.

[Pietre Christopher-Ryskin]

Lilosh wrote:

Well for one, they have the highest potential strength of any class, making them some of the best smiths

Except that all Casters can achieve 355 wis/int, and the warrior is maxed at 305 str, just as -any other- character. So not only does the warrior not have an advantage, the warrior/(insert non-caster class) potential as a smith is inferior.

[Lilosh]

I meant starting strength.


Looking back it was a weak point. May I withdraw it?


-Lilosh