Jump to content

Neckbitbasket

Members
  • Posts

    43
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by Neckbitbasket

  1. If this hasn't already been mentioned, I'm playing through Tyranny now and by comparison the companions in this game are very cardboard. Tyranny characters pop in a way that makes me want to learn more about them - the second character you meet is a soldier fused inside of his own armor, and he's just super casual about it. They engage you from the start and keep you engaged because they're all essentially representatives of the world's different factions, and it's your character's job to understand and mediate these factions, so you actually have an additional motivation to talk to them, and their input actually matters.

     

    PoE 2 takes for granted that I'll care without giving me a reason to. They either need to make the companions more integrated into the story like Tyranny and KOTOR, or they need to make recruiting them part of a sidequest that lets you more naturally get to know them, and gives them a reason to be following you around besides, "**** it, why not". Even in PoE 1, it bothered me how easily some people just committed themselves to a random stranger. KOTOR 2 at least justifies how quickly you bond to your companions supernaturally, and makes that part of the mystery of your backstory and a primary motivation for why one of the villains is interested in you; and the companions in KOTOR 2 still have way better reasons to be following you.

     

    Fallout: New Vegas (look at that; another Obsidian game) is a great example of the other way. Every companion you don't meet as part of the main quest has a sidequest devoted to initially developing them, and often involves you two working together towards a mutually beneficial goal, thus establishing a connection. And because sidequests like these are such a normal thing in New Vegas, you can often stumble into them without even realizing you'll get a companion out of it, which makes it feel way more organic. 

    • Like 1
  2. It's like you have a really nice cake. You have had this cake before and immensely enjoyed it. But now a new cake shop has opened in town, that has a cake that's even better. And so there you sit with your cake, a cake of the sort that has given you great pleasure many times in the past. But now the possibility of a better cake has somehow changed that? Nothing about the cake has changed, it's still the same great recipe, the same fine ingrediënts, the same skilled baker. Nothing about you has changed, you're still partial to the same particular flavours and textures and whatnot. But now the mere realisable possibility of a better cake removes all enjoyment of eating this actual cake right in front of you. Except now a friend calls you and tells you that the new cake shop was destroyed in a freak flour explosion, disintegrating the baker and all his cakes in an inferno of powdery fire. And you rejoice, and weep tears of joy! For with the possibility of the other cake forever removed, your present cake has regained its exquisite flavour, and you can now enjoy it once more.

    This is a really good analogy, except you seem to be using it to point out the absurdity of the concept, but many people actually do work this way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrast_effect 

  3. To be honest, I was perhaps naively assuming that people tinker with builds and look for complicated synergies because they inherently enjoy doing so. That the fulfillment of the activity is its own incentive. That it is about solving a puzzle, about being creative, about discovering new things and figuring out how stuff interlocks.

     

    But this sounds like, it's just about ego. About getting the biggest numbers, about getting bigger numbers than others. I probably should have taking better note when @knownastherat suggested that this is just about some (essentially imaginary) competition. Because if it's not, if it's about the fun of the build itself, then why would it matter what other builds are possible?

     

    People keep repeating "what is the point?". If you enjoy the process, then THAT is the point. If you enjoy playing the game in new and different ways, then THAT is the point. So maybe what I should be asking is, what precisely is it that you enjoy about playing games like these?  

     

     

    What's wrong with doing things for the sake of competition? A lot people create extensive build guides on these forums because they enjoy getting recognition for their ideas, and sharing them with others. If this collaborative element wasn't something people enjoyed, then the strategy section of the forums would be a wasteland. 

  4. It's quite bizarre that in foil fencing a strategy of "running towards the opponent with the pointy end" could be a viable strategy at any level of skill, anyway. If those were actual smallswords, that'd be an excellent way to get yourself run through regardless of any size advantage you might have.

    I don't know why people keep bringing up actual combat. I was using fencing as an example of a sport, in response to:

    I doubt very much that most people would say that simply because to my knowledge "cheese" is not used outside of gaming: https://english.stac...cheese-strategy, which is interesting to me by itself. Why gaming, why not I dunno .. football?

    In other words, this is in reference to an argument about language and semantics, and I was mostly trying to refute his supposition that the concept of "cheese" only exists within of the realm of games by equating it to a term with a similar connotation: "cheap". @knownastherat gave football as an example, which last I checked is still a sport and not gladiatorial combat (though to be fair, I've not checked in quite some time), so I responded with a personal anecdote about fencing.

     

    If you'd prefer a less personal example, look up Hack-a-shaq, or Shaquille O'neill in general, because he contributed to a number of changes to the rules of basketball due to his exceptional dominance on the court. 

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hack-a-Shaq

  5. 1. I have never said I want to fly anywhere, solo. I play solo exactly because in a group it's too easy for me and will be too easy for me regardless of any changes the developers will realistically make.

    This implies that you play the game solo because you find it too easy otherwise.

    The only thing I care about, because I use consumables, just like Empower, when there is no other way to beat an encounter, is that I will be able to continue to play the game the way I want - solo.

    This implies that you want to play the game solo, but rely on consumables as crutches to get through certain encounters, and if they were to be removed/nerfed you would no longer be able to play the game the way you want - solo. 

     

    Care to clear this up for me?

  6. If you were fighting for your lives, the taller students using "cheese" would probably be seen as great fighters. When Alexander the Great used phalanx against Persians, they probably went like .. cheese! ;)

    Great fighter? Uh... cute sentiment, but no. As I said, the technique is quite counterable (and we were also in 3rd grade at the time), and I don't think you understand the historic definitions of "great fighters". Life or death combat does not mean people didn't have an appreciation for skill, or were incapable differentiating it from other advantages such as size or weaponry. Lastly, this is a tangent and not even relevant to the point of my post (so let's move on).

    This debate is for me an academic one. It's, of course, ridiculous that the mechanics in question made it to the release of the game while the lead designer talks at conferences about game design, balance, and proper tuning. I do not doubt that they are powerful, so powerful that any build can use them to "beat" the game. I am doubting, if it's not clear already, the notion that they prevent players from playing the game the way they want.

    In my last post I mentioned the term "cheap", as in something that cheapens the experience of something or the significance one's accomplishments. To the OP, it seems that the overwhelming power of consumables cheapens their experience of creating builds because nothing they create could possibly rival the power of arcana, alchemy, and explosives simply due to their scaling. It is not so much that they prevent players from playing the game the way that they want, as it is that they prevent players from enjoying the game the way that they want.

     

    Let's actually use a different example, and suppose that I want to play a character that uses scrolls, potions, and bombs like a D&D-style artificer (which incidentally enough, suffered from being similarly overpowered in 3.5E, and was often banned by any sensible DM). But let's say I want to do that, and still feel challenged by this game. Now we have the same problem people were experiencing in 1.0 with classes like Paladin, in that if you played a Paladin you were just immortal, so people who wanted to play Paladins (myself included), not hold the idiot-ball, and still be challenged by the game were S.O.L.

     

    The only thing I care about, because I use consumables, just like Empower, when there is no other way to beat an encounter, is that I will be able to continue to play the game the way I want - solo. I do not care about any TCS achievement, recognition among peers (well..), how others play the game. I am selfish, I guess.

    Nerfing consumables should not prevent you from beating the game solo. It may make it significantly harder to do so on PotD, and require you to build a character in a specific way, but I don't see how asking you to play on a lower difficulty is any different then you asking other players to ignore the existence of unbalanced consumables. The purpose of multiple difficulties is to accommodate many different types of players. PotD is more geared towards the people who do care about a TCS achievement, or recognition, or build creation. If you want to fly solo and not worry about getting stuck, that's kinda what the lower difficulties are for.

    • Like 1
  7.  

    Na - it's always frustrating if a game's balance is utterly broken. Sure you can circumvent it (like I do) and not use alchemy or arcana - but that doesn't change the fact that some mechanics are not properly balanced. If there would be a chess figurine that allowed the player to reach every field and beat every other figurine with one move you could either remove it from the game or just not move it. I guess most people would say: "If it feels cheesy and makes the game boring and we don't use it because of that - why not remove it entirely from our game?"

     

    I doubt very much that most people would say that simply because to my knowledge "cheese" is not used outside of gaming: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/21867/origins-of-the-gaming-term-cheese-strategy, which is interesting to me by itself. Why gaming, why not I dunno .. football? Also, let's note that the etymology points to human-against-human competition, which brings me to the scrub: http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/introducingthe-scrub

     

     

    The term cheesing certainly originated in gaming, but that doesn't mean the concept exists exclusively within that framework. When I first started fencing, a strategy employed by one of the taller students in our class was to simply hold his foil straight out in front of him and advance incredibly quickly towards his opponent; practically running using the crossover technique. Because we were all just starting out, we had no idea how to counter this, and because the person was significantly bigger than almost everyone else, we couldn't do the same thing to him because his arms were just longer. 

     

    While this is counterable, it was almost impossible to handle at the level of experience we were all at. Had I known the word, I would certainly have described it as "cheese": something that requires significantly more skill or effort to counter than it does to execute. I think at the time I called it "cheap", which is very similar.

  8.  

    Oh come on, leap is flying. Dude lights up like Johnny Flame and flies across the screen creating a supernova upon landing. 

     

     

    The Rogues in WoW TELEPORT! 

     

    Meh, those are very minor effects. And nightblades are a thing. A thing I dont have an issue with. Multiclass is fine imo. But nightblades are mages and rogues. They train in both magic and subterfuge. Key word is train. Gotta learn those abilities, and dedicate to the training. 

     

    P.s Those are hardly shadow magic abilites. Very minor

     

    What was that word someone used earlier? Oh, right.... Cherry-picking. And you have never been more transparent about it than right now. 

     

     

     

    It is pretty hard to argue against your point because you cherry-pick the things you like as "great works that inspired the entire genre" and ignore everything else.

     

    Constantly moving the goalposts or arguing totally different things while saying everyone else "just doesn't get it" also helps.

     

    How does your view of magic as science in any way match great works like LoTR where magic is strictly the purview of gods and angels (who happen to look like Wizards) and there's nothing scientific about it?

     

    But the part that really shows how self absorbed you are and how much you need everyone to agree with your very narrow definitions, is this:

    You constantly talk about how magic should be like science and Wizards the noble nerds that are smart enough to study it. And yet, when lots of people point out that Wizards are exactly that in Eora, they are researchers, animancers, they have labs and try to study how soul energy works, you ignore this because you personally find the abilities of other classes too flashy or too magical.

     

    Multiple people have pointed this out, but your criticism comes down to not liking a truly high-magic setting.

     

    Eora is a high magic setting, magical energy (soul energy) is everywhere in some form, and anyone can tap into it to some extent as part of their lives and their jobs. Wizards are exactly what you complain they are not, they are scientists concerned with the minutiae of magical power, who study it and find practical "technological" applications. Like many other people have pointed out, if you equate Magic with physics, anyone can learn a little physics knowledge and apply it in their jobs, and they are the non-Wizard classes, but only Wizards are "PhD physicists" winning Nobel prizes. 

     

    The fact that you constantly ignore this point makes it clear that mostly you're butthurt that anyone else gets to use cool magical effects (even though their usage is highly specialized and "intuitive" rather than deeply studied).

     

    Thanks @Answermancer, I couldn't have said it better myself. 

     

    Maybe someone who has more patience than I do can take this over, but I think it might be wiser to just let this thread die. If it satisfies your ego, Darkprince048, then feel free to consider yourself victorious (over me). I know that is all this is really about to you; and a victory by attrition is, after all, still a victory. 

     

    Peace out, babe.

    • Like 5
  9. Also, let's not forget these stellar rogue abilities that only further this possibility.

    https://wow.gamepedia.com/Nightblade_(rogue_ability)

    https://wow.gamepedia.com/Shadow_Blades

    https://wow.gamepedia.com/Symbols_of_Death

     

    EDIT

     

    Golly, I really hate my Shadow Priest now knowing that simple Rogues are capable of using Shadow magic.

    • Like 1
  10.  

     

     Except in wow shadow step is an act of misdirection. Using tricks and smoke bombs. Not so in this game

    Step through the shadows to appear behind your target and gain 70% increased movement speed for 2 sec.

     

     

    Tell me, if you wanted to sneak up on someone in dim light, would you not "step through the shadows"? The animation in game is utterly mundane

     

    Except the part where you teleport, and that is a very stretched interpretation of stepping through the shadows. Especially in a world where Shadow Magic does exist.

     

    And let's not forget, you are also the person who described the Barbarian's leap as "flying", and used that as an example of abilities that made a Wizard feel "less special".

  11.  

    The world of Game of Thrones is covered in spell casters, witches, warlocks and sorcerers. They are not called wizards, sometimes they are labeled as priests, or priestess, maisters or simply sorcerers, but they are none the less the same thing. Practitioners of magic.

     

    The feats they are capable of through occult knowledge, secrets and study (Melisandra conjuring a demon spirit from her womb to murder Stanis Barathean, or bringing John Snow back from the dead, the warlocks of Qarth able to cast mirror image among other spells, the witch who conjured Kal Drogos spirit back from the dead to preserve his body) are evident. Normal men are not able to perform these acts of sorcery because they do not have the knowledge to do so. I know my Fire and Ice...

     

    The faceless men did not use magic. They used literal faces of the faceless god. They were essentially magic items, and that was the limit to their mystical abilities. 

     

    World of Warcraft is not like that? They had entire organizations dedicated to the study of magic..... Have you not heard of Dalaran? Have you even played WoW? 

     

    You don't know what you are talking about

     

     

    I'm sorry, I thought you wanted to discuss the rarity as well as the flavor of magic classes. I mentioned WoW because it's another RPG where even Rogues are capable of magic feats. http://www.wowhead.com/spell=36554/shadowstep

     

    Sounds very similar to something else doesn't it?

    https://pillarsofeternity2.wiki.fextralife.com/Shadow+Step

    Almost... identical.

    • Like 1
  12.  

     

     

    The only groups of stories I have heard of that follow this "everyone is a mage" narrative are nearly unheard of bargain bin folk tales. And looking them up, they all have very unique settings that are very different than the classical fantasy rpg setting which this game subscribes to.

     

    Pieces of work like Tolkien's, where Wizards and magic are almost unheard of, and wizards are actually demi-gods, or great stories like The Summoner series, Fire and Ice, Neverwinter, Baulders Gate, Eragon, TES (which despite their shift to this new paradigm as of late, still must hold true to their lore which dates back to the Arena tabletop where wizards monopolized magic and it was defined by innate ability), Warhammer, every Disney movie you have ever heard of. Heck, even Harry Potter. The classic, popular image of magic in a fantasy setting is monopolized by dedicated practitioners of magic. It was not freely practiced by everyone like the culinary arts.

     

    So you sir, can bite me....

     

     Would you kindly argue a consistent point? Is that so hard? Because last I checked, I was arguing against your comparison of magic to science, because you like to bring up your medical degree so much. Tolkien's wizards are not scientists, as you said, they are demigods. These are entirely different points. Please stay consistent. 

     

     

    You asked me to respond to your point regarding settings with "everyone is a mage" and prove that I have any knowledge of rpg settings, so I listed the ones that shaped the genre and support the classical archetype of a wizard, and now you deflect. I mentioned about a dozen others beyond LOTR. All major works of fiction that shaped the genre

     

    Clever boy

     

     

    Congratulations, except that only some of these back up your persistent comparison of magic to science, which is what I was arguing against in the first place. 

     

    But since you seem to have moved on, lets address those works you listed. By Fire and Ice, I assume you mean A Song of Ice and Fire. If not, please correct me because I couldn't find a Fire and Ice series from my quick google search. A Song of Ice and Fire has nothing even called wizards in it. Wizards don't have a monopoly on magic because they don't exist. A better comparison would be clerics and priests. The only thing close are the Warlocks in Qarth, who are heavily implied to simply use drugs as a means of simulating the appearance of magic. A Song of Ice and Fire also features a group of ASSASSINS called the faceless men who are capable of shapeshifting, so contract killers have magic too. Guess you never read that series, or you would remember that. Hell, you'd know that if you just watched the show. 

     

    Tolkien's Wizards are, as you said, demigods. Gandalf is the same species as the Balrog. Wrap your head around that one. Does that fit the classic RPG definition of a Wizard? Answer: No. 

     

    Once again, I am not arguing against your point about a monopoly on magic being common. I am arguing with your assertion that magic is only practiced like a science, and takes years of study to master. This is untrue in LotR. This is untrue in Ice and Fire, this is untrue (in some cases) in D&D. If you want other examples - this is untrue in World of Warcraft (you know, that bargain bin MMORPG), this is untrue in the Kingkiller Chronicles (somewhat) because there is an entire dimensional plane of magical creatures known as the fae). 

     

    Elerond mentioned had a good list in an earlier post.

    RPG systems

    Glorantha (RPGs like RueQuest and HeroQuest use this setting), one of the oldest RPG settings

    GURPS Technomancer  (setting for GURPS in which everybody has magic)

    In Eberron, a D&D setting, low level magic so common place that virtually everybody has access to it

    Earthdawn (both setting and rpg system)

     

    Books

    Codex Alera series by Jim Butcher

    Darksword books by Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman

    The Xanth series by Piers Anthony

    The King's Peace by Jo Walton

    A Darker Shade of Magic by V.E. Schwab (there is three parrarel universes from which in two everybody has magic)

    The Crest of Zabutur series by N Lott

     

    You bounce between these two points. Wizards as defined by rarity, or Wizards as defined by the narrow domain of intelligence-based casters. Each argument has entirely different reasons for why it's wrong, so I'm not going to argue both with you. Hell, it's impossible to argue with you at all because you ignore half of the posts directed to you in this thread. I understand that there is a lot to respond to, but don't bring up points that people have brought into question without first addressing the countless issues with them that people have already pointed out. 

     

    It doesn't matter. You are dancing around and around in circles. 

    • Like 4
  13.  

    The only groups of stories I have heard of that follow this "everyone is a mage" narrative are nearly unheard of bargain bin folk tales. And looking them up, they all have very unique settings that are very different than the classical fantasy rpg setting which this game subscribes to.

     

    Pieces of work like Tolkien's, where Wizards and magic are almost unheard of, and wizards are actually demi-gods, or great stories like The Summoner series, Fire and Ice, Neverwinter, Baulders Gate, Eragon, TES (which despite their shift to this new paradigm as of late, still must hold true to their lore which dates back to the Arena tabletop where wizards monopolized magic and it was defined by innate ability), Warhammer, every Disney movie you have ever heard of. Heck, even Harry Potter. The classic, popular image of magic in a fantasy setting is monopolized by dedicated practitioners of magic. It was not freely practiced by everyone like the culinary arts.

     

    So you sir, can bite me....

     

     Would you kindly argue a consistent point? Is that so hard? Because last I checked, I was arguing against your comparison of magic to science, because you like to bring up your medical degree so much. Tolkien's wizards are not scientists, as you said, they are demigods. These are entirely different points. Please stay consistent, instead of flip-flopping when it so suits you.

    • Like 4
  14.  

     

    What's wrong with that, if done right? The entire movie "The Dragonslayer" was built around a deus ex machina.

     

    A Deus Ex Machina is, by definition, not done right. I haven't seen Dragonslayer, so I can't really make a comment on how well that movie does or does not handle its story.

     

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_ex_machina

     

    As stated before it can be used to good effect. It all depends on the story and setting. Deus Ex Machine has a bad history because it's also been used poorly before this is why it is best to avoid it if you're an unexperienced writer. There's plenty of well known classic plays and stories that have raving critical reviews that use Deus Ex Machina. So saying it's wrong by definition is simply not true.

     

    Ah. You are correct. Perhaps I was using a colloquial definition. I would only call something a Deus Ex Machina if it was poorly executed. Hopefully my later post elaborated somewhat on the nuances of this. 

  15. Really? Anyone can do science. Please put together the tech for me to build a cell phone. I want you to explain to me the exact process of how a cellular telephone works and I want you to build one for me. Right down to the touch screen, without using google. Hell, go ahead and use google. Wont make a difference. You dont just "use" science. You need to understand the very complicated concepts that underly it. And unless I missed something and you have a phd in a scientific field, I doubt you qualify.

    Explain to me microbal culturing and gram stains, in conjunction with targeted antibiotic therapy. Sure, you can copy paste from google, but you get my point. Science is not simply done. You must learn it. It takes years of study. The same goes with magic in most lore.

    We get it. You're a medicine man. But what you are responding to is not even relevant to the overall point of the person's post. It's nitpicking, and completely distracting from the conversation. Also, while I certainly never cured cancer in my chemistry classes or used "microbal culturing and gram stains", I did do simple distillations and measurements and even synthesis of compounds. Hell, people practice basic chemical science when they bake food and get tangible results from that.

     

    And there you go again with "magic in most lore" when I and several other users have given you examples of incredibly popular and influential lore where this is not the case. Please address those before repeating your same point again and again and again, or stop making it because it's wrong and you have yet to prove otherwise. In fact, you have yet to prove you are familiar with any fantasy literature at all beyond hearsay.

    • Like 5
  16. Hamlet. Apart from some minor Deus ex most notably in the end Fortinbras arrives to take control over Denmark and prevent the land from falling into chaos.

    Everyone is dead. Fortinbras's arrival solved nothing (at least nothing important to the conflict of the story), and was actually set up at the beginning of the story. This does not qualify as a Deus Ex Machina. The conflict of Hamlet is not Denmark's stability, it is Hamlet avenging his father's murder.

     

    In As You Like It, Hymenaios comes to the mass wedding to sort out the problems of Rosalind's stay and disguise in the Forest of Arden.

    This is a greek to me. Nothing against your point, I just don't have the context to understand what this means.

     

    The lord of the flies ends with a ship appearing, just at the moment where the protagonist is to be killed.

    This is technically a Deus Ex Machina, although Lord of the Flies is more about the journey than the ending. This ending does not detract from the conflict of the story, and in actuality, serves to punctuate it because now the boys will have to deal with readjusting to civilization knowing the horrors of what they've done.

     

    And you will shurely remember the eagles in LotR.

    Yes, and it is a common criticism of the movies, and a prime example of a Deus Ex Machina. Once again, this doesn't ruin the journey, but many many people do have a problem with this aspect of the ending.

     

    The issue with magic that lacks rules and limitations understood by the reader is that it also has the potential to ruin the journey. Otherwise, it just becomes arbitrary what conflicts magic can and can't resolve. Harry Potter is a great example of this. It's also part of the reason I'm conflicted on this topic because it's impossible to deny that Harry Potter is an engaging story to many many people, being one of the most popular YA novels of all time. However, it is an exception, and not the rule. And most people wouldn't hold up Harry Potter as an example of fantastic fantasy literature. My best guess is that it serves more as an escapist novel, than anything else.

     

    EDIT

     

    Also, did you read the article I linked, because it clarifies a lot of this naunce. For your convenience, I'll link it again. https://coppermind.net/wiki/Sanderson%27s_Laws_of_Magic It even mentions Harry Potter (in passing).

  17.  

     

    A Deus Ex Machina is, by definition, not done right.

     

    Says who? Homer did it, Shakespeare did it lots of times, Tolkien did it. Lord of the flies ends with a Deus ex machina. It depends on what you want to tell with it.

     

    In Dragonslayer the whole point of the story is that in the end the deus ex machina appears.

     

     

    Please don't just list things and assume I know what you are talking about. Shakespeare has written countless plays, the Lord of the Rings is a massive series, I've not read any Homer, and it has been years since I read Lord of the Flies (and Lord of the Flies isn't even fantasy).

     

    EDIT

     

    Give me quotes. Give me specific examples. Paint me a picture.

  18. Yes, I do. Dont get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with explaining how magic works in your setting, but I have a very great problem with the expectations that exist nowadays regarding that topic. Namely the common comparison to science and the demand that it should be explainable in the same way. 

     

    Magic doesn't necessarily need to be "explainable" in the same way that science is. Magic can just exist, but if an author is going to use it in a major way to solve conflicts for their protagonists, they need to provide the reader with an adequate understanding of what it can and can't do. I highly recommend reading the actual article as it goes into all these exceptions, and why this is important. 

     

    There definitely exist good stories that don't necessarily do this, but oftentimes (though not always) they could be improved if they did. 

    • Like 1
  19. If it was different: say, only key figures, rulers, very successful folk, bosses, would use it and distribute it somehow between their goons, then indeed, soul magic would at least make society look a bit different. That would also mean that most of population would be somewhat enslaved to these powerful "awakened" souls. Which would lead to different setting.

    Obsidian. Mistborn RPG, when?

    • Like 1
  20. P.S.: And as we are already on the "nowadays kids" level. In my opinion D&D has irreparably corrupted fantasy literature and is the main reason for what I would call fantasy positivism or in medical terms explainitis fantastis.

     

    I'm pretty sure Brandon Sanderson had more influence in that regard, if you're talking about the kind of fantasy I think you are talking about.

     

    "An author's ability to solve conflict with magic is directly proportional to how well the reader understands said magic." Essentially so it isn't being used as a Deus Ex Machina. If the reader feels that anything can happen at any time because "magic", then there will be significantly less tension and investment in whatever is going on.

    And more relevent to this topic:

    "Expand on what you already have before you add something new." Something PoE does (with the concept of souls) and D&D does not (ergo all the different sources of magi - arcane, divine, pact, whatever godless paladins use). Of course D&D is an RPG sandbox for characters and worldbuilding, so this very excusable. If a DM wants to invent some sort of internal consistency, they are more than able to do so. 

     

    https://coppermind.net/wiki/Sanderson%27s_Laws_of_Magic

    And here is the far more detailed and nuanced explanation. 

     

    It's important to note that the reverse of the first quote is equally valid. i.e. a setting where the reader understand very little about the magic, but the magic is also very rarely used to solve conflict. A Song of Ice and Fire is a good example of this. Game of Thrones... used to be (sigh).

    • Like 1
  21.  

     

     

    Well, the Elder Scrolls is a setting where basically anyone can be a mage if they want, and martial fighters frequently have Restoration powers if nothing else.

     

    Essentially any game with classless character progression is this in concept. Shadowrun comes to mind.

     

    As I mentioned previously, Barbarians in D&D 5e have the ability to call down lighting/fire storms on their targets & grant seemingly magic buffs to their allies, depending on their subclass.

     

    It's relatively common these days really.

    Ya, the subclass of the barbarian was shaman babe. That is a magic class

     

     

    Actually, it's called Storm Herald, babe. Once again, are you even familiar with what you are talking about, or are you going entirely off of hearsay?

     

    http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Barbarian

     

     

    Please tell me where you have found the subclass of Shaman on this page?

     

    Storm Herald, btw. https://media.wizards.com/2016/dnd/downloads/UA_Barbarian.pdf

    Also known as the Barbarian subclass capable of calling down lightning. Not to be confused with Shaman, which you have so far been unable to prove to me exists in 5e. 

     

    EDIT

    Also, if you want the non-test version, it's in Xanathar's Guide to Everything, which for legal reasons I am not allowed to link to you.

  22.  

    Well, the Elder Scrolls is a setting where basically anyone can be a mage if they want, and martial fighters frequently have Restoration powers if nothing else.

     

    Essentially any game with classless character progression is this in concept. Shadowrun comes to mind.

     

    As I mentioned previously, Barbarians in D&D 5e have the ability to call down lighting/fire storms on their targets & grant seemingly magic buffs to their allies, depending on their subclass.

     

    It's relatively common these days really.

    Ya, the subclass of the barbarian was shaman babe. That is a magic class

     

     

    Actually, it's called Storm Herald, babe. Once again, are you even familiar with what you are talking about, or are you going entirely off of hearsay?

    • Like 4
×
×
  • Create New...