Meele Mages

[Karkarov]

You have no idea how much I want food-based magic now.

I could point you at a Manga that would likely change your tune very quickly ;p.

Developers seem to be scared of making magic what it should be: the most frightening power one can wield. The damaging spells are also too much oriented at Fire among the elements IMO. I really want a mainly Water element using battle mage.

How about no. Magic is stupidly overpowered in every Infinity Engine game. Ever hear of creeping doom, power word kill, maze, a million and one spells that equal you cant hurt me, time stop, do I need to go on? In BG2 my party only had two people in it who couldn't cast some type of spell, there was a reason for that.

Edited November 13, 2012 by Karkarov

[Jorian Drake]

Many MMOs have mages as pure dps machines.

 

In baldurs gate every battle past early game is determined by a magic duel between spell casters. Also, it's really hard to solo if you don't dual class into cleric or wizard.

 

In icewind dale the ultimate power party is 1 fighter, 2 clerics, 1 wizard for control and 2 sorcerers for huge dps.

 

dragon age has potent mages.

 

However I agree that mages should possess really impressive tricks to rain doom on their opponents.

 

mmo-s don't count, most of the time they barely if at all pass for an RPG to begin with

and as for D&D games, I do admit there are some strong powers later on, but as you said not in the early stage

 

As for stacking spellcasters, I wouldn't consider that proving anything, even the Zulu almost won against the UK overwhelming redcoats with "stacked" spearmen

 

I just want to point out that mages in western RPGs (especially D&D) barely have any -if at all- spells that give them equal might in damage dealing compared to a warrior with a sword. Even less so if you try to focus that list of spells on close combat/melee related powers. Mages seem to always have to hire bodyguards to hide behind not to die from a single swing of a sword, and there is no scene with mages laughing insanely as they cut through enemies with their powers (in various spellusing combat forms) which one would actually expect them to be able from books and legends and movies.

Nope, they often attack from afar, hiding from enemies, and if they remain alone they run away. Nothing close to the idea of a melee mage.

 

Developers seem to be scared of making magic what it should be: the most frightening power one can wield. The damaging spells are also too much oriented at Fire among the elements IMO. I really want a mainly Water element using battle mage.

How about no. Magic is stupidly overpowered in every Infinity Engine game. Ever hear of creeping doom, power word kill, maze, a million and one spells that equal you cant hurt me, time stop, do I need to go on? In BG2 my party only had two people in it who couldn't cast some type of spell, there was a reason for that.

 

and just how many of the spells you listed are early/easily accessable damage spells to mages, and are melee/close combat relevant?

I do admit Time Stop is perhaps the "most awesomest" ever spell, but it isn't even near this definition.

Edited November 13, 2012 by Jorian Drake

[Nomine Vacans]

mmo-s don't count, most of the time they barely if at all pass for an RPG to begin with

and as for D&D games, I do admit there are some strong powers later on, but as you said not in the early stage

 

As for stacking spellcasters, I wouldn't consider that proving anything, even the Zulu almost won against the UK overwhelming redcoats with "stacked" spearmen

 

I just want to point out that mages in western RPGs (especially D&D) barely have any -if at all- spells that give them equal might in damage dealing compared to a warrior with a sword. Even less so if you try to focus that list of spells on close combat/melee related powers. Mages seem to always have to hire bodyguards to hide behind not to die from a single swing of a sword, and there is no scene with mages laughing insanely as they cut through enemies with their powers (in various spellusing combat forms) which one would actually expect them to be able from books and legends and movies.

Nope, they often attack from afar, hiding from enemies, and if they remain alone they run away. Nothing close to the idea of a melee mage.

 

and just how many of the spells you listed are early/easily accessable damage spells to mages, and are melee/close combat relevant?

I do admit Time Stop is perhaps the "most awesomest" ever spell, but it isn't even near this definition.

This is ridiculous.

Are you a troll or just retarded?

Edited November 14, 2012 by Comedian

[quechn1tlan]

This is ridiculous.

Are you a troll or just retarded?

 

No, it isn't. What he's saying is that melee combatants like fighter, paladin or barbarian don their armour, equip their sword\axe whatever and go on whacking enemies left and right with no worries whatsoever. Their damage is more than enough and their armour makes them nigh invulnerable to simple enemies. If those enemies are boss-ish like, for example, Guardian in IWD2 they get haste and some cleric buffs and then go whack that someone in a couple of rounds.

 

And when you take even the best mage and try doing the same even measly goblins will swarm you in seconds. To be effective as a mage you need to spend an hour putting on every protective spell possible, then, if you're not fighting goblins you need to spend another hour lowering their defences to go through their saving throws and spell resistance. And then, if the encounter featured like 10-15 enemies, you have to rest.

 

So, yes. Mages have greater potential power but this power requires you to literally spend hours on buffs and rest. So if you're not powergaming on some Heart of fury(I think) or Ironman mode, party of mostly warriors is prefferable. 2-3 buffs and you are ready to go punching dragons until the area is clear of enemies.

[Nomine Vacans]

This is ridiculous.

Are you a troll or just retarded?

 

No, it isn't. What he's saying is that melee combatants like fighter, paladin or barbarian don their armour, equip their sword\axe whatever and go on whacking enemies left and right with no worries whatsoever. Their damage is more than enough and their armour makes them nigh invulnerable to simple enemies. If those enemies are boss-ish like, for example, Guardian in IWD2 they get haste and some cleric buffs and then go whack that someone in a couple of rounds.

 

And when you take even the best mage and try doing the same even measly goblins will swarm you in seconds. To be effective as a mage you need to spend an hour putting on every protective spell possible, then, if you're not fighting goblins you need to spend another hour lowering their defences to go through their saving throws and spell resistance. And then, if the encounter featured like 10-15 enemies, you have to rest.

 

So, yes. Mages have greater potential power but this power requires you to literally spend hours on buffs and rest. So if you're not powergaming on some Heart of fury(I think) or Ironman mode, party of mostly warriors is prefferable. 2-3 buffs and you are ready to go punching dragons until the area is clear of enemies.

yeah, because Gish is clearly must be a Wizard (20) *facepalm*

[ncguthwulf]

Melee casters

 

I think if they make them interesting then I will play them. The problem is when they make a melee caster just a warrior with different visuals.

 

Lets say a good warrior has a sword that deals 10 points of damage and can take 50 points of damage before he dies.

If they design a mage that after buffing can deal about 10 points of damage and can mitigate 40 and soak 10 points of damage before he dies then what they have created is a warrior with different visuals. Unintersting.

 

BUT if they make the melee mage a strong controller type (example, touch ranged paralysis or knockdown spells) with good maneuverability (blink, haste) then they could really feel and act differently.

 

------------

 

One of the posters before me highlighted a point about mages vs warriors in these games. I think because of rest mechanics and healing mechanics they have a good point. Your berserker with a 2 handed sword and 150 hit points can go in there swinging and dealing tons of damage. And at the end of the fight, even if he is at 10 hp, you can just rest and next battle back in there. In addition, the warrior types typically deal a steady stream of good reliable damage. The mages tend to have flashy type effects that dont deal continuous reliable damage. They also die if they get hit by a stiff breeze. That is not the type of mage I want to see in melee.

[Aldereth]

Tank mage for Ultima on line?

 

I would like to see a combat system that not only allow but make it viable for mages to specialize in touch/short range spells.

[J.E. Sawyer]

Not to mention all those are low level (weak) spells which barely scratch (or at all) normal enemies, melee wizards need better defense and MUCH better melee damaging spells to be a proper close combatant

In developing our wizard spell lists, I'm trying to have a fair number of melee-range (or close to it) single target or small AoE spells with serious punch. As someone else mentioned, there's not much motivation to use spells like Shocking Grasp when the damage is so-so and you're at serious risk when casting them. Spells can be interrupted in PE, so wizards who want to cast spells at close range are more likely to wear heavier armor (but cast spells more slowly). The "traditional" mage in light armor sticks to long range spells and stays off of the front line.

 

Personally, I also really want wizards to be able to slam enemies across the face with their grimoires.

[GhoulishVisage]

Personally, I also really want wizards to be able to slam enemies across the face with their grimoires.

 

That is an amazing idea.

 

 

 

I can get thoroughly behind this.

[TrashMan]

No, it isn't. What he's saying is that melee combatants like fighter, paladin or barbarian don their armour, equip their sword\axe whatever and go on whacking enemies left and right with no worries whatsoever. Their damage is more than enough and their armour makes them nigh invulnerable to simple enemies. If those enemies are boss-ish like, for example, Guardian in IWD2 they get haste and some cleric buffs and then go whack that someone in a couple of rounds.

 

And when you take even the best mage and try doing the same even measly goblins will swarm you in seconds. To be effective as a mage you need to spend an hour putting on every protective spell possible, then, if you're not fighting goblins you need to spend another hour lowering their defences to go through their saving throws and spell resistance. And then, if the encounter featured like 10-15 enemies, you have to rest.

 

So, yes. Mages have greater potential power but this power requires you to literally spend hours on buffs and rest. So if you're not powergaming on some Heart of fury(I think) or Ironman mode, party of mostly warriors is prefferable. 2-3 buffs and you are ready to go punching dragons until the area is clear of enemies.

 

Wut?

Sunburts = every enemy around you dead.

An hour casting spells? HA! More like 1 minute tops. I usually never bohered casting anything more than mage armor before I waded into combat and spammed spells centered on me.

[Somna]

Pathfinder's Magus class is a pretty effective melee-mage, albeit without high (7+) level spell access.

 

Although the idea of a melee-mage taking a giant book and treating it like a really big hammer is very appealing.

[Shadenuat]

In developing our wizard spell lists, I'm trying to have a fair number of melee-range (or close to it) single target or small AoE spells with serious punch.

Melee spells were always kinda lackluster in D&D, which also dragged down whole Necromancy school. However I'd rather make save-or-something spells melee and keep mages lightly-armored, seems it would be more thrilling to play that sort of spellcaster that way than just run around in heavy armor casting melee spells which damage as well if not better than ranged ones.

Edited November 14, 2012 by Shadenuat

[Nanakamado]

Personally, I also really want wizards to be able to slam enemies across the face with their grimoires.

 

I really like this idea.

But I also have great memories of playing an fgt/wiz archer in D&D 3.5. A character who was upgrading his weapons himself. It could be quite interesting idea. As long as we have some trade system in which player could be some type of traveling merchant.

[Tamerlane]

I just want to point out that mages in western RPGs (especially D&D) barely have any -if at all- spells that give them equal might in damage dealing compared to a warrior with a sword. Even less so if you try to focus that list of spells on close combat/melee related powers. Mages seem to always have to hire bodyguards to hide behind not to die from a single swing of a sword, and there is no scene with mages laughing insanely as they cut through enemies with their powers (in various spellusing combat forms) which one would actually expect them to be able from books and legends and movies.

Nope, they often attack from afar, hiding from enemies, and if they remain alone they run away. Nothing close to the idea of a melee mage.

This is the most wrong thing that was ever wrongly wrong.

[Hormalakh]

Not to mention all those are low level (weak) spells which barely scratch (or at all) normal enemies, melee wizards need better defense and MUCH better melee damaging spells to be a proper close combatant

In developing our wizard spell lists, I'm trying to have a fair number of melee-range (or close to it) single target or small AoE spells with serious punch. As someone else mentioned, there's not much motivation to use spells like Shocking Grasp when the damage is so-so and you're at serious risk when casting them. Spells can be interrupted in PE, so wizards who want to cast spells at close range are more likely to wear heavier armor (but cast spells more slowly). The "traditional" mage in light armor sticks to long range spells and stays off of the front line.

 

Personally, I also really want wizards to be able to slam enemies across the face with their grimoires.

 

Finally! Melee magic worth the hitroll....

[AGX-17]

Personally, I also really want wizards to be able to slam enemies across the face with their grimoires.

 

I've already seen that done in a Japanese action RPG. Cue gasps of horror and scandalized swooning among Obsidian forum members.

[JWestfall]

In developing our wizard spell lists, I'm trying to have a fair number of melee-range (or close to it) single target or small AoE spells with serious punch. As someone else mentioned, there's not much motivation to use spells like Shocking Grasp when the damage is so-so and you're at serious risk when casting them. Spells can be interrupted in PE, so wizards who want to cast spells at close range are more likely to wear heavier armor (but cast spells more slowly). The "traditional" mage in light armor sticks to long range spells and stays off of the front line.

 

This sounds good - two different play styles for my two wizard slaves companions.

[jezz555]

It would be nice if mage's could use swords as well. I don't know how they are doing proficiencies and if this would screw up the games balance or not, but If I could be a guy who wielded a sword in one hand and magic in the other and wore armor, I would be so happy.

[J.E. Sawyer]

Yes, wizards will also be able to use melee weapons, though you would have to spend character resources to not be horribly outclassed by a character of equivalent level that is more focused on melee combat.

[Incendium]

Yes, wizards will also be able to use melee weapons, though you would have to spend character resources to not be horribly outclassed by a character of equivalent level that is more focused on melee combat.

Wow. Thanks for coming here to confirm this, Mr. Sawyer.

Would we see see things like "Frost Armor" or "Enchant Weapon with Fire Magic" or "Enchant Weapon with Lightning Magic"?

[Hormalakh]

I just hope that magic isn't as OP as it was in some other games like Arcanum...

[Wirdjos]

In developing our wizard spell lists, I'm trying to have a fair number of melee-range (or close to it) single target or small AoE spells with serious punch.

Melee spells were always kinda lackluster in D&D, which also dragged down whole Necromancy school. However I'd rather make save-or-something spells melee and keep mages lightly-armored, seems it would be more thrilling to play that sort of spellcaster that way than just run around in heavy armor casting melee spells which damage as well if not better than ranged ones.

 

From Sawyer's first comment here, it sounds like heavy armor is going to give the wizard a penalty to casting speed. Add in the possibility of spell interruption and the likelihood that wizards will need to keep casting spells to hold their own compared to any physical geared class, and you have a pretty tense situation.

 

Personally, I'm really happy with this stance that the devs seem to be taking towards allowing any class to be shifted to fit unusual roles . I have an odd fondness for leading my party into battle that tends to prevent me from playing less physical classes. I like the idea of playing a chanter that can stand toe to toe with the frontliners and still use story-magic effectively, or a wizard that can cast while locking eyes with a barbarian. The trick is making each class able to fill most any role and still keeping them different enough that they feel distinct. Good luck, Obsidian!

[Shadenuat]

Add in the possibility of spell interruption

Well if there's AOO then probably, else I can see players abusing AI target priority and just using melee wizards like backstabbing rogues.

 

making each class able to fill most any role and still keeping them different enough

That's... very unlogical. The idea of class is exactly to create and separate roles. And I don't understand why do you need classes at all if they would have almost skill-based like gameplay.

Edited November 15, 2012 by Shadenuat

[Osvir]

Yes, wizards will also be able to use melee weapons, though you would have to spend character resources to not be horribly outclassed by a character of equivalent level that is more focused on melee combat.

 

What about a Sword/Dagger and a Grimoire? Is Blood Magic in?

[Wirdjos]

making each class able to fill most any role and still keeping them different enough

That's... very unlogical. The idea of class is to exactly create and separate roles. And I don't understand why do you need classes at all if they would have almost skill-based like gameplay.

 

I admit that I'm probably being a little too far reaching with my language (and my hopes). But classes don't have to be just about separate roles. For example, a fighter and a barbarian could serve basically the same role even if there are things that one does better than the other. You have to push them further apart with stats for them to be two totally different roles. A fighter could sacrifice durability for speed and power or a barbarian could drop some power/speed for more hit points. Take the melee chanter I proposed in my previous comment. I would likely have to sacrifice some of whatever stat is used to power his story-magic in order to allow him to better survive the frontlines. This means that he would be a weaker storyteller/singer than a pure chanter, but would better serve my needs of heading my party. He still wouldn't be able to truly compete with a pure fighter in fighting ability, but he would have the advantage of his form of magic.