Wizards with swords: Should wizards have melee capability?

[rjshae]

 

There's nothing wrong with flexibility within the classes.

Wizard with a sword is replaceability, not flexibility. And if one will place fighters position in jeopardy (like how famous kensai/mages did in BG2), the whole class system goes down the toilet. Every class replacing other class because of tailored "build" is an MMO route.

 

Bah. I'd rather just start with a career start package then build whatever kind of character I want. It's approach used in multiple role-playing game systems not called D&D, and it works very well. Classes are merely representations of character specializations, which make just as much sense to build in point-based systems. Giving a point-build character diverse abilities just means they won't be very good at any of them. (*COUGH*bard*COUGH*)

[Shadenuat]

I generally don't like compromise, at any level of life. It's usually a decision which leads to dissatisfaction of both parties. So if Obsidian decided to go for class system, I would like it to be class system in all of it's oldschool glory; a restrictive system, with high value and set role for each class; a system where you have to deal with group of specialists, make tough decisions and take risks. If they feel that class system can hamper roleplaying or is too restrictive for their taste, then it's better to just use a good skill-based system. Otherwise I want my frail pathetic 4 HP mages whom I have to nurture and feed xp from silver spoon, until I master the class to the point of it becoming a truly unique one. And in my head, that does not include neither swords nor DPS zap-wands.

Edited February 15, 2013 by Shadenuat

[Failion]

Would be cool to see classes being able to branch off into another class . A mage can wield a sword if he chooses to gimp himself in one type of magic school or two. But make it a meaningful choice. higher power spells being really useful. Fights where you rather have your mage being able to defend himself in melee then cast.

Edited February 15, 2013 by Failion

[Wagrid]

That's the kind of thing thinking of Failion. Learning skills outside the general scope of their class should be a major investment for any character. Sticking with a Wizard, if they learned to fight in melee they might have to sacrifice their  utility or offensive capability, or retain both but not be able to access much beyond mid level spells in either. These limits should be imposed by the significant amount of investment it would take to become competent in melee whilst levelling.

 

It's also important that you don't end up having melee-mages supersede warriors. I thought Dragon Age: Origins did this well. Even though you could be very powerful as an Arcane Warrior you still needed your Warrior party members for tanking. Not only that but they would always be more powerful than you in melee since you didn't have access to the weapon skill trees.

Edited February 15, 2013 by Wagrid

[moridin84]

Some classes should suck at melee, artillery/utility one just makes most sense (losing in brute force, one gains a fair advantage of having magical or utilitarian skills).

 

Think of it as pikemen/cavalry, just on smaller scale. This is the fun of class-based systems on tactical level - units with great strengths and great weaknesses.

 

Stop thinking about that on personal level ("duuh, I don't want to play wizard who sucks in melee") and try to imagine the strategic layer behind playing whole party.

 

I refuse!

 

When I play an RPG the character I am character controlling most of the time is my main. I control the other characters as well, just not as much. So it is very important that the character I create is fun and interesting to play. 

 

Besides, I don't want to be forced to bring along a "tank" companion just because I don't like playing as a "tank" myself. With hybrid characters I can "make do". 

 

 

It's not unprecedented. It was something you could do in Dragon Age: Origins, although it wasn't very effective. I've always liked the idea of allowing physical-oriented combatants to obtain and use basic sustained/buff spells which add magic/elemental damage bonuses to their equipped weapon if not already enchanted, or which provide additional defense or magic resistance. The idea of a mage-knight type of character has always appealed to me. Strict class restrictions have always seemed odd to me.

 

I found it pretty fun to play that in DA: O. Basically you toss all your AOE magic at the group of enemies, turn on all your buffs and wade right in the middle of them. The main problem is that you need have much mana after that and didn't have any instant cast spells to use. 

 

That's why I'm suggesting short-range instant cast spells in this game for melee wizards. 

 

That's the kind of thing thinking of Failion. Learning skills outside the general scope of their class should be a major investment for any character. Sticking with a Wizard, if they learned to fight in melee they might have to sacrifice their  utility or offensive capability, or retain both but not be able to access much beyond mid level spells in either. These limits should be imposed by the significant amount of investment it would take to become competent in melee whilst levelling.

 

I disagree with the idea that you cannot "go beyond mid level spells in either". That sucks. 

 

How I would like it work is like this....

 

You have 10 abilities available to you. If you are a pure wizard than you will simply choose a different set of abilities than if you were a melee wizard. They should be equivalent in power. 

Edited February 16, 2013 by moridin84

[rjshae]

I generally don't like compromise, at any level of life. It's usually a decision which leads to dissatisfaction of both parties. So if Obsidian decided to go for class system, I would like it to be class system in all of it's oldschool glory; a restrictive system, with high value and set role for each class; a system where you have to deal with group of specialists, make tough decisions and take risks. If they feel that class system can hamper roleplaying or is too restrictive for their taste, then it's better to just use a good skill-based system. Otherwise I want my frail pathetic 4 HP mages whom I have to nurture and feed xp from silver spoon, until I master the class to the point of it becoming a truly unique one. And in my head, that does not include neither swords nor DPS zap-wands.

 

How is your preference for old-school class builds incompatible with a flexible character build model? If you want to just follow the old school model then do so. But that's no reason to foist your wish for tight restrictions on the rest of us. Have the self-discipline to stick with vanilla class builds.

[Wagrid]

 

That's the kind of thing thinking of Failion. Learning skills outside the general scope of their class should be a major investment for any character. Sticking with a Wizard, if they learned to fight in melee they might have to sacrifice their  utility or offensive capability, or retain both but not be able to access much beyond mid level spells in either. These limits should be imposed by the significant amount of investment it would take to become competent in melee whilst levelling.

 

I disagree with the idea that you cannot "go beyond mid level spells in either". That sucks. 

 

How I would like it work is like this....

 

You have 10 abilities available to you. If you are a pure wizard than you will simply choose a different set of abilities than if you were a melee wizard. They should be equivalent in power. 

 

I think you've misunderstood me. I'm not saying that Melee-Mages should be limited to mid-level spells, I agree, that would absolutely suck. I'm saying you could have either high level spells in combat oriented magic, or utility magic, but not both (where as without the investment in melee you could pick up both high level combat and utility spells).

 

Do you see what I mean now? I'm advocating the loss of some magical versatility as the price of taking on a secondary combat role.

 

I like the way you've described it though, I'm just thinking more in terms of skill trees with linear power progression that a pool of abilities though. I love the idea of abilities staying useful throughout the game (that's something else Dragon Age does well).

Edited February 16, 2013 by Wagrid

[Lephys]

I generally don't like compromise, at any level of life.

It's not even compromise. It's feasible complexity. A hammer can allow a person to be a master carpenter, OR it can allow a person to be a master smith, OR it can allow a person to be a master soldier who uses a hammer. You wouldn't say "I want a hammer to ONLY work with anvils, and not be usable in carpentry or battle," would you?

 

So, why is it that a human being, with arms and muscles and coordination, should be incapable of wielding a weapon well enough to hold their own in melee combat SIMPLY because they have the ability to wield arcane energies?

 

From all your examples, it sounds like the only possibilities you're fathoming are ones that are already overboard, such as the ability of a Wizard to completely replace all usefulness of a Fighter in melee combat, or the ability of a Barbarian to be the sneakiest bastard alive to take the place of a Rogue.

 

You're correct in that restriction is good, but then you're just assuming, based on that, that any and ALL restriction is good, or that the more restriction, the better.

 

Almost nothing is good without some form of moderation. And the things you're saying you don't want aren't actually produced by the sheer possibility that a Wizard can do more than simply hurl giant magic-splosions from a minimum safe distance and hope the wind doesn't get to strong and shatter his feeble skeletal frame. If it isn't moderated properly, it makes him take the place of a Fighter, which would be overboard.

[Inertia]

I like playing swordmage hybrids my favorite build in nwn2 was an aasimar pala/sorc/rdd/ek could disable enemies and buff myself with sorc spells then used  epic divine might and divine shield too boost damage and ac. i found it extremely satisfying.

Edited February 16, 2013 by Inertia

[Shadenuat]

A hammer can allow a person to be a master carpenter, OR it can allow a person to be a master smith

I don't want somebody to become master of ranged combat by throwing his hammer at people (hah, what an irony that in D&D there are actually some famous examples of that).

 

So, why is it that a human being

Classes are not realistic. They never were or will be. Any human being can change it's "class" given time and effort. Don't mix verisimilitude into something which exists as a purely game mechanic tool. Classes are there to provide you with combat role, to ask what you're good at, what you will suck at, and what companions you'll have to take and deal with to pass through the game (in short, they are strategical "toy').

Edited February 16, 2013 by Shadenuat

[moridin84]

 

 

That's the kind of thing thinking of Failion. Learning skills outside the general scope of their class should be a major investment for any character. Sticking with a Wizard, if they learned to fight in melee they might have to sacrifice their  utility or offensive capability, or retain both but not be able to access much beyond mid level spells in either. These limits should be imposed by the significant amount of investment it would take to become competent in melee whilst levelling.

 

I disagree with the idea that you cannot "go beyond mid level spells in either". That sucks. 

 

How I would like it work is like this....

 

You have 10 abilities available to you. If you are a pure wizard than you will simply choose a different set of abilities than if you were a melee wizard. They should be equivalent in power. 

 

I think you've misunderstood me. I'm not saying that Melee-Mages should be limited to mid-level spells, I agree, that would absolutely suck. I'm saying you could have either high level spells in combat oriented magic, or utility magic, but not both (where as without the investment in melee you could pick up both high level combat and utility spells).

 

Do you see what I mean now? I'm advocating the loss of some magical versatility as the price of taking on a secondary combat role.

 

I like the way you've described it though, I'm just thinking more in terms of skill trees with linear power progression that a pool of abilities though. I love the idea of abilities staying useful throughout the game (that's something else Dragon Age does well).

 

If you go decide to become a melee wizard then there definitely needs to be some kind of trade-off. However, I think this should be more 'organic'. 

 

For example, there shouldn't a restriction of wearing armour and using swords, nor should there be any 'spell failure'. Instead, staffs and robes should give bonuses to spells whereas swords and armour give bonuses to melee damage and defense. If you choose armour then you are trading offensive for defensive, without feeling "punished" by some awkward mechanic. 

 

It should work the same way with abilities. You're in melee so you need more defensive and close range abilities, by taking those abilities you lose long range ones. You will be in melee and getting attacked so much of the time you it won't be practical to use any spells with a long cast time. By giving a spell a long cast time you are discouraging melee wizards from using in without forcing them.

 

Organic. 

Edited February 16, 2013 by moridin84

[Wagrid]

If you go decide to become a melee wizard then there definitely needs to be some kind of trade-off. However, I think this should be more 'organic'. 

 

For example, there shouldn't a restriction of wearing armour and using swords, nor should there be any 'spell failure'. Instead, staffs and robes should give bonuses to spells whereas swords and armour give bonuses to melee damage and defense. If you choose armour then you are trading offensive for defensive, without feeling "punished" by some awkward mechanic. 

 

It should work the same way with abilities. You're in melee so you need more defensive and close range abilities, by taking those abilities you lose long range ones. You will be in melee and getting attacked so much of the time you it won't be practical to use any spells with a long cast time. By giving a spell a long cast time you are discouraging melee wizards from using in without forcing them.

 

Organic. 

 

I like the sound of that. Especially the no spell failure thing. I've always hated that. In some editions of D&D it felt like even bulky clothes would make you fail every spell.

Edited February 16, 2013 by Wagrid

[Lephys]

I don't want somebody to become master of ranged combat by throwing his hammer at people (hah, what an irony that in D&D there are actually some famous examples of that).

Cool beans. Neither do I. o_o

 

Classes are not realistic. They never were or will be. Any human being can change it's "class" given time and effort. Don't mix verisimilitude into something which exists as a purely game mechanic tool. Classes are there to provide you with combat role, to ask what you're good at, what you will suck at, and what companions you'll have to take and deal with to pass through the game (in short, they are strategical "toy').

Classes are perfectly realistic. Just, in reality, you don't start out in the middle of life. So, picking your class is unrealistic, and is only required by game mechanics. But, hey, make a game where we play from a fetus all the way up to where the story begins, and you'll have eliminated the need for that.

 

And yes, classes are inherently about limitations, just as boundaries are for land. And yet, all land boundaries aren't exactly the same size. So, no, the existence of limitations doesn't say anything about the exact "coordinates," so to speak, of those limitations.

 

In short, you're bringing up valid notions and points, but none of them suggest that a Wizard shouldn't be able to hold his own with a weapon, if he so chooses, while a Fighter is always better than him with a weapon.

 

Basically, a Wizard who chooses to "hybridize" as far as he can towards a Fighter should ALWAYS be more skilled with magic and less skilled in melee weapon combat than even a Fighter who "hybridizes" as far into magic as he can. That's a good starting point for balance.

 

Going back to the hammer example, the hammer's infeasibility as a ranged weapon has no bearing on its ability to still be used in multiple ways.

[Pop]

yes

[Tamerlane]

It's not unprecedented. It was something you could do in Dragon Age: Origins, although it wasn't very effective.

The Arcane Warrior specialization was arguably the most broken thing in the whole damn game.

[Shadenuat]

Cool beans. Neither do I. o_o

 

These forums lack a good sarcastic emoticon, sadly.

 

you're bringing up valid notions and points, but none of them suggest

that a Wizard shouldn't be able to hold his own with a weapon

When you base a class around specific strategical points and learning curve (like "low armor", "low melee capability", "high preparation costs", "high long range capability"), making these points optional just takes away challenge and the soul of the class.

Call me class purist, if you like.

 

the hammer's infeasibility as a ranged weapon has no bearing on its ability to still be used in multiple ways

Yeah, just in this situation you are promoting to use hammer for even more bashing than it does already. Instead of building bridges or whatever.

 

The Arcane Warrior specialization was arguably the most broken thing in the whole damn game.

Any time you give wizard heavy armor it gets broken. Hence tankomages.

Edited February 19, 2013 by Shadenuat

[ReyVagabond]

My problem, with the Mage/warrior, thing is.

Game balance, I care about rol, And i dont mind that both can accomplish the same rol what i would mind is if the one what one is better than the other. (this usualy is the mages, kensai/mages, favored Soul in NWN2, etc)

This is new MMO territory,  where it looks like players like to chose a class and able to do everithing with it, if they go that way. Personally i dont mind, If 6 Rogues are on a party and one 2 heals, 2 try to soak the dame protecting other, and 2 try to kill stuff with AoE stuff. i dont mind. (2 mages, 2 healers, 2 fighters)

if instead of a mage Throwing Fireballs, i have a Rogue Trowing Granadas or a Warrior with a hand canon that deal the exact same damage same AoE Then better jet, i can create what ever party i want and have the freedom to have what ever i like because what ever i chose it dosent matter because the only thing it changes is the lore not the gameplay.

but still Its all about balance you cant go one road and neglet the other, if you do we dont it all end up beeing kensai/mages. or Fighter,bard,RRD, etc. because there will be that that moment where you say, man why didnt I picked X class, i could be able to do the same damage and have so much more. Thing that you eventualy will do, and then say this is the most fun thing ever. Why because with my Favored Soul, i have a spell that gives me the same AB as a Fighter of my same level and +6 strengh, and many many many more stuff.

So in conclution, if Two diferent Classes whant to fill the same rol, Both Classes whave to be balanced so, non of them is better than the other, and comit the same resourses to fill that rol.

[Shadenuat]

Personally i dont mind, If 6 Rogues are on a party and one 2 heals, 2

try to soak the dame protecting other, and 2 try to kill stuff with AoE

stuff. i dont mind.

And facepalm emoticon, too. These forums lack facepalm emoticon.

[ReyVagabond]

Just saying if you will give A Mage melee Weapons and Abilities that Will make him able to stand toe to toe with fighter beeing able to fill his role.

 

Then you can have  4 mages and 2 healers in a party. 2 Mages decicated to Fireballs, 2 Mages dedicated to do a fighters Job, And because having mages is just silly we will keep the clerics.

[moridin84]

When you base a class around specific strategical points and learning curve (like "low armor", "low melee capability", "high preparation costs", "high long range capability"), making these points optional just takes away challenge and the soul of the class.

 

 

 

Call me class purist, if you like.

 

The problem is that you have a specific idea of what a wizard is. It seems to very DnD based.

 

I mean "high preparation costs"? What preparation costs? 

 

In any case.

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/obsidian/project-eternity/posts/321413

 

If you want to create a wizard who wears plate armor and hacks away with a broadsword from behind a heavily-enhanced arcane veil, we want to let you do that. If your idea of the perfect fighter is one who wears light armor and uses a variety of dazzling rapier attacks in rapid succession, we want to help you make that character. So it's good to think of Project Eternity's classes as being purpose-ready but not purpose-limited.

 

As you can see, Obsidian are okay with the idea of a melee wizard and are designing the game with'flexible' rather than 'fixed' classes. 

[Shadenuat]

The problem is that you have a specific idea of what a wizard is. It seems to very DnD based.

What a surprise for IE games fan.

(Did I get sarcasm right this time? I'm not very good at sarcasm, I am practicing).

 

I mean "high preparation costs"? What preparation costs?

Well, in D&D it's reagents, although they were't implemented in IE. However, there are still things like time and concentration. A spell is something which generally requires verbal and somatic components, as well as time: wizard stands there, waves his hands, shouts magical words, all that while praying noone will hit him with sword while he is doing his stuff. For a wizard acting in melee, that would just look silly (because he will be hit). Which means a melee build should either work on buffs or instantaneous spells. Something like Warlock's eldritch weapons, maybe? Buffs are just passives. Passives are boring. Magic which is instantaneous and uninterruptible means that magic can be used without concentration, focus and challenge. Magic which can be used without those is boring too, because it's not mysterious anymore, but something you can do on a whim. And so on.

 

As you can see, Obsidian are okay with the idea of a melee wizard

And I am not okay with melee wizards.

 

Just saying if you will give A Mage melee Weapons and Abilities that

Will make him able to stand toe to toe with fighter beeing able to fill

his role.

What you describe is the worst thing which can happen with class systems. It makes them completely superfluous. Oh, and all the glorious butthurt which comes with classes sharing similar roles, but having just... that... little... difference... in performance... enough to start crusade wars.

Luckily, that MMO **** will be as far away from P:E as possible. I hope.

Edited February 19, 2013 by Shadenuat

[moridin84]

Well, in D&D it's reagents, although they were't implemented in IE. However, there are still things like time and concentration. A spell is something which generally requires verbal and somatic components, as well as time: wizard stands there, waves his hands, shouts magical words, all that while praying noone will hit him with sword while he is doing his stuff. For a wizard acting in melee, that would just look silly (because he will be hit). Which means a melee build should either work on buffs or instantaneous spells. Something like Warlock's eldritch weapons, maybe? Buffs are just passives. Passives are boring. Magic which is instantaneous and uninterruptible means that magic can be used without concentration, focus and challenge. Magic which can be used without those is boring too, because it's not mysterious anymore, but something you can do on a whim. And so on.

 

IE fans aren't necessarily DnD fans. For me the IE games just happened to be DnD based games. While I'm sure it works fine in PnP there are a lot of issues with DnD in a combat focused computer game. It's horribly imbalanced for one. Most of the stuff you are talking about simply doesn't translate very well into a computer game. 

 

Anyway, I've already given examples of how a melee wizard would work. A regular wizard would use long ranged spells with cast times and no cool downs (or high casts per day), while a melee wizard would use short ranged spells with no cast times and large cool downs (or low casts per day). A melee wizard shouldn't be just a warrior with a few spells, he should be a wizard who likes to get close and personal. 

 

 

And I am not okay with melee wizards.

 

Well okay. I don't think it's something that can be changed at some point. 

[Lephys]

These forums lack a good sarcastic emoticon, sadly.

 

I wasn't being sarcastic, if that's what you were suggesting. If it's not, then I am clearly lost.

 

When you base a class around specific strategical points and learning curve (like "low armor", "low melee capability", "high preparation costs", "high long range capability"), making these points optional just takes away challenge and the soul of the class.

Call me class purist, if you like.

 

When... . The fact that you could be called a purist is fine. You're allowed to like such specific class restrictions, and that's totally fine. Doesn't make you wrong or crazy or stupid. But, what it also doesn't do is change the fact that you can change up the class restrictions and the game will not be inherently, logically broken (unless you do it wrong).

 

Yeah, just in this situation you are promoting to use hammer for even more bashing than it does already. Instead of building bridges or whatever.

 

Good. You agree that the hammer can feasibly be used in multiple ways.

 

 

The Arcane Warrior specialization was arguably the most broken thing in the whole damn game.

Any time you give wizard heavy armor it gets broken. Hence tankomages.

 

False. Sometimes when you give wizards heavy armor (like when you do it how Dragon Age: Origins did it) the system gets broken. Hence Dragon Age: Origins tankomages.

 

In a completely unrelated literal humor note... It takes two to tanko.

Edited February 19, 2013 by Lephys

[Somna]

 

 

[...]

I mean "high preparation costs"? What preparation costs?

Well, in D&D it's reagents, although they were't implemented in IE. However, there are still things like time and concentration. A spell is something which generally requires verbal and somatic components, as well as time: wizard stands there, waves his hands, shouts magical words, all that while praying noone will hit him with sword while he is doing his stuff. For a wizard acting in melee, that would just look silly (because he will be hit). Which means a melee build should either work on buffs or instantaneous spells. Something like Warlock's eldritch weapons, maybe? Buffs are just passives. Passives are boring. Magic which is instantaneous and uninterruptible means that magic can be used without concentration, focus and challenge. Magic which can be used without those is boring too, because it's not mysterious anymore, but something you can do on a whim. And so on.

[...]

Sawyer has previously said that a wizard casting spells in plate mail is going to take longer to finish casting. So the armored wizard playstyle is probably going to be more around buffs or hit-and-runs with Touch spells, assuming the "holding the charge" concept is valid in Project: Eternity. A wizard wanting to stay in melee range is probably not going to be casting spells at all once in melee.

 

A mechanic I've found interesting in something I've recently playtested as a player has spellcasters being given a "concentration" slot that is used for buffs and some effects with duration. (Example: Imagine if your cleric had to choose between having Righteous Wrath of the Faithful active or Blade Barrier.) The spellcaster can only have 1 "concentration" slot and can lose the effect of the spell if damaged. However, there is an option/feat/talent/whatever to not lose spells due to combat damage. You were still stuck with only one slot though.

[Tamerlane]

Sawyer has previously said that a wizard casting spells in plate mail is going to take longer to finish casting. So the armored wizard playstyle is probably going to be more around buffs or hit-and-runs with Touch spells, assuming the "holding the charge" concept is valid in Project: Eternity.

More specifically, armour makes everything take longer to do. That's the basic tradeoff for survivability.