Wizards with swords: Should wizards have melee capability?

[Shadenuat]

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

I was.

 

You're allowed to like such specific class restrictions

YES! I finally got an official permission!

 

Most of the stuff you are talking about simply doesn't translate very well into a computer game. 

What stuff exactly? Casting times? Concentration? Reagents?

 

More specifically, armour makes everything take longer to do.

That's interesting, but that just makes me wonder why even allow wizards heavy armour, because a spellcaster who can't throw spells fast enough would be subpar to any other.

 

One thing which wizard could probably do is tank magical or elemental damage. So when a dragon comes for you with it's breathing weapon, wizard leaps forward, shouting Gandalf quotes and absorbs it's breath attack while protecting himself with armor against, I don't know, minions maybe? Then again, a clever wizard will just protect warrior instead and send him forward so... yeah. And there are clerics for that, too.

Which, by the way, asks for a question - why would you want a wizard with buffs (in heavy armor and with melee weapon, that is) when you can have a natural - a cleric?

Edited February 20, 2013 by Shadenuat

[Wagrid]

 

 

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.

 

That's the best way to implement that, I think. Dragon Age tried to base it around how much spells cost whilst wearing armour and it ended up being easily ignorable. I think it will also add variation within the play style as it will mean a choice between how much casting you want to sacrifice for survivability.

Edited February 20, 2013 by Wagrid

[moridin84]

What stuff exactly? Casting times? Concentration? Reagents?

 

Reagents certainly.

 

The "long range" thing as well. In any game a "long range spell" is one that can hit someone half way across the screen, same as the range of a bow and arrow. Not very long compared to the range of a pen and paper wizard. 

 

 

That's interesting, but that just makes me wonder why even allow wizards heavy armour, because a spellcaster who can't throw spells fast enough would be subpar to any other.

More specifically, armour makes everything take longer to do.

 

Why is everything 100% one way or 100% the other with you?

[Lephys]

 

 

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

I was.

 

 

... You were being sarcastic with "These forums lack a good sarcasm emoticon"? Or you were being sarcastic with "I don't want people using a metaphorical hammer in ways a hammer can't feasibly be used."? Because either doesn't really make much sense. Are you sure you were being sarcastic? o_o. I mean, I could just still be misunderstanding. *shrug*

 

 

 

You're allowed to like such specific class restrictions

YES! I finally got an official permission!

 

 

It was actually just an observation that permission wasn't even required, but you most likely already knew that. In which case, "Hahaha, good one! Ya got me, ^_^"

 

That's interesting, but that just makes me wonder why even allow wizards heavy armour, because a spellcaster who can't throw spells fast enough would be subpar to any other.

Well, think of a Wizard's magic as a shield (a physical, equippable shield.) Pretend a Wizard is just a guy who can't NOT-wield a shield. Well, obviously, a devastatingly large, sharp sword would be a much more effective weapon, but you can't really use that, because you can't put down this shield that you've always got and can't not-have (your magic). BUT, if someone gets in close to you, isn't it a bit silly to say "Well, all you can do with that shield is block stuff. Arrows... sword swings, etc. You want to attack? You can't, because you've got a shield." Why not let the guy with the shield bash people in the face, when he gets the chance, even if it's less effective than other weapons (metaphorically -- even if the Wizard is less effective at melee hitting than the Fighter)?

 

And why should he be allowed to wear heavy armor? I don't know. Why should the Ranger be allowed to switch to a sword instead of a bow? Why should the Druid be able to do anything while not in animal form?

 

A Wizard is limited to magical specialization. That much is a given. But why limit his tactical role when no one else's is limited, really? If he wants to use close-quarters magic, and wear heavy armor, and take the penalty to casting times as a tradeoff for the extra attack resistance from the armor (and probably the slower, but more accurate spells because they're so close-range), why not let him? He's still a Wizard. He's still doing Wizardy things.

 

The Heavy armor is so that he CAN operate from closer ranges, with more exposure to damage. Not so he can become a Barbarian and wade through dozens upon dozens of enemies using purely his fury and a jagged piece of rusty metal.

 

You're acting as though the sheer POTENTIAL for a Wizard to wield a melee weapon with more skill than a toddler, or to wear heavy armor for increased damage resistance would automatically make him some kind of uber-tank. He'd somehow automatically gain +7,000 melee damage, and all kinds of cleaving attacks, and would completely abandon his magic and just run about, engaging everyone in direct swordplay. Maybe he'll start grappling people and ripping their eyes out with his thumbs, and drink from their freshly-severed arteries.

 

No. All people want is some tactical versatility with their casters. Even if my Wizard's supposed to be a gun, I want to be able to decide whether or not he's a sniper rifle or a sawed-off shotgun. And if he gets in trouble, I want him to be able to rifle/shotgun-butt something in the face, and fire off rounds at point-blank. I don't want him to be limited to having a restraining order on all the enemies, and just running off to call some law enforcement whenever they come within 50 feet of him.

 

That was one of the most enjoyable parts of making a touch-spell-focused Mage in DnD. Sure, you had to get in close, but your spells almost never "missed." Then, when you got to a foe that was so strong that even the Fighter had to be really careful around him, you had to deal with it accordingly.

 

 

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

That's the best way to implement that, I think. Dragon Age tried to base it around how much spells cost whilst wearing armour and it ended up being easily ignorable. I think it will also add variation within the play style as it will mean a choice between how much casting you want to sacrifice for survivability.

 

 

Yup. Mass Effect did pretty much the same thing with weapon loadouts and ability cooldowns in the 3rd game. You could make a full-biotic with a shotgun, a sniper rifle, and an assault rifle, but your ability cooldowns would be 200% base. OR, you could make one with just a light pistol, and they'd be 50% of base (something around 2 seconds). So, you could pretty much "spell"sling like that, but you had almost no physical firepower, OR you could rely heavily on your firepower, and you'd have to wait upwards of 12 seconds to re-use abilities.

 

Potency was not affected by weapon loadouts. Only cooldown. It worked very well, though.

Edited February 21, 2013 by Lephys

[Shadenuat]

 

Reagents certainly.

The "long range" thing as well.

BS. There are fan made modules for NWN which return reagents to their proper place. Developers are just afraid to go there because they know they'll instantly get a load of problems with other parts of their game mechanics (like economics and encounters).

What's your problem with range I have no idea.

 

Well, think of a Wizard's magic as a shield

You're seriously pushing my limits man! First it's hammer, now it's shield! I can't compare a force of nature able to move mountains and strip people of their childhood memories to mundane items, give me a break!

 

Why should the Ranger be allowed to switch to a sword instead of a bow?

Because he's a fighter-based subclass?

 

or to wear heavy armor for increased damage resistance would automatically make him some kind of uber-tank.

Wearing heavy armor should make you a tank, unless armor in game will be as superficial as in MMO's and it's rating will count in thousands of points. Wizard by his nature also has protective spells (Arcane Veil) which seem to be powerful enough people want to use guns against them. Now combine these two together and yeah, supposedly you should get a perfect tank.

 

people want is some tactical versatility with their casters

Decent magical system should provide as much tactical versatility as you want within realm of the class.

 

That was one of the most enjoyable parts of making a touch-spell-focused

Mage in DnD. Sure, you had to get in close, but your spells almost

never "missed."

...what?

[Somna]

[...]

That was one of the most enjoyable parts of making a touch-spell-focused

Mage in DnD. Sure, you had to get in close, but your spells almost

never "missed."

...what?

 

 

Groping ignores armor.

 

Of course, it doesn't stop you from getting thrashed in the process either...

[Shadenuat]

Groping ignores armor.

I only know you should't do that with random women on the streets. You mean grappling?

[moridin84]

 

 

Reagents certainly.

The "long range" thing as well.

BS. There are fan made modules for NWN which return reagents to their proper place. Developers are just afraid to go there because they know they'll instantly get a load of problems with other parts of their game mechanics (like economics and encounters).

What's your problem with range I have no idea.

 

 Proper place? That wording makes you seem kinda... fanatical. 

 

What I mean about long range is that a "paper wizard" could explode a group of orcs (or whatever) a mile away but in a computer game you are stuck with casting spells at a most closer distance. So the "long range" thing wizards haven't isn't as strong in the computer games. 

[Shadenuat]

That wording makes you seem kinda... fanatical.

KNOW YOUR PLACE YOU DUMB INGREDIENTS

 

What I mean about long range is that a "paper wizard" could explode a group of orcs (or whatever) a mile away

Mile a way? Come on. And it's more about enemy movement speed than range. And I remember throwing spells a few screens far in ToEE.

[TrashMan]

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

 

That's a balance/mechanics problem, not one inherrent to mages wearing armor.

 

If mages have to sacrifice attribute and skill points to wear armor (that probably still isnt' as effective as armor on a fighter) then it should balance itself out.

[Shadenuat]

That's a balance/mechanics problem, not one inherrent to mages wearing armor.

You're making a mistake assuming that "balance and mechanics", these little numbers under the hood, work in some sort of completely separate dimension from other design, like classes and what items they can wear.

 

it should balance itself out.

I never played a party based cRPG where mages in heavy plate behind heavy buffs hacked things away with broadswords and it was fun and balanced.

[Somna]

 

 

Groping ignores armor.

I only know you should't do that with random women on the streets. You mean grappling?

 

 

The joke with touch attacks comes when the caster is shorter than the target.

 

Touch attacks ignore armor, so it's easier to hit the target. All you have to do is touch them. Somewhere. Hence my comment about groping.

 

Examples of D&D spells that require a touch attack are Shocking Grasp and Vampiric Touch.

[Shadenuat]

Touch attacks still require roll to hit. They can be p. fun in unorthodox roleplaying situations (like when you're shacking hands with somebody), but that's not relevant for cRPG.

And mechanics for armor class and hitting targets are still a bit... blurry from what we've heard from P:E. All these glancing hits and so on.

[Somna]

If touch attack spells work the same way as they do in 3.5 D&D, they will have a MUCH easier time to hit. Any attack that is not a miss should have it go off. The key factor is if holding the charge works, because that's what's going to allow the wizard to do hit and run magic. Melee range spells usually hit harder for their level, before you take caps into consideration.

[Shadenuat]

Glancing system indeed will give touch-based spells an edge they needed since... um... forever, true.

[Wagrid]

EDIT: Never mind, I give up on trying to quote.

Edited February 21, 2013 by Wagrid

[TrashMan]

 

it should balance itself out.

I never played a party based cRPG where mages in heavy plate behind heavy buffs hacked things away with broadswords and it was fun and balanced.

 

 

That's not my problem, now is it?

 

 

 

 

That's a balance/mechanics problem, not one inherrent to mages wearing armor.

You're making a mistake assuming that "balance and mechanics", these little numbers under the hood, work in some sort of completely separate dimension from other design, like classes and what items they can wear.

 

Balancing encompases everything.

[moridin84]

Obsidian has already decided to put in the option to have wizards with swords and plate. It's a bit pointless to keep discussing whether they should or shouldn't do it.

 

I'd prefer if this thread contained more discussion on trying to balance this.

Edited February 21, 2013 by moridin84

[Lephys]

 

 

That's a balance/mechanics problem, not one inherrent to mages wearing armor.

You're making a mistake assuming that "balance and mechanics", these little numbers under the hood, work in some sort of completely separate dimension from other design, like classes and what items they can wear.

 

 

You're making the mistake of assuming that things like classes and what items they can wear aren't literally comprised of "these little numbers under the hood."

 

Also, the whole hammer/shield comparison was metaphorical. The figurative shield-wielding Wizard was restricted to having to use his shield, but he wasn't restricted in simply hiding behind it. I'm fairly certain you knew that, and simply don't care.

[Shadenuat]

You're making the mistake of assuming that things like classes and what

items they can wear aren't literally comprised of "these little numbers

under the hood."

They are and they are't.

There is a design idea of giving and taking which on higher level creates unique gameplay for classes. Magic is magic because it is not something which only has a price in 1's and 0's, but because mages, generally, have a unique option of manipulating world and rules of the world they exist in, while most of the others just "play by the rules". This advantage is so absolute compared to better THAC0 or ability to wear armor that they are often compromised when it comes to mundane things to balance that out. This is what makes them unique.

[Lephys]

They are and they are't.

There is a design idea of giving and taking which on higher level creates unique gameplay for classes. Magic is magic because it is not something which only has a price in 1's and 0's, but because mages, generally, have a unique option of manipulating world and rules of the world they exist in, while most of the others just "play by the rules". This advantage is so absolute compared to better THAC0 or ability to wear armor that they are often compromised when it comes to mundane things to balance that out. This is what makes them unique.

I'm fairly certain they simply are. I don't see where you're getting the "aren't" from.

 

Why does a magic spell have such an advantage over a better THAC0 or better armor? Because of the math programmed into that spell. If a fireball does 1,000 damage to a 30-foot area, and armor stops all attacks from dealing 10% of their damage, and enemies have 100 health a piece, then yeah, the fireball is oodles better. Change a factor, and it isn't. Armor stops 90% of damage? That's probably better, now, in the long run. Enemies have 7,000 health? Well, that fireball isn't as useful as it was. Maybe you can cast it 7 times, rapidly? Hmmm, now it's useful again.

 

Everything is made up of those numbers, under the hood. Balancing is simply done using those numbers. The numbers don't exist purely for balance's sake. They just happen to make balancing a lot easier and more objective.

 

Even the mage's unique option of manipulating the rules of their world is quantified via game code.

[Karkarov]

I really don't get why you guys keep bringing D&D into these discussions...

 

Anyway.

 

No, don't see a problem with Mages with Swords.  We already have Mages in Armor confirmed.  Thing is... if you want to be in the front of battle, wearing heavy armor, carving things up with a broadsword.... a Fighter is still going to be better at that than a Mage will be regardless of what gear the Mage is wearing.  Simply put, there is no reason to be a Caster if what you want to play is a melee fighter that kills things with a sword, in fact, being a caster and doing that is likely gimping yourself.

[Tamerlane]

Eh, not necessarily. There's always room for XxX_CaSteR_SuPrEmAcY420_XxX, even with melee mages. Remember that DAO's best fighter was a mage with the arcane warrior specialization and BG2's best fighter took mage levels.

[Shadenuat]

Why does a magic spell have such an advantage over a better THAC0 or

better armor?

Because there are dozens and hundreds of these spells. Still don't get it?

 

Enemies have 7,000 health? Well, that fireball isn't as useful as it

was. Maybe you can cast it 7 times, rapidly? Hmmm, now it's useful

again.

Ahahaha.

[wpmaura]

No melee ability for wizards in my book, I  cant stand the jack of all trades that is actually super proficient in everything, if a wizard has melee capability then he should be gimped seriously spell wise.