Jump to content

Wizards with swords: Should wizards have melee capability?


Recommended Posts

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.

 

I think this is my fault. I started the thread as a discussion of whether it should be included, unaware that it had already confirmed to be in the game. I wish that I'd scoured the updates for information again before creating this thread. That way discussion could have started on the right foot.

 

I absolutely agree with you though. Since it was pointed out that they will be in the game I think that discussion should have shifted towards how to balance it. Although, to be fair, there have been some interesting, well thought out posts about balance.

 

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.

 

We're bringing up D&D because it's a common reference point for everybody here. Considering a lot of the developers worked on D&D games it's also probably a common reference point for them too. 

 

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.

 

I'm replying to both of these together, since both have say that a wizard with melee capabilities should have gimped magical abilities. I think that's the wrong way to approach it and would be as bad as allowing the play style to become more powerful than any other class. Good balance involves keeping all classes and play styles, well, balanced. Not crippling some and overpowering others.

 

If you look at the discussion on balance here nobody is saying that they want to equip their wizards with swords and have them instantly destroy fighters in melee. What people are saying is that they want Melee-Wizards to be inferior in melee to Fighters (but still strong enough for it not to be a waste of time trying), for it to be a major investment whilst building the character, to have spell casting speed restricted by armour and for this kind of character to have to focus more on close range spells to be fully effective. I think those restrictions and conditions allow for a powerful character that's fun to play, but isn't overpowered compared to a traditional Wizard or other classes.

 

Another idea when it comes to balancing this kind of character is make it so that they can't fight in melee for as sustained a period as a Fighter - they'll have to pull out and heal up more frequently. This is accomplished by simply not allowing them the same bonuses to health as a Fighter. If you want to get around this limitation you either need to put points into Constitution or using equipment that boosts health. But this comes at the cost of damaging capabilities (both melee and magical), balancing it out.

 

Based on these restrictions, the kind of character I picture myself playing is a wizard using a sword and wearing mail armour (nothing heavier so casting speed isn't restricted) who fights with the basic strategy of using long ranged, disruptive spells at the beginning of combat, then charging in using melee and spells line Cone of Cold and Greater Fireburst to do as much damage as quickly as possible before moving away to avoid being overwhelmed.

 

To me that sounds like a fairly reasonable, balanced way of playing this kind of character.

Edited by Wagrid
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think games should move away from obligatory party roles. It adds to the diversity. If a rogue, a mage and a cleric are all must-haves, the choice of classes is actually very limited. I think MMORPGs first picked up on the fact, that class should be dictated by necessity. For every specific role there should at least be a number of classes who can fill it with roughly the same efficiency. Classes should all be about style and role play.

 

So, yeah, there is nothing wrong with a fighter/mage. It doesn't mean that he should be able to land devastating 10th level spell "Utter Mayhem and Mass Destruction", as a pure mage could, or possess the same combat abilities as a fighter does. But he can use a certain spells efficiently and make up for the lack of training with magical self-buffs. This would make him just as effective as a pure class character only in a different way.

 

By the way, in AD&D (and I consider all the editions after that one to be heretical and in a dire need of purging by fire) you could dual class a fighter to a mage and turn into an ultimate weapon of mass destruction... provided you live long enough to enjoy your fighter levels back.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

. Classes should all be about style and role play.

Skills are your instruments of roleplay in cRPG. Without unique set of instruments, you won't have any unique roleplay.

 

 

And yet even Pokemon get different skill choices for different tactical styles. Don't make Wizards lesser than Pokemon! *shakes you desperately by the shirt* Please!!! :)

 

Let's say a Fighter (at a given level) can take... 12 consecutive hits (from a given enemy) before dying. Okay, a "default" (ranged spell-slinging) Wizard, at that same level, can take 4 consecutive hits (from the same enemy) before dying. It's entirely feasible for the Wizard to specialize in such a way (through whatever combination of defensive spells/equipment/stat-or-skill-progression you want to use) that he can take 6 or 7 consecutive hits from that enemy before dying, and be able to hold his own more against melee peepses, be it with a melee weapon, or with melee/short-ranged specialized magic (or a combination of both). At the same token, he should be able to specialize in such a way that he can only take maybe 2 consecutive hits from that enemy before dying, but he can take things down a lot more effectively/quickly from a range, so long as things stay at a range and don't rush in and get those 2 hits on him.

 

Trade-off Evaluation time:

 

The sturdier Wizard doesn't have quite as much raw spell-power, BUT, he also doesn't have to simply flee in terror in a battle in which moderately-agile melee enemies are numerous and simply keep closing in on everything in sight. So, he's more SITUATIONALLY effective, because of the style of Wizardry he's chosen, and yet the Fighter's still WAY better at wading into the fray than he is. The Wizard's not just gonna run in and slay 17 things with his greatsword and drink the blood of his enemies. He's still got to rely heavily on magic, but he can feasibly get closer, more of the time, and worry less about hiding behind a tree every time a strong breeze comes through. Inversely, the Glass-Cannon Wizard has to hide behind a tree every time that wind picks up, and he's not nearly as effective against a group of enemies that won't stay at any sort of range for a decent amount of time and/or can't be kept away by the efforts of the rest of the party while he slings his mighty, mighty spells.

 

Simply put, if you got 8 points to spend, total, as a Wizard, and you had 2 specialty trees -- Glass Cannon, and Battlemage, each with 8 total nodes to purchase -- then more points in Battlemage equals close-range survivability at the cost of raw spellpower, and more points in Glass Cannon equals raw spellpower at the cost of close-range survivability.

 

No one's suggesting taking a Glass Cannon Wizard and simply beefing up his defense and making him a Grandmaster Katana Wielder. Or, if they are, they are silly, silly folk. 8P

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet even Pokemon get different skill choices for different tactical

styles. Don't make Wizards lesser than Pokemon! *shakes you desperately

by the shirt* Please!!! :)

I'll make sure to pass it to Josh once I'll stop watching Avellone get his silken dress mawed by twenty wolves.

 

Simply put, if you got 8 points to spend, total, as a Wizard, and you had 2 specialty trees -- Glass Cannon, and Battlemage

You can replace battlemage with Abjuration-like tree, still get a defensive-based wizard with lower offensive capabilities, but keep the magical theme and all the tactical nuances which are associated with playing a spellcaster (like defensive spells requiring timing and upkeep to use effectively).

Edited by Shadenuat
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

. Classes should all be about style and role play.

Skills are your instruments of roleplay in cRPG. Without unique set of instruments, you won't have any unique roleplay.

Well, maybe there is a nicer way to say it, but you're wrong. Uniqueness comes with the player, not with the class. RP is not about having a certain ability, it is about achieving results with different methods. Lock picking skill doesn't make a rogue, but ability to fast-talk, lust for money, sneaky approach to danger, and the other such qualities do.

 

If there is a locked door in your way, a rogue could pick the lock, a barbarian could cut through it or a wizard could pulverize it with a spell. If the only solution is going to a tavern and getting yourself a rogue to open doors for you, then you have RP all wrong.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Simply put, if you got 8 points to spend, total, as a Wizard, and you had 2 specialty trees -- Glass Cannon, and Battlemage

You can replace battlemage with Abjuration-like tree, still get a defensive-based wizard with lower offensive capabilities, but keep the magical theme and all the tactical nuances which are associated with playing a spellcaster (like defensive spells requiring timing and upkeep to use effectively).

 

 

So, you don't actually take issue with the mechanical effects of armor and melee weapon capability (increased defense at the cost of offensive capabilities), you just want only magic to generate those effects, and never physical equipment?

 

See, I still think that's an unnecessary restriction. But, it's a fair enough preferential stance. I mean, personally, I'd much rather have "melee" (rather short-ranged) spell options, as opposed to long-ranged spells, than more martial weapon prowess (maybe they even just rely on your minimal combat prowess with things like quarterstaves and such).

 

I just don't see how it's in any way unreasonable to have a Wizard performing some tasks "the old fashioned way." I mean, I don't expect a Wizard, in his daily life, to not use his hands to put his shoes on, or always sleep on a hovering sheet of air, or cast fishing spells to catch fish.

 

Sure, armor and weapons give you a static defensive and offensive capability, with no limited quantity of attacks or damage-blocks per day or per encounter. HOWEVER, they're a lot less effective than magical means, and they cost casting-speed. Honestly, a Wizard can cast "Panic Room" and build a 6-foot-thick steel box around himself and just ride out the battle for all I care. I mean, that ability would be pretty pointless design, but, as far as the "Oh no, you're getting the Wizard class out of balance" thing goes, I don't really care if he's invincible all day long if he sacrifices all his offensive abilities. That satiates my objective need for balance, regardless of how pointless it is.

 

All anyone's advocating here is a MUCH lesser shift than an invincible steel box. Again, if the Wizard were going to be anywhere near as capable in melee combat and survivability as a Fighter, I'd be with you. But, I'm easily thinking of the conditions under which Wizard swordsmanship and armor-wearing WOULD be reasonable and acceptable, then stating them thusly, rather than thinking of ways that it might be ridiculous, then assuming it can only be ridiculous.

 

The Wizard isn't going to gain Great Cleave and Whirlwind Strike with his weapons, and he's not going to have the same defensive capabilities as a Fighter (the Fighter surely knows stances and movements and such that leave him less open to attack/counterattack than the Wizard, etc.). Also, armor could reduce the potency of defensive magics like the arcane Veil, and any other shield spells and such. And/or the duration. So, it's still a tradeoff. And his weapon just gives him decently consistent melee damage. He'd still have to rely on spells to be offensively affective. His spells would simply most likely be more short-ranged spells. Maybe he augments his sword swing to produce an arc of fire, much like Burning Hands or something. So that while his physical swing might be ineffective, his use of Wizardry actually produced a significant effectiveness for it.

 

You wouldn't agree that it IS possible to allow Wizards to simply be capable of utilizing martial weapons and armor and not have it be ridiculous? Objectively, now. You can easily dislike something while still objectively assessing it with the conclusion that it's okay.

 

 

Skills are your instruments of roleplay in cRPG. Without unique set of instruments, you won't have any unique roleplay.

Well, maybe there is a nicer way to say it, but you're wrong.

 

 

Ehh... I'd say those two sentences of Shadenuat's are correct, when isolated. How he's using them to imply that certain tactics, or the ability to wear armor and use weapons are unique skills is wrong, though.

 

If that were true, then only one class should be able to wear armor and use weapons. And if the Wizard is supposed to be the ranged attacker and use only defensive magic shields (instead of armor), then no other class could have any mechanically similar ranged attacks or defensive shield abilities.

 

Classes obviously rely upon some unique abilities and tools to remain distinct from one another, but that doesn't mean that anything they can accomplish and/or any method they can use to accomplish it should be completely isolated to only that class.

 

How to make sure we maintain that distinction is what we should be talking about. Not "If you give a Wizard a sword, he's basically a Fighter!". If the inability to wield martial weapons and wear significant armor were the only two things distinguishing the Wizard from other classes, it'd be a piss-poor class design from the start.

Edited by Lephys
  • Like 1

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Link to post
Share on other sites

<...>

So how are you going to fast-talk, steal the money or sneakely approach danger without your rogue skills?

 

You wouldn't agree that it IS possible to allow Wizards to simply be

capable of utilizing martial weapons and armor and not have it be

ridiculous?

I did't play every cRPG and I don't own every PnP book in the world, so it's hard not to agree. But your post is mostly just another set of "what if's" and theorising that we would, for sure, get a system where "martial" wizard build will have only a small to moderate advantage in melee while trading a lot of spellcasting capability. Which I a) don't have much faith in, and I already thrown so many arguments on why rule bender archetypical class should't have access to a lot of stable and mundane advantages, and b) I won't be interested in playing that sort of character anyway.

 

How he's using them to imply that certain tactics, or the ability to

wear armor and use weapons are unique skills is wrong, though.

I did't state so, but in class based systems there's nothing wrong with that type of design. Obviously it works with idea of moderation in mind and by supporting archetypical roles (fighter based classes get to wear armor, but only the fightest of fighters wears the better one). You balance classes between melee prowess, utility and magical capability. It's very basic stuff and that's how a lot of classes have been born (like a Paladin, or Ranger).

 

Classes obviously rely upon some unique abilities

The more the better.

Edited by Shadenuat
Link to post
Share on other sites

I did't play every cRPG and I don't own every PnP book in the world, so it's hard not to agree. But your post is mostly just another set of "what if's" and theorising that we would, for sure, get a system where "martial" wizard build will have only a small to moderate advantage in melee while trading a lot of spellcasting capability. Which I a) don't have much faith in, and I already thrown so many arguments on why rule bender archetypical class should't have access to a lot of stable and mundane advantages, and b) I won't be interested in playing that sort of character anyway.

The entire design process of a video game is based on "what if"s, hypotheses, and trial-and-error/testing/balancing. So, forgive me if I don't feel silly for speculating on potential game mechanics in a discussion forum specifically for such speculation and discussion, for a game that's currently in the midst of development.

 

Also, if you agree that it isn't impossible, and you'd simply bet, if you had to bet one way or the other, that a good implementation just doesn't get achieved, AND you are fine with simply ignoring/never-using such an implementation anyway, then what is there to even argue? This isn't "Haha, I win, and your lack of faith and preferential stance on this is WRONG, LOLZ!" It's a discussion of how best to handle Wizards and Weaponry. How can we even know whether how likely it is to be properly implementable if we don't discuss possibilities and rule out the obviously bad ideas while we preserve and combine the good ones?

 

If we were discussing "Should the game FORCE your Wizard to simply wear full plate and wield dual greatswords and not even be able to cast spells?", then I would immediately understand the objections. But what point is there in objecting to constructive discussion? Even if we discuss this for 20 pages, and end up arriving at "Okay, well, we've thought of 1,000 different things, and there's still no really good way to do this, so, no, I guess they shouldn't be allowed to wear armor and wield weapons," it would still be a worthwhile thread, because then we'd know more than we did, instead of simply pessimistically assuming it can't be done and shouldn't even be discussed or attempted.

 

I did't state so, but in class based systems there's nothing wrong with that type of design. Obviously it works with idea of moderation in mind and by supporting archetypical roles (fighter based classes get to wear armor, but only the fightest of fighters wears the better one). You balance classes between melee prowess, utility and magical capability. It's very basic stuff and that's how a lot of classes have been born (like a Paladin, or Ranger).

That's very true, but how would those classes have ever been born if people had all just thought "Nah, we've already got rules and boundaries, and we can never redraw those or think outside the box"?. I highly doubt we've reached the edge of the world in terms of class creativity, and that goes for variance within existing classes/archetypes as much as it does for new and separate classes/archetypes all together.

 

Again, you can't know until you try. And if you're fine with not-knowing and not-trying, that's cool. No one's gonna make you, or think lesser of you. There's just absolutely no need to discourage other people from trying so that they can better know, or to suggest that trying is somehow dumb or pointless.

 

 

 

>Classes obviously rely upon some unique abilities

The more the better.

 

 

I actually agree with you there, within reason, of course. There can only be so many before it gets ridiculous, but I don't think you were suggesting "more" went on into infinity or anything. :) Edited by Lephys

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It's a discussion of how best to handle Wizards and Weaponry.

Stop judging posters morality and look up the name of this thread already.

 

Nobody's judging anybody's morality, and the name of the thread was rendered obsolete on the first page when somebody pointed out that wizards with weapons and armour are confirmed to be in the game. If the title of the thread was the only thing we were allowed to talk about we should have abandoned it after post #6. Considering this, Lephys' statement was entirely valid.

 

But this is just bickering over the purpose of the thread now, which indicates to me that discussion here is basically exhausted, so we should leave the lengthy debates covering several pages and talk about something new.

Edited by Wagrid
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Stop judging posters morality and look up the name of this thread already.

There are no immoral posters. Only unconstructive ones, u_u...

 

:)

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

<...>

So how are you going to fast-talk, steal the money or sneakely approach danger without your rogue skills?

 

I am going to use my warlock skills and turn invisible to avoid combat or to fast talk I'll make myself irresistible to the opposite sex, so they will barely listen. Or to the same sex. Or to both sexes. Don't see how that plan can go wrong.

 

Anyway, my point is that many classes can have access to same or similar talents. It should be a different variety, sure, but there is absolutely no need for class-exclusive skills, the effects of which cannot be reproduced by any other class.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are no immoral posters. Only unconstructive ones, u_u...

And your post before that was a good example of this, yes.

 

It should be a different variety, sure, but there is absolutely no

need for class-exclusive skills, the effects of which cannot be

reproduced by any other class.

This is a terrible attitude. It hurts the nature of the classes and good what can come from class-based system, because they cease to be special. It will hurt possible companions, as noone will provide player with unique content. It obviously will hurt replayability. It even hurts the setting (why magical skills should have substitute in mundane skills?).

And as you already mentioned that then players will just get every class and that actually hurts party composition options, I'll say that only part of players pick up companions out of their effectiviness; a lot do so because they like the characters or naturally prefer specific party compositions (like mage-heavy instead of balanced, ect.). So no, not being able to pick locks does't matter to many players, as they will just replay game with other party later and enjoy new content they missed the first time.

Edited by Shadenuat
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It should be a different variety, sure, but there is absolutely no

need for class-exclusive skills, the effects of which cannot be

reproduced by any other class.

This is a terrible attitude. It hurts the nature of the classes and good what can come from class-based system, because they cease to be special. It will hurt possible companions, as noone will provide player with unique content. It obviously will hurt replayability. It even hurts the setting (why magical skills should have substitute in mundane skills?).

And as you already mentioned that then players will just get every class and that actually hurts party composition options, I'll say that only part of players pick up companions out of their effectiviness; a lot do so because they like the characters or naturally prefer specific party compositions (like mage-heavy instead of balanced, ect.). So no, not being able to pick locks does't matter to many players, as they will just replay game with other party later and enjoy new content they missed the first time.

Yeah, right, if your barbarian can shoulder-smash through a door, surely it will make your rogue look bad and useless. Say what? How does that even make sense?

 

The unique personality of companions matters, not whether the companion blasts enemies away with magic or sword. What adds to replayability is the thrill and variability of combat, achieved to multiple tactical approaches player can take to a given encounter. And no, the fact that you can pulverize enemies just as effectively with a sword, as you do with magic, doesn't take away any uniqueness. Neither does the ability to open locks without a rogue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, right, if your barbarian can shoulder-smash through a door, surely

it will make your rogue look bad and useless. Say what? How does that

even make sense?

You just answered that yourself. If a player rolls a rogue with high lockpicking skill, but then gets a companion who can smash through every door, why should't he feel bad? If there is no unique content to find with his supposedly unique class, what was the point with rolling with that class? Just because he wants to look badass in a black cowl? Sorry, but style and roleplaying is't everything players want when they choose their class. It's very bad in PnP when one of the players feels useless because party does't let him get his unique content based on his skills. In cRPG, it's... just moderately bad.

 

The unique personality of companions matters, not whether the companion blasts enemies away with magic or sword.

I bring you Myron from Fallout 2. Myron sucked in combat (because of his stats and skills). He had unique skill which allowed him to create drugs and stimpacks - noone could do that in the whole game, only he could. He had good Science skill, which allowed player who taken Myron in his party but slacked in Science get access to unique content (military bases and such). Of course, his personality was great too, but it was also supported by unique stats.

And how about every companion from Planescape. Pretty much every companion had a very unique twist when it came to their inventories. Inventory is a very mundane thing, how can it make a character unique? Well, it sure did there. From Morte's teeth to Dak'kon sword or Grace's inability to attack with anything but her hands (or lips), mechanics supported every aspect of characters it represented (not to mention Grace being the only healer in the game, which made her even more desirable as a companion even without taking into an account her... mhmhmmm... other... mmmmmmrrrr--...merits).

 

...funny thing is, I believe Obsidian made lockpicking a universal skill for all classes. Although they did say rogues will be better at it. I just hope they add enough unique content for a party with rogue to explore, because that sort of content is what makes game memorable and replayable long time after release.

 

make shoulder-smashing a skill that must be invested in.

Hey! You have your own thread! With minigameZ!

Edited by Shadenuat
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Gize, the obvious answer is:

 

make shoulder-smashing a skill that must be invested in.

 

 

:trollface: :popcorn:

The obvious answer is that neither should be a skill to be invested in.

 

 

 

 

Yeah, right, if your barbarian can shoulder-smash through a door, surely

it will make your rogue look bad and useless. Say what? How does that

even make sense?

You just answered that yourself. If a player rolls a rogue with high lockpicking skill, but then gets a companion who can smash through every door, why should't he feel bad? If there is no unique content to find with his supposedly unique class, what was the point with rolling with that class? Just because he wants to look badass in a black cowl? Sorry, but style and roleplaying is't everything players want when they choose their class. It's very bad in PnP when one of the players feels useless because party does't let him get his unique content based on his skills. In cRPG, it's... just moderately bad.

I think I can hear a very disgruntled PnP player here. If any player in the party gets bored it's GM's fault for not being able to involve all the players. If I play a rogue I don't necessarily want to run up to every chest to check it for traps and open the lock. It is extremely boring. I want to sneak up on people and garrote them to death.

 

Not every class has unique abilities. Far from it. What can a fighter do? He swings a bloody sword and he doesn't day, "Hey, my barbarian friend, it kinda sucks that you get more damage bonus for that two-handed axe of yours and all that extra dice for HP, since I am kinda the warrior, you know. Just grab a toothpick instead of the axe, so I don't feel useless or I quit playing." Same goes for monks (spell-resistance does not count as a bad ass unique power does it?), sorcerers, swashbucklers, you name it.

 

You are trying to argue that rules in the party matter, because otherwise people would fell useless. Well, I've got news, not every game is an archetypical PnP with boring dungeon crawling and unimaginative GMs. Some games are about actual roleplay (which is not limited to picking locks or other special abilities, by the way), where classes are dictated by character and profession. They are about party synergy and interactions, not about being useful to the party simply because you can pick locks or heal wounds.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I can hear a very disgruntled PnP player here

You hear a GM which cares to provide a spotlight for every player, by whatever means are neccesary or preferable to that session or player. If one player has four dots in Lockpicking, while the other has four in Chemistry, I will provide metaphorical "locks" which can be opened with only one way or another. As for what you concider "fun", it's just what you personally concider fun, nothing more. Some people don't like to garrote anyone, but enjoy tinkering with mechanisms or breaking into houses, or whatever.

 

What can a fighter do?

He wears the heaviest, most expensive armor and feels good about being the most badass tank around. As an example.

 

You are trying to argue that rules in the party matter, because otherwise people would fell useless.

I am arguing that depending on your class, skills, race, unique content should be generated to provide unique experience you could't get other way around. Class, skills, race - these things can, and should, be used for that purpose, as you tell the game how you want your character be treated right from the character generation screen. As for your "true and virtous" "actual roleplay" without "boring dungeon crawling", but with "synergy and interactions", well, it has been nothing but loud statements and pompous theorising so far, and it really has nothing to do with mechanics in CRPG's.

 

Oh, but do tell me about that "actual roleplay" and what it is, and how one "roleplay" can be more "actual" than another "roleplay". That would be most enlightening.

Edited by Shadenuat
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in general agreement with Shadenuat that it is important to keep classes distinctive. Concisely put, if classes are not distinct, why have classes at all? However, I do see the need to be able to utilize class strengths in flexible manners, which may cause some overlap. However, this overlap should never be anywhere near equivalent.

 

Shoulder charging a door costs nothing, but is not likely to be effective but on the weakest of doors. A wizard's spell to unlock a door consumes a precious and depletable resource. Both have aspects of a rogue's lockpick ability, but are comparitively deficient in one significant manner or another. This is how I feel a melee intensive wizard should be treated. Consider:

 

  • An armor clad wizard in the fray of melee is likely holding a weapon in at least one hand. What happens when a spell's projectile emanates from a hand or fingers gripped around a weapon?
  • Does a spell manifest as a breath weapon make it through the helmet of such a wizard, or does it bottle up inside?
  • Can a spell like a "Power Word: Stun" be foiled because the opponent can't hear it through the slits in an armored wizard's helmet?
  • Will a wizard with a Grimiore in one hand be unable to cast the complex spells granted by it because their other hand is grasping a weapon and unable to perform the gestures?

 

Should the option for a tin-can wizard exist? Sure. Whatever it turns out to be is highly dependant on exactly what demands magic places on the wielder. However, any magic system that ignores the above concerns probably won't be a very interesting one. Let's hope that they are taken into account, and that a player seeking the best of both worlds will have to accomodate for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I have to disagree.  I played a tank specced fighter berserker who couldn't die because enemies couldn't hit me and when they did the damage was laughable.  I didn't do a ton of damage myself but I just did not go down, period.  After I took the arcane warrior levels mages couldn't hurt me at all anymore either.  I even used that character to beat DAO on the hardest setting and got the no death achievement on that run without trying.  Seriously, when I saw the pop up I did a double take.

 

Also I don't agree on BG2, I don't need to cast haste, that is what my party is for, and trust me a haste here and there was all I needed.  These aren't single character games and my character doesn't come in a plastic wrapper with a twinky logo on it.  I don't need my character to be the be all end all and do everything.  PS: I also hate twink mages and my favorite hobby in D&D was pissing my DM off by making my character tooled to kill them and then dropping them like flies in one round of melee combat.

 

Wagrid: We're bringing up D&D because it's a common reference point for everybody here. Considering a lot of the developers worked on D&D games it's also probably a common reference point for them too.

Except Wagrid Obsidian has already said in plain black and white that this game is not based on D&D rules and will not be using any D&D mechanics, 1st, 2nd, d20 based, or any other version that exists.   So ... yeah... it is pointless to discuss D&D mechanics in relation to Project Eternity, it has it's own rules and it's own mechanics system and may end up having almost nothing in common with D&D other than the whole fantasy genre thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

.. it is pointless to discuss D&D mechanics

Exept that time Josh said they're taking inspiration from D&D, mostly 3th edition, with 4d and 2d bits "here and there" (or something like that); and we have the whole powers-based, encounter-based system mentioned a lot, as well as rest system. The fact that it could use different "rolls" or armor system does't mean it would't borrow other design features from D&D, or will end up feeling as a D&D game, because, surprise, IE games were all D&D.

(Exept one very obscure title english speaking folk probably never played).

Edited by Shadenuat
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think I can hear a very disgruntled PnP player here

You hear a GM which cares to provide a spotlight for every player, by whatever means are neccesary or preferable to that session or player. If one player has four dots in Lockpicking, while the other has four in Chemistry, I will provide metaphorical "locks" which can be opened with only one way or another. As for what you concider "fun", it's just what you personally concider fun, nothing more. Some people don't like to garrote anyone, but enjoy tinkering with mechanisms or breaking into houses, or whatever.

I believe that their idea of fun is quite different from my idea of fun, but there is no way they will ever be satisfied with trivial solutions to challenges you suggest. Has it ever occurred to you, that a player with 4 dots in alchemy can brew a corrosive acid that could burn through a lock and, thus, open the door? Or that a rogue with 4 dots in lockpicking can break into a pharmacy and steal a potion instead of having to brew it? If you think it's wrong, because it steals the other player's spotlight, I kinda feel sorry for your players. It can't be very exciting playing the Captain Obvious all the time.

 

 

 

 

What can a fighter do?

He wears the heaviest, most expensive armor and feels good about being the most badass tank around. As an example.

Paladin and Cleric with all their buffs, plate armor, and healing abilities beg to differ.

 

 

 

 

 

You are trying to argue that rules in the party matter, because otherwise people would fell useless.

I am arguing that depending on your class, skills, race, unique content should be generated to provide unique experience you could't get other way around. Class, skills, race - these things can, and should, be used for that purpose, as you tell the game how you want your character be treated right from the character generation screen. As for your "true and virtous" "actual roleplay" without "boring dungeon crawling", but with "synergy and interactions", well, it has been nothing but loud statements and pompous theorising so far, and it really has nothing to do with mechanics in CRPG's.

 

Oh, but do tell me about that "actual roleplay" and what it is, and how one "roleplay" can be more "actual" than another "roleplay". That would be most enlightening.

Just name me a cRPG where your race matters. And no, an occasional one-liner "you're a elf! boo!" does not count. Same goes for class. I think there is nothing that shows how little your race and class do for the gameplay like NWN 2.

 

Since you've asked, let me tell you about the actual roleplay. As you may judge from the name roleplay is about playing a role. You change your own behaviour to be in someone else's metaphorical shoes. You think like them and act like them. You get most intimate with the role when the action of the character shock you, when you learn something about him that you haven't known beforehand. That kind of experience requires choice, non-standard situations, and moral dilemmas, not picking locks or doing dungeon crawling. Of course, you may consider dungeon crawling and using your character's special abilities roleplay, but then you have to call walking, drinking, and relieving yourself roleplay as well. In that case we don't really have much to talk about. I hope that was enlightening enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...