Wizards with swords: Should wizards have melee capability?

[Shadenuat]

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.

You missed the "metaphorical" part and fail to grasp the idea of unique content in cRPG's (oh and you just enjoy going into personal attacks against other players way of roleplaying; but that's okay, I am kinda an ass too sometimes). How exactly using trivial solution to achieve something is worse than you garroting somebody? You are providing examples of actions which you concider unorthodox roleplaying (or, like, "actual" roleplaying) but they are just creative use of skills, that's it. What I would think of a truly unique content is if, say, an alchemist could grow himself a homunculi companion with unique dialogue and some personal story. Not surprisingly, that actually falls into the category of skills and spells. Of course, I am also completely fine with some sort of chest in the game which would be completely immune to acid and can only be opened with lockpicks. Because why the hell not?

 

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

Yeah, sucks, is't it? Cleric being best melee class in so many builds, while fighters existing for no purpose but grabbing additional feats. And people still don't get why I am against wizards wearing armor in class based games!

 

Just name me a cRPG where your race matters.

VtM: Bloodlines.

 

Since you've asked, let me tell you about the actual roleplay.

This is absolutely exquisite because of two things. First, a question: what helps us to stay withing the limits of our role and gives GM a control over the extent of our possibilities? Okay, you know my answer already. It's system, stats and skills. At least in cRPG, it is absolutely true, forget about LARP for now. Before, you provided examples which are, by your definition, an actual roleplay - creative use of skills, synergy inside the party, ecetera. And it all started with my statement, that if you don't have unique skills, you don't get yourself unique roleplay... so is roleplay about skills at all or not? Because you kinda contradict yourself here and there. It is certanly about creativity. Skills give you the instruments for your creativity. So how are skills not the part of roleplaying?

And - a skill which creates completely unique content, goes against your roleplaying values how? You seem to like acid a lot, so, if there is a container in a game, which can only be opened by acid, and only alchemist can brew it, why is't it creative? You know, acid is a bad example. Let's say it can only be opened by a spell constructed by party wizard. Why that would't be creative? Because there is only one solution? But you have to figure it out nevertheless, so where's the problem?

 

And second thing...

 

HEY GUIZE. THAT DUDE JUST COMPARED DUNGEON CRAWLING TO TAKING ****.

 

 I hope that was enlightening enough.

Well it was very funny how you distinguished some actions from other as "true" and "untrue" roleplaying, I always like to read about delusions like that.

Edited February 26, 2013 by Shadenuat

[Heresiarch]

Well, yeah, I suppose I'm trolling you a bit here and there. Not really my intention, I apologize for that. Actually I do realize that people can roleplay whatever they want, but I don't agree that artificial limitations help diversify gameplay. That is my point.

 

You brought up VtMB and you have to agree that being a classless system it allowed characters of different clans to take a similar approach to problems. Both Nosferatu and Malkavian could be sneaky to the extreme with Obfuscate maxed out. Brujah and Gangrel both were paragons of melee, bit Toreador also allowed for a combat build by maxing out Celerity and sporting a good gun. Tremere could kick serious ass in combat with Thamaturgy and Dominate. I wouldn't say any of those four clans was more effective than others. On the other hand, both Malkavian and Ventru could be awesome with the social approach with their disciplines. So in the end VtMB allowed for a lot of customization of your playstyle even within a single clan, which I think is awesome and totally conforming to the spirit of Vampire the Masquerade.

 

What really set some clans apart was not some specific skill. It was Malkavian's madness, Nosferatu's ugliness, Toreador's outlook and Tremere's... well, tremerity? Anyway, the game did not make Nosferatu the only clan good with the locks or Brujah the only ones good at CQC. So I would say that VtMB speaks in my defence.

[Shadenuat]

So I would say that VtMB speaks in my defence.

That would depend on what are you defending. VtM certantly provides diversity to all clans, but it also features unique skills, unique advantages, and unique disadvantages. Some of them force you into specific playstyle very strictly, like Nosferatu. Some of them give you dialogue and information you would never get otherwise, like Malkavian's dialogue options and dialogue trees.

That was unique content for unique "races". You questioned the possibility of it's existance, but it was there, and it mattered.

 

I don't agree that artificial limitations help diversify gameplay

Well, classes are artificial limitations. If you challenge the whole concept of the class systems, which you seem to do on constant basis ("classes should arise from roles", ect.), then it's a whole different topic. And I'm kinda tired of defending class based systems with strict limitations because I did that, like, for a ****ton of posts already, so meh.

[Karkarov]

 

.. 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).

Right inspiration.  Just like D&D 4th edition took a very large amount of inspiration from MMORPG mechanics.  In fact 4th edition has more in common with World of Warcraft that it does 2nd ed but I don't see anyone here talking about how druids should use rage when in bear form.

 

You can be inspired by anything, that doesn't mean you are copying it or using it's direct mechanics.

[Shadenuat]

You can be inspired by anything, that doesn't mean you are copying it or using it's direct mechanics.

Ever heard about comparative method? Also, we have AOO's now

[Karkarov]

 

You can be inspired by anything, that doesn't mean you are copying it or using it's direct mechanics.

Ever heard about comparative method? Also, we have AOO's now

Yes the melee engagement mechanic was clearly "inspired" by attacks of opportunity.  cwutididthar?

[Ffordesoon]

@OP:

 

Yes.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I don't see why not. They shouldn't be as good at combat as the warrior classes or even the rogue classes, but they still should be able to use melee weapons.

[Wagrid]

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.

 

I'd like to respond to your bullet points here, since I like talking about class balance and you've raised some interesting points. So, here it goes:

 

• The wizard would need to stop actively wielding the weapon in combat. If this were some kind of maul they would need to rest it on the floor, or a lighter two-handed weapon (like a longsword) they'd need to hold with one hand whilst they cast with the other and so on with all the various weapon types. Whatever weapon they're using I think that there should be a uniform penalty to defensive abilities (to represent that the wizard is focusing on their spell, not dodging and parrying). Not every spell should be like this though.
• I think this one is a little arbitrary. I'd say just make an animation for the visor being lifted up. But even this may be going too far - I can suspend my disbelief far enough to assume that this isn't a problem for the wizard.
• I don't think Power Word spells require the enemy to hear it - just that the wizard says it and directs the power towards the correct enemy.
• Similar to the first point. The wizard would need to stop actively wielding their weapon - sheathing it or dramatically planting it into the ground or whatever in order to cast. This would impose a penalty to defence.

This reinforces the idea that it's inadvisable to be casting lengthy, complicated spells in melee. This means the Melee-Wizard would need to rely on knock-backs and stuns if they want to cast in melee range. This is a fairly reasonable approach to balancing this kind of play style, in my opinion.

 

 

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.

 

I'm aware of what they've said regarding D&D. The thing is, a lot of people are familiar with D&D (whether it's through playing the tabletop versions, or the IE games, or NWN, or all of the above), thus it makes for a good frame of reference. In the most recent update Josh Sawyer explained the Engagement rules in relation to the Attack of Opportunity rules in some editions of D&D. That's all anybody here has been doing.

 

It's a lot easier to just go 'Y'know that one thing in X? Well it's like that, but different in the following ways. . .' than explain something in much lengthier terms without using examples or drawing on common experience. It's a good illustrative device, that's all.

 

Yeah, sucks, is't it? Cleric being best melee class in so many builds, while fighters existing for no purpose but grabbing additional feats. And people still don't get why I am against wizards wearing armor in class based games!

 

The answer to that is to alter the mechanics of the Fighter class, rather than to restrict the mechanics of others. But this line of discussion is about other RPG systems, not Project Eternity. We don't know how these classes will work in Project Eternity. But, for the record, I imagine few people think that the Fighter should be worse in combat than any other class.

Edited February 28, 2013 by Wagrid

[Rasputin]

Wow.

 

Touchy subject.

 

I will say that I support a Bladesinger style fighter/wizard a-la D&D 2nd Ed.  In fact, given the opportunity, I plan to play one in Project Eternity.  I think a wizard in armor is silly but that is just my personal opinion.

[Chairchucker]

When I play as a wizard, if an enemy gets near me, rather than hitting him with my mace, I prefer to hit him with my fighter.

[Lephys]

When I play as a wizard, if an enemy gets near me, rather than hitting him with my mace, I prefer to hit him with my fighter.

I don't know if your Wizard's strength will be high enough for him to swing your Fighter at the enemy. o_o

[FlintlockJazz]

Well, here's my brain-fart on the matter:

 

A mage should be able to melee and use melee weapons, hell there were spells in D&D and Baldur's Gate that required meleeing anyway, might as well give the mage a chance to actually use those swords.  A lot of people here seem to fear the idea that the mage will somehow usurp the fighter if they gain melee skills, and this points us towards the source of the problem but is not, itself, the problem.  The real problem was that weapon and armour choice was the only thing that fighters really had over others, 2nd ed D&D gave them nothing much else apart from weapon specialisations, and so they were pretty boring to play, just launch them in and leave them to it. 

 

Many other games since then (and even before), have given fighters more and more powers, and PE itself plans on giving them soul-powers along with everyone else.  In that case, I would question the need to limit weapon choice at all: what defines the class is the powers you get and how they help you achieve your role.  To be blunt, weapon restriction is, in my humble opinion, a pathetic, lazy and arbitrary attempt at class definition that isn't needed if the classes are done right.

 

As to the mage's effectiveness in melee, and whether it should cost the mage magery capabilities to offset it, I believe the mage would be effective in different ways and should not lose mage capability for having melee capability, on the contrary since a mage fights using spells I can see it opening up new avenues for spell casting attacks while showing just how different they are in melee from fighters: while a fighter uses fighty-skills to fight a mage would cast spells for different effects, eg the mage rooting foes for the fighter to smash.  Mages being relegated to artillery was yet again a result of lazy design.

[Failion]

A mage with melee capability I see being less tough then a fighter and not as visceral and having that rush, killer instinct. Their minds being focused on using spells and whatever martial knowledge they possess in killing their enemies. Because they focused on defending themselves they lose their potential in blowing up enemies at a distance, however they can defend themselves in close quarters better. But never the less are easily butchered by a real and experienced fighter that closes in on them or diverse array of enemies from afar. 

Edited March 16, 2013 by Failion

[Chairchucker]

I don't know if your Wizard's strength will be high enough for him to swing your Fighter at the enemy. o_o

 

Didn't say anything about swinging. I am not a swinger.

[Bonecrusher]

I don't want wizards to turn into fighter/mages, they should stay as pure wizards.

Fighter/mages should be a seperate class, like a psychic warrior (fighter/psion - Psylocke? love her) for example. Yes, psychic warrior, great.

[Lephys]

 

 

I don't know if your Wizard's strength will be high enough for him to swing your Fighter at the enemy. o_o

 

Didn't say anything about swinging. I am not a swinger.

 

 

Ahhh, so you're going to thrust your Fighter at him, for piercing damage? OR, maybe you're going to launch your Fighter from a distance, to score a ranged hit?

 

I'm still not sure a Wizard should ever be strong enough to hit an enemy with a Fighter.

Edited March 19, 2013 by Lephys

[Chairchucker]

 

 

 

Ahhh, so you're going to thrust your Fighter at him, for piercing damage? OR, maybe you're going to launch your Fighter from a distance, to score a ranged hit?

 

I'm still not sure a Wizard should ever be strong enough to hit an enemy with a Fighter.

 

Although you do, of course, know exactly what I meant and are aware that there are ways to use a blunt object which don't involve physically touching the object if the object in question is sentient, I will propose you perform an experiment. Push someone larger than yourself in the direction of another large person and see if, despite your reduced size, you are able to hit one with the other.

[Lephys]

Push someone larger than yourself in the direction of another large person and see if, despite your reduced size, you are able to hit one with the other.

... Ranged attack it is! Hey... if you used a magical jet of air with which to propel said Fighter, would that make him... ... ... a jet fighter?

 

(I had to... and yes, I did get what you actually meant, I believe. Literal humor is just too much fun, and I got the mental image of a Wizard literally striking an enemy by using the party's Fighter as a weapon with which to strike.)

[TrashMan]

About the whole "without unique powers/skills, characters have no purpose. Can't have a RPG without those"

 

No. Unique powers are cool and all, but not a necessity.

There is nothing that has to be inherently unique. Character can fill roles they are built for...and roles are defined by your need and what you want.

 

So let's for an example take a classless system where anyone can pick any skill - you'll stil end up with roles. Someones playstlye and skill choice will gravitate towards melee fighting, others ranged. Some towards utility, etc.. Some may be jack of all trades who are there to fill in any gaps.

It doesn't have to be decreed from on high that character X does Y and only Y.

[Ffordesoon]

It's odd to me that there's so much resistance to the idea of a spellcaster with a sword when "spellsword" builds have been a widely accepted feature of D&D for a very long time.

 

I mean, assuming you can call any feature of D&D "widely accepted." Which you can't, if acceptance of a feature is measured by the number of players who kvetch about it.

 

If this is indeed a problem, the solution is pretty simple: let magic users wield swords if they like, but impose a harsh penalty to, say, Stamina regeneration speed. Stack the penalty according to how many pieces of class-inappropriate gear they're using. That way, you get casters using warrior gear for spells and quick bursts of melee awesomeness, but you don't have a bunch of overpowered Dovahkiin-style generalists running around.

 

If the devs want to restrict casters further, they could have certain spells/schools of magic/grimoires/spells at higher levels require a focusing object to be held in the weapon and/or shield hand of the caster. That would work well with the current inventory system.

 

Couple of ideas worth looking at, anyway.

[AGX-17]

It's odd to me that there's so much resistance to the idea of a spellcaster with a sword when "spellsword" builds have been a widely accepted feature of D&D for a very long time.

 

I mean, assuming you can call any feature of D&D "widely accepted." Which you can't, if acceptance of a feature is measured by the number of players who kvetch about it.

 

If this is indeed a problem, the solution is pretty simple: let magic users wield swords if they like, but impose a harsh penalty to, say, Stamina regeneration speed. Stack the penalty according to how many pieces of class-inappropriate gear they're using. That way, you get casters using warrior gear for spells and quick bursts of melee awesomeness, but you don't have a bunch of overpowered Dovahkiin-style generalists running around.

 

If the devs want to restrict casters further, they could have certain spells/schools of magic/grimoires/spells at higher levels require a focusing object to be held in the weapon and/or shield hand of the caster. That would work well with the current inventory system.

 

Couple of ideas worth looking at, anyway.

Sawyer's already established rather definitively that the Grimoire Bash is a legitimate melee attack, potentially more powerful than any sword or mace.

[Ffordesoon]

Oh, has he? Cool, then. Doesn't necessarily preclude cross-class equipment, but it's a nice touch.

[Lephys]

Sawyer's already established rather definitively that the Grimoire Bash is a legitimate melee attack, potentially more powerful than any sword or mace.

True, but so far it's only been described mainly as a means of unpenalized disengagement. I don't think you'll be able to use it every 3 seconds, or Wizards would just LOL at engagement with melee combatants.

[teknoman2]

first 5 minutes