Spellsword, Battlemage, Arcane Warrior, Paladin and Templar

[Qistina]

Are they really have any difference or they are all the same only have different class name?

 

Today we can see thsese classes are blurred, i see some discussions about this in forums, but so far i can see gamers still argue about these classes characterization. Most RPG today have no pure class anymore or at least encourage hybrid between might and magic, this somewhat make these classes and the role-playing idea behind it have been blurred. Now we also have Assassin-Mage, and this build is quite popular in games that allow such build, and some games do have specific class name for this.

 

What i want to talk about is the role-playing aspect vs game-play vs whatever the game developer want to put into their games. In the older games, class name and the class itself do have impact in role-playing, it stay true to it's name, the class and the lore, but this is not true in modern games anymore because games today tend to mix might and magic encouraging players to build their character whatever the player wanted.

 

Spellswords as according to TES:Oblivion are anyone who wear heavy armor, using sword and magic in battlefield. While Battlemages are Mages who use magic in battle and finish the job with their weapons. But these two soon become blurred because the player only have to put stats, buy some spells and put some gears. Because of magic in this game are all universal, meaning every classes and everyone can use the very same spell, the class make no difference in the end. There is no difference playing as Spellsword or Battlemage, both use the same spells, can have the same stats and both can wear armor.

 

Common concept about Paladin is they are half-priest half-knight, they are zealous, their speciality is against undead and unholy magic. Templar in Dragon Age are simply anti-Mage, they are also religious and zeal, but their purpose is fighting magic. The idea behind Templar surely based on Paladin archetype but with different purpose. Templar of Dragon Age is unique for that even though an anti-Mage is a common mechanic in any RPG. But in newer games, there is no really Paladin and Templar anymore since anyone usually can buy all spells such in TES and Dark Souls. meaning classes and role-playing nowadays have no real sense.

 

Arcane Warrior is unique to Dragon Age : Origin, a Mage who use magic to amplify their melee combat prowess. A Mage turn into a warrior by using a special magic. Sadly this didn't return in the next two series of Dragon Age. Don't exist in Dragon Age 2 and in Dragon Age : Inquisition it is replaced with Knight Enchanter but not the same thing. Knight Enchanter is more about game-play rather class-lore to role-play.

 

So, i think in future games, there is no art anymore, gamers only play games, play the builds, but there is no more than that, soulless. When building a character it is only about look cool and powerful. There is nothing behind it all...

 

 

Edited October 23, 2015 by Qistina

[Cantousent]

Never say never.

[Qistina]

Let see Dragon Age, at first they do making the game like the old games where classes are lore, they make "specializations", when you choose Templar specialization meaning you agree with with Chantry, even though it is not strictly you may choose it just because of game-play, but in the lore only devout Andrastrian may become a Templar, you may choose that specialization because you are a Grey Warden above all laws during the Blight. At least Dragon Age : Origin having that sense. You can only become a Templar in two ways originally, either Alistair bother to teach you or you buy a book from Bodhan.

 

But in Dragon Age 2, there is no such thing, Templar is just a specialization for game-play only, you can make your Hawke a Templar just because you can click the specialization on your screen. Who teach Hawke all the techniques? Where Hawke got lyrium? All these are not important anymore, you want to play a Templar just click that specialization. Now, the class is ONLY about game-play, players don't role-play a Templar in Dragon Age 2

 

Then in Dragon Age : Inquisition, they have to remove Blood Magic because it make no sense having Blood Mage Inquisitor, but yet they introduce Necromancer as a replacement, still don't make sense. They have this problem because they want a character that come from one organization that originally established by the Andrasterians. It is all doesn't make any sense, a Dwarf and Qunari also can be The Inquisitor. You see it is just a hype, they want to use "Inquisition" because it sound cool, the "Inquisitor" is not a class where it should be a class. Templar is a class, Grey Warden is a class even though everyone can join, and it justified in the lore, but Inquisition an order established by the Chantry...? What make sense non-Andrasterian become the leader of this organization?

 

The addiction of game developer want to add magic into everything, they make archer is more magical than Mages themselevs in Dragon Age : Inquisition. The Inquisitor also have magic hand

Edited October 23, 2015 by Qistina

[Chilloutman]

yeah mostly this depends on lore behinde it, play style can be very similiar

[Qistina]

Game developer just re-paint the old things, it is all the same thing with different names, just add up some things and make it look cool while actually it is the very same thing over and over. What worse is classes are no longer relevant as the lore, it just game-play nowadays. Most new generation gamers are actually don't know what they are playing, it is because classes and builds are just that, it serve nothing than to make the game appear awesome.

 

Gamers role-play or just play? The game developers making role-playing games or just games to play?

 

TES Oblivion and Skyrim players claim they role-play their builds, for me that's bollocks, they just play their builds, there's no role-playing in TES classes and they even remove classes in Skyrim. What role-play is there? You make a Paladin archetype character doesn't make your Dragonborn a Paladin, because there is no Paladin in TES universe, no Paladin in Oblivion and no Paladin in Skyrim. What you call role-playing a Paladin in Skyrim? There is no such thing. Your character is not belong to any Paladin faction in Skyrim because there is no Paladin in Skyrim. "Paladin" build in Skyrim is just a character build to play...

 

Similar with Dark Souls, you choose your early classes but those classes are just for gameplay, there is no role-playing the classes in Dark Souls, you are just an undead who escape prison, that's all. Your class means nothing in the world of Dark Souls other than your starting class to play. Similar with Skyrim for that matter.

 

So we can see that games developer only making MONEY without having any soul in their games anymore, they just provide us something to play, not something to role-play...

Edited October 23, 2015 by Qistina

[Amentep]

Video games - as we know them now - will never allow role-play in the sense that we understand it from P&P games.

 

So to me, role-play in the context of video games has to be treated as a conceptually different thing from role-play in pen and paper.

[Fenixp]

TES Oblivion and Skyrim players claim they role-play their builds, for me that's bollocks, they just play their builds, there's no role-playing in TES classes and they even remove classes in Skyrim.

Last time I played Skyrim I went with a sort of peaceful assassin - only kill when you have to, only kill who you have to. I only accepted quests which asked me to target specific NPCs. I know of a lot more efficient ways of playing "my build", but I didn't. Why?

Edited October 23, 2015 by Fenixp

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I'm not a big fan of vanilla Skyrim, but it's a strange argument that they don't allow role-playing because they allow deviation from the original character skills. Not only must you accept that role-playing is purely a stat system, but you must also discount various multiclassing mechanics from various games.

 

As to title/class, it all depends on the lore and mechanics of the game you are playing. Rogues for instance can be skillmonkeys with little combat utility or they can be deadly warriors focused on hitting vulnerable areas. To the specifics, similar concept builds vary dramatically between each other even in the same games. It is best just to call it what you think fits best.

[Qistina]

 

TES Oblivion and Skyrim players claim they role-play their builds, for me that's bollocks, they just play their builds, there's no role-playing in TES classes and they even remove classes in Skyrim.

Last time I played Skyrim I went with a sort of peaceful assassin - only kill when you have to, only kill who you have to. I only accepted quests which asked me to target specific NPCs. I know of a lot more efficient ways of playing "my build", but I didn't. Why?

 

 

That is just personal preference, that's not role-playing, the Assassin in TES are Dark Brotherhood faction, the only ROLE-playing as Assassin is becoming a ruthless murderer in Skyrim, if you join the faction. If you don't join the faction, then you are not role-playing anything, there is no Assassin class in Skyrim.

 

It is like you are in the army and in assassin program/division, that's your role in the army, that's your class. Either you are a peaceful agent or ruthless agent is not your role, your role is an assassin. Understand? That is why i say role-playing in Skyrim is bollocks, players playing build not role-play because there is no role to play.

 

TES:Oblivion at least have this even though it doesn't have any meaning, there is Assassin class, but it just a starting class to choose and have no meaning in role-play UNLESS you jon the Dark Brotherhood. It is because even if you choose the Assassin class, you don't belong in any Assassin faction to role-play, and secondly the skills are the same with any stealth class to make it a special class to role-play.

 

Dark Brotherhood is a faction to role-play, but your build IS NOT, you can be an Assassin no matter what type of your build is. That is the problem of Skyrim and TES:Oblivion. You can become an Assassin, an Archmage, a Warrior champion while your build isn't related at all with the factions.

Edited October 24, 2015 by Qistina

[Orogun01]

 

 

TES Oblivion and Skyrim players claim they role-play their builds, for me that's bollocks, they just play their builds, there's no role-playing in TES classes and they even remove classes in Skyrim.

Last time I played Skyrim I went with a sort of peaceful assassin - only kill when you have to, only kill who you have to. I only accepted quests which asked me to target specific NPCs. I know of a lot more efficient ways of playing "my build", but I didn't. Why?

 

 

That is just personal preference, that's not role-playing, the Assassin in TES are Dark Brotherhood faction, the only ROLE-playing as Assassin is becoming a ruthless murderer in Skyrim, if you join the faction. If you don't join the faction, then you are not role-playing anything, there is no Assassin class in Skyrim.

 

It is like you are in the army and in assassin program/division, that's your role in the army, that's your class. Either you are a peaceful agent or ruthless agent is not your role, your role is an assassin. Understand? That is why i say role-playing in Skyrim is bollocks, players playing build not role-play because there is no role to play.

 

TES:Oblivion at least have this even though it doesn't have any meaning, there is Assassin class, but it just a starting class to choose and have no meaning in role-play UNLESS you jon the Dark Brotherhood. It is because even if you choose the Assassin class, you don't belong in any Assassin faction to role-play, and secondly the skills are the same with any stealth class to make it a special class to role-play.

 

Dark Brotherhood is a faction to role-play, but your build IS NOT, you can be an Assassin no matter what type of your build is. That is the problem of Skyrim and TES:Oblivion. You can become an Assassin, an Archmage, a Warrior champion while your build isn't related at all with the factions.

 

TES tries to ground it with providing companion examples of atypical members, I don't see strict adherence as a good thing particularly in an open world game with hundreds of game hours. So I let them get away with it because its for the sake of their game experience.

 

BW just has major problems with consistency due to the fact that they prefer style over substance, which is mild way of saying that they do what the **** they feel like without any regard.

[Qistina]

I'm not a big fan of vanilla Skyrim, but it's a strange argument that they don't allow role-playing because they allow deviation from the original character skills. Not only must you accept that role-playing is purely a stat system, but you must also discount various multiclassing mechanics from various games.

 

As to title/class, it all depends on the lore and mechanics of the game you are playing. Rogues for instance can be skillmonkeys with little combat utility or they can be deadly warriors focused on hitting vulnerable areas. To the specifics, similar concept builds vary dramatically between each other even in the same games. It is best just to call it what you think fits best.

 

The problem mof today so called RPG is there is actually no role to play because class have no meaning and there is no class anymore. Even though Skyrim fans always keep saying they are role-playing, but the only role to play is a Dragonborn actually. You can join all factions in Skyrim despite your character build. Similar in Dark Souls, you may join covenants despite your character build.

 

Let's compare with DA:O, yes you can choose Rogue class for any origin other than Mage origin, but it justified by your faction in your origin. Human Nobles, Dwarves and Dalish, all have their own warriors and rogues. Mage itself is a class and faction. When you become a Grey Warden, you belong to this faction and that is the role you play that is the last Grey Warden in Ferelden.

[Qistina]

TES tries to ground it with providing companion examples of atypical members, I don't see strict adherence as a good thing particularly in an open world game with hundreds of game hours. So I let them get away with it because its for the sake of their game experience.

 

BW just has major problems with consistency due to the fact that they prefer style over substance, which is mild way of saying that they do what the **** they feel like without any regard.

 

Then Bethesda have to make contents more meaningful for every factions and more restriction in joining factions, that's encourage replay, you just not play 300 hours once, but you may play fo 900 hours with 3 classes at least. But as we can see they only care to make money by pleasing whining kids who want everything in one playthrough

 

Bioware now have lost their own identity, they no longer the original Bioware, now they are corporate and they only care about making money for EA. So they now like to create something look cool but have no soul in it.

[Orogun01]

 

TES tries to ground it with providing companion examples of atypical members, I don't see strict adherence as a good thing particularly in an open world game with hundreds of game hours. So I let them get away with it because its for the sake of their game experience.

 

BW just has major problems with consistency due to the fact that they prefer style over substance, which is mild way of saying that they do what the **** they feel like without any regard.

 

Then Bethesda have to make contents more meaningful for every factions and more restriction in joining factions, that's encourage replay, you just not play 300 hours once, but you may play fo 900 hours with 3 classes at least. But as we can see they only care to make money by pleasing whining kids who want everything in one playthrough

 

Bioware now have lost their own identity, they no longer the original Bioware, now they are corporate and they only care about making money for EA. So they now like to create something look cool but have no soul in it.

 

You don't seem to grasp the consequences of what design choices you propose. Making high level requirements actually discourages the player by creating an entry barrier that can only be overcome by grinding. Which is almost always considered a bad design choice; Bethesda and everyone making an open world game has to balance content against depth. Either you have a vast populated world or a small highly interactive one, making it both is a time sink and off putting to the player who might give up halfway through due to lack of progress.

 

But we're digressing:

 

Differentiating classes varies from game to game, there really isn't an unified standard for what a spellmage, arcane warrior, battlemage is.

[Fenixp]

That is just personal preference, that's not role-playing, the Assassin in TES are Dark Brotherhood faction, the only ROLE-playing as Assassin is becoming a ruthless murderer in Skyrim, if you join the faction. If you don't join the faction, then you are not role-playing anything, there is no Assassin class in Skyrim.

Is it? What you don't seem to understand is that roleplaying goes two ways - you as a player may pick which role to play and game may use its mechanics to enforce a role on you. Different systems are designed to place different amount of importance on player choosing what to roleplay and on game mechanics limiting roleplaying.

 

The reason why classes were dropped in Skyrim - and thank you for that, Bethesda - was that they did not actually limit roleplaying in any way, they were just meaningless text on your character sheet. If you need that, print a paper with "assassin" written on it and glue it to your screen. Ever since Morrowind, a single character could join (almost) every single guild and finish almost every single quest. Bethesda has always designed games in which player chose what kind of role does he wish to play in the game's world and didn't limit him in any way, so if you want, you may feel free to play a role of a herbalist who never even fights. The game doesn't tell you that this is your role - you do. I mean, what I just described is the definition of roleplaying.

 

On the other hand, there are games in which you create your character and they then force you into a role, like Dragon Age Origins. In these games, however, you as a player also need to play a role - it's not a good roleplaying experience if your character constantly does things differently, is it? He's peaceful and reasonable here, murders everyone there, is nice to a character at one time, complete **** another time - that's not playing a role in spite of the game telling you what you can and cannot do.

 

As to your original post, in Skyrim:

Spellsword: I'm wearing a light armor and fast, one-handed weapons to be quick. I use offensive spells while I close in to my opponent and fast swings of my sabre while retreating from reach of slow enemy weapons. I'm a mercenary - I'll never join a guild, never stick to one place for too long, traveling the land and looking for worthwhile contracts.

 

Battlemage: I'm a mage focused on arts of making my opponents not breathe any longer. I am a highly ranked member of Mage Guild with a cosy house in Windhelm. I usually stick to the area around Windhelm and Winterhold, but may travel further if Mage Guild requires me to. I carry a poisoned claymore and am clad in heavy armor, but I prefer my conjured creatures and destructive spells to take care of my opposition.

 

Both of these I have tried and they were a lot of fun. I guess neither are roleplaying and are actually just my personal preference ;-) I personally don't really care if a game limits me or not - I'm going to roleplay anyway.

Edited October 24, 2015 by Fenixp

[Qistina]

 

That is just personal preference, that's not role-playing, the Assassin in TES are Dark Brotherhood faction, the only ROLE-playing as Assassin is becoming a ruthless murderer in Skyrim, if you join the faction. If you don't join the faction, then you are not role-playing anything, there is no Assassin class in Skyrim.

Is it? What you don't seem to understand is that roleplaying goes two ways - you as a player may pick which role to play and game may use its mechanics to enforce a role on you. Different systems are designed to place different amount of importance on player choosing what to roleplay and on game mechanics limiting roleplaying.

 

The reason why classes were dropped in Skyrim - and thank you for that, Bethesda - was that they did not actually limit roleplaying in any way, they were just meaningless text on your character sheet. If you need that, print a paper with "assassin" written on it and glue it to your screen. Ever since Morrowind, a single character could join (almost) every single guild and finish almost every single quest. Bethesda has always designed games in which player chose what kind of role does he wish to play in the game's world and didn't limit him in any way, so if you want, you may feel free to play a role of a herbalist who never even fights. The game doesn't tell you that this is your role - you do. I mean, what I just described is the definition of roleplaying.

 

This is the definition of Role-Playing by Google

 

role-play·ing

ˈrōlˌplāiNG/

noun

noun: role playing; noun: role play; noun: rôle playing; plural noun: rôle playings; noun: rôle play; plural noun: rôle plays; noun: roleplaying; noun: roleplay; noun: role-playing; plural noun: role-playings; noun: role-play; plural noun: role-plays

1. 1.

   Psychology

   the acting out or performance of a particular role, either consciously (as a technique in psychotherapy or training) or unconsciously, in accordance with the perceived expectations of society with regard to a person's behavior in a particular context.
2. 2.

   participation in a role-playing game.

This is Meriam Webster

 

transitive verb

1

:  to act out the role of

2

:  to represent in action <students were asked to role–play the thoughts and feelings of each character — R. G. Lambert>

intransitive verb

:  to play a role

 

What you did with your Assassin in Skyrim is not role-playing, that is just you being a nice and peaceful assassin, it is NOT your role but your character's character you make him/her out to be.

 

The is no role to play in Skyrim other than you being the Last Dragonborn and role set by any factions you joined. There is NO assassin class in Skyrim because Skyrim have no class at all. A nice and peaceful assassin is NOT a role.

 

The problem with TES is the same problem with many games where classes are just game-play and not the role to play, and in Skyrim they remove the class system that makes things worst. How come an Archmage only have three spells in College of Winterhold? That is a PROBLEM when there is no class to role play and there is no restriction into joining guilds/factions

 

Similar problem with Dark Souls, you may choose a Cleric as your starting class and a role, end up joining Chaos covenant, the Pyromancer covenant. If Dark Souls also following Skyrim way, then it make it worse when nothing really matter anymore.

Edited October 24, 2015 by Qistina

[Qistina]

 

 

TES tries to ground it with providing companion examples of atypical members, I don't see strict adherence as a good thing particularly in an open world game with hundreds of game hours. So I let them get away with it because its for the sake of their game experience.

 

BW just has major problems with consistency due to the fact that they prefer style over substance, which is mild way of saying that they do what the **** they feel like without any regard.

 

Then Bethesda have to make contents more meaningful for every factions and more restriction in joining factions, that's encourage replay, you just not play 300 hours once, but you may play fo 900 hours with 3 classes at least. But as we can see they only care to make money by pleasing whining kids who want everything in one playthrough

 

Bioware now have lost their own identity, they no longer the original Bioware, now they are corporate and they only care about making money for EA. So they now like to create something look cool but have no soul in it.

 

You don't seem to grasp the consequences of what design choices you propose. Making high level requirements actually discourages the player by creating an entry barrier that can only be overcome by grinding. Which is almost always considered a bad design choice; Bethesda and everyone making an open world game has to balance content against depth. Either you have a vast populated world or a small highly interactive one, making it both is a time sink and off putting to the player who might give up halfway through due to lack of progress.

 

But we're digressing:

 

Differentiating classes varies from game to game, there really isn't an unified standard for what a spellmage, arcane warrior, battlemage is.

 

 

What lack of progress? If you play as a Warrior, would you want to join Mages Guild that is a guild for spell casters?

 

Ok, i make it like this, let say you are a Christian, would you join Al Qaeda? The most important question is would Al Qaeda accept you into their group? Even Muslims are not so easy to join Al Qaeda and not all Muslims want to join Al Qaeda.

 

There must be a restriction based on class, a Paladin wouldn't want to to join Assassin Guild and that guild wouldn't accept a Paladin. And so a Warrior cannot join Mages guild and Mages don't accept anyone who cannot cast spells or only know few spells.

Edited October 24, 2015 by Qistina

[Heijoushin]

My thoughts on the original question:

 

Spellsword: Obviously a pun on "sellsword", which implies this guys main role is a mercenary. He just happens to know a little magic as well to augment his combat skills.

 

Battlemage: A magic who skilled at offensive magic. Of course, in most modern games, offensive magic is pretty much all mages can do (very sad) but... I suppose he's less scholarly than his mages peers.

 

Paladin/Templar seem similar to me. Knights with some holy magic. Roleplays like a very athletic priest I suppose. 

 

Arcane Warrior: Never heard of him. Must be DA: Origins only as you say.

Besides combining might & magic, they don't seem that similar to me...

[Qistina]

My thoughts on the original question:

 

Spellsword: Obviously a pun on "sellsword", which implies this guys main role is a mercenary. He just happens to know a little magic as well to augment his combat skills.

 

Battlemage: A magic who skilled at offensive magic. Of course, in most modern games, offensive magic is pretty much all mages can do (very sad) but... I suppose he's less scholarly than his mages peers.

 

I only found Spellswor in TES:Oblivion and Skyrim, both are different even having the same name. In Oblivion their skillset and image is using heavy armor, having some magic in certain magic school, using a sword have blocking skill. But in Skyrim they are depicted using light armor, a sword and unable to block because of the "stupid" right hand left hand mechanic where we must equip spell like equiping weapon. Even now TES fans are arguing which is Spellsword. In TES:Oblivion, the one that using light armor is Nightblade, an Assasin-Mage.

 

Yeah, most magic in games are for killing enemies, that's why. Utility magic is not popular because most players want to incinerate and blow up peoples using magic. In modern games there is no "Gandalf" who use magic for defense. In DA:O there are non-offensive spells but like most games, what a game is about is killing. That's the only way to get through most games. So these non-offensive spells not only they are not useful they are also not fun.

 

 

Arcane Warrior: Never heard of him. Must be DA: Origins only as you say.

 

 

 

Yeah, that's why it is unique, and it have a lore behind it. But sadly they toss it away for no reason. This specialization never appear again, maybe forever...

 

 

Besides combining might & magic, they don't seem that similar to me...

 

The similarity here is they are all hybrids, pure class is hard to find today, and even if there is a pure class, this class either will have problem or end up underpowered.

 

Lets look at Skyrim, If you only train Combat skills, Warrior stone, you will be underpowered at late game. If you only take Magic skills, Mage stone, the same you wll be underpowered. But if you mix might and magic, using enchanting, you will be overpowered. We can see that game developer encourage this, they have hybrids in mind when design their game.

 

What being call non-magic are actually magic in their game. Such as in Dragon Age 2, a rogue can teleport behind their enemy to backstab, become invisible, and in Dragon Age : Inquisition it is further worse when non-magic class are more magical dan Mages themselves.

 

Magic is a tool to make something look awesome and cool, so they add magic into everything and encourage hybrid class/character/build...it is fine IF the class/character/build is backup by lore and role-play, not to mention believeable...what happen today in RPG is it is all unbelieveable

Edited October 24, 2015 by Qistina

[Orogun01]

 

 

 

TES tries to ground it with providing companion examples of atypical members, I don't see strict adherence as a good thing particularly in an open world game with hundreds of game hours. So I let them get away with it because its for the sake of their game experience.

 

BW just has major problems with consistency due to the fact that they prefer style over substance, which is mild way of saying that they do what the **** they feel like without any regard.

 

Then Bethesda have to make contents more meaningful for every factions and more restriction in joining factions, that's encourage replay, you just not play 300 hours once, but you may play fo 900 hours with 3 classes at least. But as we can see they only care to make money by pleasing whining kids who want everything in one playthrough

 

Bioware now have lost their own identity, they no longer the original Bioware, now they are corporate and they only care about making money for EA. So they now like to create something look cool but have no soul in it.

 

You don't seem to grasp the consequences of what design choices you propose. Making high level requirements actually discourages the player by creating an entry barrier that can only be overcome by grinding. Which is almost always considered a bad design choice; Bethesda and everyone making an open world game has to balance content against depth. Either you have a vast populated world or a small highly interactive one, making it both is a time sink and off putting to the player who might give up halfway through due to lack of progress.

 

But we're digressing:

 

Differentiating classes varies from game to game, there really isn't an unified standard for what a spellmage, arcane warrior, battlemage is.

 

 

What lack of progress? If you play as a Warrior, would you want to join Mages Guild that is a guild for spell casters?

 

Ok, i make it like this, let say you are a Christian, would you join Al Qaeda? The most important question is would Al Qaeda accept you into their group? Even Muslims are not so easy to join Al Qaeda and not all Muslims want to join Al Qaeda.

 

There must be a restriction based on class, a Paladin wouldn't want to to join Assassin Guild and that guild wouldn't accept a Paladin. And so a Warrior cannot join Mages guild and Mages don't accept anyone who cannot cast spells or only know few spells.

 

You're missing the point entirely, i'm talking about it from a mechanical standpoint and how those mechanics affect players. From a roleplaying perspective it makes sense, but then again so does being a scroll mage that continues to pass performance checks to trick everyone into thinking he's the real deal.

The point was that a deep game experience is best provided in a small game world rather than a larger one where it would be more punitive.

[NightRevan]

Well in the first two Elder Scroll games, Arena and Daggerfall, spellswords were conceived of as a warrior/fighter mage or eldritch knight idea, one who combines martial prowess with arcane might, being adapt and using spell and weapon together. The battlemage was seem as a mage specializing in battle and focuses on destruction magic and is the opposite of say the healer class in the first Elder Scrolls games, whose focus is restoration magic is is defensive in focus, the battlenage is intended as a mage who focuses on using magic in combat to destroy their opponents. They do also have knowledge in the use of melee weapons to various degrees (long and short blade were two of the battlemage class's primary skills I think besides destruction magic) to help when enemies engages close up and they are low or out of spell points, magicka as it would be known.

 

The spellsword could wear leather or chain armour but couldn't use plate armour (of which most the higher tier materials are made steel to daedric), can use any weapon and most shields apart from tower shields (I think from what I've experienced this remains consistent for the class across both games). In the first game this had even impact as only plate armour was strong enough to carry enchantments (so only melee only classes could use enchanted armour).

 

The battlemage could only use leather armour and couldn't use kite or tower shields. I think they could use any weapons.

 

So in the first two games there was significant overlap but they are distinct. Daggerfall also introduced the ability to create your own custom class which was quite extensive in setting skill priorities and special advantages and disadvantages etc.

 

In relation to later games it would suggest that relatively light armoured characters combining melee and magic in combat would in an Elder Scrolls setting be a spellsword whereas a mage was very light armour (padded or the often inaccurate leather armour) focusing on battle magic and destruction in fights only going to a melee weapon as a necessary resort back-up would be a battlemage.

 

But then how the classes have been has shifted from game to game. In Daggerfall you couldn't join say the mage guild I think if you didn't have at least one primary skill in a school of magic (and possible one minor) and the degree of your ability in both at least one primary magic skill and one minor magic skill together (the minor having a lower requirement) together with your reputation with the guild determined how high you could rise. A similar thing happened in relation to the Fighter's Guild and other groups such as knight orders, temples dark brotherhood and thieves guild etc to varying degrees.

 

But the concepts came out differently in later games with Skyrim acknowledging what was already in practice the case in Oblivion. That you could potentially join any factions irrespective of the characters ability. This could be seen as a negative if you wish but not necessarily. It was a response to the fact that some players more causal to RPGs or just not having time to invest in long hours in replays in what would already be a long and open-ended game, to be able to play and explore all the content of a game they paid for without using cheats. This could be seen as dumbing down but it's worth noting these are single-player games and nothing forces players to do this, you aren't forced into taking the berserker barbarian who doesn't know almost any magic except from a little healing and might be suspicious of it to join the mage's guild he is obviously unsuitable for nor become it's Archmage when that is ridiculous, or have a staff-wielding robed mage joining and heading the Fighter's Guild/Companions.

 

It's up to players choice how they play the game and the extent they role play and how they see that role-playing working out in their game. And it doesn't have any impact on anyone else's game, it leaves the degree and nature if roleplaying up to you (that said I'd dearly love to get the stats back again, though I did like Skyrim's perks idea on the whole).

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

I'm not a big fan of vanilla Skyrim, but it's a strange argument that they don't allow role-playing because they allow deviation from the original character skills. Not only must you accept that role-playing is purely a stat system, but you must also discount various multiclassing mechanics from various games.

As to title/class, it all depends on the lore and mechanics of the game you are playing. Rogues for instance can be skillmonkeys with little combat utility or they can be deadly warriors focused on hitting vulnerable areas. To the specifics, similar concept builds vary dramatically between each other even in the same games. It is best just to call it what you think fits best.

 

 

The problem mof today so called RPG is there is actually no role to play because class have no meaning and there is no class anymore. Even though Skyrim fans always keep saying they are role-playing, but the only role to play is a Dragonborn actually. You can join all factions in Skyrim despite your character build. Similar in Dark Souls, you may join covenants despite your character build.

 

Let's compare with DA:O, yes you can choose Rogue class for any origin other than Mage origin, but it justified by your faction in your origin. Human Nobles, Dwarves and Dalish, all have their own warriors and rogues. Mage itself is a class and faction. When you become a Grey Warden, you belong to this faction and that is the role you play that is the last Grey Warden in Ferelden.

This makes no sense. The notion that you need a class to roleplay discounts every RPG with a classless system, such as the Fallout games from almost two decades ago. If you're complaining about reactivity in a Bethesda game you're not going to be saying anything that hasn't been said before.

[Qistina]

Look at Diablo 2, when we choose Paladin we roleplay Paladin, if we want to play magic just choose Sorceror. Each class have it's own background, story, that's what i call role-playing. We play the role, when we choose Paladin, we play the role of Paladin.

 

The classes are not just for game-play, we don't role-play build, we role-play the character and it's class. That's what game developers forget now because they only want to make money and baiting kids who don't know what and what behind things in games.

 

We not just making Paladin because we can make a Paladn-like character with Paladin skills then assume being Paladin with head canon, that's bollocks. A paladin must be a class we choose to play in the begining because we want to be a Paladin in the said universe.

 

In Skyrim you can make a Paladin typoe of character? Yes you can, but your character really a Paladin? NO, there is no paladin in Skyrim. It just your head canon and the so called role-playing. The truth is there is no Paladin in Skyrim and in TES.

 

You call that role-play? For me that's denial, making something that isn't there...

[Fenixp]

making something that isn't there...

Yup, that's roleplaying. To quote you:

 

role-play·ing

 

ˈrōlˌplāiNG/

 

noun

noun: role playing; noun: role play; noun: rôle playing; plural noun: rôle playings; noun: rôle play; plural noun: rôle plays; noun: roleplaying; noun: roleplay; noun: role-playing; plural noun: role-playings; noun: role-play; plural noun: role-plays

 

 

1.

Psychology

the acting out or performance of a particular role, either consciously (as a technique in psychotherapy or training) or unconsciously, in accordance with the perceived expectations of society with regard to a person's behavior in a particular context.

 

2.

participation in a role-playing game.

 

This is Meriam Webster

 

transitive verb

 

1:  to act out the role of

 

2:  to represent in action <students were asked to role–play the thoughts and feelings of each character — R. G. Lambert>

 

intransitive verb

:  to play a role

 

Psychology

the acting out or performance of a particular role, either consciously (as a technique in psychotherapy or training) or unconsciously, in accordance with the perceived expectations of society with regard to a person's behavior in a particular context.

2. participation in a role-playing game.

This is Meriam Webster

 

transitive verb

1: to act out the role of

2: to represent in action <students were asked to role–play the thoughts and feelings of each character — R. G. Lambert>

intransitive verb

: to play a role

 

Roleplaying is literally pretending to be something you are not.

Edited October 25, 2015 by Fenixp

[Qistina]

No, role-playing is playing a role that is there, not role that not even there

[Fenixp]

No, role-playing is playing a role that is there, not role that not even there

Really? Point out where does it say in any of the definitions you have cited that the role "must be there", whatever that means. Roleplaying is a fairly self-explanatory word - it means "to play a role". The role, of course, doesn't need to be "there", the need for the role to be "there" is just your personal preference. I for one like classless systems. Sue me, I guess? I mean the entire argument is terribly silly, made even sillier by your slightly insane claims of "Games are using classless systems because of money!" which doesn't even make any sense. Eh... At this point I feel like I'm just keeping a pointless thread alive, so I suppose I'll just let it die and shut up.