Apologies
The fact that magic < combat isn't really the issue imho.
It's this:
combat + sneak < combat + armour
combat + magic < combat + armour
Remi vs Tobin with equal equipment was an even fight. Remi vs Caria, one in leather armour and with a dagger and the other in full plate with a sword wasn't even close.
I'm not saying that should be dead even or advantage Remi. I'm saying if it had been Remi ambushing Caria rather than the other way around, sneak+backstab should give Remi the edge. Same goes for a combat focused mage for example, or mages in sufficient numbers, etc.
Balance: Knights vs Mages
Why, exactly? Knights don't get backstab, knights don't get magic. Kinda sounds like Knights are getting the shaft here, since anyone can have armor and anyone can uber out their combat stats. How about we start balancing Knights with anti-magic stuff? =)
True but there are some RP constraints, and I'm kind of lumping swords in to that grouping too. And frankly, stealth at least just shouldn't work with heavy armour on IMHO.
I think given the XP and master slots needed though, it'd be pretty difficult to get the resources to master magic/covert, combat and something to get you the cash for it. I suppose a Knight-mage or Noble-mage could be pretty powerful though - thankfully not many of those wandering around. It'd still run into the lifespan issues though, and on the magic side there are other weaknesses which I'll not broadcast widely here. In terms of weaknesses for a Knight-thief or Noble-thief, my understanding is that backstab is really really hard to pull off as is.
If you want a really simple way to give a modest but real boost to mages though, make their arcana skills not require learn master slots. It doesn't reduce the XP costs to being a mage, but it makes their end game a little more flexible for taking on guildskills or combat.
I think given the XP and master slots needed though, it'd be pretty difficult to get the resources to master magic/covert, combat and something to get you the cash for it. I suppose a Knight-mage or Noble-mage could be pretty powerful though - thankfully not many of those wandering around. It'd still run into the lifespan issues though, and on the magic side there are other weaknesses which I'll not broadcast widely here. In terms of weaknesses for a Knight-thief or Noble-thief, my understanding is that backstab is really really hard to pull off as is.
If you want a really simple way to give a modest but real boost to mages though, make their arcana skills not require learn master slots. It doesn't reduce the XP costs to being a mage, but it makes their end game a little more flexible for taking on guildskills or combat.
-
Eris
I think that we all have to work within the boundaries of RP when it comes to characters: as in real life, no one character can be "perfect" at everything, and playing out flaws is one of the good things about playing a character to begin with.
It's for this reason that I don't necessarily agree that arcane skills should not take up learn master slots. Jei is right when he says that (non-mage) knights have no immediate access to magic, and that this can be taken as an imbalance in favour of mages. Geras is also right in saying that it isn't always ICly feasible for a character to have a full set of plate. But I think that we sign ourselves up for this, to a certain extent, when we decide to play out one character concept (for example, knights rather than spoiled nobles) over another.
Sure, this does make a mage more vulnerable to attack and death; but isn't this also the case with, say, your typical noblewoman character who would walk around in a silk gown rather than a full set of plate?
I think that Geras makes some great points, but at the end of the day, points of vulnerability just go hand in hand with character generation. I don't think the answer is to "beef up" the bad guys with special advantages that your average run-of-the-mill "goodie" wouldn't get; rather, I think that we should be finding IC ways of working with those disadvantages.
It's for this reason that I don't necessarily agree that arcane skills should not take up learn master slots. Jei is right when he says that (non-mage) knights have no immediate access to magic, and that this can be taken as an imbalance in favour of mages. Geras is also right in saying that it isn't always ICly feasible for a character to have a full set of plate. But I think that we sign ourselves up for this, to a certain extent, when we decide to play out one character concept (for example, knights rather than spoiled nobles) over another.
Sure, this does make a mage more vulnerable to attack and death; but isn't this also the case with, say, your typical noblewoman character who would walk around in a silk gown rather than a full set of plate?
I think that Geras makes some great points, but at the end of the day, points of vulnerability just go hand in hand with character generation. I don't think the answer is to "beef up" the bad guys with special advantages that your average run-of-the-mill "goodie" wouldn't get; rather, I think that we should be finding IC ways of working with those disadvantages.
I think what Geras is getting at is that bad guys don't act bad because they're afraid of the consequences. It might seem like the solution to this is to remove that fear by giving them things that make them feel more secure.
The problem is, this game isn't about security. Even knights lost that as the code began to take into account multiple combatants and the zero-sum game was exchanged for a rock-paper-scissors to reduce the safety of any given individual. Really, everyone on this game that chooses to act out is taking a risk now unless they're in power and can bully or persuade others to ignore their behavior. That's the theme.
I rather think the solution is more along the line of what's on the other thread - removing or reducing the sting of death. The biggest thing to counter? The unbalancing affect of accumulated XP over time that isn't being drained from the system.
I'm going to add a poll to the Villain Points thread.
The problem is, this game isn't about security. Even knights lost that as the code began to take into account multiple combatants and the zero-sum game was exchanged for a rock-paper-scissors to reduce the safety of any given individual. Really, everyone on this game that chooses to act out is taking a risk now unless they're in power and can bully or persuade others to ignore their behavior. That's the theme.
I rather think the solution is more along the line of what's on the other thread - removing or reducing the sting of death. The biggest thing to counter? The unbalancing affect of accumulated XP over time that isn't being drained from the system.
I'm going to add a poll to the Villain Points thread.
You know, to be good against your typical knight in combat, all you really need is two slots; one defensive and one offensive. I understand having learn master slots available is a luxury, but I think two slots isn't all that bad, especially since back in the old combat system it took around 5 to be even a competent fighter.
Also, let's all remember our lessons from Thandok
"If you are reading this to learn how to kill someone, go stab them with
a sword. It's safer, easier, and doesn't take as much effort to learn.
But if you want to become something worthwhile, I'll teach you how to
bring the world to its knees."
-- The Important Lessons of Thandok, vol. I,
Introduction
I was holding off on posting this until I could talk to you Kinky but it seems the discussion has progressed without us connecting in the mean time...
Kinky - for me at least it's not a matter of the negative consequences. It's the low probability of success. IMHO it's just silly to wander around casting flashy spells and then getting burned. I'll take an IC risk if there's a chance of IC reward, but when the reward is missing...
I do like the idea of having magic "weak" (though not irrelevant) to combat counterbalanced against power outside of combat. I also like the general direction that’s been taken with combat for the reasons you pointed out.
What bothered me about this whole resurrection discussion though was that even though a majority of players supported this move, not without precedent in the game, and exactly the kind of “badass” non-combat power that mages could really used, it was scuppered due to the strenuous objections of a minority.
What the hell were those objections? It doesn’t bother me that some players felt it was a shift in theme that they aren’t all that comfortable with - as someone who hates it whenever zombies show up, I can fully appreciate that. In the absence of any real posts to that effect here though, I’m left assuming the worst. The worst is that a few players are so opposed to the idea of mages or thieves having anything fun and meaningful to do that they effectively vetoed it. Are those players going to veto any other meaningful changes to magic or stealth?
On that note, Jei - I appreciate a lot that you actually bothered to engage in a discussion here. Thanks :)
Burnt - Great quote lol. And yah, unfortunately that bringing the world to its knees part is missing ATM though.
Kinky - for me at least it's not a matter of the negative consequences. It's the low probability of success. IMHO it's just silly to wander around casting flashy spells and then getting burned. I'll take an IC risk if there's a chance of IC reward, but when the reward is missing...
I do like the idea of having magic "weak" (though not irrelevant) to combat counterbalanced against power outside of combat. I also like the general direction that’s been taken with combat for the reasons you pointed out.
What bothered me about this whole resurrection discussion though was that even though a majority of players supported this move, not without precedent in the game, and exactly the kind of “badass” non-combat power that mages could really used, it was scuppered due to the strenuous objections of a minority.
What the hell were those objections? It doesn’t bother me that some players felt it was a shift in theme that they aren’t all that comfortable with - as someone who hates it whenever zombies show up, I can fully appreciate that. In the absence of any real posts to that effect here though, I’m left assuming the worst. The worst is that a few players are so opposed to the idea of mages or thieves having anything fun and meaningful to do that they effectively vetoed it. Are those players going to veto any other meaningful changes to magic or stealth?
On that note, Jei - I appreciate a lot that you actually bothered to engage in a discussion here. Thanks :)
Burnt - Great quote lol. And yah, unfortunately that bringing the world to its knees part is missing ATM though.
-
- Information
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests