ti-legacy.com

"Jei,

You raise fair points. I guess my response is that it seems silly (and
disappointing) for the most important skill to mages and thieves to me combat
ones, and their most important possessions being armour.

Suppose both thief guildskills and mage spells/abilities suffer penalties if
the mage or thief in question is wearing anything heavier than leather
armour. Would that address your concerns?"
-geras

First of all, I'm not sure that mages need armor. I'm not sure anyone needs it exactly, but it is something. Secondly, per the mattack thread mattack is going to shred right through armor, so actually that's another benefit I should have listed for the mages that I failed to. An armored knight vs. an armored mage with mattack and equal combat skills means, IMO, that the mage is going to win in single combat.

Secondly, I didn't exactly have a concern when I posted, I posted because I personally think mages get all the options of anyone else, plus magic, so there really isn't much in the way of 'unbalance' unless it's toward the Knights, everyone else. That being said, with my revised comment. Knights are able to basically arrest publically(whereas Mages would need to kidnap in secret) and that's their only benefit, codely. Mages will have mattack-> which cuts through right armor, though depending on how well piety actually serves as 'armor' to it is impossible for me to say right now. But at the moment that still comes across as a very big benefit. They also just plain get magic. A fair amount of it is instaneous, a fair amount of it, IMO is crazily overpowered in the right combination or if used in the right situations. I can't and won't get into those combinations here out of respect for people who haven't experienced magic, either from use or from firsthand expose(like me) but I don't think one on one that mages are at a disadvantage, personally.

Third, since you asked, yes I do think it would be nice if armor did mess up magic and sneak/hide skills. Sneak/hide skills at the very least are logical, armor is more of game balance, since Knights will have no armor piercing swords(and mages will have armor piercing magic) though in most fantasy settings magicians generally don't use armor too so I think just by convention alone it would be nice if it impeded their ability to do magic, but I'm not going to hold my breath on these thoughts.





"As far as being metal golems with lighting from their eyes and fire coming from
their mouths, yah obviously no. I'd rather have the lightning and fire but
not the armour and sword. IMHO a "powerful"/scary mage shouldn't just be an
imitation of a Knight who can also do some card tricks. It's the magic part
that should be important..."

-geras

Well, mages can essentially go without armor if they want, and eventually they won't need an actual weapon (mattack). So... it will be more magic focused, at least offensively. Maybe in lieu of 'platemail' mages can get access to some kind of weaker but magic based armor, like mage armor/shield for all you DND nerds like me. Of course, this introduces its own problems, which is now that the people who did spend the coin to buy armor are not only getting any benefit out of it because of mattack being armor piercing, but then mages would also get essentially 'free' armor. So.. eh.


"I believe there are two questions at hand.

Since knights and mages have the same access to the same combat and armor
systems, but mages also have magic, do the disadvantages of using magic equal
the benefits of magic (all is balanced), do the disadvantages of using magic
exceed the benefits of using magic (in favor of the knights), or do the
disadvantages of using magic pale in comparison to the benefits of using
magic (in favor of the mages)?"-temi

Being on the receiving end of offensive/debuffs several times in the past, combined with new combat, how armor works, etc. etc. I obviously feel like this is currently highly in favor of mages who choose to up their combat stats and wear armor, and that's before you guys finish mattack which will shred through Knight's armor. If you like, I can go into more detail on a staff-only post in game for specific spells that I think are pretty much broken, especially combined with the new system and upcoming mattack, but I don't feel comfortable stating them here for those who aren't aware of some of these abilities.

As Kinaed said, the real downside to using magic is risk, but at the moment I don't think that's a real big deal if the mage is careful to wear a mask and crap. It reduces to all but zero if they murder their target.

"The other question is different: do we give enough support for different
character themes? If you want to kill someone with high combat skills and
plate armor, do you have to yourself have high combat skills and plate armor?
Should you have to?" -temi

I think the real question here, as it has been throughout the thread, what is balanced? Mattack by mages removes the plate armor from the equation in terms of going after armored foes. Combat abilities? Well... yeah, I absolutely think you should have to, that or lure them into a trap. I think the notion of mages walking around with an invokeable(or whatever) 'I win button' spell would be incredibly unbalancing. Especially with combat as it is, it's no longer possible for 'good' guys to fell an opponent in a single blow, probably not even in five or so. That's plenty of time to fight back, flee, whatever. Some mage spells take a single command, have, AFAIK, no real defense skill that serves to protect you from them, and can leave you defenseless anywhere from RL minutes to RL hours to -permanently-.

As for thieves, eh. At the moment I'd still have to say yes. For the same reason temijul was pulled from mass production. If you make easy to make/get I win buttons they're going to get used and abused, and if you're on the receiving end of that kind of thing.. is that fun? I don't personally think so at all.

IMO, combatively/survivability speaking mages currently are very, very easy to make survive, even if cornered and unmasked. Granted, they can't go back to living 'normal' RP lives, but it still takes a lot longer now to take down a mage than a mage taking down a knight(assuming, again, the two characters are roughly equal in skills)

If you're going for different character themes, fine, but do they all need to be for the bad guys? Because as my earlier argument showed, combatively speaking, they -already- have an edge over knights/reeves of equal skill levels and equipment. IMO giving bad guys even more goodies is just going to unbalance it even further.

Since knights and mages have the same access to the same combat and armor systems, but mages also have magic, do the disadvantages of using magic equal the benefits of magic (all is balanced), do the disadvantages of using magic exceed the benefits of using magic (in favor of the knights), or do the disadvantages of using magic pale in comparison to the benefits of using magic (in favor of the mages)?

That depends. If you have teachers or patience and are familiar with magic, you can put a very modest XP into magic and get a few low level spells that are pretty useful. Solitary mages who are careful don't incur a lot of extra risk either.

Where it gets dicier is for committed mages. Once you start pouring XP and learn master slots into multiple magic skills, that's where it starts to get dicier.

For stealth someone else would be better off commenting than I. The utility of hide and sneak are obvious, but I've heard backstab's pretty hard to pull off in practice.

The other question is different: do we give enough support for different character themes? If you want to kill someone with high combat skills and plate armor, do you have to yourself have high combat skills and plate armor? Should you have to?

This is the bigger issue imho and what bothers me more. I have no problem with some sort of penalty or conditions to assure you don't have Lord Mage McArmourpants stomping everyone. I just think focusing on magic or stealth should be just as viable a path as focusing on armour and combat. And right now it's not.

If you're going for different character themes, fine, but do they all need to be for the bad guys? Because as my earlier argument showed, combatively speaking, they -already- have an edge over knights/reeves of equal skill levels and equipment. IMO giving bad guys even more goodies is just going to unbalance it even further.

Well, the Knights and whatnot technically have access to stealthy and magey types too...

But no Jei, they don't have an edge over knights/reeves of equal skill and equipment. Some with 75/75 for magic skills and 75/75 for combat skills has spent twice the XP as someone with only 75/75 combat. That's not equal skill. I'll concede that in the extreme case of a mage with maxed combat skills and full plate there could be an issue, but that's not exactly a common occurance.

And really, the proof of the pudding is in the tasting. If the Knights/Reeves are disadvantaged, why are they pretty much the only ones not dying to PK?

[quote]And really, the proof of the pudding is in the tasting. If the Knights/Reeves are disadvantaged, why are they pretty much the only ones not dying to PK?
/quote]

I'd say RP culture has a lot to do with it. There obviously used to be some mages who went after people, before I started playing on this incarnation, and there was a DRASTIC change. I don't think it's unfair to point it out, during Zin's go there were fliers posted all over the bloody place, about turning in mages that do bad and people living in peace and harmony, etc. In a situation like this, Knights/Reeves are still on the offensive because of theme, but it plants the mages absolutely in a defensive position.

Ideally this would be presenting more of a problem for the Order/theme than it is (if the mages aren't so bad, then why are we demonizing them?). It's just not being RP'd out or realized in any fashion, for whatever reason.

I'm not playing a mage right now, so I might be wrong, but I don't think you guys are having cloaked meetings trying to figure out how to take out Jei or any other of the Knights or Reeves right now (or has been seriously trying to, because I haven't heard of any recent attempts.) Knights and Reeves aren't going to start getting PK'd until it becomes someone's priority RP.

"But no Jei, they don't have an edge over knights/reeves of equal skill and equipment. Some with 75/75 for magic skills and 75/75 for combat skills has spent twice the XP as someone with only 75/75 combat. That's not equal skill." - geras

When I say a mage with equal combat skills plus magic, I do mean just that. And yes, the mage in this situation obviously put more experience into their coded skills than a knight if they have maxed combat and maxed magic both, they would still have more of a combative edge against the knight.

The original point of this thread was saying Knights vs. Mages aren't balanced, and I'm saying they are, or if they aren't, that it's actually in favor of mages, with mages' downside being the obvious: you get caught, you get dead.

Suppose we take magic out of the equation at first and just say that there is a mage who is a mage who hardly has any abilities of the mage variety, but that mage has platemail and max combat skills and stats. Already they're 'equal' to a knight in combat.

Now take this same mage and have them start upping their magic skills. You now have a fully hard hitting combat person who is supplemented by a variety of spells of a buffing, debuffing and soon to be coded in attack spell: mattack. That swings it from 'equal' to mage wins.

I don't know what mage skills are in particular, maybe there are a lot. Maybe even too many to learn master all of them with learn mastering combat too, I have no idea, but that doesn't stop whomever from saving at least two-three slots for magic, and they're still more powerful in single combat against a knight who only has access to platemail and combat.

"I'll concede that in the extreme case of a mage with maxed combat skills and full plate there could be an issue, but that's not exactly a common occurance."-geras

Thank you. It could be and is an issue as the code stands, which is what I've been trying to say all along. Why it isn't a common occurrence isn't something I could say with certainty, and it's really outside the scope of this discussion. The focus of the discussion are if mages/knights are on an equal playing field and I feel that they are. It sounds like you're conceding the same. Knight w/max combat+ full plate+damascus weapon is still going to probably get his ass handed to him by a mage w/max combat+full plate+damascus weapon+magic. When mattack comes in, since it shreds through armor, it's going to be an even more lop-sided battle in favor of the mage because, as I said before, Knights have no armor piercing abilities.

Unfortunately, when mages get caught, 99 percent of the time they get burned. That's kind of the theme of the game and it probably won't change soon. But saying that because this is the case that knights are inherently better than mages in a fight is pretty absurd to me.

What it boils down to is: do all PCs have the same options in combat? For the most part, yes they do. In fact, if we're talking pure combat, Knights(and reeves) are the only ones who don't get special abilities to help them in combat. Thieves at the very least get backstab, which while it may not be as effective as they like, is still a leg up on everyone else. Mages.. welp, they get magic and soon enough they'll have mattack also.

I guess I'm not understanding why you think there is an inbalance as far as PK goes that disfavors mages, after all the hashing out we've done about it. Or what exactly you're expecting mages to get to 'balance' the inbalance you see.

If you'd like to make it so mages can feel more 'magey' and still stand toe to toe with combat folk.. I mean all I can say at the moment is that mattack is on the horizon, so there's your magical weapon.

If you'd like to suggest a spell that generates armor, I'd probably be for that, with the following conditions: 1) wearing 'normal' armor ought to impose some kind of penalty on mages, on the extreme end making it so magic can't be cast while in armor, or armor of a certain 'heaviness'. 2) The magical armor isn't quite up to full plate in defense.

I think both of those are fair conditions, so that mages aren't wearing full plate, then doubling it up with 'mage armor' as well, plus it helps to solve what I see to be potentially unbalancing in mattack, the armor piercing quality of it. This way mattack still goes straight through knights' plate, but at least the knights have a slightly better chance to attack a mage in return.

I think we're mostly on the same page Jei.

I'd just add that I'd rather have a spell that makes mages more powerful outside of combat than one that just buffs their defense with magic armour or something like that.

Keep in mind btw that most spells are threaded, so there are options for knights to respond/avoid these spells.

Wimple - It takes a while to build up strength both in combat and in magic now. That's probably the reason for the decrease in the disposable mages - you need to live in peace and harmony for quite a while before you can even attempt shenanigans.

On why is the Order even bothering going after mages if they're so nice... that's heretic talk! :/

Seriously though, isn't that the whole point of the theme? Who the bad guys are and who the good guys are is supposed to be ambiguous. There are good Inquisitors and bad mages, but there are also bad Inquisitors and good mages. Most simply fall in between.

"... I just think focusing on magic or stealth should be just as viable a path as focusing on armour and combat. And right now it's not."

Players who choose to focus on skills besides combat and armor, should not be as combat savvy as those who focus on that specific thing. Especially in a setting where focus is extremely flexible and a matter of choice. It's been demonstrated time and time again in this thread that all players, regardless of creed, have access to the same combat abilities. If a player doesn't focus on combat, they don't deserve to be better in a fight than a player who does. Flat out, that'd be broken and unfair. If someone wants to be combat savvy, they should learn combat and put some effort into it, simple as that.

On Mattack - Jei, you seem to have forgotten the balance to mattack in your commentary - piety. Piety shrugs mattacks. Mages, because of their nature, have a tough time maintaining piety. Orderites and Knights can. Which means mattack is most dangerous between mages or against heretics. With a shield as simple as that to practice, my feeling is that all of this 'mattack shreds armor' and thus is unbalancing stuff is overblown.

If a player doesn't focus on combat, they don't deserve to be better in a fight than a player who does. Flat out, that'd be broken and unfair. If someone wants to be combat savvy, they should learn combat and put some effort into it, simple as that.

I think you're missing my point Kinky. I'm talking about someone killing/harming/disabling someone outside of combat. Whether that's strangling them with vines or poisoning their drink or whatever... it doesn't necessarily need to impact how combat works. Like I was joking with another player the other day, you could have your opponent blind, bound with vines, set on fire and trapped in a room with the exits iced over, and you'd still have to beat them up with sticks in order to subdue them or kill them.

you seem to have forgotten the balance to mattack in your commentary - piety. Piety shrugs mattacks.

Not a huge deal, but am I the only one who would prefer if mattack was defended by conventional armour instead of piety? Not saying piety couldn't play a role in other things...

Armor can't really defend against a fireball or choking water, freezing, etc.

The way magic works is a balancing of forces, which is related to a mage's understanding and interpretation of said natural forces. In my mind, I'd imagine piety is something of a calming or restructuring of those forces. Churches feel different to people, they're built to echo differently, etc, and I think with high piety comes a mindset that would eschew magic. Thus, piety seems an excellent counter - it's also free, whereas armor is not. The fact that mages have trouble keeping piety up nicely makes mattack an excellent tool for a mage duel, but not so great against knights - unless they're lucky and have an impious/heretical knight.

It also does open the door for church blessings and the like to nullify or reduce the effects of magic, albeit I'm not willing to go so far as to put miracles in game at this time.

Presumably this applies to piety in non-Orderite religions and atheism/agnosticism too?

Edit: I mean, it can make a certain sort of sense as a placebo effect even, and that people who are more unsure of their beliefs are more susceptible to being "drawn in" my the magic.

That being said, I hope that the degree to which this impacts mattack isn't too game breaking. Roughly on par with what armour does and whatnot...