Illarion.org

And? But the noobs couldnt kill the experienced warrior, as a noob mage couldnt kill an experienced mage. thats fine for me.

i see few reason why a warrior HAS to be able to beat a mage alone, or with a friend. just because he has good skills doesnt mean he should be better at killing a mage without melee abilities than any other warrior wielding a sword.

if you hit a non fighter with a heavy sword without skill or with skill doesnt change much. you both kill him pretty easy. why should it have an experienced fighter more easy killing nonfighters than a noob fighter? killing easy is killing easy. you dont have to overdo it

and there is no good reason why a warrior should have magic resistance. or with which roleplay reason do you explain how a warriors gets magic resistance? why should he get less damage when hit by flames?

you dont get used to flames too and get less pain and damage when holding your hand often into a flame. you just get a coal brick as hand

Samantha Meryadeles wrote:And? But the noobs couldnt kill the experienced warrior, as a noob mage couldnt kill an experienced mage. thats fine for me.

i see few reason why a warrior HAS to be able to beat a mage alone, or with a friend. just because he has good skills doesnt mean he should be better at killing a mage without melee abilities than any other warrior wielding a sword.

if you hit a non fighter with a heavy sword without skill or with skill doesnt change much. you both kill him pretty easy. why should it have an experienced fighter more easy killing nonfighters than a noob fighter? killing easy is killing easy. you dont have to overdo it

and there is no good reason why a warrior should have magic resistance. or with which roleplay reason do you explain how a warriors gets magic resistance? why should he get less damage when hit by flames?

you dont get used to flames too and get less pain and damage when holding your hand often into a flame. you just get a coal brick as hand

Well, I'll explain that as soon as you explain to me why wielding a steel shield of 1m2 makes no difference when trying to stop those fireballs coming towards me.. ? (Let me guess: Because it's magic? )

You can't apply logic as your defense when our characters cannot use the actually logical means to defend themselves.

Ever heart of heat? stand infront of a huge campfire and tell me if it makes different to you holding a shield or not infront of you.

also the huge and really hurting spells are no fireballs. they are flames exploding from the ground and sourrounding you. thats nothing flying at you. no protection with a shield there, you just get boiled in your armor.

And the huge icespells are ice cubes sourrounding you completly. dont think metall on skin will do good too when standing in a huge ice block and getting frozen

and the lightning...well...a lightning hitting you from above...think self if its smart and possible to block it with a METALL shield


logic explanation enough?

I disagree with about all your 'points', even the coal one.

And? But the noobs couldnt kill the experienced warrior, as a noob mage couldnt kill an experienced mage. thats fine for me

Yeah but gaining skill in magic helps you agaisnt warriors, while gaining skill in fighting dosent help you agaisnt mages, and pelase stop using realism in your arguments, if illa would be realist there woulnt be any magic at all, we are looking for fairness.

i see few reason why a warrior HAS to be able to beat a mage alone, or with a friend. just because he has good skills doesnt mean he should be better at killing a mage without melee abilities than any other warrior wielding a sword.

f you hit a non fighter with a heavy sword without skill or with skill doesnt change much. you both kill him pretty easy. why should it have an experienced fighter more easy killing nonfighters than a noob fighter? killing easy is killing easy. you dont have to overdo it

Hrm, yes he should, while looking at fairness and even realism. The more you are trained with a certain weapon, the stronger your strikes are, the faster they are and they are hit more precisely. Wether you hit a naked or an armored opponent, all these factors are helpful, and related to 'weapon skill' in illa.

and there is no good reason why a warrior should have magic resistance. or with which roleplay reason do you explain how a warriors gets magic resistance? why should he get less damage when hit by flames?

I can see your point here, but its still only realism. There is no reason that mages can get magic resistance while warriors cannot, the only thing should be that essence/int/will makes the skill more effective, but thats already implemented. Im pretty sure we all know that gaining magic resistance by getting casted at by other mages is about impossible, since it would be too slow and seen as bad and the mage would get tired of it after 2 minutes.

you dont get used to flames too and get less pain and damage when holding your hand often into a flame. you just get a coal brick as hand Razz

Wrong, you do get less pain after a time, thats called body adaptation. I dont think anyone did test that though, but its like anything else, the body can adapt to ANYTHING over time, that is a proven fact. Pain isnt an exception, if you keep getting hit on the same spot of your body, it will be less and less painful, if you keep taking heavy, pointy, cutting or whatever things in your hand, after a while you will get calluses, it isnt there to look ugly, its there to make you feel less and make your hand harder to damage. Same thing with fire, of course I got no example, but how come do you think black people resist heat better than white ones? Thats an adaptation, over a large period of time, but thats still one.

but how come do you think black people resist heat better than white ones? Thats an adaptation, over a large period of time, but thats still one.

you compare a warm summerday with a flameball licking the skin from your flesh?

You obviously didnt understand anything..maybe you read again, you posted like 2 minute after I did

AlexRose wrote:

The thing is, warriors are weak agaisnt magic, but mages arent much weak agaisnt strikes

Assuming you play a proper mage who doesn't run around in armour; i.e. a mage in a robe, a sword can just cut them open. They have no defense against a blade. In this way, a fighter shouldn't be able to resist a spell easily.

There is dodge and parry. I belive mages are supposed to have some preception. Maybe lets say 10-14. They could parry some warrior hits. And with no armor they might also dodge better. They have these defenses(and maybe a wand to boots pary chances).

Warriors have what againt to stop a mage? Oh, yeah..nothing.

They have the cursed shield that removes like 10% damages, while making their attack half since they only use one weapon lol, how useful

Arameh, yes people adapt, but they adapt to small changes over a long period of time, they won't adapt to flames burning them alive, no matter how often it happens

and as for the wand for parry, I doubt people would want to risk the very expensive wand breaking from blocking a blow

as for the shield thing, most fighters should be using shields anyway, not every fighter can be ambidextrous, and they would not be so foolish as to risk having important organs damaged just so they can wield an extra sword

There is dodge and parry. I belive mages are supposed to have some preception. Maybe lets say 10-14. They could parry some warrior hits. And with no armor they might also dodge better. They have these defenses(and maybe a wand to boots pary chances).

tell me please a mage who has dodge and or parry.

i can do that...there is none. mages just dont go train dodge or parry. they are no warriors. a mage usual is too weak to even think of melee fighting.


And quin, armor should have no influence on protecting against mages. mages have NO protection against warriors attacks. since a non powergamed mage doesnt train his melee fighting. so why should a warrior have protection against magic through armor? if so than give mages spells or other ways to protect or lower damage through a warriors attack. or the "fairness" which gets mentioned is gone

I think they can even wear metal armor on all their body but the chest, at least it was so not so long ago.

@Azuros : First I dont think a mage would prefer a wand over his life, second they arent expensive at all and third, most weapons take tons of hits before broking.

you know how much difference leather armor and no leather armor makes? no notiable leather armor. also, even a leather armor lowers your magic skills. it is more difficult casting in leatherarmor than without.

i have also the feeling that you all forget that mages are MEANT to be powerfull and dangerous. and not equal to warriors. it is meant that a mage can wipe out a warrior, or two.
Thats why its so damn hard to become a mage, not like becomming a warrior.
Its not meant that a warrior can equal a mage and defeat him alone or maybe even with a friend.


and no arameh. even wearing leathershoes has a visible influence on your magic. a mage wearing leatherboots, leather greaves and hunting armor has a noticable lowered magical skill

Samantha Meryadeles wrote:you know how much difference leather armor and no leather armor makes? no notiable leather armor. also, even a leather armor lowers your magic skills. it is more difficult casting in leatherarmor than without.

i have also the feeling that you all forget that mages are MEANT to be powerfull and dangerous. and not equal to warriors. it is meant that a mage can wipe out a warrior, or two.
Thats why its so damn hard to become a mage, not like becomming a warrior.
Its not meant that a warrior can equal a mage and defeat him alone or maybe even with a friend.


and no arameh. even wearing leathershoes has a visible influence on your magic. a mage wearing leatherboots, leather greaves and hunting armor has a not few lowered magical skill

Becoming a warrior is easy? Name me a single warrior who have became lets say over 80% skill in fighting since the end of the summer, I really know none.

You duelled Gerron, or not?

Yes and?

If Samantha can't protect herself against close combat I suggest she make friends with someone who can do it for her.

nonses. samantha would need 8 warriors standing around her to protect herself against close combat. simply because every warrior will run around the one protecting the mage and attacks the mage directly. a warrior is of few help there.

also she cant be around with the warrior 24/7. there is also a huge logistic problem

nosens.warrois are able to push, and by fighting them the warrior is slowlier, so that sam can grill his ass.

Samantha Meryadeles wrote:

If Samantha can't protect herself against close combat I suggest she make friends with someone who can do it for her.

nonses. samantha would need 8 warriors standing around her to protect herself against close combat. simply because every warrior will run around the one protecting the mage and attacks the mage directly. a warrior is of few help there.

also she cant be around with the warrior 24/7. there is also a huge logistic problem

And a warrior that wants to fight or protect agaisnt a mage cant have another warrior next to him 24/7, same logic

pushing a fighting warrior wielding his sword and wearing heavy armor? hellooooo bad roleplay

You can parry and dodge without the skill. And you tell me Samantha does not have the skills?

I do not see why PO's of mages come and argue here. Do you guys just not want to be beat? Why do you care so much if others an beat your character? Do you care more about the skill aspect than the Role Playing one?

I just think we should all have an even chance in fights.

My human would be killed without a doubt if he fought an ogre or troll mage. I am guessing most mages are fairly stronger than an orge or troll mage npc.

why do YOU care if your warrior can kill a powerfull mage and survive his magic? i could ask you the same. why did YOU started an arguement about magic resistance? is it for you just about being able to kill any mage?

and no, you can't parry and dodge without the skill and the attributes good enough. you can forget that.

and yes, samantha has not the skills. she has maybe 1 % parry and 1 % dodge through attacks from noobs and warriors. and that wa sit. i dont practice melee or crafts with her

I am guessing most mages are fairly stronger than an orge or troll mage npc.

No. Samantzha needs 15 of the strongest spells to kill an ogre shaman. he needs less for samantha. ogre shaman are powerfull and got a high magic resistance

I care becuase as I said, so it is fair and balanced.

I do not want any of my characters to be able to kill a mage, maybe defend against one. I did not start an arguement. I just want it fair.

again, it dont should be balanced. mages are MEANT to be much stronger than warriors.

Fun how much you ignored about 80% of my arguments, Patric

I would like a GM/Dev to post and tell us why eactly warriors cannot gain magic resistance. Partiks arguements make no sense.

Well im done 'arguing' with Patric, he's ignoring all the good points anyway

Sadly I dont think a dev wil lread this whole topic.