Illarion.org

Forgive me Elaralith for how my words sounded. I did not mean to offend you personaly.

I just fail to see, magical or non magical how a wand (as in Ilarrion game) can parry a sword blow....maybe just maybe a dagger, (which I think it can just about do as it is.)

A staff, now that is a diffrent thing, but the size of a wand limits its self to being used single handed, wich means:
a; you only have the strength and grip on it of one hand.
b; The area not coverd by the hand is minimal thus making it hard to parry the blow with the wand as apposed to the hand holding it.
c; even if you did parry the bow and the wand is magical 'can not be broken' the force of the blow would smash the wand from your hand.
d; Illarion as of yet has no magic echanted weapons so the wand beingable to stop the blow by e.g. melting the sword is not an option. (yet)

As for a staff, a staff does not need to be magical to stop a blow from a weapon with out being broken. Just because it is a simple weapon does not mean it is easy to break. Oak staff..hard as nails.

Just to make a pont of how hard a decent width bit of oak wood is, Knight shields were not made of steel, to have it think enough to retain its shape after being hit a few times would make it to heavey to use effectivley. They were made of wood held together with steel bands. Honest!

@Drathe I understand.
@Serpardum

Actually, Elaralith, the reason now you can block a warrior's sword with your wand is because we haven't put weapon/armor breakage into the code...yet.

The day weapon/armor breakage is implemented will be a happy one for me. But I didn't refer to how a wand in illarion can block a sword to support my claim...I referred to the many examples in fantasy fiction where a mage's staff with its many potent spells can block and melt a warrior's though strong but unmagical sword.

Actually Elaralith, Gandalf blocked the balrogs blow with his sword, Glamdring. Here's the actual quote if you want it.

"The Balrog made no answer. The fire in it seemed to die, but the darkness grew. It stepped forward slowly on to the bridge and suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall; but still Gandalf could be seen, glimmering in the gloom; he seemed small, and altogether alone: grey and bent, like a wizened tree before the onset of a storm.
From out of the shadow a red sword leeped flaming.
Glamdring glittered white in answer.
There was a ringing clash and a stab of white fire. The Balrog fell back and its sword flew up in molten fragments. The wizard swayed on the bridge, stepped back a pace, and then again stood still."

As a dutiful Tolkein fanatic, I felt that I had to point this out

Back to the discussion at hand. I think it would be kind of unfair if warriors were to get breakable swords but the wand of a mage was unbreakable. Perhaps wands should have a chance of breaking whenever a spell is cast at the mage? Or maybe if a mage casts a spell which they're just barely powerful enough to cast, their wand could have a chance of breaking. Defensive spells for mages would be nice. Instead of having a spell that just increases your defense, however, why couldn't there be spells to confuse the attacker. Is there anyway a spell could be created to exploit the doubling bug so that a mage could create an illusion or two of himself?

There really is no standard for fantasy. Fantasy can be anything the creator wants it to be. That's why it's fantasy. Tolkein's idea of a fantasy world is different from Robert Jordan's (very, very different,) and they're both different from AD&D (and its swarm of worlds, copycats, and house rules,) and all of these are different from the myriad of other fantasy authors out there. That's why it takes a being somewhere along the lines of a god to cast a fireball in Middle-Earth, there's a whole city of people can cast fire-balls in Robert Jordan's world, and any dingbat who wants to study hard enough can cast a fire-ball in AD&D. Tolkein, Jordan, and Gygax all had their visions, and the creators of this game have theirs. It's for these reasons that I think it's difficult to discuss fantasy games in the context of a variety of fantasy books. They are so disparate that conflicts will occur. Why not try to keep the discussion to how this proposal will affect game mechanics. That way everyone will be on approximately the same level.

I'm not trying to yell at anyone here. I just thought I'd throw in a couple of comments on how books and fantasy styles differ. Then it ended it growing, and growing, and growing . . .

Kragmar

Oh yes, I forgot to mention that in that battle with the Balrog, Gandalf broke his staff about 2 parargraphs later while casting the spell that broke the bridge.

Just thought I'd throw it in.
Kragmar

@Kragmar: Darn, I MUST get myself the book

I also think, it would be unfair if mages would be given more powers and unbreakable wands. They should be susceptible to big, dumb fighters with there huge swords The paralyze spell is mean enough
In addition to that I think, that mages shouldn t be able to wear iron armors, but they should get some defensive spells.


~Berengar~

the whole reason mages shouldnt wear armor is because its heavy and cumbersom, and it prevents mana (from the sun and moon) from recharging them.

On the topic of mages...I think that there should be "sub-vocations" for the planned Vocations. So there could be different types of mages. Some examples (feel free to add to this list, but please give a reason): Illusionist (someone asked for illusion spells), Summoner, Necromancer, Elementalist...
@Kragmar I agree, there are many genres of fantasy...but there are still some agreed upon "rules" that outline "medieval fantasy" for all so that everything does not become chaos. Such a "rule" would be "there is no such thing as spaceships and guns", and "dwarves generally dislike magic". It is upon these rules that we can base our opinions on "realism" and make our proposals.

The general agreed upon standard comes from a number of places, including AD&D.

In AD&D just about everything is breakable (although seldom does) unless it is an artifact.

The wands we have are not artifacts.

Yes, the larger ideas of fantasy tend to be the same (mostly due to Gygax and Tolkien,) but I don't think that this game should be bound to any of them. Just because something happened in another game or book, doesn't mean that it should be done in Illarion. It could be, but I think it would be better to place more emphasis on game mechanics and balance rather than trying to stay constant to an idea if it doesn't fit into Illarion. I say this mostly because I don't think that "it happened in the Lord of the Rings and the Wheel of Time" is a very good argument for implementing a suggestion, and partly because I just like to talk (or type as the case may be.)

@Elaralith - Specialized mages would be a good idea. Instead of having "summoner", "conjurer", and all the other standard mage specializations, why not let the players specialize in specific runes? They wouldn't get bonuses to any specific spell, just the individual runes. They could recieve negative modifiers to all other runes. Just put like runes together as a group and give the player the option to choose whether or not to specialize. They wouldn't have to specialize, and it wouldn't be a new class. Specialization breeds weakness. Weakness requires a team effort to overcome. A team effort requires character interaction. Isn't character interaction what we're going for?

@Serp - I actually did have a claymore break on me while saving a small village one time. I ended up giving the pieces to the local blacksmith in exchange for a few minor repairs to my armor. In a later campaign, my low-level thief was passing through the same town when the villagers asked my party to "return the shards of the sword used by an ancient warrior when he saved our town." The village mayor had forced the blacksmith to give up the broken claymore, and they had kept it in the town hall as a treasured relic! The second campaign took place about 100 years after the first campaign, and by that time, the shards were considered heirlooms. Needless to say, I was pleased to return my own sword (for *slight* fee.)

I don't think that a wand should have any pary whatsoever. It is way too small and cannot be gripped good.

A staff, I believe, should be treated just like a quarter staff as far as using it for a weapon.

And who says wands and staves have to be made of wood. They could also be made of metal or stone, or even petrified wood which would be hard as stone.

@Kragmar Hmmm....why not have "specilization in runes" a thing for Elementalists. Then there would be "sub classes" and "sub sub classes". Rune magic kind of belongs in the "elementalist's" genre of magic. And yes increased player interaction is a valid reason for any proposal.
@Crocket Physically a wand is weak, but because of the many spells woven into that make it 'magic' it can be stronger even than a iron sword.
I agree, there should be staffs of iron too...petrified wood is already used for staffs right now I think it is one of those things that is "assumed/understood".

Elaralith wrote:@Crocket Physically a wand is weak, but because of the many spells woven into that make it 'magic' it can be stronger even than a iron sword.

Yes a wand can be strong because of the magic in it. But I think it would be practically imposible to parry a blow being delivered from a hulk of a fighter wielding a Claymore with a stick only inches long that is so small you can only hold it with one hand.

It's not a matter of the strength of the wand but the ability to parry with such an instrument.

i was following this discussion every now and then, but there is one little thing that is irritating. seems that everybody refers to the "wand" as to be one handed... well, i just want to point out that the "wand" is TWO-HANDED... and therefore cannot be as small as you people think it...

and if it IS TWO-HANDED there is yet a possiblity to BLOCK a couple of BLOWS from a sword or whatsoever... depending again, if you are fast enough...


another thing i want to point out is, that you people talk about the advantage of mages... because they could paralyze you in a fight and easily kill you... that is of course true, but have you ever thought about mages that are running around with their TWOHANDED mage-wand to be attacked by a couple of people or monsters at once... such a fight would not last long until the mage is dead... WHY? because it is of no use to TARGET somebody... there are too many moving aims at once and one cannot possibly ALT+click+click+click as fast in all directions to save oneselves butt, while a good warrior could not care less if he was attacked from all directions at once... he stands there and simply blocks EVERY blow, though this is unrealistic, too. why dont we start to do something against that first, before taking it on the TWO-HANDED wand mages that have already (almost) no parry at all?

Where is it stated that a wand is two-handed?

It may take two hands to use it. I'm not sure, my character is a fighter.

Maybe the mage has to use one hand to channel the magic and the other hand holds and aims the wand thus making it two handed.

Most pictures of wands (outside of Illarion) that I have seen are small and one handed. Whereas staves are long and two handed like a quarterstaff.

A wand is single handed, but it takes two hands to cast a targeted spell through a wand, hence you can't use something else in your other hand when you use a wand.

so basically it is two handed

Yes a wand is TWO-HANDED. Thank you for pointing that out Morgaine. That was one of the reasons I proposed that magic wands/staffs have some kind of magical parry, and that mages be given defensive spells.

Serpardum wrote:A wand is single handed, but it takes two hands to cast a targeted spell through a wand, hence you can't use something else in your other hand when you use a wand.

It is one handed. The other hand is empty and is used for...channeling energy, what ever.

I fail to see tho why a wand needs to parry? why, why why? If you are a mage week or not.. you wand locks your target , then you can run to avoid being physicaly hit and cast spells as you run. (yes you can cast, talk, ect as you move)

If you want to fight face to face, hand to hand use a battle staff.
If you are unfotunate enough to get to close that you can be physicaly hit..thats your fault. Archers dont get much (if any parry for a bow) so why should a mage for a wand which in theory is a range weapon.

so I ask again..why do wands need to parry?

accually drathe if we use throwing spears we can use a shield BUT throwing spears are expensive and poor in range, if you up the parry for a wand you should for the ranged weapons too!

Yes and then if you give parry for the archers, why not just make us fighters invulnerable to magic and ranged. Then we'd all be on the same line.

It might be possible later to have a quest for a non-breakable wand or something, I dont' know. The wands that everyone is running around with now, though, is just your run of the mill pine wand or such.

..And anti-magic shields, helmets, armors, whatever's.. right?

Hey, it would be the same thing if fire swords would get the ability to block spells, because they contain a dwarfen magic reflecting fire inside...
Why mages should be (almost) invulnerable???

alright... people... its ok... wands do not need any parry stats... to be frank i could not care less if they had any or not

but there we go... why should a fighter with a sword be able to block attacks successfully from all sides when attacked? he has got only one shield and one sword - so it makes no sense at all that he can block hits from the front, back, left and right hand side and also front right and left and rear left and right at once? dont you agree?

i think magical armour or weapons should be implemented at one stage, but these things should be VERY rare... and to add to your annoyance i think that mages should be able to enhance armour and weapon to make it "magical"... but still... the successrate would be something like 1 out of 10000...


@Berengar: mages are NOT invulnerable... but if a fighter thinks he can fight a mage face to face... well thats his own fault, he is just "stupid" - sorry to say so but this is a FACT. just compare it to attacking somebody with a gun pointed at you with your knife... the successrate of killing that person is almost NIL.

like i suggested before, why dont we make like a weak physical attack armor but it helps block magic? like glass! it can contain magic potions no?
so why cant it protect against magic. i relize glass is an EXTREMELY hard to make and i give props to whoever made the useless block of glass.

Morgaine Le Fay wrote:but there we go... why should a fighter with a sword be able to block attacks successfully from all sides when attacked? he has got only one shield and one sword - so it makes no sense at all that he can block hits from the front, back, left and right hand side and also front right and left and rear left and right at once? dont you agree?

Yes, I do agree. I have just found more things more important to implement at this point in time than weaker defenses from from side/back, etc...

A fighter can block several blows coming from different directions at different times. Yes the blows are coming from 4 different directions and the fighter only has one shield and one sword but the blows are coming at different times. Maybe split seconds apart.

dont tell me that a split second of time is enough to turn around by 180° block the blow, jump back 90° and block another blow and so forth... and who says that 4 or 6 or 2 people attacking somebody would hit at different times? if they join forces to kill somebody they would naturally try to hit at the same time... to avoid that this "hero" can block any blow delivered to him.

and to add something to this... if this "hero" was busy defending himself from all the blows, it would also be natural that he had no time left to continue his own attack... so... after a short or long period, whichever, he would lose the fight anyway - this is reality

Yes, but in illarion you can't hit several people at the same swing of the sword, so the situation would be quite different in real life.

i think someone suggested this before but how about a random attack that gets by the shield, i find it irritating the someone with good parry is invulnerable to all physical attacks.

Morgaine Le Fay wrote:dont tell me that a split second of time is enough to turn around by 180° block the blow, jump back 90° and block another blow and so forth... and who says that 4 or 6 or 2 people attacking somebody would hit at different times? if they join forces to kill somebody they would naturally try to hit at the same time... to avoid that this "hero" can block any blow delivered to him.

and to add something to this... if this "hero" was busy defending himself from all the blows, it would also be natural that he had no time left to continue his own attack... so... after a short or long period, whichever, he would lose the fight anyway - this is reality

Have you not seen martial arts experts using swords? They don't have to actually turn their whole body. You can use a sword to block your back by swinging it over your head backwards and holding it straight down your back (easier seen than explained) .

And yes sometimes all the blows might come at once but rarely. In this case the fighter would be hit. But this is unlikely because in the heat of the moment the attacker's timing could be different from each other. No two people have the exact same reaction time. One might be regaining his footing or be preparing for another attack while the others are swinging. Each person would take a different amount of time to do all this.

I admit it would take an extremely experienced fighter to ward off this many attacks but it is possible.

Berengar wrote:Why mages should be (almost) invulnerable???

I ve never said they ARE invulnerable. And by the way, the chance of blocking a knife with a gun isn t very high either, is it?
In my view the mages think, that they should be able to fight a warrior face to face...

Und als Steirerin darfst mich ab sofort bitte auf Deutsch kritisieren