As of yet the vocations are not in the game. You have certain skills but you are not defined as being a certain vocation such as fighter, mage, druid. You could actually have fighting skills, mage skills, lumberjacking skills, mining skills and so on.
The only ones that cannot be mixed are druid and mage spells. If you know mage spells you cannot cast druid spells and vice versa. But you could be a mage/fighter (warlock) or a druid/fighter (ranger). But I don't think the program sees the characters in this way yet. Even if it would be easy to fix we have to wait for the next server change for it to be changed(if I understand correct).
We only tell the different vocations apart by how we roleplay.
(example)
My character is a hunter. He hunts animals and monsters and sells the spoils to the shop or to other characters. So I roleplay him in this manner. I could easily buy some magic books and learn some minor spells with no penalties whatsoever to my fighting skills. In order to roleplay him correctly I choose not to though. Just as a well roleplayed mage should not go around buying shields, swords, and plate armor. But if they wanted to they could. (and unfortunately, many do)
I am sure vocations will be done in the future but it's not done yet.
The Magic System
Moderator: Gamemasters
@Grant This proposal is about enhancing the RP in illarion, if you can't understand that then go away. As well this proposal is NOT to make mages more powerful it is to bring in some balance and turn out a better magic system. Anyways, enough time has been wasted trying to get you to understand things. In the future please post contributive items. If you don't know how please refer to Darlok's post!
I think the issue right now is that mage spells are not too well-defined right now. The fact that the graphical effects of spells do not relate too closely to the technical effects is an issue. The fact that spells when they fail have no back lash at the caster is another issue. Too much reliance on the paralyze spell is another problem. Finally I would like to bring up the topic of spells being too easily learned right now. Not the learning process but just the getting of magical books and runes...some things have been proposed in the past, newer ideas would be welcome. The above issues are to assist you in proposing for the magic system, if you can think of any other issues please bring them up and propose in a mature manner!
I think the issue right now is that mage spells are not too well-defined right now. The fact that the graphical effects of spells do not relate too closely to the technical effects is an issue. The fact that spells when they fail have no back lash at the caster is another issue. Too much reliance on the paralyze spell is another problem. Finally I would like to bring up the topic of spells being too easily learned right now. Not the learning process but just the getting of magical books and runes...some things have been proposed in the past, newer ideas would be welcome. The above issues are to assist you in proposing for the magic system, if you can think of any other issues please bring them up and propose in a mature manner!
But if spells would be made stronger, it would be even more unbalanced...it is to bring in some balance and turn out a better magic system
Then, until now, every person (doens't even have to be a mage) can kill
practically everyone with the common combination of paralyze and any other spell,
or just killing him with a melee or range weapon then. The opponent cannot
do a thing while paralized and is consequently hit by more paralyse spells
of the other, so next thing, he'll probably know, is that he's dead.
Paralyse alone, is much too powerful.
As others already said, instead of paralying the opponent, it should rather
slow him down, weaken his deffence/attack (maybe both) or maybe
confuse him (can't go the direction he wants for isntance, though i'm not sure,
if this would'nt be too powerful again...)
I still say use the "saving throw" system. This way the spells could stay as they are.
we'll use the paralyze spell as an example........
Let's say out of a possible 20 your saving throw for paralyze is 15.
(Your numbers would be determined by your abilities {str, dex, etc.})
When a mage casts a paralyze spell on you the computer randomly picks a number from 1 to 20. 1-14 and your paralyzed. 15-20 and you avoid the spell and are not paralyzed.
Just a suggestion.
we'll use the paralyze spell as an example........
Let's say out of a possible 20 your saving throw for paralyze is 15.
(Your numbers would be determined by your abilities {str, dex, etc.})
When a mage casts a paralyze spell on you the computer randomly picks a number from 1 to 20. 1-14 and your paralyzed. 15-20 and you avoid the spell and are not paralyzed.
Just a suggestion.
The paralyze spell is overpowered in my opinion and mages need to rely on it way too much. I propose that the paralyze spell cause extremely high encumberance....so it would be a "slowing effect" instead of a complete shut-down. To balance this perhaps increased spell damage as should be in all realism would not be uncalled for.
-
Droog smellfoot
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 11:57 am
- Location: Sweden
- Contact:
This would, at the moment, make mages too powerful again, since they wouldDroog smellfoot wrote:About the magic shield spell, why not make the magic shield drain mana constantlly, or make a magic shield for magic and one magic shield for normal attacks.
just summon a shield and then keep on gulping mana potion after mana potion, what would increase PG again....
-
Bloodhearte
- Posts: 1169
- Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2003 1:03 am
- Location: Yes please.
Ah, yes...
As a player of both a mage and an 'uber fighter,' I have to say I agree with both Gerard and Hagen.
A major problem in this game when it comes to combat, is that a mage, even of a very low level, can beat the toughest fighter in the land if he gets good at paralyze spells and some sort of flame spell.
I remember when Xerake was beaten constantly by Grimey, and Xerake had no chance to fight back. Yes, he's speedy and good at melee combat, but that didn't matter as Grimey was pretty much a master at paralysis and the dreaded green fire.
I suggest that there's a delay in how quickly you can cast paralysis, or at least on players but not monsters. If not a delay, take the previous suggestion; no locking on to a character, when you have a wand, and clicking on those two runes constantly.
In fact, we should probably make a new RP rule instead; no constant paralysis, because doing so could fall into the category of powergaming? Just my opinion.
Now, this character WOULD be considered a 'dark powerful sorcerer' if I simply paralyzed my opponents and threw a few powerful offensive spells, but the fact is he isn't up to a high calibur of magery at this time, therefore it would be a lie to say I'm strong because I kill my opponents when all I do is take advantage of the games technical features.
As a player of both a mage and an 'uber fighter,' I have to say I agree with both Gerard and Hagen.
A major problem in this game when it comes to combat, is that a mage, even of a very low level, can beat the toughest fighter in the land if he gets good at paralyze spells and some sort of flame spell.
I remember when Xerake was beaten constantly by Grimey, and Xerake had no chance to fight back. Yes, he's speedy and good at melee combat, but that didn't matter as Grimey was pretty much a master at paralysis and the dreaded green fire.
I suggest that there's a delay in how quickly you can cast paralysis, or at least on players but not monsters. If not a delay, take the previous suggestion; no locking on to a character, when you have a wand, and clicking on those two runes constantly.
In fact, we should probably make a new RP rule instead; no constant paralysis, because doing so could fall into the category of powergaming? Just my opinion.
Now, this character WOULD be considered a 'dark powerful sorcerer' if I simply paralyzed my opponents and threw a few powerful offensive spells, but the fact is he isn't up to a high calibur of magery at this time, therefore it would be a lie to say I'm strong because I kill my opponents when all I do is take advantage of the games technical features.
@Bloodhearte
About your statement about a low level mage being able to defeat a high level fighter...well first of all there are no levels so I really don't know what you mean. Do you mean "low level" as in knowing few spells or...
Because I would consider "level" to be determined by how experienced the mage is in his/her spells that he/she knows not how many. I think your statement would be true if it was in reverse. A weak mage has no chance of killing anything (much less a strong fighter), while a weak fighter has somewhat of a chance to kill something. And then a strong mage can do a lot with backup and a strong fighter is not so effective as a strong mage...
I see it this way: mages start out extremely weak and take much time to increase in power but when they do reach their peak they can do a lot while
fighters start out relatively strong and increase in strength fairly quickly relative to mages but when they reach their peak they are not as
effective as mages
I think this is how it is right now to a certaine extent but I think that the extent of this needs to be enlargened and made more obvious.
About your statement about a low level mage being able to defeat a high level fighter...well first of all there are no levels so I really don't know what you mean. Do you mean "low level" as in knowing few spells or...
Because I would consider "level" to be determined by how experienced the mage is in his/her spells that he/she knows not how many. I think your statement would be true if it was in reverse. A weak mage has no chance of killing anything (much less a strong fighter), while a weak fighter has somewhat of a chance to kill something. And then a strong mage can do a lot with backup and a strong fighter is not so effective as a strong mage...
I see it this way: mages start out extremely weak and take much time to increase in power but when they do reach their peak they can do a lot while
fighters start out relatively strong and increase in strength fairly quickly relative to mages but when they reach their peak they are not as
effective as mages
I think this is how it is right now to a certaine extent but I think that the extent of this needs to be enlargened and made more obvious.
-
Droog smellfoot
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 11:57 am
- Location: Sweden
- Contact:
Okay, I was too lazy to read all postings, so sorry for repetation 
I ve got a fighting char and a mage char, and I agree on the point that spells are too weak when fighting monsters, but in general magic isn t too weak at all, and becomeing a good mage is much easier than becomeing a good fighter, because mages die very rarely.
In my view the combat skills should be much more difficult to raise for mages and it s max should be half of the fighter's max. Furthermore mages shouldn t be able to wear any armor or weapons exepts staffs when casting a spell.
I ve got a fighting char and a mage char, and I agree on the point that spells are too weak when fighting monsters, but in general magic isn t too weak at all, and becomeing a good mage is much easier than becomeing a good fighter, because mages die very rarely.
In my view the combat skills should be much more difficult to raise for mages and it s max should be half of the fighter's max. Furthermore mages shouldn t be able to wear any armor or weapons exepts staffs when casting a spell.