Greetings,
Right now only magic wands have the ability to direct a mage's spells. I would like to propose that certain staffs have that ability as well. In the manual it gives the picture of a staff as an object that can direct spells, but unfortunately that is not the case right now.
Furthermore, I would like to propose that magic wands etc. have some capacity to protect a magic-user, much like parry protects a fighter. The higher a magic-user's proficiency in magic could be the higher his "magical parry" and the less chances of him/her being hit while wearing a wand and fighting enemies. Or there could be a new passive spell called "Magical Shield" that could automatically protect a mage from attacks when he is wearing a wand. The higher the skill in this "Magical Shield" could decrease the chance of him/her of being hit in an attack. Of course these things would only protect against physical attacks. This will encourage more mages to wear wands as they should, and balance some things out.
-Elaralith
Magic Wands
Moderator: Gamemasters
-
Caranthir the great
- Posts: 1476
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2001 9:06 pm
- Contact:
I think a nice idea would be to require a mage to have one free hand in order to cast spells (or a two handed magic wand). They would need to direct their magical energies through their flesh and either into a wand or directly out into the open air from their hand. Through their open hand would be less slightly less powerful and could not be aimed as with a wand but would be the only want to use the magic (one of the two options). This would elimenate the two shielded mages that are all too frequent in town. If there must be a tool to be in the hand for this to work it could be a one handed magic wand or some other object that would be one handed. This would allow for the use of one shield and magic as their weapon but not two shields and the weapon of magic.
Re: Magic Wands
Sounds reasonable. I'll try to find out if there's currently any reason we are not allowing staffs to direct spells.Elaralith wrote:Right now only magic wands have the ability to direct a mage's spells. I would like to propose that certain staffs have that ability as well. In the manual it gives the picture of a staff as an object that can direct spells, but unfortunately that is not the case right now.
A wand, as a weapon, does have some intrisic parry built in, although of course not as much as a sword or a dagger.Elaralith wrote:Furthermore, I would like to propose that magic wands etc. have some capacity to protect a magic-user, much like parry protects a fighter.
No, this does not sound reasonable. A magic user does not protect himself with mana or magic, but with magic spells, if you see the difference.Elaralith wrote:The higher a magic-user's proficiency in magic could be the higher his "magical parry" and the less chances of him/her being hit while wearing a wand and fighting enemies.
Yes, I also think there should be a magic shield spell to protect against physical attacks. And perhaps one that would protect against magical attacks. And perhaps a third that would protect from both, but reduced for both.Elaralith wrote:Or there could be a new passive spell called "Magical Shield" that could automatically protect a mage from attacks when he is wearing a wand. The higher the skill in this "Magical Shield" could decrease the chance of him/her of being hit in an attack.
I don't agree with this reason for it, but for the reasons I stated above.Elaralith wrote:Of course these things would only protect against physical attacks. This will encourage more mages to wear wands as they should, and balance some things out.
If there is a magical Shield angainst everything a mage can hurt, than mages would be too strong. They could cast direct spells and be protected as well...
So everybody would want to be a mage because they are so strong, and what can a druid do? Or a normal fighter against such a mage?
A mage is a distace fighter, he cast his spells far away fromt he battle like somebody with a bow.
So everybody would want to be a mage because they are so strong, and what can a druid do? Or a normal fighter against such a mage?
A mage is a distace fighter, he cast his spells far away fromt he battle like somebody with a bow.
If a magic shield were to be created I believe that while the magic user is using said shield, they would be unable to cast any spells through their magic barrier. They would effectively be living inside their magic bubble. Of course others could hack away into this shield and possibly break through but the mage could not cast out. They would be expending their magical energies in keeping this magic shield up and working and unable to form a second spell. They could however switch to a weapon to fight back against the warriors once they have attempted to breach their magical barrier. Also, they should have limited mobility while using such a magic shield if one is ever made. This would prevent the mages using such a shield from becoming an invincible magic tank so to speak.
Well, wands were implemented AFTER staffs. The bonus from using a magic wand was that you can auto-target but you can't attack and get less parry from a flimsy wand than you would from a staff. If all staffs auto-target spells, then that defeats the whole purpose of implementing a magic wand. However, I think staffs could increase spell power or defense, or other magic related bonuses.
Probably certain magic defense spells would disable certain offensive spell capabilities as well.
For mages being so strong, isn't a mage supposed to be more effective in batle than a conventional fighter anyways? Right now the strongest weapons take more damage than spells do and as well they swing faster. What good is being a mage with a wand or staff if it leaves you with such horrible defensive capabilities and yet doesn't give you enough of an offensive advantage? Who would want to walk around all day with a wand of staff when a few quick wind arrows will kill you before you even know it, especially when you can't see arrows? Defense is a very high concern here because you die much quickly from blows than in most other games, as well as the fact that arrows are much too effective and invisible.
Probably certain magic defense spells would disable certain offensive spell capabilities as well.
For mages being so strong, isn't a mage supposed to be more effective in batle than a conventional fighter anyways? Right now the strongest weapons take more damage than spells do and as well they swing faster. What good is being a mage with a wand or staff if it leaves you with such horrible defensive capabilities and yet doesn't give you enough of an offensive advantage? Who would want to walk around all day with a wand of staff when a few quick wind arrows will kill you before you even know it, especially when you can't see arrows? Defense is a very high concern here because you die much quickly from blows than in most other games, as well as the fact that arrows are much too effective and invisible.
Illarion should be built with the perfect future in mind, when a mage could walk down the street dressed as a proper mage and not have arrows shot at them for no reason at all but if in battle an arrow struck the mage they would be harmed, as they should. Mages should not be impenetrable to all physical attacks. They are generally thought of as frail older creatures who when confronted in physical combat they are easily defeated by weapons, their weapon is their magic. Now they can use this magic to keep away warriors with the paralyze spell and once paralyzed any warrior is rendered completely defenseless. If in the future a shield spell were created this would add to realism and allow mages to walk around with less warrior armor on and still feel protected in a way.
Mages should fight from a distance, as Galadria pointed out. They should not be thrust into the actual physical combat unless they are overwhelmed at which point the mage would be at a severe disadvantage in close combat. This is only realistic. If only the pk archers were taken out of the game quicker and banned permanently then this would have a much faster rate of coming into fruition. Mages could be revered for their powers and are already thought of as a very very difficult opponent for any warrior (nearly impossible because of the paralyze spell. Only in numbers can a real mage be defeated by a non-mage). Not every single mage should be feared however, only the greatest. The same goes for every warrior. If there is a distinct advantage for one class of peoples over all others then the entire world will be filled with that one class. Each class should have their own advantages AND disadvantages that are balanced to keep the proportions more fair.
Mages should fight from a distance, as Galadria pointed out. They should not be thrust into the actual physical combat unless they are overwhelmed at which point the mage would be at a severe disadvantage in close combat. This is only realistic. If only the pk archers were taken out of the game quicker and banned permanently then this would have a much faster rate of coming into fruition. Mages could be revered for their powers and are already thought of as a very very difficult opponent for any warrior (nearly impossible because of the paralyze spell. Only in numbers can a real mage be defeated by a non-mage). Not every single mage should be feared however, only the greatest. The same goes for every warrior. If there is a distinct advantage for one class of peoples over all others then the entire world will be filled with that one class. Each class should have their own advantages AND disadvantages that are balanced to keep the proportions more fair.
Well, Gandolf fought a Balrog and won. King Arthur was a wimp to magic, no defense against it.
Mages generally have *magical* protection against physical attacks, and can't hit worth a darn. Warriors use physical protection against attacks, and can slay with the best of them.
But, I will agree, there does need to be some balance.
Encumberance should prevent master mages from going into battle with full plate, double shields and such, as their intelligence will be so high they will have lower strength.
But, mages should not be going toe to toe with deamons anyway. They should be paralizing them and killing them, or having a warrior fight them as they cast.
We by no means want to give mages the same physical protection as warriors, as they have other means to defend themselves, paralasis comes to mind quickly.
Maybe they should get a little more magic protection, but nothign close to what warriors have.
Perhaps magic shields against missles?
Mages generally have *magical* protection against physical attacks, and can't hit worth a darn. Warriors use physical protection against attacks, and can slay with the best of them.
But, I will agree, there does need to be some balance.
Encumberance should prevent master mages from going into battle with full plate, double shields and such, as their intelligence will be so high they will have lower strength.
But, mages should not be going toe to toe with deamons anyway. They should be paralizing them and killing them, or having a warrior fight them as they cast.
We by no means want to give mages the same physical protection as warriors, as they have other means to defend themselves, paralasis comes to mind quickly.
Maybe they should get a little more magic protection, but nothign close to what warriors have.
Perhaps magic shields against missles?
It's very difficult to discuss the balance between spellcasting and weaponry because a lot of who has the advantage is very dependant on the situation and most people's opinion are only from situations that they've experienced themselves. Paralysis may be useful, but that's if you're the aggressor, not when someone is already slashing through your flimsy wand. Weaponry kills in the blink of an eye, but it's no use if you're paralyzed and can't move. So then that means it's the one who attacks first who gets the advantage.
But people don't want to be dead just because they're not the instigator. The key thing here is the defense, and how easily and quickly you can die from weapons in Illarion, and people don't want to just die out of the blue like that. If a mage started paralyzing and then kililng someone with spells at least it still be a slower process for a mage to kill his victim and someone could intervene to help the victim somehow. But when facing the impending wind arrows or firesword, it only takes about 2 or 3 seconds to die. Nobody has sufficient time to be able to do much about it.
But people don't want to be dead just because they're not the instigator. The key thing here is the defense, and how easily and quickly you can die from weapons in Illarion, and people don't want to just die out of the blue like that. If a mage started paralyzing and then kililng someone with spells at least it still be a slower process for a mage to kill his victim and someone could intervene to help the victim somehow. But when facing the impending wind arrows or firesword, it only takes about 2 or 3 seconds to die. Nobody has sufficient time to be able to do much about it.
This may be a situation to support the fact that combat should last longer. I will agree, that the first one who swings/casts usually wins.
Mage casts paralysis on warrior, mage zappes the bageebies out of the warrior, warrior dies.
Warrion starts swinging on a mage, mage goes, "huh?" and dies.
But, even if combat lasted, say, twice as long, that would give the advantage to the mage, not the warrior.
Once a warrior is paralized he's down for the count.
If a warrior swings and a mage can cast a paralize spell if not killed extremely quickly, the warrior is down for the count.
Mage casts paralysis on warrior, mage zappes the bageebies out of the warrior, warrior dies.
Warrion starts swinging on a mage, mage goes, "huh?" and dies.
But, even if combat lasted, say, twice as long, that would give the advantage to the mage, not the warrior.
Once a warrior is paralized he's down for the count.
If a warrior swings and a mage can cast a paralize spell if not killed extremely quickly, the warrior is down for the count.
-
Adano Eles
- Posts: 2436
- Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2002 2:48 pm
- Location: Eiris sazun idisi, sazun hera duoder...
-
Caranthir the great
- Posts: 1476
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2001 9:06 pm
- Contact:
Perhaps mages should suffer severe penalty if they would get into the situation where they are in the melee distance from their opponent anyways. Usually when someone pokes you with a pointy object, that kind of make hard for you to do any complex things as think about the Applied Relativity theory or do magics.
Only the most cold-blooded mages should not get these penalties.
Perhaps finally use for the willpower?
Only the most cold-blooded mages should not get these penalties.
Perhaps finally use for the willpower?
Well, it would be possible to implement the fact that once you were attacked/hit/poked, etc.. it would take you a little time to recover to be able to cast.
I never did like these situations in a lot of games, though, as what would happen is I would go to cast, and get hit, go to cast, and get hit, go to cast, and get hit, go to run, and get hit, go to run and die.
Very annoying when you become "stun locked".
I never did like these situations in a lot of games, though, as what would happen is I would go to cast, and get hit, go to cast, and get hit, go to cast, and get hit, go to run, and get hit, go to run and die.
Very annoying when you become "stun locked".
-
Caranthir the great
- Posts: 1476
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2001 9:06 pm
- Contact:
From my experience in other games this is how it usually goes in other games:
In an actual player vs player combat, the order of advantage would go:
Mage
Knight
Archer
Because in a single combat, the mage would naturally have the most destructive offense at his disposal.
Then when out on the hunt, the advange would go like this:
Archer
Knight
Mage
Because the archer would be able to keep killing enemies from a distance without being hurt while a knight had to go up close to the enemy with limited health supplies and the mage would run low from being dependant on limited mana supplies.
I forgot my purpose for mentioning the above examples but anyways, if combat were to last a longer time, then at least a warrior would still stand a chance to survive against a mage's paralysis if there was someone else around to intervene, which is already true now anyways. It's not that much time right now, but it's a hell of a lot more than someone can do for his buddy who gets taken out by a weapon in the blink of an eye. If someone fights a 1 vs 1 battle against a proficient mage with a paralysis spell, well then it's only natural he loses to such a powerful magical force.
So maybe another way is to take out the paralysis spell, or reduce it's overall sucess rate by a lot, or limit its maximum effects to the best of mages only. Then what happens? It's the mage with the 20% damage spell-casting at an average rate of 1 spell per 3 seconds versus the archer and fighter with the 50% damage weapon- swinging and shooting at an average rate of 1 attack per 1 second. The winner is obvious.
So then re-balance the attack damage and the attack speed rate between spellcasting and weapons and make them more even at least if not give the mage the damage advantage he should have in a 1vs1 combat. I find it unlogical that the strongest weapons cause more than the stongest spells. Usually in most games spells are the most powerful attacks, which is logical since it is the most difficult to reach its full potential and expensive to learn and use.
But a lot of how exactly ratios should be balanced is dependant on how you view the mage-fighter-archer relation, and complicated by the fact that this is a roleplaying game and not a fighting game, and so there is no real safety zone and people shouldn't have to be worried if the stranger standing next to them is planning to slash them to pieces in the blink of an eye. It's really very difficult to find a good balance considering all the possible battle situations and what variables should determine who gets the advantage when, and I don't have a quick solution either. But I know I don't want to walk around the game with the possiblity of dieing at the snap of a finger from a weapon even with all my magical abilties from which I should have learned some kind of barrier spell given all the other miracles I can perform.
Overall I would rather have it so that you can take more damage and abandon the concept of being dead from only one or two blows.
In an actual player vs player combat, the order of advantage would go:
Mage
Knight
Archer
Because in a single combat, the mage would naturally have the most destructive offense at his disposal.
Then when out on the hunt, the advange would go like this:
Archer
Knight
Mage
Because the archer would be able to keep killing enemies from a distance without being hurt while a knight had to go up close to the enemy with limited health supplies and the mage would run low from being dependant on limited mana supplies.
I forgot my purpose for mentioning the above examples but anyways, if combat were to last a longer time, then at least a warrior would still stand a chance to survive against a mage's paralysis if there was someone else around to intervene, which is already true now anyways. It's not that much time right now, but it's a hell of a lot more than someone can do for his buddy who gets taken out by a weapon in the blink of an eye. If someone fights a 1 vs 1 battle against a proficient mage with a paralysis spell, well then it's only natural he loses to such a powerful magical force.
So maybe another way is to take out the paralysis spell, or reduce it's overall sucess rate by a lot, or limit its maximum effects to the best of mages only. Then what happens? It's the mage with the 20% damage spell-casting at an average rate of 1 spell per 3 seconds versus the archer and fighter with the 50% damage weapon- swinging and shooting at an average rate of 1 attack per 1 second. The winner is obvious.
So then re-balance the attack damage and the attack speed rate between spellcasting and weapons and make them more even at least if not give the mage the damage advantage he should have in a 1vs1 combat. I find it unlogical that the strongest weapons cause more than the stongest spells. Usually in most games spells are the most powerful attacks, which is logical since it is the most difficult to reach its full potential and expensive to learn and use.
But a lot of how exactly ratios should be balanced is dependant on how you view the mage-fighter-archer relation, and complicated by the fact that this is a roleplaying game and not a fighting game, and so there is no real safety zone and people shouldn't have to be worried if the stranger standing next to them is planning to slash them to pieces in the blink of an eye. It's really very difficult to find a good balance considering all the possible battle situations and what variables should determine who gets the advantage when, and I don't have a quick solution either. But I know I don't want to walk around the game with the possiblity of dieing at the snap of a finger from a weapon even with all my magical abilties from which I should have learned some kind of barrier spell given all the other miracles I can perform.
Overall I would rather have it so that you can take more damage and abandon the concept of being dead from only one or two blows.
In most rpgs that I know of the low level mage is always weaker and in more danger of being killed than the low level fighter.
But when getting into the high levels the mage usually becomes much more powerful than the fighter but their power is still limited due to their mana where a fighter's power is limitless.
The best way to balance this has always been to travel in groups where a mage and a fighter combine steel and magic to make an extremely potent combination.
The mage should also have shield spells instead of wearing armor and shields. The shield spells should not make them invincible but increase with the level of the mage. (level 1 shield spell would act like leather armor, level 2 shield spell would be like studded leather and so on.)
But when getting into the high levels the mage usually becomes much more powerful than the fighter but their power is still limited due to their mana where a fighter's power is limitless.
The best way to balance this has always been to travel in groups where a mage and a fighter combine steel and magic to make an extremely potent combination.
The mage should also have shield spells instead of wearing armor and shields. The shield spells should not make them invincible but increase with the level of the mage. (level 1 shield spell would act like leather armor, level 2 shield spell would be like studded leather and so on.)
-
Drathe
- Official Illarion Banner Contest Winner
- Posts: 714
- Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2001 9:46 pm
- Location: Climbing from a window
With regaurds to the magic wand with parry ability..as already said they have a minimal parry.
But come on...Elralith, you have been banging on about more realizm in the game for this and that..are you telling me that when I got to cut your arm off with my big metal 4 ft sword you are going to parry it with your wand with all the grace and charm of a chop stick.
Even if it does have magic 'I can not be broke' powers the force of the sword blow will instead of breaking the wand, rip it out of your hand and drag it down through your bloody arm stump.
As for staffs directing magic like wands do. Come on...staffs should (as they probably do) give much better parry than a wand, after all even a plain old oak staff can parry sword blows. But good mages are alread double hard enough with out more bonuses for them.
If they want to fine tune and direct a spell they have a wand. Small, light point it where you like. Staff should be like..their hand to hand weapon, (dare i say this) maybe even replenish their health a little faster, as they have 'small magical charge'
Any how...warriors have no worries try being an archer, shot a warrior, through plate armour..not happening. Shoot a mage..hope you dont get stun.
But come on...Elralith, you have been banging on about more realizm in the game for this and that..are you telling me that when I got to cut your arm off with my big metal 4 ft sword you are going to parry it with your wand with all the grace and charm of a chop stick.
Even if it does have magic 'I can not be broke' powers the force of the sword blow will instead of breaking the wand, rip it out of your hand and drag it down through your bloody arm stump.
As for staffs directing magic like wands do. Come on...staffs should (as they probably do) give much better parry than a wand, after all even a plain old oak staff can parry sword blows. But good mages are alread double hard enough with out more bonuses for them.
If they want to fine tune and direct a spell they have a wand. Small, light point it where you like. Staff should be like..their hand to hand weapon, (dare i say this) maybe even replenish their health a little faster, as they have 'small magical charge'
Any how...warriors have no worries try being an archer, shot a warrior, through plate armour..not happening. Shoot a mage..hope you dont get stun.
@Drathe Realism in accordance to fantasy is what this game is! All people who make proposals should have that in mind. If that was not in mind people would propose things like "why don't we implement UFO spaceships into illarion" etc. And I am sorry, but Drathe your comment sounded sarcastic and insulting to me, and I do not think it is appropriate at all.
Anyways, in reply to your question: Yes, I am saying that a mage's wand/staff can definitely block a warrior's sword. As I have already said it is because the staff/wand has powerful spells woven into it. That is why it is called 'magic' (magic wand, magic staff). Here are some examples:
In a Wheel of Time book (one of the top fantasy books right now) an Aes Sedai (wheel of time equivalent of a mage) blocks a sword with her mage's staff and melts the sword upon contact.
In Lord of the Rings Gandalf (mage) blocks the Balrog's (demon) attack with his magic staff and causes the Balrog to back off.
There are many more examples if one really wants to find them.
Anyways, in reply to your question: Yes, I am saying that a mage's wand/staff can definitely block a warrior's sword. As I have already said it is because the staff/wand has powerful spells woven into it. That is why it is called 'magic' (magic wand, magic staff). Here are some examples:
In a Wheel of Time book (one of the top fantasy books right now) an Aes Sedai (wheel of time equivalent of a mage) blocks a sword with her mage's staff and melts the sword upon contact.
In Lord of the Rings Gandalf (mage) blocks the Balrog's (demon) attack with his magic staff and causes the Balrog to back off.
There are many more examples if one really wants to find them.
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.
Nothing magical about a wand that allows it not to be broken.
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.
Hmm.. interesting... maybe the ability for mages to be able to make wands. Perhaps a good one takes a diamond, lower grade ones take a blackstone, etc... Of course we would need some new wand graphics, but that would just be a color issue which may not be that difficult.
Nothing magical about a wand that allows it not to be broken.
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.
Hmm.. interesting... maybe the ability for mages to be able to make wands. Perhaps a good one takes a diamond, lower grade ones take a blackstone, etc... Of course we would need some new wand graphics, but that would just be a color issue which may not be that difficult.