Warriors,Mages and everything else

Started by
22 comments, last by The Shadow Nose 17 years, 6 months ago
Quote:Original post by Johnny Sunshine
I think this is a matter of creativity. I often play AD&D, and I can't tell it enough times: the INT score does not measure the character's intelligence.

The 3rd edition SRD (well, actually it's 3.5) states:
Quote:Intelligence (Int)
Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons.

So it looks like either the focus changed or that INT represents the character intelligence.
The other abilities meanings are described here (and Charisma also describe the character attractiveness, as well as a bunch of other things such as leadership or persuasiveness).

Now, that's not very important WRT the OP's question.

D&D and games alike are abstraction. In order to successfully build this abstraction, one have to make simplifications, and the wizard = intelligent and warrior = powerfull is one of them. Actually, nothing prevent you from playing a dumb wizard (but then the complexity of the higher spheres of magic will be innaccessible for you) or a weak fighter (again, some of the finer things a better warrior might learn will prove to be harder or impossible to do with this character).

Personnally, I prefer some other kind of magic (for example, the kind that is outlined in Gaborit's novel "Les chroniques des crépusculaire"; sorry, I believe it has not been translated in English. In this novel, the magic power comes from a better affinity with nature and with some small creatures that are the effective source of magic. Your affinity allows you to make these very rare creatures danse, and their danse creates magical effects. This kind of magic is not based on intelligence - allowing you to play a dumb wizard that will be as powerfull as a clever one). When it comes to warriors, I'm affraid that they'll still need some strength and some dexterity if they want to survive in a brutal world.

Regards,



Advertisement
Regarding how warriors survive fireballs: they had to buff them up so that they can keep up with the mages. Which brings us to the real problem: mages tend to be overpowered. IMHO a wizard shouldn't be a mobile artillery platform. Instead, he ought to be a type of specialist that can turn the tide of battle with clever tactical use of not-so-flashy magic, for example by transmuting earth to mud to screw the enemy cavalry. In a way, he ought to be like the Starcraft ghost - extremely useful but not suited for forming the backbone of an army (and wizard class in most RPGs makes me wonder why do they have conventional armies at all).
That last post made me remember the wars (or rather the wars that were spoken of) in the "Sword of Thruth" books by Terry Goodkind (I think).
There, the battle was won by armies of warriors and wizzards.

But, as explained (better I think) in the book, the magic leveled eachother out.
Or rather, the magic itself wanted to get to some kind of balance, effectively removing the magic element from the battle, and yet making it vital (since if you don't use magic, you'll be destroyed really soon and visa versa).
Quote:Original post by DJ14IVI3
Regarding how warriors survive fireballs: they had to buff them up so that they can keep up with the mages. Which brings us to the real problem: mages tend to be overpowered. IMHO a wizard shouldn't be a mobile artillery platform. Instead, he ought to be a type of specialist that can turn the tide of battle with clever tactical use of not-so-flashy magic, for example by transmuting earth to mud to screw the enemy cavalry. In a way, he ought to be like the Starcraft ghost - extremely useful but not suited for forming the backbone of an army (and wizard class in most RPGs makes me wonder why do they have conventional armies at all).


This is the case in D&D3.5, for instance. A Fighter 20 will always be more efficient than a Wizard 20 with only damage-dealing spells (or even a Sorcerer 20), because it can fight for longer durations without having to rest. Where the Wizard 20 becomes useful is with access to more intellectual spells: charms, walls of force, weather control, illusions, baleful polymorph ...

Perhaps your problems lie in trying to fit characters into predefined archtypes. Instead of warriors and mages you have characters. Those characters could be proficient in any number of things, not limited by the stereotypical view of what makes RPG characters. Then you could very easily have a magic user that is exceptionaly strong or someone who fights well with a sword that is more intelligent then the magic user.
Quote:Original post by CIJolly
Same goes for skin. At the end of a game the fighter could have 1000 hp. They either have magic skin, or it is supposed to be an abstraction showing that they have gotten better at using cover and dodging blows (which kind of falls apart when you see the hit land and a little number float from your characters head).

A decently realistic mental picture of the massive-HP scenario is Die-Hard (note the third tagline). Hence the name. In a sense, he's so bent on winning, he just keeps taking the pain. The pain fuels him into pushing even harder, somewhat resulting in each encounter making him even more rugged and tough.

I would probably say this is more about fortitude than HP. But that's what I've always seen max HP as anyway. Your will to fight on, regardless of damage. Some people give up quickly, others fight until they fade to black.
Quote:Original post by CIJolly
You ask why warriors don't become cannon fodder. It is because they have magical muscles and magical skin.
As a mage goes from level 1 to level x, they get more and more powerful magic. A fireball could do 100 times the damage of a magic missile. I have no real reference point for that to seem unrealistic, so I accept it.
But as a warrior approaches level x, their punch could do 100 times the damage of what it did at level 1. That's impossible, it defies suspension of disbelief. Thus they must have magic muscles. Or cybermuscles, or nanotech muscles, or bioamplified demon quantum muscles or whatever fiction is used to justify it.
Same goes for skin. At the end of a game the fighter could have 1000 hp. They either have magic skin, or it is supposed to be an abstraction showing that they have gotten better at using cover and dodging blows (which kind of falls apart when you see the hit land and a little number float from your characters head).


Another way you could interpreate this is that by training there bodies have become tougher by building up scar tissue and tough muscles. If you dont believe this is possible look up some videos of Shaolin Monks, find videos of "iron shirt" "iron eggs" or "iron palm". I've seen people in demonstrations have concrete blocks broken with a sledgehammer while it was on there back and take bars of metal (not sure what metal it was) and smash them over there own heads, and these are the "standard" tricks these guys do who have been practicing this kind of thing.
Here's some examples of the iron palm technique:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=iron+palm&search=Search
iron eggs:

iron shirt:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%22iron+shirt%22&search=Search
Even though I play D&D and also CRPGs, when designing a game, I will abandone all this and look to the past and mythology to define a mage or warrior.

In Mythology, mages are more cunning thatn smart. They use their inteligence to outwit their popponents, rather than just outright kill them. In the past, the Wizards (actually a form of priest or shaman) where suposed to be abel to commune with the spirits and the natural world to bring about helpful conditions (or unhealpful to their enemies). Looking at the History of Magic, it has never been about throughing fireballs and other stuf, it has been about protection from evil and cursing others.

So in games I do not use Mages as someone who does a lot of killing, but someone that can aid others is doing so or protect them from being killed. Also, they need to be able to use effects that, although not leathal, can be used to hinder opponentes. This will be things like having vines tangle enemies and stop them from moving, creating illusions, charming enemies, and so forth.

I think that mages should not be fireball toteing psudo-artilery, but that they have a rich and extensive role as support or as leaders.

Merlin never cast spells that directly damaged opponetes, instead he use it in way to outwit his enemies or give his allies an advantage (prophecy, etc).

Magic as artilery is a limited use of magic, but it seems that it is the only use to which it is put in todays games (be they computer or pen and paper). Magic has a much greater scope than this and can create very interesting gameplay. It's just lack of creativity that keeps us on the "Magic = Artilery" road.
The thing that always pisses me off is this.

Why must I be some basement-dwelling, pale, weakling to be a mage? I want to be the buffest motherfarking mage there ever was!
Quote:Original post by Kevinator
The thing that always pisses me off is this.

Why must I be some basement-dwelling, pale, weakling to be a mage? I want to be the buffest motherfarking mage there ever was!


A but how do u fit all teh body building in with all that time studying, and the mages guild dosnt even have a gym :)

most games make u choose u either can only do one or if u trade off then u take penalties for example the more u spend in other stats like str of const the less int and less spells you have

This topic is closed to new replies.

Advertisement