Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic: sub and stock-races  (Read 13273 times)

spelguru

  • Guest
Re: sub and stock-races
« Reply #15 on: July 10, 2002, 10:01:00 am »

Why does everyone think evil mage/necromancer every time you hear the word wizard? What about Elminster, Volo and Gorion from D&D? And Gandalf? And all the wizards in candlekeep? You just remember all the evil wizards but not the good ones. What about Quigon Jinn and Obiwan? Mages should not be limited more, Since if you limit the evil mages, you also limit the good ones. What if Gandalf couldnīt battle the evil balrog in Moria? Then Frodo and Co would had died there and Sauron would conquer the world.

In short, small words: Do not make wizards weaker!

Logged

spelguru

  • Guest
Re: sub and stock-races
« Reply #16 on: July 10, 2002, 10:07:00 am »

About races, will the elves be immortal to time? Or will they grow old an die, just slower? And add a thing (as a choice when craeting universes) from Arcanum, if a complicated techical thing comes near a strong magical source (or viceversa), one of them or both should be weakened/break or just disappear completely (if it is tecnical, insert word explode instead of disappear).
Logged

ThreeToe

  • The Natural
    • View Profile
    • http://www.bay12games.com
Re: sub and stock-races
« Reply #17 on: July 10, 2002, 10:38:00 am »

Bad wizards are THREETOE'S universe!  spelguru can put only good wizards in his universe if he wants.  Or really powerful wizards and sissy fighters... That's the beauty of Armok.
Logged
Show your true champion nature:  support Bay 12 games!

Alanor

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: sub and stock-races
« Reply #18 on: July 11, 2002, 10:44:00 am »

I think one of the important things about mages that tends to get messed up is how fast they progress...

Toady one is right in the point about a figher creating large groups of people around them...

The thing is quite simple... learning to fight (at a basic level) is EASY...
in fact.. if you dont pick it up in the first few tries... then you are dead! hehe

in any case you DONT have to be smart to be a good warrior..

however... to be a good mage it takes smarts AND LOTS AND LOTS of STUDY

This means that wizards will ALWAYS be fewer than fighters... and thus warriors will ALWAYS have the numerical advantage...
though wizards will often be more powerful in the end.. (in a 1 on 1 fight) because they put so much time and effort into thier spell/magic research..
note that a "MASTER LEVEL" Warror could have only been fighting for 2-3 years..
where a "MASTER LEVEL" wizard would probibly have put 10-20 years into thier training!

another note is that there WILL be skill rusting.. so that if you spend all your time fighting.. then spend all your time studying..
you wont be quite as good at fighting when you get back to it..
adn if you spend time fighting and casting..
you will get better at both things slower!

thats just the nature of things...

I will also note that its usually a good edge that makes "characters" succeed... and that means being a GOOD fighter or a GOOD wizard (in terms of skills and smarts)
"characters" who try do do a little bit of each.. end up being poor fighters and poor wizards.. meaning they have very little edge...
and thus are usually less powerful (though more versatile) in the end..

Logged
Alanor
Blood Priest of Armok

Zonk

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: sub and stock-races
« Reply #19 on: July 13, 2002, 05:14:00 am »

to be a "master warrior"one would need as much practiec as the mage,i think.One does NOT become a veteran in 2-3 years...
Logged

Demon

  • Bay Watcher
  • From a time before a time before time
    • View Profile
Re: sub and stock-races
« Reply #20 on: July 13, 2002, 08:04:00 am »

I think Alanor is right!  3 years of fighting every couple of days tends to make one dead or a master.
Logged

Toady One

  • The Great
    • View Profile
    • http://www.bay12games.com
Re: sub and stock-races
« Reply #21 on: July 13, 2002, 09:05:00 am »

I think it really depends...  the way you guys seem to be talking about it, these warriors have been training in actual combat for 2-3 years.  If that's the way training occurs, then sure, the ones that survive will be "masters" simply because most others wouldn't have made it that far.  However, in most ways, people that have trained well in non-lethal situations for 10-20 years in some martial art/weapon/etc. would be able to kill these people without a problem.  The only major skills that the 2-3 year lethal combat "master" would have would be the ability to cope with the stress of mortal combat...  most everything else is learnable in non-lethal situations, although it would be nice to compile a list of exceptions.

However, I totally reject the notion that you can master a combat style in two to three years, unless you are highly gifted.  You can simply become better than any one else alive in two to three years if the universe has a high mortality rate, but you will not actually be any good.

Logged
The Toad, a Natural Resource:  Preserve yours today!
Pages: 1 [2]