PlaneShift
Gameplay => General Discussion => Topic started by: ramlambmoo on February 24, 2005, 03:39:30 am
-
Do you think using tactics when fighting is dishonorable? I mean if you\'re challenged to a duel, running around casting magic arrow on them and not getting hit. You might say it is, but if your using magic its really the only way- if you get hit while casting then the spell gets interupted. I mean if you do something like get a friend to repeatedly /challenge them while doing it then its obviously dishonorable. But considering you cant cast spells while your running now (i think? they changed that didnt they?) its pretty hard to pull off a win, as you have to somehow get ahead of the other person (even though they can run the same speed as you). And then when you do manage to pull off the amazing feat of using a magic char with like 40 HP to beat a uber sword weilding person, you get called a dishonorable fighter. Whats your opinion?
-
If you\'re going to duel, you should have ground rules, right?
I mean, a knife duel is not a sabre duel and a sabre duel is not a pistol duel.
Having said that, most of the people in the plaza are just going around flexing their \"muscles\". I have been in bar fights where it was all \"in fun\" and noone tried to truly hurt one another. So is the Plaza the same thing?
Personally, I think the duelers are so rude around here you should do whatever you can to kill them. Hmm, unless you belong to a guild called \"The Noble Duelists\" or something, it\'s their fault if they challenge you can you kill them with \"freeze\".
-
Getting people to challenge-spam someone is considered harassment. Harassment is against the Terms of Use. Things that break the rules get people kicked and banned. :)
-
Just wait till mages can levitate and then call down fires and lightnings from the heavens to smite the poor fighter.. who will by that stage of the game have longbows, crossbows or spears and be busy turning ye olde levitating mage into a pincushion.. only to be laid low by the rogue who sneaks up behind the fighter and kills him with a single thrust of a poisoned dagger to the back of the skull! :)
All classes and class-combinations will fight differently to some extent.. you cant really expect any given character type to neglect their area of expertise because it will confer an unfair advantage in duels.. which are at the moment fairly unstructured and informal anyways.
-
Originally posted by Moogie
Getting people to challenge-spam someone is considered harassment. Harassment is against the Terms of Use. Things that break the rules get people kicked and banned. :)
I hate it with a living passion of being harrassed by other players, especially in the plaza area. We have other creatures (NPCs too) to train our skills on. Just use them.
-
I think using magic on an unknowing victim is dishonorable. It has happened to me before. Tactics are fine, and someone should know whether or not you are a magic user as well. But just tell people... without a distinct class system it is very difficult to know who does and who doesnt use magic. I also understand there is not many tactics that can be used as of now.... so I can see why people do it. But I would never do it because I try to use good tactics and not anything cheap... I want to beat someone because I am better... not because I can run around and hit them with magic. Truly I think the people who fight honorable are better at what they do and will win out in the end.
-
In real life, when somone tells you that you\'re going to fight to the death the last thing you care about will be honor. You\'ll just want to survive and you will do anything to do so.
And also, magic should respectable because of the knowledge needed to use it.
Edit: Magic is horrably unbalanced right now too. Im guessing later when its fixed and you used 4glyph combos a single spell will turn a great fighter into a puddle of flesh and blood :D
I think mages will be very hard to raise in ps but I think they will have immense power. Only time will tell. :)
-
Originally posted by Valbrandr
Truly I think the people who fight honorable are better at what they do and will win out in the end.
Ah.. the sweet tasty morsel that is a yet-uncorrupted and naive soul still given to the helplessly uncompromising stance of honor and idealism..
How delightful! One hopes that the worms feasting on your ravaged carcass will appreciate the fine, upstanding and ethical values you held in your brief but entertaining life.
:D
-
Magic and magic users are many things... but not honorable. In addition they are nothing without warriors in front of them... They are supporters... we warriors are the focus point. There can be warriors without mages but not mages without warriors.
-
Magic is very honrable. These things you say are making no sense. A wrrior can just be a big guy and be great, but, you have to dedicate your life to magic. And there is nothing wrong with being a support unit. And just to let you know, mages aren\'t. Warriors hold back the enemy as mages pluck their souls.
-
And there is nothing wrong with being a support unit. And just to let you know, mages aren\'t. Warriors hold back the enemy as mages pluck their souls.
So then they are. Mages (white, black whatever) are supporters... very helpful... but supporters. There are no great mages without great warriors. I am sorry to crush your spirit Efflixi :)
PS: Both can be dishonorable... to me it is kind of like the guy who fights with a swoed against a gun... who is more honorable?
-
A good, highly skilled mage doesn\'t need a warrior in front of him, the magic would defend him good enough. A higher level mage who uses his magic wise will win from the higher level fighter. (unless the figther uses his newly bought portable balista of mage slaying :P)
Both can win, just depends on how they use their skills.
-
Magic and magic users are many things... but not honorable. In addition they are nothing without warriors in front of them... They are supporters... we warriors are the focus point. There can be warriors without mages but not mages without warriors.
This is the attitude im talking about... what is there that is dishonorable about using magic? Just because we use our heads as well as our skills.... honestly the only reason for this sort of attitude is that you want a predictable fight so that you know you will win and you dont have to face an opponent that may beat you even though his stats arnt better... You would define honorable as charging towards each other and bashing each other until the person with the better stats win...? If not what is your definition? The greatest, most honorable warriers remembered are the leaders who used tactics- Hannibal, Scipio, Alexander, Ceaser, Napoleon, Kahn- the people who thought of battle as not just people rushing at each other but thought to plan it out and use strategy to their advantage. Would you say these men (ok, politically correct these fighters) were dishonorable?
-
Sorry, No, I believe tactics are wonderful... but running away casting spells is a no brainer. I know quite a bit about tactics and yes I would call many of the great leaders dishonorable... Listen.. in real life honor does not win out... technology does. Look what happened to all of the great warrior civilizations... they are no more.
And Waylayen, great fighters always win if a mage has no shield to protect him.
-
No tactics are wonderful... but running away casting spells is a no brainer. I know quite a bit about tactics and yes I would call many of the great leaders dishonorable... Listen.. in real life honor does not win out... technology does. Look what happened to all of the great warrior civilizations... they are no more.
That paragraph makes no sense whatsoever.
First up, explain to me how running away casting spells is a no brainer. If you get hit, the spell is interupted, so you cant stand there and cast spells. How else then would you use magic in one vs one? Magic dosnt even work as support at the moment because the fighters cant really protect the mages- because you can run through other people, so the fighters cant form a sheild around the mages or stop the attackers getting to them.
You would call many of the great leaders dishonorable? Who then?
In real life using no tactics dosnt work out. And yes all the great warrier civilisations died out... but whats your point? What exactly does that show?
-
Sorry it was a typo... I meant no, I believe tactics are wonderful. But running away casting spells is not much of a tactic. And of your list of great leaders... Lets talk about Genghis Khan. Some of the best Mongol troops were Calvary Archers. They used these for quick attackes. Swoop in... kill a few people and run away... I use the same tactics in AOEII. It works great but is not honorable. Not to mention his brutality towards people who defied him... just ask the Russians what kind of dishonorable tactics he used...
-
Sorry it was a typo... I meant no, I believe tactics are wonderful. But running away casting spells is not much of a tactic.
Well there isnt alot we can do at this stage... if you have another way of fighting using magic id like to hear it.
Lets talk about Genghis Khan. Some of the best Mongol troops were Calvary Archers. They used these for quick attackes. Swoop in... kill a few people and run away... I use the same tactics in AOEII. It works great but is not honorable.
Well there your definition of honor varies from mine. You appear to view anything other than directly engaging and fighting as dishonorable... i dont nessecarily agree. Yes he did dishonorable things like killing opposers, but we\'re talking on the Battlefield here, not how dishonorable he was as a leader of his nation, but as the leader of an army when facing another army. Khan used highly organised groups of horsemen, and utilised their speed to maximum effectiveness, both on the battlefield and on the campaign trail. If you are stonger than someone, what is dishonorable about using that strength and hitting them harder? If you are faster than somebody, what is dishonorable about using that speed to elude them when it befits you?
-
Yes he did dishonorable things like killing opposers, but we\'re talking on the Battlefield here, not how dishonorable he was as a leader of his nation, but as the leader of an army when facing another army.
That is what I mean though... Tactics themselves are often dishonorable. What about using swords to guns... who is more honorable? Guerilla Warfare is often needed but is also often dishonorable.
There are few honorable battles to tell you the truth. The only honor I can see is fighting someone in an agreed upon manner that is as talented as you are. A somewhat even match. It brings no honor to kill someone weaker than you. I am talking OOC of course... though my character does not fight with magic either
-
That is what I mean though... Tactics themselves are often dishonorable. What about using swords to guns... who is more honorable? Guerilla Warfare is often needed but is also often dishonorable.
Well none of the people i mentioned used any of those tactics.. [checks list]... Look theres obviously a fine line, but i dont think you can compare running around because thats the only way you can get your spells cast, to a tactic like agressivly killing civilians and hit and run attacks on a larger army. Guerilla Warfare is not even meeting the oppenent head on in battle, where as the magic users are. (However if you are a Guerilla warfare fighting for the liberation of your country, is that dishonorable? You cannot flatly label all guerilla warfare dishonorable in itself). I agree some tactics can be viewed as dishonorable but i refuse to accept this extends to this case, and given the lack of alternative ways to use magic, it is the only way to do it at the moment.
-
the art of war or the \"Sun Tzu\" (also written by sun tzu) clearly states it MORE honorable to fight withough direct engagement... more honerable to the mothers of the men under you to bring back no dead using subervsion and stealth to win.. but if at all possible defeat your enemy without going to the battlefield
The idea of clashing on a battlefield army vs. army is a style of honor that is primitive and not very imaginative if you can hit from far away then do so and stay out of enemies range
your enemy shouldnt have engaged you if he expected a mage to fight the same way he does up close with a sword (actualy its downright stupid to think all people will fight the way that gives you the greatest advantage.. thats like being born with a silver spoom in your mouth and expecting everything handed to you)
-
This will be my last post tonight.. I want to see what others think and I like the topic and dont want it to be closed... I am talking about in the future of planeshift when there is a possibility of full PvP and upgrades to the magic system. I understand right now you cant do much as a magic user. It is not always a bad thing to fight dishonorable... sometimes you cannot win if you do.
I leave you with a saying...
The Weak do what they must... the strong do what they will!
Lets hear from a few others on this....
-
The Weak do what they must... the strong do what they will!
That pretty much sums it up,- until there is a more honorable way to fight using magic, we must make do with what we have.
-
I see no problem with using magic in a duel. only you should not hide from someone if you are going to challenge them. I think that a duel should be fought with honor, and by that I mean that the big bullys should pick fights with other big bullys. Leave the new people alone so they have a chance to learn a little first.
Let the new people fight new people.
The dueling system is not right now and there are certain ones who are taking advantage of it. If you have honor, or want honor, you will wait until it is right, and even then you will fight someone of your own rank.
Spamming challenges while in a duel is not an honorable way to fight, it is a way to cheat, pure and simple.
Magic in a duel can be as honorable as swinging a sword, but your opponent should at least know where you are in the area. You should ask for a match first if you want to have honor in the win. A hearty \"good fight\" at the end of the duel will also bring honor.
But as there are many who wish to be evil, they (the evil ones) will see honor in anything they do, no matter what they have to do, just so they win and you lose. That is the way of every world.
I, myself, will only accept duels of honor.
-
As far as I know PS is skilled based, so mages can be partially fighters: wear armor, use swords and cast spells occasionally. So they don\'t seem to have any disadvantage, it seems quite balanced to me. I believe the most urgent would be to implement a skill called concentration, so a mage would have a chance to be not interrupted while casting. I dont think that running arround and casting is dishonorable: its not a good tactic anyway, because he can be chased and striked upon. Evasive maneuvers are stratagies, and strategies are not dishonorable per se. Which would be dishonorable is to implement machine guns, nukes, tanks etc. which donot fit into a balanced fantasy world.
-
my two trias about it:
Well if you assume that running around firing fireballs at the fighter, who hasn\'t even a single chance to reach you, is well it\'s cheap not tactically, and one thing that was pretty stupid back in my rat bashing days was that a fighter had to run around while a mage just stands still.
And also out of my experience: Melee doesnt really work good if you are running.
-
As far as I know PS is skilled based, so mages can be partially fighters: wear armor, use swords and cast spells occasionally. So they don\'t seem to have any disadvantage, it seems quite balanced to me.
Well we\'re assuming here that you dont have time to train 70 sword levels as well as 20 crystal levels. I know with the tria bugs and what not thats been possible, but after the database wipe it wont be. You cant say \"well magic people can use swords so that makes magic ok\". Then they\'re just sword fighters.
Well if you assume that running around firing fireballs at the fighter, who hasn\'t even a single chance to reach you, is well it\'s cheap not tactically, and one thing that was pretty stupid back in my rat bashing days was that a fighter had to run around while a mage just stands still.
And also out of my experience: Melee doesnt really work good if you are running.
Last time i checked, magic dosnt work at all when you\'re running. You have to stop to cast a spell, which is what makes this technique very hard to pull off, because all characters run at the same speed.
-
Originally posted by bitula
As far as I know PS is skilled based, so mages can be partially fighters: wear armor, use swords and cast spells occasionally. So they don\'t seem to have any disadvantage, it seems quite balanced to me.
You might just as well say mages could forget about spells and become swordfighters. The point is that someone who roleplays mage won\'t be using swords and such very often.
Plus with low endurance and strength he won\'t do too well as a part fighter.
-
--------------------------------------------------------------
Well we\'re assuming here that you dont have time to train 70 sword levels as well as 20 crystal levels.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Well being a CLEAR mage, meaning unable to do anything exept casting can be difficult, but as far as I understand skill-based rpg-s encourage mixed characters. But even with a \"clear\" mage we may add skills like concentration, which would give growing chances of uninterruptable casting (like in neverwinter). Also mages could wear magic cloaks, which could do good protection agains physical attacks, or magic shields for example. The case of fireballs is a bit more difficult, but I would imagine that firebals could be only cast by very powerful mages so that a very powerful fighter who chalenges him probably would have some fire resisting armor, or could cast some simple spells like resist fire (ofcourse only to a certain percent.) BTW, by strategy I donot mean sneak attacks, I dont think it\'s a good idea to be able to attack anyone without a PVP request.
-
Originally posted by bitula
Well being a CLEAR mage, meaning unable to do anything exept casting can be difficult, but as far as I understand skill-based rpg-s encourage mixed characters. But even with a \"clear\" mage we may add skills like concentration, which would give growing chances of uninterruptable casting
Am I the only one who sees a problem with that...? I mean come on. Imagine you\'re casting a spell. Someone walks up to you and stabs you in the stomach with a sword, however you - for some reason - manage to stay focused and cast your spell, instead of looking down and screaming? I seriously wonder what\'s going on in the head of the person who invented that stupid idea in the first place. :)
-
There is precendent. How would Gandalf have defeated the Balrog if he wasn\'t able to concentrate through the pain?
So at least Tolkein bought into that \"stupid idea\".
I am often suprised at how condescending the moderators around here can be.
-
Originally posted by Gronomist
Originally posted by bitula
Well being a CLEAR mage, meaning unable to do anything exept casting can be difficult, but as far as I understand skill-based rpg-s encourage mixed characters. But even with a \"clear\" mage we may add skills like concentration, which would give growing chances of uninterruptable casting
Am I the only one who sees a problem with that...? I mean come on. Imagine you\'re casting a spell. Someone walks up to you and stabs you in the stomach with a sword, however you - for some reason - manage to stay focused and cast your spell, instead of looking down and screaming? I seriously wonder what\'s going on in the head of the person who invented that stupid idea in the first place. :)
No you are not. But i think that the idea of bonus for pure mages is an okay idea, mabye the solution is that instead of continuing to cast the spel, the spell would be sucessfully casted, but with less power behind it ? I mean,, you kind of build up some magic, you get disturbed, and the now \"free\" magic shuld something ? blow up or someting... Just an idea.
/Kunisch
-Denmark
-
Everything that is said on this thread is absolutely correct.
Everything that is said on this thread is absolutely incorrect.
Mages can be honorable or dishonerable. It all depends on how they behave. The very nature of magic is to be a ranged attack in many cases. The most common spell out there right now is \"Summon Missile.\" A missile is a ranged attack, therefore Summon Missile should be a ranged attack. Other spells, like the Dark Way spell Weakness requires touch distance, so it\'s nature is not ranged. Another point is the class commonly known as a \"Swordmage.\" If you consider it dishonorable to run away and cast a spell, what will you think of a spell cast on the blade of a sword that has the equivalent of both a sword attack and a spell? There is too many differant things that have to be looked at as what is honorable and what isn\'t. Can a warrior be called dishonorable for pulling out a bow against a mage who runs away at some point in the future?
-
There is precendent. How would Gandalf have defeated the Balrog if he wasn\'t able to concentrate through the pain?
So at least Tolkein bought into that \"stupid idea\".
I am often suprised at how condescending the moderators around here can be.
Well usually id agree with you, but in this case i think gronomist is right (gasp) - if you get stabbed i dont think anyone would just stand there and continue casting their spell, its just stupid. Gandalf didnt get stabbed in the chest when fighting the balrog last time i checked, i suspect that if he did the outcome would have been a little different, no? Concentration is a stupid, unrealistic idea just meant to balance things so mages can fight like warriors.
Well being a CLEAR mage, meaning unable to do anything exept casting can be difficult, but as far as I understand skill-based rpg-s encourage mixed characters.
If i have a mixed character, it isnt going to be as strong at fighting as a pure warrior, since ive had to concentrate on magic as well. So say i put half my time in magic and half in sword, when i cant use magic and go hand to hand, its somebody with twice as much time spent training hand to hand fighting me. So its not really going to do much.
At the moment in PS, the way things are set up mages would indeed be good as support when fighting- except for a couple fo things.
1) Warriors cannot protect mages, since you cant block people.
2) Theres hardly ever more than one person in a fight.
I dont mind the idea of mages having to be supported my warriors to be effective- but theres needs to be a way for a warriors to protect a mage. The way i see it turning out in this system is that magic users are going to be worthless in challenges and 1v1, but extremly valuable when it comes to Guild wars, when theres more than one person involved on each side. As such it would require alot more dedication and teamwork to become a good mage, but once you do so you would be a great assest to the guild that you are in.
-
This is the most loaded question yet. In short -
\"Which weapon is more honorable? Direct or Stand-Off?\"
Answers thus far: A toe-to-toe fighter challenging a stand-off fighter is a dishonorable ass for insisting that a stand-off fighter use toe-to-toe tactics (might as well kill newbs), or the stand-off fighter is dishonorable for using stand-off tactics in what the challenging idiot assumed to be a toe-to-toe engagement.
The mere concept is ludicrous; if some idiot challenges a random victim to a fight, it\'s because that idiot expects to have an advantage over the victim. Then by insisting that the victim play exactly according to the rules that will give the attacker the advantage, a foul is cried for when the victim deviates and the advantage is negated. The victim, meanwhile, has little choice in the matter; the dice are loaded from the get-go, since (s)he didn\'t pick the fight. As a stand-off player, offensive capabilities demand... you guessed it, STAND-OFF. None of that exists when the challenger is standing exactly on top of you with the \"Accept?\" window in a modal state, awaiting an answer. You cannot even target the challenger, and meanwhile he\'s got you locked up, mashing the Attack key for when you accept.
If the victim is lucky, the idiot will get bored and create the needed stand-off by walking away before the acceptance timer expires. Demanding that the victim accept before the stand-off distance exists truely is unfair - after all, their viability is based on that distance existing. What typically happens, however, is that the idiot will b*tch because their perceived advantage just got shot in the ass. THEY were supposed to have the advantage, dammit!
It\'s like standing in front of a speeding truck with a knife and yelling \"No fair!\" after it splatters you all over the pavement. Demanding that a specific tactic will be used, which is exactly the one you intend to capitalize on because it suits you best, is sheer arrogance. Criminalizing those who cannot use those tactics that exactly give YOU the advantage... THAT is dishonorable, and arguing the point is little more than self-serving nonsense.
-
Ram, I am disgusted by your incredibly poor judgement. You should NEVER agree with me! :)
Whereas it is true that Gandalf was not stabbed through the chest, he did fall through space. Further, there are legends of Merlin being attacked and still responding.
Warrior still swing when wounded, and make accurate hits. Accuracy requires presence of mind and self-control.
Also, think of all the legendary monsters like vampires who when stabbed, have escaped by changing shape. I think powerful mages could have enough self-control to focus through the pain. Clearly the novice wouldn\'t be able to. So I think having a \"Concentration\" skill is not a bad idea.
Last, I more seriously object to condescending tones when used by mods. After all, they are part of the \"official voice\" of PS.
-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I the only one who sees a problem with that...? I mean come on. Imagine you\'re casting a spell. Someone walks up to you and stabs you in the stomach with a sword, however you - for some reason - manage to stay focused and cast your spell, instead of looking down and screaming? I seriously wonder what\'s going on in the head of the person who invented that stupid idea in the first place.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I\'m not sure, but concentration originated from AD&D rulebook 3d edition. Also, I\'m not talking about stabbed mages horned on a great-sword or so (they\'d be probably dead anyway). Mages can dodge hits totally, or get partially wounded, like scratched. Now when recieving a non-critical hit, it is quite realistic to rely on concentration to avoid fizzle. And imagine clerics: clerics donot articulate complex invocations they simply pray for a spell, so they should have a chance to finish the spell even when critically hit. I agree that putting a mage behind fighters is the most logical thing to do, but you cant expect from PS mages to wait until their fighter friends log in the game to form a group, and until then just roam around and get bored.
-
Ram, I am disgusted by your incredibly poor judgement. You should NEVER agree with me!
Dont worry, the only reason i said i would usually agree with you is because you were against gromonist, not because i usually think you\'re right lol... i promise it wont happen again.
Whereas it is true that Gandalf was not stabbed through the chest, he did fall through space. Further, there are legends of Merlin being attacked and still responding.
Lengends... yayness. Lets keep it realistic shall we? I could write a book about a super mage who is magically able to keep casting spells no matter what happens to him, but that dosnt add any weight to the arguement, and certaintly isnt a reason to include it in a mmorpg.
However something i just thought of makes me think maybe some sort of concentration skill should be introduced: If you get impaled on a sword, then you pretty much die, or get horribly maimed. But in PS it takes quite a few hits to die, which is unrealistic. So maybe if the damage you take is low enough, then you dont break your concentration. Because, at the moment, in a warrior vs warrior fight, you dont stop attacking if you get hit. But I mean if i got impaled on a sword then i wouldnt keep swinging my sword, would I? It works both ways. I think if anyone gets hit by a sword, or spell, they should stop what they are doing at that time (running, casting spell, attacking) for a short while, with the the time they stop proportional to the amount of damage they received. That ways its fair to all types of fighters, ranged, warriors and mages.
-
i could see how you could roleplay a char who gets angry after getting owned my a mage and says its unfair he brings magic into a duel, since magic is like a high society art. but how can you really think its dishonerable? cause its so good? :rolleyes:
-
While reading all of this one question came to my mind, what is the definition of honour you use ?
To me behaving with honour means not harassing people weaker than myself, help them if possible and respect the rules of engagement I\'ve set myself (which for me are no sneak attacks).
When in a duel, honour dictates I respect the rules of engagement set commonly before the challenge is even stated, when an opponent challenges me without even introducing himself first he automaticaly forfeits the right to any rules applying to the engagement, and as such can not call any style of fighting dishonourable anymore wheather it be magic or physical.
As for mages versus fighters, a mage\'s passion is with magic, and he certainly does not need a fighter to pursue it except maybe as an opponent if the calling he pursues is one of battlefields.
I wasn\'t aware that there existed a rule somewhere that stated that warriors knew so much magic formulaes that they could bring something to the mage in terms of knowledge, it would amount to saying that a warrior would have to find a mage to train him in the use of the sword.
And if you meant that a mage would need a warrior to fight for him while he casted his spells then obviously you did not take into account the fact that a mage like a ranger or a thief could prepare the ground between him and his target prior to even launching an attack from a safe range, in fact once the mage gets powerful enough it would rather be the warrior that would need his help to protect himself against opposite spells.
The reason why groups are balanced is not because one character needs another to protect him but because they are more efficient that way, training in all areas makes for a slow overall progress and combining them thereafter doesn\'t improve the situation while specialising then combining several specialisations makes for a high quality combination with no weaknesses since each component is good in one domain.
-
The first rule when in a duel of magic ( which applies just as well to attacking an oncoming knight, giant, orcish horde or whatever via spells ) is that who hits first hardest usually wins. The other side will be so incapacitated by the devastating blow that finishing them off becomes a triviality, assuming they are not slain outright by your initial attack.
When you add to this maxim the intelligence that is a prerequisite for those inclined to the way of the arcane, it makes perfect sense that an attacking wizard will do his or her best to ignore the sword-to-the-guts wound in order to get that crucial spell off.
If they falter, the spell fails, their opponent lives on, and is well placed to kill the magic-user in a very short amount of time. A magic-user who is unable to cast is a helpless and weak foe and will be killed easily by warriors in a melee situation.
On the other hand, the wizard who exterts a great deal of willpower and discipline to keep going through the pain and see their incantatation completed will see their foes obliterated. Or perhaps the spell is one of escape or evasion that will transport them to safety. They are then in no immediate danger ( though perhaps mortally wounded ), and can immediately enact ways to heal themselves, via potions, spells, scrolls, teleporting to a safe sanctuary with available healers, or other means.
Simply put, concentration is a fundamental cornerstone of the use of magic. Without spells at their call the magic user is a weak puny person armed with small and feeble physical weaponry, and is no match for creatures that they could casually dismember with a gesture in normal circumstances. Students who have poor discpline and concentration are not likely to survive for long.
-
Honestly...
What would be harder..
Concentrating on saying \"Abracadabra\"
Or concentrating on striking someone with a massive weapon (or TWO), trying to find the chink in their armor...
-
That was a fairly... Miserable... description of magic... I don\'t really think the word abrakadabra really summons every spell...
Anyway... As time rolls on, technology changes and combat will change with it. What is the general rule today is hardly going to be the rule in the future. There is no way of telling how things will change. If running and casting is considered dishonourable by some people what are they going to think about archers who don\'t have to stop to attack?
-
Well, since PS lacks the whole \"Verbal/Somatic/Material\" thing at the moment, who knows.
The point is that the argument of \"How can you cast a spell if you\'re hit\" works for weapon usage as well.
It\'s hard to fight if you so much as have the wind knocked out of you, much less your side sliced open with a longsword.
The concentration issue, thus, isn\'t so clear cut as some people are making it.
Personally, I\'m of the opinion that different types of magic would be rather interesting.
Some spells you can cast while on the move, some you can use whether or not your hit, and some that you can\'t move OR be hit to finish casting.
-
An honorable fight is more of a hand to hand kind of concept. That term is not used too much when someone drops a rock on someone or vaporizes them. If a warrior challenges a mage to combat, he or she should expect trickery. If you are a mage you should not be insulted when you are called dishonorable. Fighting with honor is not a halmark of a great mage. Just vaporize the challenger an be done with it.
-
I agree completely with youincenjucar. As for you derwoodly... Although that is an interesting interpretation, all it does is lead back to square one... Just because some spells require trickery, especially the Dark way, and something with a name like that can\'t be particullarly honourable, doesn\'t mean all magic is dishonourable in combat. Some mages have strong pride in their honour, and don\'t like to be insulted. Others will fly up to some unreachable place using some sort of exploit and rain fiery death down upon their foe. It really all depends on the mage him/herself. The same idea goes to a warrior with a bow.