Magic Fighting Dishonorable?

[Kunisch]

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

[Jakob]

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?

[ramlambmoo]

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.

[Denivi]

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.

[buddha]

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.

[bitula]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

[ramlambmoo]

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.

[bbum]

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:

[Darakus]

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.

[Tharizdun]

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.

[Incenjucar]

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...

[Jakob]

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?

[Incenjucar]

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.

[derwoodly]

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.

[Jakob]

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.