Server status

[rauz]

Yes, I agree that a magician should have as much a chance of winning a duel as a warrior.

[derwoodly]

I think the point was that with PS classless system the typical ballancing of the damage per second of each of the classes does not need to be done.  I belive that they are trying to stay true to the old pen and paper rules.  Low level mages often had to fight with daggers if they did not have an apropriate spell memorized, or had used their ONE spell.  If you were trying to make a pure mage player, you may want to start by lerning to use a dagger (not actually sure this can be done at the moment).  

Of cource this is all speculation on my part.

[ack! just read the title again, sorry for continuing the off topic posts]

[Bnm85]

Originally posted by derwoodly
I think the point was that with PS classless system the typical ballancing of the damage per second of each of the classes does not need to be done.  I belive that they are trying to stay true to the old pen and paper rules.  Low level mages often had to fight with daggers if they did not have an apropriate spell memorized, or had used their ONE spell.  If you were trying to make a pure mage player, you may want to start by lerning to use a dagger (not actually sure this can be done at the moment).  

Of cource this is all speculation on my part.

That\'s quite a stretch... Old pen and paper rules? Pure mage = start with dagger? This may be a classless system but the races themselves have limitations. Explain to me how this system is going to work with Lemur, for example?

max 8th rank for weapons and armors.

That means the dagger will be maxed out at 8th rank, so will the armor. And the Lemur will have only a magic left, which will \"not be meant to stand up against a physical force\".

Old pen and paper rules got revised for a reason. And this isn\'t just a question of what a low level mage would do. This is about a full life as a mage.

Would be nice if instead of speculations, a dev, who originally made the quote, would explain it further.

[derwoodly]

Humm, I did not know about the 8th rank limit.  If this is indeed the case, then magic will have to get a lot stronger.  However it still might be advisable to get your dagger skill to 8th rank, it would still protect you from lower level monsters when you are out of mana.

[Bnm85]

derwoodly,

Thanks for understanding my concern. I know you were just speculating about a possible explanation and that\'s ok.

By the way, in regards to a possible relation to old pen and paper rules, I have asked one of the veterans of d20 and D&D about this and here\'s the reply I got:

\"In D&D (1st ed), AD&D etc low level mages are restricted to a very limited number of spells. Once cast they have no more so they have to fall back on the less subtle arts of hitting something.

However saying that, it shouldn\'t be that much of a problem. Without taking strength modifiers or weapon proficiencies in to account, a 1st level mage and a 1st level fighter had exactly the same THAC0 (20), so by definition they both had the same probability to hit something. And that stays pretty balanced for the first few levels at the least. When the THAC0\'s start to get further apart the mage compensates by getting more spell slots and more spells.

The mage actually gets a slightly better deal at low levels, but only IF the player makes the right choice of spells, because not only can they hit the same, they get the add bonus of being able to Disguise Self, Sleep, Colo(u)r Spray, Feather Fall, Armour, Burning Hands, Shocking Grasp and all the other 1st & 2nd level spells (either area or self) to augment the party which the fighter can\'t cast. The only off set the fighter gets is extra slots, strength bonuses and armour for combat.

What I\'m trying to say is that in a low level campaign, the mage should never underestimated or treated as being \"weaker\" because a well timed spell (even if it\'s the only spell they have) can mean the difference between PC\'s making a complete mess of things or not.\"

[derwoodly]

Conffession time:

I actually played D&D when it was the only way you play a RPG.  Not sure how your freind played the game, but when we played the classes were not ballance in any way shape or form. Wizards were weak and paladins were strong.   You would bring two or three characters into a game so balance was not an issue.  Your warriors killed stuff, clerics healed the warriors, paladins were a one man wrecking crew, and wizards hid behind them all and soaked up experience points.

Now, players expect all classes to be able to go one on one with other players and mobs.   In PS this balancing is done by not having any classes at all.  The only issue is how to make all the different paths a player can take interesting enough that people will at least try to use them.

[Bnm85]

I decided to get a second opinion on this and asked yet another D&D veteran about this and here\'s what he said:

\"I can\'t say I really viewed magic-users in old D&D as \'weak\'...sure they were weak early on - completely useless in fact. But later, they pretty much outdid all the other characters. Which to my mind is an absolutely TERRIBLE kind of game balance!\"

Not surprising that newer revisions of rules were made.

As for classes, I already pointed out that while there are no classes, the races themselves have limitations, so in a way, it\'s like classes \"embedded\" into races. Not quite classes, of course but does make a difference to a purely skill-based system.

EDIT:

I\'ve spoken to several more D&D people about this and a general consensus on the wizard/mage issue seems to be the following.

It\'s important not to mix up the low levels for a wizard with his whole life (higher levels). At the low levels, a mage is, indeed, rather vulerable, and may choose to \"hide behind backs\" of other players, if such an option presents itself (should not be considered cowardly but rather taking advantage of available party). However, a wizard does not need to \"hide behind backs\" his whole life, and becomes very powerful at higher levels.

Here\'s an excellent reply I got from one of those D&D people I spoke to that sums up the whole thing very well, I think:

\"In a strange way the wizard class is regulated by the power curve. At low levels the wizard is very vulnerable, and even though he has spells that may have a much greater effect on the battle grid (like sleep), he can only cast a few spells per day, which really limits his options. These limitations slowly fade away as the wizard gains levels, so by the time he has some HP, a respectable AC, some defensive magic, and enough spells to cast one every round, he becomes very powerful.

Melee based characters like paladins and fighters are very powerful at low levels in comparison. They have have significantly better AC at low levels, more HP, and can swing their melee weapons all day long without the risk of running out of gas. They essentially cap out around mid levels, because that is the point when the other classes no longer rely upon them for survival. A fighter is far more valuable to his party from levels 1-10 than he is from 10-20.

Now the effect this has on the game is really quite dynamic. Most people in the world will never exceed level 10, which makes wizards as a class far less powerful in the over-all picture of the campaign. There will be significantly more fighters in the world, than wizards because it is more practical to devote your skill to a class that has greater low-level survivablity ( wizards will get killed in combat more frequently) and value (an army level one fighters can swing their swords for as long as they stay alive, unlike wizards who will run out of spells).

If wizards were powerful at lower levels, than there would be far more of them, and the world would be a highly magical and very different place. I think traditional fantasy settings would be almost impossible if swords and armor were relegated to untrained grunts, and half the world had magic missile, fireball, and fly spells. Magic is meant to be special, and only special characters of significant experience wield the power to make it shine.

Now as far as game design intentionally crippling magic so that it never outshines melee combat, well that\'s a fallacy. Magic does eventually outshine melee combat, even in the original basic paperback editions of the seventies. It was intentionally designed not to trivialize the knight in shining armor, or military conflict. Arcane magic was designed with Merlin and Gandalf in mind. Powerful wizards are meant to be rare and special beings that may be very powerful individually, but not the driving force behind everything that happens in the world. Mortal men, armies, and swords still shape the setting; wizards play more subtle roles in the big picture.

This balance has remained relatively constant even into 3.5 edition. We as players may not see it as clearly because we play wizards of level 10+. We get to see the impact of powerful magic every time we play, but level 1 commoners do not. Our stories are fantastic events, that normal people rarely even hear about, let alone participate in. Our characters see amazing things all the time, so our perspective is skewed in relation to the rest of the NPCs in the campaigns we play.\"

Just wanted to say in conclusion that I don\'t mind being a vulnerable wizard at lower \"levels\" (skills), as long as it pays off at higher skill-levels and I become a powerful wizard/mage etc.

Looks like magic certainly can stand up against physical force. Just a matter of when.

[Ahriman]

The server is very unstable at the moment, and I mean VERY unstable. It is crashing every 30 - 50 seconds, and it gets very annoying. Now, now. Dont start posting new topics just because of this...

[BlackAcre]

I played AD&D from its earliest days until pretty much the second edition.

I agree with whomever said mages started weak and became damn near untouchable--in most cases.  In theory this isn\'t so, but in practice, players are ingenious at fleshing out every benefit from magic users--I can\'t think of a magic user who didn\'t get stoneskin & contingency spells.  You kind of have to, because as noted, you get one shot a day with a particular spell and that\'s it.  

However, if the game is played precisely as intended by the rules, magic users never become stronger in combat than fighters.  I was involved in one campaign where the DM was brutal on magic use, and the effect was essentially unfun--components, fatigue, and intelligence were all strictly administered.  Most \"strict\" campaigns are characterized by a strong core of fighters with very few magic users as an auxiliary.  One thing AD&D technically required for spells were components.  If adhered to strictly, this more or less confined magic users to cantrips and magic missiles until they were well on in power.  Which kind of sucked, frankly.

How did this come up, anyway.

[Drey]

Originally posted by Ahriman
The server is very unstable at the moment, and I mean VERY unstable. It is crashing every 30 - 50 seconds, and it gets very annoying. Now, now. Dont start posting new topics just because of this...

Hmm... well i have no idea what server you are playing on but if you want to tell the forum owner when he can and can\'t post have fun with that.

One of the main reasons for this thread was to annocunce the new combat mechanics... these other people are just discussing that.

[Bnm85]

Originally posted by BlackAcre
I played AD&D from its earliest days until pretty much the second edition.

I agree with whomever said mages started weak and became damn near untouchable--in most cases.  In theory this isn\'t so, but in practice, players are ingenious at fleshing out every benefit from magic users--I can\'t think of a magic user who didn\'t get stoneskin & contingency spells.  You kind of have to, because as noted, you get one shot a day with a particular spell and that\'s it.  

However, if the game is played precisely as intended by the rules, magic users never become stronger in combat than fighters.  I was involved in one campaign where the DM was brutal on magic use, and the effect was essentially unfun--components, fatigue, and intelligence were all strictly administered.  Most \"strict\" campaigns are characterized by a strong core of fighters with very few magic users as an auxiliary.  One thing AD&D technically required for spells were components.  If adhered to strictly, this more or less confined magic users to cantrips and magic missiles until they were well on in power.  Which kind of sucked, frankly.

I was curious about the \"strict campaigns\" and \"adhere precisely to the rules\" things you mentioned, so I asked some D&D people about it again. It appears that the results are not necessarily the same as they were in your case. Here are the replies I got:

\"In regards to \"breaking the rules\", I think thats a hard question, without knowing anything about the campaign in question. In a game of Forgotten Realms, its more or less expected that magic users will rule at high levels. In Dark sun, maybe not so much.

I run very harsh, low magic games, so a higher level magic user will seem very powerfull. But he\'ll also be extremely rare.

A DM that includes a lot of magic users, but using the exact same rules, will create a much different world, and indeed, balance.\"

\"...the reason this gets complicated is that there are all sorts of variants to this, and not all of them are intentional. For instance, some DMs like to come up with a lot of house rules to adjudicate things that they feel are not represented well by the RAW or are not included in them.

Some DMs simply glance at the rulebooks and aren\'t completely aware of all of the rules. Entire campaigns can be had by whole groups like this. It can be fun, if you\'re all of the same mind, but maddening to someone who is more concerned with the rules.

Still some DMs put limits on certain classes or powers because they want a certain flavor to the game. For instance, a low or non-magical game to portray a real world medieval scheme. Or some people powergame because they want a lot of power quickly.

The wisest answer I can give, is that all of these are okay, if everyone at the table agrees to them. If you and your DM both like a restricted game, then that\'s great for you and you ought to gave fun. Maybe I might not like it so much, but that\'s okay, as long as you\'re both happy. I can play with my group.

Personally, I like what I call a \"core game.\" That is a \"reasonable\" game, using core rules, but open to moments of quick ad hoc rulings to keep things going smoothy, no overt powergaming, and powers, skills, feats, etc., coming mainly from the core rulebooks. But that\'s me and my group. We agreed on that, and that\'s the most important thing.\"

Seems that the interpretation of the rules, their stictness, and balance depend on a group\'s agreement and individual DM, and can differ from one game to another. You may play a so called \"strict campaign\" with two different DMs, and get different results and different classes being more powerful at higher levels.

I actually don\'t mind power curves for different \"classes\", as long as each one has a time when they \"shine\".

Originally posted by BlackAcre
How did this come up, anyway.

It came up because of one of the announcements that were made by a dev in this thread.

However, what I don\'t understand is why we are stuck discussing old/first D&D rules as if they are/were some kind of a \"holy grail\". I don\'t remember any announcements that PS is somehow closely based on D&D, let alone 1st edition.

Before D&D 1st ed. there was \"Chainmail\", with basic rules being defined in 2nd and 3rd editions. Before \"Chainmail\" there was something else, and so on. The \"rules\" themselves were only made by people, and not some kind of superior beings. So, if we\'re going to talk about D&D, let\'s talk about D&D 3.5 at least. We\'re not stuck playing the very first pre-alpha release of PlaneShift, we\'re always awaiting newer ones, so we shouldn\'t be stuck in the past with some old rules that were later revised.

Speaking of D&D 3.5, has anyone taken a look at DDO (Dungeons & Dragons Online)? You are highly dependant on finding a party to progress. There is very little solo content in the game. Whether you\'re a fighter, paladin, mage, cleric, whatever, you completely depend on a group, you can\'t solo. So, if magic users in PS will be dependant on a party because of some old (or even new) D&D rules, then melee characters should be too. And we all know that melee can solo just fine in PS.

I think we\'re going to see a lot of revisions on PS skills and character development in the future before some kind of balance is reached.

Just IMO.

[derwoodly]

I think I got Bnm85 on the defensive some how.  His assesment of the old pen and paper games seems accurate to me.  My freinds and I played them a bit different.  We actually made mages more powerfull than the original rules called for.  But that was just us.  

PS has a much different \"class system\", it does away with the class system completely.  It\'s character advancement is best discribed as a pure skill system.

If your trying to make a PvP or solo character you would be best to start with good melle skills and add magic skills at a later date.  If your making a pure mage, then you will probably need some help from other players in order to survive.  

This is just the current state of PS.  The balance changes on every patch they make.  However I have the impression the games core goal is to make the magic skills much harder to advance that any other skill.

[marjo]

Iv tried all the different ways of downloading the game. I get connection refused on bit torrent and the mirrors dont work. Has anyone else had this problem. If so could you tell me how you downloaded the game.

Thanx

[Tarel]

http://www.planeshift3d.com/wbboard/thread.php?threadid=22534&boardid=42&styleid=4&sid=16ed926b5760ad6a6ea1454e7e46290c

[hideyyo]

Why do we need to download? Why can\'t we just play like Runescape? If there was no downloads I would play this more than Runescape