Spellcasters & the others

[Vibius]

Disclaimer: Please everyone read the following points before sharing your thoughts.

1-Avoid to make any reference to PVP or PK
2-It is lorewise fair that an epic wizard could turn an epic fighter into a pile of ash, but still they shouldn't have any unfair advantage over them
3-Avoid to make any reference to PVP or PK

The point of this discussion is to discuss how make the life of those who don't cast spells more interesting and more useful for a party, so please share any ideas that you had.

I for one I propose the following modifications that could make their life more interesting.

1-Make impossible make a physical attack while you cast a spell

Sure this will make a difference between spellcasters and those who don't cast spell, if you have to think between healing a party member (or yourself) and attacking, you have to take a choice and what is more important, you will want to have those who dedicate themselves at fullest to fight while those who do other things will do one or another thus returning mainly to fighters the spotlight that is due for them, instead of having classes that effectively can overlap entirely two classes.

2-Casting spells cause attacks of opportunity!

Effectively trying to cast a spell requires concentration and lowering oneself's guard (making impossible attack, has someone wondered about the fantastically realistic that is making gestures with your hands while you wield a mace and a shield or a dagger?) inviting your enemies to attack you as you cast the spells, UNLESS you have party members in front of you, if you are in the first rank you are likely to be attacked by all the hostiles, if you are in the middle not by everyone and if you are in the back you will not get any attack at all.

These 2 rules are actually part of the ruleset in which is inspired FK

These 2 modifications together would bring:

-Making classes that doesn't cast spells more interesting and appealing, since the more warriors type will be returned to them what is due.

-End with the abomination that is wizards front-lining, there is a reason why always wizards
have not been in the first or second line in any party and seek physical mundane protection shaped as a fighter.

-Group dynamics that create RP, having characters that are not longer SO self-sufficient (but certainly a priest or a wizard still will be it much more than a fighter) will encourage either to spellcasters to seek fighters, or fighters offering their services and now their services will be useful! (which is questionable right now) which in the end generates RP

Please try to keep this discussion as constructive as possible and please avoid to make any reference to PVP or PK.

[Maybel]

1-Make impossible make a physical spell while you cast and spell
I have NO idea what you are trying to say for this point what-so-ever

2-Casting spells cause attacks of opportunity!
This actually happens, you have a chance to fail your cast rendering your round of attack useless, if you are wielding a mace and shield you still take the time to go through the movements, that is why you have a chance to fail.

I do think (from what i was reading) that the rest is just explaining the two points. If I am wrong please explain further?

[Vibius]

Point 1)

I tried to mean (now corrected): Make impossible make a physical attack while you cast a spell

In one turn you should be only able either of casting a spell or attack, if you try to cast a spell when you are attacking you should skip your next turn in which you would attack your enemy with your weapons and instead you would cast the spell.

The fact that spellcasters can do both things at the same time make those who can't cast spells less neccesary (Why have a spellcaster and a fighter in a party, when you can have two clerics or two wizards in a party who can cast healing prayers/protective spells while attacking the enemy?) The fact that spellcasters can "multitask" makes characters who can't cast spells less necessaries in a party, and makes the role of the fighter almost pointless.

Point 2)

Casting a spell requires concentration in the spell and focusing yourself in the spell rather than in the battle, so if you try to cast a spell when you are toe to toe with your enemies they will have a chance of hitting you while you prepare it, the further you are from them behind your friends the less likely they will be able to hit you will you concentrate yourself.

In D&D all the actions (including casting a spell) that need concentration when in a battle causes the character who makes such action being victim of an attack of opportunity by all the nearby enemies, but of course that is hardly possible when having other characters between the spellcaster and the enemies. That is often the role of the warriors and one of the reasons wizards hire physical help. Not having such attacks of opportunity again makes fighter less necessaries.

[Selveem]

Also, just to add to Vibius: In D&D if a wizard fails the concentration check, their spell is lost. It is not still reserved like it is here.

[Maybel]

In the game, while casting any spell you are unable to make any other actions, fighting included. You can't cast a spell and keep hitting someone.

When grouping with a group, you can stand in the back, say the warriors can go in the front. "Form front" for warriors and such "Form middle" for rogues, and my as a priest who can take some hits, me "Form back" for other spell casters and those that need protection.

Is this what you are talking about?

[Isaldur]

Also, just to add to Vibius: In D&D if a wizard fails the concentration check, their spell is lost. It is not still reserved like it is here.

Please refer to;

http://www.gallwey.com/fk/board/viewtop ... 4&start=20

I believe far too much time is being made into tiny rules and how everything should be roleplayed that one must take a month to read over all the forum posts and in-game help files just to roleplay a single character 'properly' which (in my opinion) takes all the fun out of just enjoying a FANTASY.

Thanks.

Thanks.

[Selveem]

Actually, current code vs D&D core mechanics has nothing to do with setting house rules on RPing pregnancy in the presence of/use of magic. Please don't take my statements out of context.

Thanks.

[Maybel]

Actual coding has nothing to do with setting RP house rules.

Thanks.

OOHH, I am sorry, I was confused as to what you were asking and wanting. If a wizard wants to stand in front of a warrior when fighting, then that seams to be he is not a smart wizard but have a "rule" about it... seams kinda stern

[Vibius]

What here is trying to be discussed is making some classes more enjoyable to PLAY than they currently are, I would appreciate if this discussion was aimed JUST towards it, thanks.

There is no need to code things that can be roleplayed but some will need it, returning the spotlight to those who not cast spells in combat is only that could be only done through code no by roleplay.

I would appreciate if the topics in this discussion where aimed just at it, making proposals that might make such classes as a whole more interesting to PLAY. Thanks.

[EDIT]

Mostly is because that rule why clever wizards always stay behind of fighters, without it there is not any need to be a "clever" wizard, but if having such attacks of opportunity the wizard still wishes to be side by side with a warrior it's up to him.

[Selveem]

OOHH, I am sorry, I was confused as to what you were asking and wanting. If a wizard wants to stand in front of a warrior when fighting, then that seams to be he is not a smart wizard but have a "rule" about it... seams kinda stern

Perhaps you do not understand the core mechanics of D&D. I am not saying there should be any 'rule' about it. If a wizard wants to stand toe to toe against a fighter in melee, they most certainly can. It is often just not a good usage of their spell slots.

And, again, I was discussing the differences. I was not stating (or demanding) the code be changed. Even if I was, I have no sway over this.

[Dapher]

When I go into a fight with my wizzy, especially an RP related fight, I always turn to killmode nofight, and go pure spells. There are many reasons for this, but one is RP, I cannot see a 3 foot gnome casting a spell and poking someone with a dagger all at the sametime. When I am fighting a priest or another spell caster if they have a fireshield or blade barrier or something along those lines it is an easy way to get around the damage that the shield does. I see no reason why we should not change it to prevent a spell caster from doing both at the sametime. I actually like the idea for RP reasons.

[Lerytha]

Vibius wrote:

What here is trying to be discussed is making some classes more enjoyable to PLAY than they currently are, I would appreciate if this discussion was aimed JUST towards it, thanks.

If this is so, I'd suggest we focus less on what other classes can do but shouldn't, and more on how to make other classes fun to play. I've played a fighter. Not for long, because I tend to focus more on my one main character. But it was the easiest thirty levels I have every done in my life. And yes, it was wonderfully fun. She was able to move in threateningly, wear heavy, heavy armour that clinked when she walked, wield really, really massive weapons which just looked plain scary. If we are talking about fighters, why do we never point out the amazing things about them?

That is, fighters do level much faster. They can hack through most enemies. And fine, they may not have healing, or magic, but I've still seen a lot of fighters hacking apart plenty of wizards (because it seems that it is the wizards here, that are the major issue for some reason).

I'm not going to start some sort of flame war (he he, using a fireball, maybe?) about the merits or non-merits of classes. Fighters are fun to play, but the issue in this thread according to Vibius, is not about anything to do with spellcasters, and more to do with making "other classes" fun to play.

In this case, its great, because we don't need to discuss any limitations on spellcasters. Instead, we can talk about fighters and any problems they have and ways to help them.

~Ol

[Nysan]

As a player of various characters; including wizards and fighters, I have only one thing to add to this discussion. "Improving" one class by making another worse is a mindset I do not want in FK. I have seen that mindset far too often in MMOs like WoW and it never makes anyone happy.

[Pakur]

Ideas to make Fighters more useful in a Party:

Hitall - If it's not buggered to the nine hells and back, it was always a perk to being a fighter, however it got to being abused.

Improved Rescuing - Though, I do appreciate your rogue rescuing my priest, however, I must say, I do prefer the tin can as my wall.

As a Warrior/Barbarian, more hitpoints. (Toughness, yes..I know)

And Bash...does it ever hit?

Just a couple ideas. Forgive me, i've been caught after 24hrs of no sleep >_>
P.S, Not looking for anyone to start flaming my ideas, it's a brainstorm.

[Jaenoic]

I don't think anyone has reason to flame your ideas, Pakur. In fact I think they're pretty good. I am also disappointed at the success rate of bash; it seems self defeating: If it is difficult to hit with it, it will never get better skill level wise, because you never hit with it.
I would also not mind seeing a return of hitall, properly redone to eliminate the bug it was removed for in the first place, of course.
I am curious, though, what you mean by improved rescue? Do you mean as in a feat(Ala improved bash, improved disarm which remove the attack of opportunity when using) or just as in give fighters perks when using it?

[Sairaven]

Improved Rescuing - Though, I do appreciate your rogue rescuing my priest, however, I must say, I do prefer the tin can as my wall.

I tell you what, my thief has rescue. But I don't think she'll EVER use it. Stepping in front of something with teeth / swords / reason to cause her harm is just... not a thiefly idea.

[Dovan]

In reference to Rescue and improving it, I toss out this simple out.

We have many auto status (loot and what not). Is it possible to give Warrior Type (Fighters, Rangers, Pallys) a status set of auto rescue? As the name suggests, they go immediatly into a rescue whenever a party member other than the person with auto rescue is attacked. Instead of making it a feat, make it a status that can be toggled on and off.

Just a simple idea I throw out... take it as you will. I wish I could provide more insight to this is all as a fighter main, yet I do admit inexperience in the grand scheme of others knowledge.

[Harroghty]

I do not agree with having an automatic rescue. (Some people might use this feature if you could toggle it though.) I believe rescue is something that is best used when well timed. Anyway.
I agree with some of Dovan's other points. Jaenoic's got a point about bash. The lack of success with it is less than realistic. I believe I understand why it is difficult to bash successfully: it would be very unfair for a fighter to just knock everyone senseless time after time. Still, it is hard to believe that a veteran fighter (with years of institutional [School of Combat, church, etc.] training and real-world combat experience) could not knock a bandit (a thug with some "street smarts" but little to no formal training) senseless.
I am not an advocate of hitall. I have nothing against it but I think it does have a large chance of being misused and I think it would merit some serious discussion in order to implement.
I have voice my opinion about combat mechanics and fighters in a previous thread, but I believe, in general, there needs to be an evaluation of armor and its benefits. Plate armor does not seem to confer to same advantages (or all of the inherent disadvantages) that I believe it should. No one likes the term "tank" because of the connotations that it brings with it (MMOs and their childishness) but I do believe that there should be some coded difference between the abilities of a leather clad fighter and one in plate or heavy chain. You can only dodge so much.

[Roderick]

I like Dovans idea but maybe with a little twist on what Harroghty said. How about a toggle but it is set to activate when the attacked party is at or below a certain health level (kind of like the wimpy command setting)? I don't like to be 'that guy' that runs around rescuing powerful mages from the threat of a bandit or something, so the toggle would help remedy that. Just a brainstorming thought to add on to the stuff discussed.

I am tossing this train of thought out there just to see if I can shamelessly pad my post count up to 10 or so, so if I start to ramble, forgive me. If we focus just on combat then we should probably break it down a little and focus more on the role each class plays. Here is my brief list:

Fighters - Tanks (I am with Harroghty on not really minding that label, Rod's job is to engage the enemy close up and absorb punishment while dealing some damage and hindering the enemy so the other classes can do their thing). Oh, I do throw Rangers in here as well. They don't fit the tank mold as far as walking armor stores, but they still do just as well as fighters in up close and personal combat.

Mages - Death from afar! And above...and..well..you get the picture. They take advantage of the fighters in front to deal out the heavy damage to the enemy.

Clerics/Priests/Bards - Hybrid of Fighter and Mage. A backup tank and a backup mage that can be used in either role in a pinch, but ideally they would not be as good at either task as the class dedicated to it. They are still good, mind you...but not as good as the specialists.

Thiefs - Eye Candy. Kidding! Scouts and skirmishers. They also take advantage of the enemies being distracted by the wall of armor in front of them and the magical death coming from behind the wall to sneak in and do their work.

Now, this is all just my opinion. People will RP out their characters however they want to. These are just broad generalizations.

I will keep to fighters since this seems to be what this thread is focusing on. If we want the fighters to be in the role I described above, then we have to make it so they are noticeably better at it than other classes. Not dramatically better, mind you, but enough so that groups want to bring them in to fill that role instead of using a mage with a GM'd acid shield spell and stone skin or something.

So here are my ideas based on this theory.

As Harroghty said, evaluate heavy armor compared to light armor with a high dexterity. I need to take a look at the thread he is referring to to throw some more definitive ideas out there about this, though. I must admit, getting this balanced right sounds very tough.

Take a look at the skills that fighters can use to occupy the enemy. Remember, our job is to keep the enemies attention on us by using our weapons, skills, or whatever. The bash skill has been mentioned in the thread so far, so I won't go over it again except to say I agree with the comments made.

More hit points - I would only endorse this if the armor evaluation doesn't yield any fruit, so to speak. If we can't get the fighters a front line advantage through armor protection, then improved hit points is the easy way to do it.

Rescue idea from above - remember we need to keep the enemies attention on us and not the tasty looking bard behind us.

New magical weapon enhancements - How about a great sword of stunning? Great axe of blinding? Again, just additional ideas for fighters to occupy and harrass the enemy. Notice I don't endorse things that instant kill or anything like that. Again, not the fighters job there..that is the mage and priests job. We just buy them the time to do it. Now, this brings up an excellent point. I remember a while back there was talk of putting out additional magical weapons and armor when some systems were set right, or something. This is an easy way to balance out some of these classes, in my opinion. Do you want a fighter to absorb more punishment? Enchanted plate armor that allows you a stoneskin spell once a day. Rangers need some more protection? Short sword of Defense (add to their dexterity bonus or something). Just some ideas there.

Now, these are just topics that came to mind initially, I will throw some more out here if as I think of ideas. I am not going to talk about making changes to other classes or anything because I have never played anything but Rod for any amount of time, so frankly I don't have the knowledge to make any suggestions like that.

Oh..one other idea that just popped into my head for brainstorming fun:

Experience boost for using "proper" formations while grouping. Fighter/priests front; priests middle (yes they can do both..hybrid class); mages rear. Note I said 'boost'. So no penalties for those who want to go solo or want to try out their new shockshield spell or something, but you get a boost for doing it 'right', so to speak.

Now, again..these are just my ideas. If your mage is RP'd to be a sword wielding doomspreader, then that is perfectly fine. I do not mean you any personal insult or anything. Just some generalized thinking and brainstorming here. There! Remember I warned you about the rambling.

[Harroghty]

Rod,
Here is the thread I was referring to:
http://www.gallwey.com/fk/board/viewtop ... ted+combat

I agree to some extent with the idea of enchanting weapons and I will throw another idea on the grill (with what I see to be positives and negatives of this). Another MUD that I played once offered wizards (we'll be general here) the chance to enchant weapons. To accomplish this they needed a massive amount of gold, some materials, and to use a magical forge that was only available to some people in some groups (for example: my character's social "house" had one in a laboratory hidden upstairs).

This is postive because it adds more options to weapons. You could enchant them to be heavier (more "round time" in that games parlance; a longer gap between attacks but more potential damage) or to be lighter (the opposite). They could be given a straight magical bonus (+1 let's say) . In this case it involves contracting a powerful wizard (the game had 100 levels and you usually only saw the most powerful wizards performing this); it is therefore also a positive as it involves more players to the process and forces colaboration.

This is negative because it is very easy to abuse. Collaboration becomes favoritism and enchantments are rampant. There are characters running around with ridiculously powerful weapons falling out of their belts like some 17th allegory drawing.

The balance is in limits. Items could only be enchanted once. Perhaps wizards could only perform this spell at a high cost (monetary, experience, glory?). You could go so far as to limit the amount of said weapons an individual was allowed to possess. There are a number of options but I do not want to sidetrack this thread beyond this already too lengthy discussion of something Rod threw out there.

I have to end this by reiterating my belief in armor. There is a reason why armor has always worked in cycles. Light armor is not effective. Ask the Persian Army (a rabble of slave nations's forces with wicker shields) why beating hoplites at Thermopylae (or Marathon, etc.) was so hard! A row of shields in front of men with metal helmets, cuirasses, and greaves is hard to overrun for more reasons than Gerard Butler's six-pack abs. Armor continues to get heavy until it is no longer effective then it disappears and returns. This is why the world forsook beautiful fluted, stylized armor over the course of the 16th century and why I wear eighty pounds of body armor to drive down the street in 120 degrees Fahrenheit (49 Celsius). Being fast counts for something, you can ask the Crusaders from September 26, 1187 (Fall of Jerusalem to Salah ah Din) or too many of their comrades but if armor didn't count for something why do people keep wasting their time over the centuries? Style points?

Cheers.

*Edited: I double-checked myself and Saladin captured Jerusalem on September 26th not 27th.