Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

Poll: Should classes be armor/weapon limited?

AeliousAelious Portland, ORPosts: 2,854Member Uncommon

Unless a gotcha moment is coming at SoE Live there will indeed be classes per the updated lineup

https://www.soe.com/soelive/lineup.vm

 

My question is should classes be locked in to what weapons and armor they can use?

 

Personally I like the idea of making my character my own.  I can live with being tied to a specific class (until I switch via multi-classing, ahem) but I would like some flexibility.  Bards did get to wear plate in EQ after all.  If I want to play a "Battle Mage" should I be able to roll a Wizard, wear plate and wield a 2h?

 

Thoughts?

 

 

«1345

Comments

  • goozmaniagoozmania chino, CAPosts: 145Member Uncommon
    There would be no balance in such a system... although the sandbox obsessed don't seem to care about balance, SOE certainly does, as there will be group play and raiding.
  • DihoruDihoru ConstantaPosts: 2,731Member

    My thoughts are: It's about time another take on the pre-CU era SWG professions systems be done, enough with this fixed class, fixed loadout crap.

    Originally posted by goozmania
    There would be no balance in such a system... although the sandbox obsessed don't seem to care about balance, SOE certainly does, as there will be group play and raiding.

    I will refer you to EVE-Online, specifically Class 6 wormhole combat anomalies and 9/10 or 10/10 DED sites. Both of those require certain conditions be met to run them without coming out the ass end in a pod and if you think you killing Deathwing was challenging try farming a triple or quad capital escalation on a Class 6 wormhole anomaly on top of the regular spawns (under those conditions if everyone's not sharp and knows what they're doing your ship gets pretty much vaporized).

    image
  • azzamasinazzamasin Butler, OHPosts: 3,058Member Uncommon
    Nope I am 100% pro skill based and even if there are classes then I am 100% pro whatever weapon or armor you wish to wear.  Now I know this is an EQN sub forum but freedom of choice was the one main issue that still has me holding out hope for TESO.  It's not a deal breaker by any stretch of the imagination but I do prefer freedom of choice and I really do not see how SOE can make a game and call it sandbox while having scripted and rigid class restrictions, especially more considering Georgeson's mmoprg.com future of MMO panel at Pax East.

    Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!

    Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!

    Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!

    image

  • craftseekercraftseeker kynetonPosts: 845Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Aelious

    Personally I like the idea of making my character my own.  I can live with being tied to a specific class (until I switch via multi-classing, ahem) but I would like some flexibility.  Bards did get to wear plate in EQ after all.  If I want to play a "Battle Mage" should I be able to roll a Wizard, wear plate and wield a 2h?

    Mage and anything but cloth is just wrong as far as I am concerned. Bards wearing plate in EQ? Not while I was playing anyway, bards in EQ2 are limited to chain.

  • OnomicOnomic TønsbergPosts: 196Member

    I think it should, while it can be fun to build a 2hander heavy plate rogue aka offensive warrior i prefer to get freedom in other areas to shape a class.

    When i think of it it does not realy matter, if they allow freedom in armor/weapon they will need to adjust skill etc to balance it. one way or another it will become a give and take scenario.

  • rojoArcueidrojoArcueid hell, NJPosts: 6,778Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by azzamasin
    Nope I am 100% pro skill based and even if there are classes then I am 100% pro whatever weapon or armor you wish to wear.  Now I know this is an EQN sub forum but freedom of choice was the one main issue that still has me holding out hope for TESO.  It's not a deal breaker by any stretch of the imagination but I do prefer freedom of choice and I really do not see how SOE can make a game and call it sandbox while having scripted and rigid class restrictions, especially more considering Georgeson's mmoprg.com future of MMO panel at Pax East.

    this a million times this.

     

    Remember the Xbox one trying to make the future of gaming as limited as possible with all the crap they wanted to do? This applies perfectly to mmos. The future of mmos is freedom of choice. Keeping it stuck to the old ways will never help the genre evolve.

    image
  • craftseekercraftseeker kynetonPosts: 845Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by rojo6934
    Originally posted by azzamasin
    Nope I am 100% pro skill based and even if there are classes then I am 100% pro whatever weapon or armor you wish to wear.  Now I know this is an EQN sub forum but freedom of choice was the one main issue that still has me holding out hope for TESO.  It's not a deal breaker by any stretch of the imagination but I do prefer freedom of choice and I really do not see how SOE can make a game and call it sandbox while having scripted and rigid class restrictions, especially more considering Georgeson's mmoprg.com future of MMO panel at Pax East.

    this a million times this.

    Remember the Xbox one trying to make the future of gaming as limited as possible with all the crap they wanted to do? This applies perfectly to mmos. The future of mmos is freedom of choice. Keeping it stuck to the old ways will never help the genre evolve.

    Sort of misses the point really, while I might agree with that 100% anything free-form stuff if you were building your own <YourNameHear> class that, as the OP pointed out, is not the case with EQ NEXT.  We know there are fixed classes, probably with multi-class options but fixed none the less.

    In the presence of fixed classes; mage, bard, paladin etc.  I think they should have meaningful starting definitions, for me part of that definition is "Mages wear cloth armor only".

  • DihoruDihoru ConstantaPosts: 2,731Member
    Originally posted by craftseeker
    Originally posted by rojo6934
    Originally posted by azzamasin
    Nope I am 100% pro skill based and even if there are classes then I am 100% pro whatever weapon or armor you wish to wear.  Now I know this is an EQN sub forum but freedom of choice was the one main issue that still has me holding out hope for TESO.  It's not a deal breaker by any stretch of the imagination but I do prefer freedom of choice and I really do not see how SOE can make a game and call it sandbox while having scripted and rigid class restrictions, especially more considering Georgeson's mmoprg.com future of MMO panel at Pax East.

    this a million times this.

    Remember the Xbox one trying to make the future of gaming as limited as possible with all the crap they wanted to do? This applies perfectly to mmos. The future of mmos is freedom of choice. Keeping it stuck to the old ways will never help the genre evolve.

    Sort of misses the point really, while I might agree with that 100% anything free-form stuff if you were building your own class that, as the OP pointed out, is not the case with EQ NEXT.  We know there are fixed classes, probably with multi-class options but fixed none the less.

    In the presence of fixed classes; mage, bard, paladin etc.  I think they should have meaningful starting definitions, for me part of that definition is "Mages wear cloth armor only".

    Those "meaningful" definitions are arbitrary because even in the grand daddy PnP RPG (D&D) prior to what most call it's casualization  ( 3.5 and below) you had mages which wore plate mail, brandished swords and could likely shoot lighting up your ass while impaling you on their swords. If it is for the same of balance I understand but don't come out with bullshit like "meaningful" definitions because we all know true RPGs let you mix and match things to suit your playstyle while balancing the benefits with the negatives ( if memory serves plate mail would affect the power of spells for mages in D&D).

    image
  • SabasSabas herzelePosts: 197Member

    I'd love it if it was an open system where you can mash up pretty much everything to define your character.

    A battle mage would tickle my fancy.

     

    The arguement that it wouldn't work for balancing sake is something I don't understand.

  • GholosGholos GenovaPosts: 209Member

    Should classes be armor/weapon limited?

    Absolutely yes, i m totaly for rpg tradition.

     

    I dont want to see in EQN wizards that wear plate armor, rogues that wield 2h swords and similar stupid things.

     

     

    image


    "Brute force not work? It because you not use enought of it"
    -Karg, Ogryn Bone'ead.

  • AceshighhhhAceshighhhh Gainesville, FLPosts: 185Member

    We know there are fixed classes, probably with multi-class options but fixed none the less.

    Actually we don't know this. The only real information on the subject is Dave Georgeson hinting at class switching at Pax East and the name of a panel at SOE Live.

    The latter could easily be just be an ironic title where they talk about debunking classes and going with a classless, skill-based approach.

  • rojoArcueidrojoArcueid hell, NJPosts: 6,778Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Gholos

     

    I dont want to see in EQN wizards that wear plate armor, rogues that wield 2h swords and similar stupid things.

     

     

    then you have the perfect game for you, Tera. Your class can only use one weapon, and wear one armor. From lvl 1 to cap.

     

    Mmo companies better not impose that garbage on an mmo ever again. I hope not.

    image
  • craftseekercraftseeker kynetonPosts: 845Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Dihoru
    Originally posted by craftseeker
    Originally posted by rojo6934
    Originally posted by azzamasin
    Nope I am 100% pro skill based and even if there are classes then I am 100% pro whatever weapon or armor you wish to wear.  Now I know this is an EQN sub forum but freedom of choice was the one main issue that still has me holding out hope for TESO.  It's not a deal breaker by any stretch of the imagination but I do prefer freedom of choice and I really do not see how SOE can make a game and call it sandbox while having scripted and rigid class restrictions, especially more considering Georgeson's mmoprg.com future of MMO panel at Pax East.

    this a million times this.

    Remember the Xbox one trying to make the future of gaming as limited as possible with all the crap they wanted to do? This applies perfectly to mmos. The future of mmos is freedom of choice. Keeping it stuck to the old ways will never help the genre evolve.

    Sort of misses the point really, while I might agree with that 100% anything free-form stuff if you were building your own class that, as the OP pointed out, is not the case with EQ NEXT.  We know there are fixed classes, probably with multi-class options but fixed none the less.

    In the presence of fixed classes; mage, bard, paladin etc.  I think they should have meaningful starting definitions, for me part of that definition is "Mages wear cloth armor only".

    Those "meaningful" definitions are arbitrary because even in the grand daddy PnP RPG (D&D) prior to what most call it's casualization  ( 3.5 and below) you had mages which wore plate mail, brandished swords and could likely shoot lighting up your ass while impaling you on their swords. If it is for the same of balance I understand but don't come out with bullshit like "meaningful" definitions because we all know true RPGs let you mix and match things to suit your playstyle while balancing the benefits with the negatives ( if memory serves plate mail would affect the power of spells for mages in D&D).

    Yes they are arbitrary, based on the content of fantasy novels but still arbitrary.  As to D&D well I probably stopped playing it before you started playing it but I do not remember magic users being allowed to wear anything but cloth and still cast spells.

  • RamanadjinnRamanadjinn Huntsville, ALPosts: 1,365Member Uncommon

    I guess like nearly every poll I see about EQN, it all depends on what a class is in the game and all the relevant systems that will affect gameplay.  I'll know whether I support such things after the reveal on the game systems has taken place and i've had some time to learn how they work and operate first hand.

    So I voted NO anyways though because I felt it was what us open pvp full loot loving types are supposed to vote.

  • DihoruDihoru ConstantaPosts: 2,731Member
    Originally posted by Gholos

    Should classes be armor/weapon limited?

    Absolutely yes, i m totaly for rpg tradition.

     

    I dont want to see in EQN wizards that wear plate armor, rogues that wield 2h swords and similar stupid things.

     

     

    http://www.amazon.com/Equipment-Dungeons-Dragons-Roleplaying-Accessory/dp/078692649X/ref=pd_rhf_ee_s_cp_9_9BDR?ie=UTF8&refRID=1Z84XWK91HHMZ46G7JBD enjoy reading up then (take note which weapons, if any, are class locked).

    Originally posted by craftseeker
    Originally posted by Dihoru
    Originally posted by craftseeker
    Originally posted by rojo6934
    Originally posted by azzamasin
    Nope I am 100% pro skill based and even if there are classes then I am 100% pro whatever weapon or armor you wish to wear.  Now I know this is an EQN sub forum but freedom of choice was the one main issue that still has me holding out hope for TESO.  It's not a deal breaker by any stretch of the imagination but I do prefer freedom of choice and I really do not see how SOE can make a game and call it sandbox while having scripted and rigid class restrictions, especially more considering Georgeson's mmoprg.com future of MMO panel at Pax East.

    this a million times this.

    Remember the Xbox one trying to make the future of gaming as limited as possible with all the crap they wanted to do? This applies perfectly to mmos. The future of mmos is freedom of choice. Keeping it stuck to the old ways will never help the genre evolve.

    Sort of misses the point really, while I might agree with that 100% anything free-form stuff if you were building your own class that, as the OP pointed out, is not the case with EQ NEXT.  We know there are fixed classes, probably with multi-class options but fixed none the less.

    In the presence of fixed classes; mage, bard, paladin etc.  I think they should have meaningful starting definitions, for me part of that definition is "Mages wear cloth armor only".

    Those "meaningful" definitions are arbitrary because even in the grand daddy PnP RPG (D&D) prior to what most call it's casualization  ( 3.5 and below) you had mages which wore plate mail, brandished swords and could likely shoot lighting up your ass while impaling you on their swords. If it is for the same of balance I understand but don't come out with bullshit like "meaningful" definitions because we all know true RPGs let you mix and match things to suit your playstyle while balancing the benefits with the negatives ( if memory serves plate mail would affect the power of spells for mages in D&D).

    Yes they are arbitrary, based on the content of fantasy novels but still arbitrary.  As to D&D well I probably stopped playing it before you started playing it but I do not remember magic users being allowed to wear anything but cloth and still cast spells.

    So no paladins? no spellswords? no battle magi ?

    image
  • evilastroevilastro EdinburghPosts: 4,270Member

    Definitely should keep limitations, classes like monks revolve around the fact that they are limited to light armour and focus on avoidance instead.

    EQ always had a good balance of control vs damage reduction vs damage. I don't see any reason to change how the classes work at a base level.

  • GholosGholos GenovaPosts: 209Member
    Originally posted by rojo6934
    Originally posted by Gholos

     

    I dont want to see in EQN wizards that wear plate armor, rogues that wield 2h swords and similar stupid things.

     

     

    then you have the perfect game for you, Tera. Your class can only use one weapon, and wear one armor. From lvl 1 to cap.

     

    Mmo companies better not impose that garbage on an mmo ever again. I hope not.

    And you can wait and play TESO if you want a game that all classes are the same...i want to play EQ, and EQ have ALWAYS had weapons and armors restrictions for the classes.

    image


    "Brute force not work? It because you not use enought of it"
    -Karg, Ogryn Bone'ead.

  • craftseekercraftseeker kynetonPosts: 845Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Dihoru
    Originally posted by Gholos

    Should classes be armor/weapon limited?

    Absolutely yes, i m totaly for rpg tradition.

     

    I dont want to see in EQN wizards that wear plate armor, rogues that wield 2h swords and similar stupid things.

     

     

    http://www.amazon.com/Equipment-Dungeons-Dragons-Roleplaying-Accessory/dp/078692649X/ref=pd_rhf_ee_s_cp_9_9BDR?ie=UTF8&refRID=1Z84XWK91HHMZ46G7JBD enjoy reading up then (take note which weapons, if any, are class locked).

    Originally posted by craftseeker
    Originally posted by Dihoru
    Originally posted by craftseeker
    Originally posted by rojo6934
    Originally posted by azzamasin
    Nope I am 100% pro skill based and even if there are classes then I am 100% pro whatever weapon or armor you wish to wear.  Now I know this is an EQN sub forum but freedom of choice was the one main issue that still has me holding out hope for TESO.  It's not a deal breaker by any stretch of the imagination but I do prefer freedom of choice and I really do not see how SOE can make a game and call it sandbox while having scripted and rigid class restrictions, especially more considering Georgeson's mmoprg.com future of MMO panel at Pax East.

    this a million times this.

    Remember the Xbox one trying to make the future of gaming as limited as possible with all the crap they wanted to do? This applies perfectly to mmos. The future of mmos is freedom of choice. Keeping it stuck to the old ways will never help the genre evolve.

    Sort of misses the point really, while I might agree with that 100% anything free-form stuff if you were building your own class that, as the OP pointed out, is not the case with EQ NEXT.  We know there are fixed classes, probably with multi-class options but fixed none the less.

    In the presence of fixed classes; mage, bard, paladin etc.  I think they should have meaningful starting definitions, for me part of that definition is "Mages wear cloth armor only".

    Those "meaningful" definitions are arbitrary because even in the grand daddy PnP RPG (D&D) prior to what most call it's casualization  ( 3.5 and below) you had mages which wore plate mail, brandished swords and could likely shoot lighting up your ass while impaling you on their swords. If it is for the same of balance I understand but don't come out with bullshit like "meaningful" definitions because we all know true RPGs let you mix and match things to suit your playstyle while balancing the benefits with the negatives ( if memory serves plate mail would affect the power of spells for mages in D&D).

    Yes they are arbitrary, based on the content of fantasy novels but still arbitrary.  As to D&D well I probably stopped playing it before you started playing it but I do not remember magic users being allowed to wear anything but cloth and still cast spells.

    So no paladins? no spellswords? no battle magi ?

    Well I played last with the 1979 AD&D ruleset and no spellswords, no battle magi and paladins were a hybrid warrior/cleric and therefore not a magic user.

    OH BTW, we were excited to get our hands on the "brand new rule set"

  • DihoruDihoru ConstantaPosts: 2,731Member
    Originally posted by craftseeker
    Originally posted by Dihoru
    Originally posted by Gholos

    Should classes be armor/weapon limited?

    Absolutely yes, i m totaly for rpg tradition.

     

    I dont want to see in EQN wizards that wear plate armor, rogues that wield 2h swords and similar stupid things.

     

     

    http://www.amazon.com/Equipment-Dungeons-Dragons-Roleplaying-Accessory/dp/078692649X/ref=pd_rhf_ee_s_cp_9_9BDR?ie=UTF8&refRID=1Z84XWK91HHMZ46G7JBD enjoy reading up then (take note which weapons, if any, are class locked).

    Originally posted by craftseeker
    Originally posted by Dihoru
    Originally posted by craftseeker
    Originally posted by rojo6934
    Originally posted by azzamasin
    Nope I am 100% pro skill based and even if there are classes then I am 100% pro whatever weapon or armor you wish to wear.  Now I know this is an EQN sub forum but freedom of choice was the one main issue that still has me holding out hope for TESO.  It's not a deal breaker by any stretch of the imagination but I do prefer freedom of choice and I really do not see how SOE can make a game and call it sandbox while having scripted and rigid class restrictions, especially more considering Georgeson's mmoprg.com future of MMO panel at Pax East.

    this a million times this.

    Remember the Xbox one trying to make the future of gaming as limited as possible with all the crap they wanted to do? This applies perfectly to mmos. The future of mmos is freedom of choice. Keeping it stuck to the old ways will never help the genre evolve.

    Sort of misses the point really, while I might agree with that 100% anything free-form stuff if you were building your own class that, as the OP pointed out, is not the case with EQ NEXT.  We know there are fixed classes, probably with multi-class options but fixed none the less.

    In the presence of fixed classes; mage, bard, paladin etc.  I think they should have meaningful starting definitions, for me part of that definition is "Mages wear cloth armor only".

    Those "meaningful" definitions are arbitrary because even in the grand daddy PnP RPG (D&D) prior to what most call it's casualization  ( 3.5 and below) you had mages which wore plate mail, brandished swords and could likely shoot lighting up your ass while impaling you on their swords. If it is for the same of balance I understand but don't come out with bullshit like "meaningful" definitions because we all know true RPGs let you mix and match things to suit your playstyle while balancing the benefits with the negatives ( if memory serves plate mail would affect the power of spells for mages in D&D).

    Yes they are arbitrary, based on the content of fantasy novels but still arbitrary.  As to D&D well I probably stopped playing it before you started playing it but I do not remember magic users being allowed to wear anything but cloth and still cast spells.

    So no paladins? no spellswords? no battle magi ?

    Well I played last with the 1979 AD&D ruleset and no spellswords, no battle magi and paladins were a hybrid warrior/cleric and therefore not a magic user.

    OH BTW, we were excited to get our hands on the "brand new rule set"

    Clerics are divine magic users....

    image
  • RamanadjinnRamanadjinn Huntsville, ALPosts: 1,365Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by craftseeker
     

    Well I played last with the 1979 AD&D ruleset and no spellswords, no battle magi and paladins were a hybrid warrior/cleric and therefore not a magic user.

    OH BTW, we were excited to get our hands on the "brand new rule set"

     

    That did not last long though, I played a dual sword wielding mage for a while when 2nd edition came out.

    In 2nd edition ADnD anyone could pick up and use any item. 

    I guess I should add he went with leather armor.

  • craftseekercraftseeker kynetonPosts: 845Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Dihoru
    Originally posted by craftseeker
    Originally posted by Dihoru

    So no paladins? no spellswords? no battle magi ?

    Well I played last with the 1979 AD&D ruleset and no spellswords, no battle magi and paladins were a hybrid warrior/cleric and therefore not a magic user.

    OH BTW, we were excited to get our hands on the "brand new rule set"

    Clerics are divine magic users....

    Not in the the "brand new rule set" in 1979 they wernt, nor where they before that.  At that time magic users were magic users and clerics and paladins had non magical god given abilities. Magic Users read books to memorise their spells clerics prayed for divine guidance.

    Now I admit "divine magic user" is a more logical construction but no one ever accused Gary Gygax of an overabundance of logical thought.

  • SavageHorizonSavageHorizon ParisPosts: 2,081Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Aelious

    Unless a gotcha moment is coming at SoE Live there will indeed be classes per the updated lineup

    https://www.soe.com/soelive/lineup.vm

     

    My question is should classes be locked in to what weapons and armor they can use?

     

    Personally I like the idea of making my character my own.  I can live with being tied to a specific class (until I switch via multi-classing, ahem) but I would like some flexibility.  Bards did get to wear plate in EQ after all.  If I want to play a "Battle Mage" should I be able to roll a Wizard, wear plate and wield a 2h?

     

    Thoughts?

     

     

    Think TESO is that way----->

    But seriously, i like the vanguard way of doing things. In Vanguard you have many types of weapons, clerics wear plate and can use all of the below weapons.

    • 2H Blunt
    • 1H Blunt
    • Hand to Hand

     

    • Thrown Hammers
    • Hammer
    • Mace
    • Great Spear
    • Great Maul
    • Club
     

    Coolermaster Cosmos II Case
    Corsair AX1200W Modular PSU
    Intel Core i7 3970X OC 4.50GHz
    Asus P9X79 PRO Intel X7
    16GB (4x4GB) DDR3 PC3-1866MHz
    840 Series 250GB SSDs
    Seagate Barracuda 2TB HDDs
    EVGA SuperClocked GTX TITAN 6GB GDDR5 SLi

  • rojoArcueidrojoArcueid hell, NJPosts: 6,778Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by craftseeker
    Originally posted by Dihoru
    Originally posted by craftseeker
    Originally posted by rojo6934
    Originally posted by azzamasin
    Nope I am 100% pro skill based and even if there are classes then I am 100% pro whatever weapon or armor you wish to wear.  Now I know this is an EQN sub forum but freedom of choice was the one main issue that still has me holding out hope for TESO.  It's not a deal breaker by any stretch of the imagination but I do prefer freedom of choice and I really do not see how SOE can make a game and call it sandbox while having scripted and rigid class restrictions, especially more considering Georgeson's mmoprg.com future of MMO panel at Pax East.

    this a million times this.

    Remember the Xbox one trying to make the future of gaming as limited as possible with all the crap they wanted to do? This applies perfectly to mmos. The future of mmos is freedom of choice. Keeping it stuck to the old ways will never help the genre evolve.

    Sort of misses the point really, while I might agree with that 100% anything free-form stuff if you were building your own class that, as the OP pointed out, is not the case with EQ NEXT.  We know there are fixed classes, probably with multi-class options but fixed none the less.

    In the presence of fixed classes; mage, bard, paladin etc.  I think they should have meaningful starting definitions, for me part of that definition is "Mages wear cloth armor only".

    Those "meaningful" definitions are arbitrary because even in the grand daddy PnP RPG (D&D) prior to what most call it's casualization  ( 3.5 and below) you had mages which wore plate mail, brandished swords and could likely shoot lighting up your ass while impaling you on their swords. If it is for the same of balance I understand but don't come out with bullshit like "meaningful" definitions because we all know true RPGs let you mix and match things to suit your playstyle while balancing the benefits with the negatives ( if memory serves plate mail would affect the power of spells for mages in D&D).

    Yes they are arbitrary, based on the content of fantasy novels but still arbitrary.  As to D&D well I probably stopped playing it before you started playing it but I do not remember magic users being allowed to wear anything but cloth and still cast spells.

    The "mages can only wear cloths amor" mentality has to go away. It is an old idea that today becomes a limitation and an annoyance. Im not asking for full classless stuff in a game that clearly has classes. But being flexible within each class is important. I love mages, my favorite class in games. Of course you can have a variety but you will only get better at what you use. A mage that can wear chains or leather stuff would sacrifice some magic power maybe but have more defence and more change to melee when the enemies get up close. The cloth limitations for mages only reinforce kiting mechanics. Give heavy armor and a sword to a mage and he can enchant the sword and beat the crap of the monster up close while enduren some more beating with heavier armor (battle mage). My thoughts.

    image
  • rojoArcueidrojoArcueid hell, NJPosts: 6,778Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by SavageHorizon
    Originally posted by Aelious

     

     

    But seriously, i like the vanguard way of doing things. In Vanguard you have many types of weapons, clerics wear plate and can use all of the below weapons.

    • 2H Blunt
    • 1H Blunt
    • Hand to Hand

     

    • Thrown Hammers
    • Hammer
    • Mace
    • Great Spear
    • Great Maul
    • Club
     

    this could apply to all the classes (and even more weapons), but for some reason some classes are left in the cold in almost every game. Each class would use their weapon differently based on their class skills. That way theres no way to say "oh every class is the same" because they all play their weapons differently. Warrior use the hammer raw and brutal, while mages enchant the hammer for some extra burst that they wouldnt have in melee normally in case the mob gets close range, etc. The depiction of mages as girly scholars that cant lift a finger is absurd when they clearly have destructive power they can very much channel to any weapon. Gimmie powahs!!!!

     

    A great example of this is the Mesmer in GW2 vs the warrior vs guardian vs ranger.

    the latter three are melee and mesmer is caster. Mesmer uses great swords and channell its illusion based magic through it. Plain and simple.

    image
  • craftseekercraftseeker kynetonPosts: 845Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by rojo6934
    Originally posted by craftseeker

    Yes they are arbitrary, based on the content of fantasy novels but still arbitrary.  As to D&D well I probably stopped playing it before you started playing it but I do not remember magic users being allowed to wear anything but cloth and still cast spells.

    The "mages can only wear cloths amor" mentality has to go away. It is an old idea that today becomes a limitation and an annoyance. Im not asking for full classless stuff in a game that clearly has classes. But being flexible within each class is important. I love mages, my favorite class in games. Of course you can have a variety but you will only get better at what you use. A mage that can wear chains or leather stuff would sacrifice some magic power maybe but have more defence and more change to melee when the enemies get up close. The cloth limitations for mages only reinforce kiting mechanics. Give heavy armor and a sword to a mage and he can enchant the sword and beat the crap of the monster up close while enduren some more beating with heavier armor (battle mage). My thoughts.

    In EQ2 mages had self-buffs that would augment their cloth armor to the same level as leather and indeed with some changes to Alternate Advancement lines from the normal min-max choices could become as survivable as a scout class in chain.  Allowing them to wear chain on top of that would have been OP.

    Flexible yes, allowing OP combinations no.  Sacrificing magic power by wearing better armor: well maybe, but I can see that becoming OP overtime as well.

«1345
Sign In or Register to comment.