(11-28-2011, 11:59 AM)Aphetoros Wrote: [ -> ]In my opinion, the thought that something becoming obsolete because another class can do something similar in a different way is flustering. I'll take your battlemage/shaman thought, for a moment. A battlemage is entirely different than an enhancement shaman. Enhancement shaman focus on buffing, battling, and fighting with the spirits at their side. A battlemage merely uses magic to aid his combat.
Just to clarify: you're right, they're not making shaman obsolete. That's not the issue, at least not to me personally. There will always be differences of flavor...it's differences of capability that we're more worried about.
This is more about setting up borders for what the arcane can or can not do. There obviously needs to be some limitations on what mages can do...stuff that arcane energy simply cannot do, or alternatively, stuff that isn't feasible for a lone mage to do or that mages simply haven't figured out how to do yet. Should the classes not be unique not just in flavor, but also in capability?
If for nothing else, saying that mages can do anything sort of gives them a free pass to be OP.
(11-28-2011, 12:01 PM)c0rzilla Wrote: [ -> ]Fun things about mages and holy magic. The high elves had mage-priests, and the leylines have some divine qualities. That's shown in the glyphs priests use. Leywalkers can also heal, unless that's forbidden here. And archmages can shapeshift. Or one could, anyway.
The gray lines between classes honestly doesn't disturb me. Oh, well.
Of course there's always the in-world possibility of multi-classing, which we don't allow for completely different reasons. And there are lot of things possible in the d20 that aren't possible in-game.
So then it's not feasible to say that he can't take arcane and use sheets of it to push and hurl objects?
What's with this argument of who got more power anyway?
Anybody, from rogue to mage to shaman to warlock to tom to dick to harry and his son, when they roll and you roll and they win or you win, all deal exactly 'x' amount of damage according to the rules of combat. A bloody warrior headbutting a Mage deals as much damage as a Mage blasting at him with a Pyroblast. This sounds like 'Prestige Class' again; "Oh, I am better than you." "No, I have more power than you."
When it boils down to it, power in CoTH is pretty much relative and constant. Everybody has as much power as they would have, because it's mostly dependent on the rolls. I have never, ever, seen a roll combat where anybody goes, "Okay, so Warlocks get +20 because they are Warlocks, Mages get +15 because they OP, and uh, well, warriors, you see, they are really non-magical and useless, so they get +0." No. Everybody gets the same, there is no difference.
Ultimately, the only difference is ROLEPLAY. A shaman and a Mage has two distinctively different method of roleplaying the characters. A Mage demands power, studies to obtain power, and unleashes as much power as he can command. And if I ever RP a shaman. . .
"And I would violate the primary agreement with the elements, and nothing of nature would ever respond to me again! Do you understand nothing? Have the humans sunk their greedy talons in you so deeply that you cannot see what lies at the heart of a shaman's power? I am granted these things because I ask, with respect in my heart, and I am willing to offer something in return. I request only the barest needs for myself and my people. At times, I ask great things, but only when the cause is good and just and wholesome. In return, I thank these powers, knowing they are borrowed only, never bought. They come to me because they choose to, not because I demand it! These are not slaves, Thrall. They are powerful entities who come of their own free will, who are companions in my magic, not my servants. Pagh! You will never understand. "
That particular quote will be why I would RP one for. Not the power, not the spells, but the RP essence behind the character.
Honestly, if a Mage fight a Shaman, the Shaman can just ghost wolf and spend the entire fight clawing away at the Mage while the Mage summons the power of Storm, Earth, and Thunder, and Air, or whatever; and when it comes down to it, it's just a matter of. . .
A: /roll
B: /roll
Oh dear, the Mage loses the roll. He gets clawed in the face. Right.
My point is; why does it truly matter, honestly? When it comes down to it, it is RP concept behind the class, and not the nitty gritty details about what the classes can or cannot do. Shamans can just ask the spirits to cause a bloody cataclysm if the spirits agree to it, anyway, and then where would the Mage be?
(11-28-2011, 01:32 PM)Zarquon Wrote: [ -> ]What's with this argument of who got more power anyway?
...
My point is; why does it truly matter, honestly? When it comes down to it, it is RP concept behind the class, and not the nitty gritty details about what the classes can or cannot do.
Your argument has two major flaws in it.
I've seen some really, REALLY eye-rolling emotes in combat RP. That just happens when you're the guy in charge of looking at logs of people doing goofy things in the game. I've had to tell a guy that, no, his warrior can not, in fact, cause a localized storm to come to his position to strike people with lightning, even if he did roll a 100 to do it. So the argument of "why does it matter, we're all at the mercy of the /rand 100 anyway" doesn't strike me as being very accurate. Rolls add randomness to combat, they don't give you a free pass to do whatever you please when you roll a success.
However, ignoring that, the other major flaw in your argument is that you're talking about combat in the first place, which is only half of the issue. There are, after all, plenty of out of combat uses for magic, and so it's important that we define what certain characters can or cannot do because it can become very important to RP, events that hinge on certain characters being able to do certain things, or even more importantly, events that hinge on certain characters NOT being able to do certain things. Anyone remember the arguments about the 'Fly' spell from the d20 and how it could be really, really bad for events?
I'd also like to add that, at the end of the day, WoW's classes are essentially groups of people with similar skill sets. That's what unifies them. Yes, there are bits of lore that flesh them out and make them better for RP, but what separates a mage from a shaman is primarily what they do, not who they are. The hows and whys of what they do is generally secondary and often left to personal character growth and interpretation, not something that unifies all members of the class.
That's slightly confusing. How are you going to say that it's what they do and not who they are? That makes little sense to me. Was what I said about method and philosophy entirely ignored and not read? Class is an out of character concept in the first place. Why can't he do these things which are fully supported not only in lore but in-game as well? The separation is entirely who they are. If you're a shaman forcing the elements brutally you're a dark shaman. You're doing that because that's who you are. If you're asking, you're asking because that's who you are.
Is there any other reason than just 'Oh, we don't want them to be able to do that. It makes them too much like shaman which makes playing a shaman irrelevant'? Because that's a fallacy. That's not an IC concept, that makes... I just don't understand that. If I'm not making sense and someone understands what I'm trying to say please say it clearly for me, because I'm running out of words to say such now.
A shaman is a shaman because they ask the elements for their powers.
An elementalist is an elementalist because they use the arcane to forcefully cause things to happen.
A paladin uses their religion to manifest powers.
A warrior doesn't.
"Skill-set", "Class"... Those things don't make sense ICly. Perhaps I don't understand what you mean, but from what I understand you just said, "Your character is entirely irrelevant. If you're a mage you can do fire, frost, and arcane because that's what the game gives you. But you can't be a pyromancer because the game says you can use more than just fire spells. And really, everyone in the same class is the exact same except for a few bits of lore like their background."
I'll be happy to post something in private discussion if you want, but I'm genuinely confused about this. It makes no sense to me that something that is fully supported in lore isn't allowed, but something we don't even see in WoW (Techno-mages. Hell, Techno-priests) is. Essentially, someone can have a cyborg arm powered by their religion, but I can't summon rocks and aggressively use sand and earth for combative purposes because I'm stepping on the toes of a class that can not only work with more than one element, but has an entire philosophy and religion based of off it.
There are things shamans can do that a mage could never do.
A shaman can commune with the spirits, can speak to the elements, and has a deep, wise insight that mages will never have.
Mages will just use fire/rocks/water/whatever to hit people in the face. Even if they do benevolent things (such as the previously mentioned naturalists using magic to make crops grow), they lack the intimate bond with the forces they use that shamans have.
I think what's trying to be said is that there must be a line drawn somewhere. If a mage can conjure fire, he should be able to conjure [insert here]. Which brings to the point of the elements and how it is treading on shaman turf. But, we all know, if a mage can do everything a shaman can do without the shaman background, why play a shaman, when you can be (almost) any race and still be a badass mage-shaman? I -think- that's what they're trying to say. It's not that it's not possible, but rather, it is like saying that since warriors can use Thunder Clap, they can use Flame Clap, Earth Clap, etc. ( Which is also treading on Shaman turf. lol )
If you ask me, I do believe that mages should be able to, at least, use a 'telekinesis' to be able to lift rocks/earth and use it, but not directly conjure it. But, doesn't really make a difference to me...
(11-28-2011, 02:34 PM)Kenshiro Wrote: [ -> ]I think what's trying to be said is that there must be a line drawn somewhere. If a mage can conjure fire, he should be able to conjure [insert here]. Which brings to the point of the elements and how it is treading on shaman turf. But, we all know, if a mage can do everything a shaman can do without the shaman background, why play a shaman, when you can be (almost) any race and still be a badass mage-shaman? I -think- that's what they're trying to say. It's not that it's not possible, but rather, it is like saying that since warriors can use Thunder Clap, they can use Flame Clap, Earth Clap, etc. ( Which is also treading on Shaman turf. lol )
If you ask me, I do believe that mages should be able to, at least, use a 'telekinesis' to be able to lift rocks/earth and use it, but not directly conjure it. But, doesn't really make a difference to me...
Not...really. There still things neither class can ever do. Shamans won't ever conjure the things mages can. Mages won't ever have the mutual relationship with the elements. And, Thunder Clap is a bad example, as no thunder or elemental force is involved. It's a shock wave from air pressure caused by the stomping foot. Which is technically how thunder works, as it is air pressure displaced by lightning. But, there is still no elemental power behind that warrior's ability.
(11-28-2011, 02:26 PM)Aphetoros Wrote: [ -> ]"Skill-set", "Class"... Those things don't make sense ICly. Perhaps I don't understand what you mean, but from what I understand you just said, "Your character is entirely irrelevant. If you're a mage you can do fire, frost, and arcane because that's what the game gives you. But you can't be a pyromancer because the game says you can use more than just fire spells. And really, everyone in the same class is the exact same except for a few bits of lore like their background."
A skill-set is a real life concept, how can it not make sense ICly?
An electrician's skill-set includes being able to wire electrical components. Of course, some electricians specialize in wiring certain things, like houses or ships, but in the broad sense all electricians are skilled and knowledgeable at wiring things. That is what defines them and unites them. Bob and Joe are both electricians, but they're very different people with completely different personalities, reasons for becoming electricians, and their specific specialization. But they're united in their
classification as electricians, because of what they
do.
And of course, it's important to know the difference between what an electrician can do and what a plumber can do before calling one to fix a problem at your house.
I'm saying that you seem to be saying we're locked into whatever that in-game spellbook gives us.
Even though we have people doing things clearly that aren't locked in.
If I was saying that, why would we have let mages use lightning and water?
Exactly, which is why I'm confused.
Explain to me how I'm stepping on the toes of a shaman, though, because I don't understand that.
Because manipulating the elements is the domain of shaman, and the primary component of their skill-set.
Mages manipulate fire, so do shaman.
Mages manipulate ice, so do shaman.
Mages are now able to manipulate both water and lighting, so do shaman.
Mages can't manipulate earth or air, even though sources in lore indicate that they are able to do so, just like shaman.
Except shaman don't just focus on the offensive ability of it. If you'd read my links, it would indicate that they focus only on the offensive capability of the elements. They are unable to call a shield of earth that heals the person, but they can hurl a spike of stone at you just like a shaman can. Shaman have two earth spells in-game, earthquake and earth-shock. Earth-shock is just zapping with nature energy. They have one wind spell in-game, which is wind-shear. Lightning technically falls underneath wind and storm, so you've given mages most of every element except Earth.
You're presuming that players are only using their magic offensively. Having seen how many mages in-game play, I know full well many of them are using magic for utility/non-combat/defensive purposes, quite often. So the argument that "mages only use their spells offensively" is just not true with how most players RP. Mages have never lacked in a ton of versatility in their spell list, they certainly aren't lacking now.
And really, your arguments are just supporting the argument that we *shouldn't* have given mages anything, not that we should give them even more.