Possibilities and Variants

[Brutalskars]

Honestly, this is what I was thinking with my variant classes for The Blackdawn. I made special "classes", they are just ways of playing a character. No real change in abilities.

But my system does have its own "prestiges" that do get bonuses, when at least in our events.

[Rigley]

And I understand where you're going with this but what if I am an orc who uses his fists and I'm not in this system. Does that therefore mean I am at a disadvantage to the plate-wearing soldier?

Well uh. Yes, logically you would be. But your character always has the ability to have brought a weapon, whereas the other character is just proficient at fists and doesn't need one. It isn't about him being stronger, but him having a different fighting style compared to others.


I'm just trying to convey the idea here, by the way; as I said before I'm pretty indifferent by this point (despite being the one to pitch the thing, heh).

[flammos200]

And I understand where you're going with this but what if I am an orc who uses his fists and I'm not in this system. Does that therefore mean I am at a disadvantage to the plate-wearing soldier?

Well uh. Yes, logically you would be. But your character always has the ability to have brought a weapon, whereas the other character is just proficient at fists and doesn't need one. It isn't about him being stronger, but him having a different fighting style compared to others.


I'm just trying to convey the idea here, by the way; as I said before I'm pretty indifferent by this point (despite being the one to pitch the thing, heh).

...But that's like saying your character can't train in Unarmed like they can in-game, to be equal in proficiency with fists or fist-weapons to someone wielding a great-hammer, isn't it?

Bearing in mind that Orcs do so love their claw-like fist weapons and a plate-armored fist from one has the same weight behind it as a greathammer, I don't see why it should be treated differently, or as some variant, but rather simply incorporated into the good old term: Warrior.

[Rigley]

Words

Except by unarmed I mean unarmed, like plain fists hitting a guy.

...Which would ordinarily only hurt one person if you're fighting a plate-wearing guy, and that's the fistfighter.

[Duraza]

And I understand where you're going with this but what if I am an orc who uses his fists and I'm not in this system. Does that therefore mean I am at a disadvantage to the plate-wearing soldier?

Well uh. Yes, logically you would be. But your character always has the ability to have brought a weapon, whereas the other character is just proficient at fists and doesn't need one. It isn't about him being stronger, but him having a different fighting style compared to others.


I'm just trying to convey the idea here, by the way; as I said before I'm pretty indifferent by this point (despite being the one to pitch the thing, heh).

Har. As I said I understand that and what the system is trying to do. I know no one is -actually- more powerful than one another (and I'm perfectly fine with it). I'm purely stating my opinion that the cries of 'he/she is abusing his powers' won't end even when logic tells us there is no difference in power. Neither will the 'abuse' which really doesn't come down to overusing a +15 IC. It comes down to bragging about being special and being arrogant or nasty OOC. At least that's where I see the problem and ultimately what I feel was behind part of the sentiment behind prestiges in the first place.

But no, I don't fail to see your logic Rigley and I hold your sentiment about being indifferent. Honestly, I'll probably be in school before this is implemented so I won't even get to take part. I hope that my lack of faith in the community is mis-placed and that (if this system is chosen) things work perfectly for it. Honestly, what Terant wrote sounds perfect to me:

Not every character is equal combat-wise, but it is not the staff's job to regulate that. It's up to the players involved in the combat to do it their own way. Simplest solution: Use common sense and agree to lose sometimes. One of my first RP experiences on CotH was when Terant was a n00b Blood Knight Initiate on a mission to Orgrimmar. He ended up getting his arse kicked in single combat because, well... It's a Blood Elf Paladin wrestling against an Orc Warrior (Kaghuros!). I figured it would make more sense for Terant to lose, so I agreed to lose the fight ahead of time. While my character wasn't a "simple farmer with a pitchfork," he was clearly at a disadvantage in that particular match-up so I went with the logical option. What I guess I'm trying to say is that every IC battle situation is different, and each one requires thought to figure out the balance. Because of this, it is impossible to regulate a system that makes certain characters more powerful than others.

I hope that if the GM team goes with a Variant system, what Terant wrote will be the mood and standard of roleplay through the system on the server. I'm only expressing my doubts that it will. (And perhaps someone will read those doubts and think, oh maybe I should try to avoid falling into that category that silly Duraza was talking about. And thus, it will never happen and I can rest easy that I was proven wrong)

[flammos200]

Words

Except by unarmed I mean unarmed, like plain fists hitting a guy.

...Which would ordinarily only hurt one person if you're fighting a plate-wearing guy, and that's the fistfighter.

...Warriors today should be able to do that. I mean, especially in things like roll fights. I see Warriors in clothes(Very revealing ones too), winning fights against heavy plate-wearing footmen and such.

There's no reason to complicate things, rather than simplifying them. Who's to say a Priest can't be good unarmed and physically buff? They don't gain any extra weapon skills or advantages. It's just a play-style, equal to everyone else's. Same for a Warrior going in unarmored and unarmed.

I see no reason to split them into a different variant class is all. I'm not denying their existence, but I would rather simply let people roll them freely, as a normal class's feature.

[Aphetoros]

A mage who wanted to be able to fight well with a sword would require one. A priest who also wants to be good with a bow. A mage who wanted to dabble in necromancy at the cost of one of his other schools of magic. So on, so forth.

I can see how the last might require some sort of approval, but how is a mage that can fight well special? Or a priest that can use a bow-- I'm not a trained marksman by any means and I've gone to do archery before and I can still use the bow (I know it's different in combat, but still). Mages can learn swords in-game already-- I've a warlock that uses a sword and an off-hand mace (which is an equipable item to duel-wield even though I'm a warlock)

I honestly don't know what to vote for because neither of the suggested appeal to me-- wouldn't it just be easier to special profile this kind of thing-- resubmitting a profile if progress is made?

[Xigo]

This all stems from the belief that every single fight should be fair in warcraft. The gnome warrior should be able to beat the tauren warrior.

I am a fan of stats. Of character sheets. And prestiges were sort of the only way to represent these stats on CotH. But alas, now my gnome who does nothing but slap people will defeat huge honking tauren in tier 10 armor. Because of rolls.

If people were fair with trust fighting, I'd be cool with this. If I could trust people with making characters who won't go over the top, I'd be cool with this. But no. Time and time again I have been proven that if you open doors on CotH, people will beat the living daylights out of everyone else to go through them. If the opportunity is given to make a character Captain Badass, then by the Light, the player will make his/her character Captain Badass. And then everyone will be Captain Badass.

And in a world where everyone's Captain Badass. No one is.

'But my mage can't beat an archmage in one on one combat with these bonuses. It destroys my RP!'

'But my warlock can't beat a demon hunter in one on one combat with these bonuses. It destroys my RP!'

'But my warrior can't beat this bonecrusher...'

I've seen prestiges destroy the RP of those who want everything to be perfect and fair as far as combat goes. I personally don't see that as a bad thing. When you step into someone else's expertise, expect to be crushed.

I'd love it if people would use common sense when it comes to combat. But the only sense most people have is of their own character's power. I think a certain realization should eventually pop into their heads. You can't make your characters cool. You can only make the characters of others cool.

Haarumph.

[Grakor456]

I can see how the last might require some sort of approval, but how is a mage that can fight well special? Or a priest that can use a bow-- I'm not a trained marksman by any means and I've gone to do archery before and I can still use the bow (I know it's different in combat, but still). Mages can learn swords in-game already-- I've a warlock that uses a sword and an off-hand mace (which is an equipable item to duel-wield even though I'm a warlock)

I honestly don't know what to vote for because neither of the suggested appeal to me-- wouldn't it just be easier to special profile this kind of thing-- resubmitting a profile if progress is made?

Priests don't learn the ability to use bows naturally. Mages learn swords, but honestly, they suck with them. That's like saying a Mage is skilled at knife-fighting, like a Rogue.

I don't personally believe it would be easier that way, no. That's not what profiles are for.

[Xigo]

Technically speaking, going purely by in-game mechanics alone, can't a mage's expertise in swords be just as high as a rogue's?

[Grakor456]

Technically speaking, going purely by in-game mechanics alone, can't a mage's expertise in swords be just as high as a rogue's?

No.

You are looking at just skill rank, which doesn't mean much of anything by the mechanics (and gets taken out entirely by Cataclysm.) From a mechanic stand-point, rogues have actual *abilities* that they can use with their swords, which puts them far and away better at melee combat than a mage.

[flammos200]

Technically speaking, going purely by in-game mechanics alone, can't a mage's expertise in swords be just as high as a rogue's?

No.

You are looking at just skill rank, which doesn't mean much of anything by the mechanics (and gets taken out entirely by Cataclysm.) From a mechanic stand-point, rogues have actual *abilities* that they can use with their swords, which puts them far and away better at melee combat than a mage.

...By that logic, Hunters should never have ever Dual Wielded melee weapons - or even used them effectively IC. Which... makes... a good number of Hunter characters completely obsolete.

Just because their abilities are taken away - from Dual Wield, to Mongoose Bite, to Raptor Strike - in Cataclysm, does not mean that Melee Hunters are suddenly not viable.

The skill it takes an individual to do a Wing Clip(In the case of avians) in combat, or to otherwise impair an enemy's movement by slashing through a tendon or part specifically needed for rapid movement, with a weapon, is considerably higher than that of hitting the person a little harder(Raptor Strike/Mongoose Bite), in addition to parrying every single melee attack that comes your way(Deterrence).

Just 'cause Hunters don't 'main' Melee weapons by Mechanics, doesn't mean they can't IC. Same way Rogues and Warriors can be archers or gun-men as their main form of offense, so should Magi and Warlocks be able to use swords.

I bring now the argument of Spellblades. Swords created with the purpose of being effective for caster-types. From the trusty old Azuresong Mageblade and the Blade of Wizardry to the well known Felo'melorn(Flamestrike, Wielded by Kael'thas Sunstrider), magi and fel-based casters alike have used swords for ages.

If you can do it in-game, you should be able to do it IC.

[Duraza]

This all stems from the belief that every single fight should be fair in warcraft. The gnome warrior should be able to beat the tauren warrior.

I am a fan of stats. Of character sheets. And prestiges were sort of the only way to represent these stats on CotH. But alas, now my gnome who does nothing but slap people will defeat huge honking tauren in tier 10 armor. Because of rolls.

If people were fair with trust fighting, I'd be cool with this. If I could trust people with making characters who won't go over the top, I'd be cool with this. But no. Time and time again I have been proven that if you open doors on CotH, people will beat the living daylights out of everyone else to go through them. If the opportunity is given to make a character Captain Badass, then by the Light, the player will make his/her character Captain Badass. And then everyone will be Captain Badass.

And in a world where everyone's Captain Badass. No one is.

'But my mage can't beat an archmage in one on one combat with these bonuses. It destroys my RP!'

'But my warlock can't beat a demon hunter in one on one combat with these bonuses. It destroys my RP!'

'But my warrior can't beat this bonecrusher...'

I've seen prestiges destroy the RP of those who want everything to be perfect and fair as far as combat goes. I personally don't see that as a bad thing. When you step into someone else's expertise, expect to be crushed.

I'd love it if people would use common sense when it comes to combat. But the only sense most people have is of their own character's power. I think a certain realization should eventually pop into their heads. You can't make your characters cool. You can only make the characters of others cool.

Haarumph.

I agree with this. It sums up any other opinions I have on the matter... And leaves me without much else to talk about in terms of my opinion. Blasts.

[Grakor456]

...By that logic, Hunters should never have ever Dual Wielded melee weapons - or even used them effectively IC. Which... makes... a good number of Hunter characters completely obsolete.

Just because their abilities are taken away - from Dual Wield, to Mongoose Bite, to Raptor Strike - in Cataclysm, does not mean that Melee Hunters are suddenly not viable.

The skill it takes an individual to do a Wing Clip(In the case of avians) in combat, or to otherwise impair an enemy's movement by slashing through a tendon or part specifically needed for rapid movement, with a weapon, is considerably higher than that of hitting the person a little harder(Raptor Strike/Mongoose Bite), in addition to parrying every single melee attack that comes your way(Deterrence).

Just 'cause Hunters don't 'main' Melee weapons by Mechanics, doesn't mean they can't IC. Same way Rogues and Warriors can be archers or gun-men as their main form of offense, so should Magi and Warlocks be able to use swords.

I bring now the argument of Spellblades. Swords created with the purpose of being effective for caster-types. From the trusty old Azuresong Mageblade and the Blade of Wizardry to the well known Felo'melorn(Flamestrike, Wielded by Kael'thas Sunstrider), magi and fel-based casters alike have used swords for ages.

If you can do it in-game, you should be able to do it IC.

I will never, ever, understand why people roll hunters and then choose to neither focus on ranged combat, nor use a pet. It's utterly baffling to me. For the same reason, I am unable to fathom warriors being used as archers when hunter is right there...at least, in this case, there is an excuse that not all races can be hunters (until Cata, gnomes don't count), but it is still baffling.

Though this brings up the point that hunter is disallowed to certain races. Using warrior to get around this is rather cheap, and always has been. They were disallowed for a reason, and if you want to play a human archer so badly, can't you wait until Cataclysm?

That said, this is also a matter of balance, which is entirely why variations this far from the norm are a very, very bad thing. Mages being good in melee flies in the face of what defines the mage as a class. Hunters, at least, while not perfect melee combatants, have abilities that make them somewhat servicable, both in practice and in theme. Mages do not.

This ties in to trusting people to do the right thing in RPed out fights. If I'm playing a warrior, and I'm going into a straight-up duel with a hunter, pure melee...dang right I expect to win. Warriors are the peak of physical combat, they should thrash everyone else in it when it comes to a straight-up, non-magic fight (except possibly against the other non-magic physical melee class, rogues.) This is why I typically don't engage in things like fist-fight tournaments, because I find the idea of a mage character beating up a warrior in one to be ridiculous.

And yes, swords are made for mages...but what a mage does with a sword is very different from what a warrior does with a sword. Similarly, what makes a good spellblade isn't necessarily what makes a good physical slicer.

[Spiralin]

Ever since I saw the prestige system, I've always said, "Just remove the roll bonus on the ones that make sense, and remove the prestiges that are outright more powerful classes that wouldn't fit."

And, here we are today. But I'm so absolutely fed-up with everything that's been produced, that I've decided to screw it, I'll live with nothing, and I'll die with nothing. So, voted for no variants.