>damage reduction stone armor spell was one of those spells that was right up our alley

Well, you do have a stone armor spell of sorts. It's just air armor (YS), and it reduces armor hinderance as well as increasing its absorption.

---

>describe boar
It's a boar. It doesn't like you.

>>They're neither, which I pointed out in the second half of the comment which you cut off.<<

I still disagree with your assertion.

WMs are soldiers/warriors whose special training happens to be magic, not magicians who happen to like soldiering.


- Mazrian

The Flying Company

The Public Stat Data Project
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AkqoUyrmvlKNdGlpeHZacEdldi1Ob2h3M1I5TXpCZVE&hl=en

Do you need to focus pathway precise to split this hair? I think there's room enough in the guild's scope for both battle magicians and mages of battle magic.

There's actual lore for this one. Is this really an area people think the guild is hurting for identity?

---

"Magic has rules and so does posting on these forums." -Annwyl

our skillset is a joke. seriously we're WAR mages yet 2 of the 3 types of defenses are tert skills!
someone dropped the ball a loooooooooooong time ago and it needs to be picked up.
but seeing as the chances of skillsets being shifted into a more logical sense somewhere around the chance of icewater in hell. our guild has 983648639846298369286349862986 different spells to kill stuff, do we need more rp tools? maybe. do we need more ways to kill stuff? no. we need a good hard tuneup on the spells we have. the damage of our spells is so WONKY it's ridiculous you could get a devastatingly head exploding hit with a 5 mana fs one second and a "you singed it's nose' hit the next go around with the same ammount of mana. seriously
when is it going to make sense? at almost 300tm ive seen 'the lightning bolt misses but a tendril branches off and scorches its chest ect" on a MUSK HOG. how the hell am i almost missing a musk hog with almost 300 tm?
please we dont need awesomeer death bolt we need the weapons and utility we have now to be more functional.

Warrior Mages are not a utility guild in the vein of Moon Mages or a buffing tank guild in the vein of Clerics, but they could do with some magical utility.

The "warrior mages = kill stuffz" sentiment is a hold over from when guilds had very narrow niches. Empaths can kill constructs now, Moon Mages are quite fearsome when trained well, and Barbarians are getting stuff like climbing boost and disarm boost in 3.0.

Luckily more utility is planned, though it's been a while since I poured over the WM 3.0 spell list in detail.

>so, with that in mind, we should have skillsets more akin to rangers though instead of survival. we'd be magic primary armor and weapon secondary, and lore survival tert.

It doesn't work that way. But good luck sticking your fingers in the light socket and screaming about getting shocked.

---

Let's save us all some time: I'm a troll who rarely has anything helpful. There.

While there are some guilds where skillset changing could be justified, early on in the 3.0 process we decided that wasn't a rabbit hole we were willing to jump down. It's not on the table for the foreseeable future.

-Armifer
"In our days truth is taken to result from the effacing of the living man behind the mathematical structures that think themselves out in him, rather than he be thinking them." - Emmanuel Levinas

People use Fireball?

>>While there are some guilds where skillset changing could be justified, early on in the 3.0 process we decided that wasn't a rabbit hole we were willing to jump down. It's not on the table for the foreseeable future.

Skillset wise, WMs are identical to Clerics and I think that should change to help differentiate the two. My personal belief, I think WMs should trade out the lore secondary for armor secondary. I think it makes more sense that way. Just my two cents.

>Skillset wise, WMs are identical to Clerics and I think that should change to help differentiate the two. My personal belief, I think WMs should trade out the lore secondary for armor secondary. I think it makes more sense that way. Just my two cents.

A) I think (but could be wrong) that the requirements for circling will be (or are? I can't recall) different for warmies and clerics post 3.0.
B) Not survival? Thematically, it sounds like you want your cake and to eat it too; you (and Balthier) want a 'warrior', that is, someone who can swing a huge weapon and wear massive armor, and who can also use great magics. You want this sans lore, but can't decide if you want to learn survival or weapons slower. Get with the program; the name of the game isn't 'make an uber character that will burnify everything', it's 'create a balanced guild that has strengths and weaknesses'

I will say there are days I feel like I too need a paragraph long rant on Warrior Mage skill sets vs the other combat oriented guilds.

I hafta admit though, it does get more and more like if your guild isnt survival primary or secondary you're just flat out screwed over. Everyone has their own particular way of play and I respect that. And change is JUST over the horizon so I do hope the future is bright for the Warrior Mage guild.

>True or False... The War Mage guild has a higher capacity for combat than the Cleric guild? This is reflected in the circling reqs. Why not the skillsets as well?

False. Clerics are fine vs WMs. WMs have offense, clerics have buffs and defense. In the first 10 circles you can pick up mpp, mapp, pfe, defense commune, and be using them.

Don't get so utterly caught up in the 'war' aspect. WMs are offensive powerhouses by design and intention. Magic theory in DR requires extensive lore knowledge. Research and study skills and other things encapsulated with the overarching lore skillset. If you want to be magic primary the penalty is getting lore secondary.

And because the GMs said a) skillset placement changes won't happen and b) YOU STILL HAVE TO BE LORE SECONDARY. You're not getting away from it in a magic primary guild.

---

Let's save us all some time: I'm a troll who rarely has anything helpful. There.

>>Warrior mages might have a higher requirement for weapons training than Clerics, and Clerics a higher requirement for lore. But that's it, I think.

Exactly. There's a reason for this.

I really don't get why this keeps getting rehashed. GMs have stated skillsets will not change.

GM Fact - Magic primary requires Lore secondary to support the idea that magic includes scholarly study.

Lets suspend disbelief for a bit (you know, the whole Skillsets won't change thing). So that leaves us 1 skillset to play with. You want to trade what, weapons for armor? weapons for survival? Not to mention it wouldn't be very 'Warrior Mage' to have tertiary weapons.

If anything, it would make more sense for Clerics to swap weapon/armor skillsets. (no I'm not advocating this)

>>Also: circle requirements have been changed multiple times in DR's history. You're journeying down a slippery path, friend. Barbarians have decent magic requirements now, we going to swap those skillsets? Paladins and magic? Bards and survival?

I realize this is sort of playing devil's advocate, but you might confuse some people. This is putting the cart before the horse. Circle requirements follow skillset placement, not the other way around. Although I do seem to recall Armifer saying if he had his way, there would be no such thing as magic tertiary, it was just too late in the game to change that now.

<<it does get more and more like if your guild isnt survival primary or secondary you're just flat out screwed over.

Massive and severe game play issue because there is so much power in the survival skillset. Not just a warrior mage problem.

Madigan

I think the Paladins uniquely understand where I was coming from there, amongst other guilds. I have nothing but respect for anyone who plays a Paladin, Cleric, Bard, or Warrior Mage and enjoys pvp simply because I know first hand how hindered they all are for survival skill sets.

I think more should be done to level that playing field of being Survival tert, not JUST for Warrior Mages, but for everyone who endures limited experience gain and reduced perks simply because you are survival tert.

>>I realize this is sort of playing devil's advocate, but you might confuse some people. This is putting the cart before the horse. Circle requirements follow skillset placement, not the other way around. Although I do seem to recall Armifer saying if he had his way, there would be no such thing as magic tertiary, it was just too late in the game to change that now.

Actually, you are putting the cart before the horse, and that was my entire point. (Not you in the specific sense, just the previous argument). You can't argue for a skillset swap using circle requirements as logic, because circle requirements are largely determined by skillset placement.

>>So I'm to take it that you are in complete agreement with the current skillset placements?

No, but I find the logic being used to justify a possible change backwards. This isn't (in my opinion) an all-or-nothing discussion, where I must either support skillset switching without question or oppose such. I simply recognize both the inherent problems in trying to justify it (everyone's perception of what a Warrior Mage is will differ slightly, I am sure the people waiting for enchanting would scoff at switching lore with armor) as well as the Pandora's Box of design problems that would result if you switched a guild's skillsets.

You're right, its just easier to make your point around Stalking, Hiding and Perception. But Survival touches everything from monetary gain with Skinning and Lock picking and Disarm as well as travel times whether you're Swimming across a river or Climbing around the gondola by Shard. Not to mention First Aid which you ignore at your own peril.

Every guild must give some attention to the survival skill set no matter your play style else suffer the consequences of travel times, coin, with not getting boxes popped or not getting better skins or experience, because you bleed to death unable to tend that wound. Or that pesky thief robbing you blinde.

No other skill set can make that same boast.

When so much of the game is enjoyed hindered or over come with one skill set and you're tertiary in it... its just very disheartening. I know we Warrior Mages have Sure footing for climbing and Rising Mists for Hiding and I THINK mantle of flame hinders would be thieves? Not sure. These spells are meant to try and perhaps combat some of these limitations?


But frankly it's just not enough. Im not asking for an advantage in the game. Just a level playing field, where everyone has a fair shake.

I guess what im asking is. Let me blind people with my book and surf across rivers with it! Attach a rope to it and use it to climb over ravines! Or ATLEAST rip pages out of it to tend my wounds, instead of just drying my tears... Just sayin!

Thanks guys :)

>>Our circle reqs require us to be more like magical rangers then magic studying types (6 survivals to 4 lores)

Theres only a limited amount of lores currently which is why lore reqs in general tend to be shorter in number although higher in volume per level.

Judging by most your posts in this thread its probably safe to say you haven't played this game an extremely long time(talking one of the decade+ players), if so you'd realize just how lenient the survival reqs are.

Go look at barbarian survival reqs or moon mage ones. Heck if you get a chance try and find the old moon mage overall survival reqs. I swear my moonie spent more time climbing, swimming, and foraging than he did casting spells.
_______________________
It is impossible to strive for the heroic life. The title of hero is bestowed by the survivors upon the fallen, who themselves know nothing of heroism.
-Johan Huizinga

The Light is Crimson through the Darkness.