>>vaguely personal attacks about personal attacks

Conflicts folder plz.

--

"The ninety and nine are with dreams, content but the hope of the world made new, is the hundredth man who is grimly bent on making those dreams come true." -E.A.P.

>>Maybe you have us confused with the barbarians.

I'm not saying there aren't exceptions, but the direction of the guild has always been more of a "blow up the problem"-style solution. Their most iconic spells are excellent examples of that.

--

"The ninety and nine are with dreams, content but the hope of the world made new, is the hundredth man who is grimly bent on making those dreams come true." -E.A.P.

>the direction of the guild has always been more of a "blow up the problem"-style solution

Which never really made sense to me for a Lore secondary guild. We're also scholars. In the new system we have lots of TM spells so we can have flexible damage type and be smarter with our attacks. How does that not point to a Tactical mind? I've always viewed our "blow everything up" spells as last resorts. CL and FR are the spells to use when you're massively overwhelmed and have no allies nearby to harm (even though there have been changes to make them a little safer for allies), that's still a Tactical decision when faced with overwhelming odds.

Regardless of if we end up with a Tactics requirement, it's likely to be my first or second lore. I hope there ends up being feats where you can assess an enemy to learn what damage types they're vulnerable or strong against, as that seems like a Tactics-y kind of thing to me.

Elemental Lord Opieus, Expert Warrior Mage of Elanthia
"For a bunch of radical empiricists, the Philosophers' system relies on a whole lot of faith." ~Armifer

>> We're also scholars.
>Well, yes. You blow them up and then go to the forums to discuss the morality of your decision.

And we have a Scholarship requirement in 3.0... I personally think Tactics makes a whole lot more sense to be our soft Lore. We like combat, we do scholarly things... Why don't we do scholarly things about combat?

Elemental Lord Opieus, Expert Warrior Mage of Elanthia
"For a bunch of radical empiricists, the Philosophers' system relies on a whole lot of faith." ~Armifer

>You blow them up and then go to the forums to discuss the morality of your decision.

"You're using force. And force, my friends, is violence, the supreme authority from which all other authority derives. ... Correct. Naked force has resolved more issues in history than any other factor."

Kaeta Airtag

>>Actually an opinion cannot be changed or corrected. Nice try back of line.-VERATHOR
>>But it can be wrong.-Starlear

And requirements are just that, requirements. Even if Gauthus thinks every problem in combat can be solved by a fire ball of sufficient size, you are completely free to train up your Tactics skill.

-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

>The book was better.

Eh, I liked them both. Albeit the philosophy discussion I felt was the high point, which occurred in the first 10 minutes of the movie. An interesting way of saying "Might makes right".

Kaeta Airtag

>>Actually an opinion cannot be changed or corrected. Nice try back of line.-VERATHOR
>>But it can be wrong.-Starlear

<<You study very, very hard to find new and innovative ways to blow things up.>>
Amusing, but true.

Look at the "history" that you're given as part of the AP quests.

Heck, look at outside the WM guildhall in Shard.

Even if you look at the last fight in the Elven-Human war <the one in which the S'kra Mur Wind Clan <sraan> was lost>, it was elemental magic that got out of control that brought down the gods to put a stop to it.




"we're doing it for the good of mankind," said the philosophers of murder, waiting for the rest of the world to congratulate them"-Elie Wiesel <the gates of the forest>

>>Unfortunately this makes for very one dimensional gameplay/characters/development.

I'm inclined to keep the spellbooks mostly focused on combat and then introduce utility elements through the Summoning skill, which keeps the aesthetic of the Warrior Mage training as rather dogmatic and one-dimensional while still allowing an escape hatch into some useful out-of-combat material.

-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

>>You lost me in the big words. So you'd like to make summoning the utility go-to system/mechanic (either of those appropriate?)? Would it leave WM's with little in the way of utility skill trainers? Or would it teach both skills (or multiple skills, whatever)?

It'd leave them with relative few Utility spells. I'm not concerned about parity across the casting skills within one guild, as long as I don't inadvertently give you spells you can't reasonably use.

-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

<<Unfortunately this makes for very one dimensional gameplay/characters/development.

Blowing things up has been the demesne of Warrior Mages from go. They're unequivocally the best at it except in very odd circumstances (hordes of undead, no mana, etc).

Individual Warrior Mages tend to be a bit more diverse than that. Like I said the idea of a Tactics requirement doesn't strike me wrong vis-a-vis Warrior Mages, but there are going to be Warrior Mages -- particularly PC Warrior Mages -- for whom that simply isn't a priority or even on their radar. They're still trying to throw a fireball the size of a house. Who cares about getting behind your opponent first?