Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="CleverNickName" data-source="post: 5786389" data-attributes="member: 50987">Oooof....long day.&nbsp; Sorry for the delay in posting.I agree with you, to a point.&nbsp; Yes, warlocks and wizards have different core mechanics...but they don't &quot;have&quot; to.&nbsp; If they drop the Vancian magic system and use spell points, the distinction between a wizard and a sorcerer becomes a matter of play style and flavor elements.&nbsp; &quot;You use a spellbook, I was born this way...but we both know how to use a fireball.&quot;But I'm totally with you on the &quot;work in different ways&quot; thing.&nbsp; That's one of the biggest strengths of the skill tree system, I think...a wizard's skill tree would have schools and specialization, item creation, metamagic stuff, and the like, while the sorcerer's tree would have light armor and shields, dragon-born abilities, better fighting ability, and what-have-you.But because the sorcerer started out with a base of a Mage, he will never be as good in combat as a Fighter would have, even if he were to switch completely to the Fighter's skill tree.&nbsp; And likewise, a fighter would never be as good of a spellcaster as the Mage would be, no matter which skill tree he puts ranks into.&nbsp; They started from different baselines.&nbsp; Different cores.You make an excellent point.&nbsp; I don't know why.&nbsp; Tradition?&nbsp; Habit?&nbsp; Maybe so that there can be a &quot;fighter-mage&quot; baseline in the core classes?Actually, that wouldn't be a bad idea.&nbsp; If the fighter uses high combat and low magic, and the wizard uses low combat and high magic...well, maybe the &quot;cleric&quot; would be medium combat and medium magic.Anyway, your point is valid.&nbsp; Maybe the &quot;cleric&quot; is just a mage with a different spellbook.I agree totally.&nbsp; This is why the wording and writing of these skill trees will be vital to the game.&nbsp; The game developers cannot simply lump everything into a big pile of &quot;powers,&quot; force a bunch of equal signs between them, and expect the game to have the same spirit as Dungeons &amp; Dragons.&nbsp; They will need to spend a lot of time developing the skill trees, organizing them in ways that make sense, inspire the imagination, and create a sense of accomplishment in the player.Fighers are not paladins are not rangers...sure, they all have the same base stats, but they have to be dramatically different in just about every other way or else the character (and the game) quickly becomes boring.&nbsp; Nobody wants a cherry-picking contest.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="CleverNickName, post: 5786389, member: 50987"] Oooof....long day. Sorry for the delay in posting. I agree with you, to a point. Yes, warlocks and wizards have different core mechanics...but they don't "have" to. If they drop the Vancian magic system and use spell points, the distinction between a wizard and a sorcerer becomes a matter of play style and flavor elements. "You use a spellbook, I was born this way...but we both know how to use a fireball." But I'm totally with you on the "work in different ways" thing. That's one of the biggest strengths of the skill tree system, I think...a wizard's skill tree would have schools and specialization, item creation, metamagic stuff, and the like, while the sorcerer's tree would have light armor and shields, dragon-born abilities, better fighting ability, and what-have-you. But because the sorcerer started out with a base of a Mage, he will never be as good in combat as a Fighter would have, even if he were to switch completely to the Fighter's skill tree. And likewise, a fighter would never be as good of a spellcaster as the Mage would be, no matter which skill tree he puts ranks into. They started from different baselines. Different cores. You make an excellent point. I don't know why. Tradition? Habit? Maybe so that there can be a "fighter-mage" baseline in the core classes? Actually, that wouldn't be a bad idea. If the fighter uses high combat and low magic, and the wizard uses low combat and high magic...well, maybe the "cleric" would be medium combat and medium magic. Anyway, your point is valid. Maybe the "cleric" is just a mage with a different spellbook. I agree totally. This is why the wording and writing of these skill trees will be vital to the game. The game developers cannot simply lump everything into a big pile of "powers," force a bunch of equal signs between them, and expect the game to have the same spirit as Dungeons & Dragons. They will need to spend a lot of time developing the skill trees, organizing them in ways that make sense, inspire the imagination, and create a sense of accomplishment in the player. Fighers are not paladins are not rangers...sure, they all have the same base stats, but they have to be dramatically different in just about every other way or else the character (and the game) quickly becomes boring. Nobody wants a cherry-picking contest. [/QUOTE]

Verification