Casting Spells without Reagents = GOOD

Well, if you don't have any other weapons, I guess you're just going to have to break your bow, run up to your opponent, and try and whack him/her with it Not that it would do much good against an armored foe

 

Are we keeping in line with the fiction of say a fighter being @ 20% because his sword is now a blunt object, or a mage @ 20% because they are missing major parts of the majick system?

Then that is easy. You pick up stones or sticks from the immediate area and use those as projectiles, hence, no "arrow" and the "reduction".

In a dungeon? old splinters of wood from old doors having been kicked in or old torches. Or loose rubble from crumbling stone work.

I can make up fiction about anything, even a desert, with pieces of cactus or, again, loose stones just below the sand.

Lets put it this way: You are willing to extend your imagination to something that is a culmination of 0 and 1 that produce "adventure" and display tiny light bulbs on and off across a hybrid glass and plastic screen, but it stops at the foot of the mechanic used for "gimping" abilities based on missing, virtual items?

 

unless there is a skill in punching, everyone would be on equal grounds if they would let that happen. with mages that have wands and staffs that can shoot spells already, why should they have weak no reagent spells in addition?

 

it would be cool if the devs did implement this. but it has not been brought up so lets just focus on the balance topic not the fiction topic.

 

lol still not an answer. balance is the question friend.

 

But I think that is the problem. It is all going to feel "lame".

A fighter is effective with or without a sharp blade, no less deadly one can argue. Martial arts are fo real.

A mage, though not "real" to us, who is to say they are lesser with or without reagents? Only the system in which they exist.

This is ALL total fiction and subject to whatever rule. You are asking for specifics and justifications when you are already in the realm of the fantasy.

Who cares the reason, just make a "cool" mechanic. This is not a real world (for most*****).

 

well for "who cares", I care. I care about balance. Out of game what we are doing right now is not fiction. In game we play fictional characters yes, but the mechanics of the game are what we are talking about right now. Please focus on the question and not trivial side track conversations about this and that. Game mechanics are a BIG DEAL to most players and if it is not balanced right then people will be upset, at least the people who "care".

 

If they are not balanced, then you will have one super template to gimp them all. you will see everyone doing the same thing.

 

There is a punching attack. I've seen it. In R8 I initially had a mace and shield equipped, but then picked up a two handed weapon as a drop. I equipped it, didn't care for it much and replaced it again with my mace but forgot the shield. the next mob I attacked, I was hitting him with the mace and alternating with punching him.

I would imagine a warrior, even an archer, would take skills to increase strength and dexterity which would enhance a punch, skills that a mage most likely would not.

We'll know more when the skill trees are more complete and we can do more testing, just like we can test the effectiveness or lack thereof of casting without reagents.

 

And you don't see them being balanced by any means other than using the same method for all of them ?

In my opinion, each extreme can be balanced against all the other extremes using various offsets, not just by using a single lever.

From the looks of it, that is what the developers appear to be trying, and I'm more than apt to let them try (provided of course the balancing factor is fun: I'm looking at you fizzle *glares*).

 

I would agree with this if they went with the Chris route and have wands/staffs as foci and you can use a basic missile attack with the wand/staff. With the Dark/Richard approach the wand/staff holds charges for spells. This is where a base form of spells without reagents is in order.

 

I see your logic, yes we will see what happens. What do you think of the use of wands/staffs in conjunction with the weak no reagent spells?

 

Yes exactly... becasue we know they are so good at using a bow that their Chi becomes the weapon. Maybe we can get Freeza's standard issue power level reader Google Glass thingys so that we can see how powerful an archer is without arrows.

 

hehe well said. We just have to wait for more info now.

 

A mage should be less effective with a punch than a warrior. If their magic is gone a mage should be done for. A warrior should be hardier the battle field is for the warrior, and they can pick up a piece of wood and should be able to help defend themselves. A mage with out combat magic should be just dead in my opinion.

 

I would go with the Garriott/Long approach that would have wands and staves consume charges for a specific spell, but not a terribly strong one. Once the charges are exhausted, the wand would be useless, but the staff could be used as ... a staff, which would be a bludgeon weapon.

 

I would say polearm

 

I wouldn't mind low level cantrip type spells to be cast as often as we like without reagents. Although you should at least have some skill in that magical art before doing so, and it should use some focus.

 

The one thing I loved about UO when I started playing was the fact that I couldn't be a Mage.....I couldn't afford the regs, I started out as a simple warrior and over time I bought regs and trained.....it wasn't easy but it was fun!

 

A polearm by definition is an weapon on the end of a pole, most often a spear axe combination used mostly to dismount cavalry, but it can also be used as a pike. If you think of the quarterstaff seen in movies like Robin Hood, the staff is used as a striking weapon, a two ended club, so I think it would be a bludgeon weapon.