Drawn Weapon Stance vs Spellcasting

Why must we be in a drawn weapon stance in order to cast offensive spells? And why does a mage need to wait for a cooldown cycle before they can cast any spells once they have "drawn weapon" ?? That makes no sense. A hand held weapon is not required to cast any spells. I find it rather unintuitive as a spellcasting character to have to "draw my weapon" in order to begin spellcasting. I mean, we already need reagents to cast spells, but how can I use the reagents if my hands are full by holding a sword and shield? It doesnt make sense that a pure spellcaster would be using melee weapon and shield when they also need reagents to cast spells, AND they have to stand still in order to cast them.

I suggest a separation from "weapon drawn" stance and spell casting. Make it so we can cast any spells without having to draw a weapon first. I mean... we dont need to have a weapon drawn to cast a heal spells right? So it doesnt make sense why we need a weapon drawn to cast ANY spell. The weapon is not a component for any spell. Reagents are, and reagents require free hands right? Or why do we need reagents? Some spells dont need reagents, why do any of them? I dont mind having a reagent system for spell casting, but make it consistent, and dont make us draw a weapon to use spells if we also must have reagents. It just makes sense...

 

But the entire process of drawing your weapon is what enables you to be in combat mode in the first place. Removing that process effectively gives magic casters yet another advantage over everybody else.

But it is "realistic", I suppose... so I'll tell you what: If magic actually took an relatively insane amount of time to cast... because, you know, you're generating energy out of thin air... I'd be inclined to take your stance on the matter.

P.S. - maybe you need the weapon as some sort of catalyst for your spells.

 

As I said, weapons are not required for spellcasting. Not one single spell states that a weapon is a spell component, and we have reagents already. Mages already are helpless for a few seconds after "drawing weapon" while they have to wait for a cooldown cycle before casting anything. Mages are not advantaged in melee combat, they are disadvantaged. A pure fighter doesnt need any spell reagents, and their weapons do full damage without any skill. While mages must increase skill to do more damage. Does armor require any skill to wear? Does a fighter need to stand still to use their abilities? Does armor require a cooldown before you use it in combat?

See here my beef..

A fighter gets to auto attack instantly. no cooldown.
An archer... same thing.
Mage has several seconds of helplessness while they wait for cooldowns before they can do anything. Its very irritating.

I dont think a mages spells should be treated exactly the same as a warriors special abilities, and I dont think a mage should have to wait for a cooldown before they can attack after "drawing weapon"

Spells already have casting times,(And travel times) why do they also have cooldowns? Its double jeopardy.

 

But you won't get fizzle reduction from staves/wands unless you are wielding it... also, how would you differentiate between combat modes, add a hotkey that switches the bar to combat for mages, or add combat spells to the non-combat bar (which sounds awful, as melee will take advantage of this imo).

 

@Teralitha Tokomi I'm not sure where you get the impression that melee/physical abilities don't have any cooldowns or casting time.

As someone who avoids casting spells at all cost, I can tell you that it'd be impossible for me to prevail in combat if I wasn't using skills like Dodge or Evade. So I'd argue that it does require skills to at least make the armour worth wearing.

 

Im not sure where you get the impression that I have that impression.

 

Because you use casting time and cooldowns as a reason to allow spellcasters do things that non-spellcasters can't.

 

The way I see it, is that all spells have what I think of as a focus, but since that has a specific meaning in this game let's call it a channel; something that it must act upon or through. Healing must have a injury to effect, or else it has no effect.

Combat spells must have an enemy targeted, which requires some amount of concentration and summoning of ethereal energy. This is the initial cycle when entering combat mode. You may or may not use an object to summon these energies, like a wand or staff, but that act of drawing is part of spellcasting.

Honestly, rather than making combat spells not require you to go into combat mode, I'd rather see spells that can be cast out of combat mode lose the benefit of wands and staves unless you do. You are not channeling through them when they are sheathed, after all.

 

I said no such thing. You made an assumption.

 

I think if they simply removed the cooldown timers from drawing weapons everything would be fine.

 

This is completely false. Every successful PvP person in this game since I have been in it is a mage and melee has absolutely no shot against them. Mages need to do nothing more then cast death shield to kill a melee person. PvP mages are pretty much cookie cutter uber builds based of things like death shield and chain lightning still. To boot, as a GM in blunt and Earth, earth by far out damages any melee skill. I can pop mobs easily with a obsidian arrow for 300 hp crit and barely crack 100 hp with a blunt skill. Then the fact is that the typical good mage has 900 focus and the typical good melee has 900 hp and little focus and yet all melee skills are focus derived too which means mages have FAR more damage and focus management potential (and the people that do it are great at it).

Fundamental understand this. Melee players *ARE* no different then mages except they hold a wep, melee skills work exactly the same way that mages spells do, you press a button and an action happens and focus is used. Mages need reagents, melee have to repair their weps... a lot.

 

Game mechanic reasons aside, there is a in character and realistic reason for this...

Even with no weapon drawn, empty handed, you are in a fighting stance in combat. Why? Because your spell caster is an adventurer and no stranger to battle... He or She is in that stance for a reason.

In the non-combat stance the feet are in close, your center of gravity is high, and your character is on his heels.
This is BAD. You are asking to get pasted.

In combat, your character widens their stance, pivots slightly, and raises their hands to a guarded position.
This is a person ready to rumble.
The bent knees and lowered stance improves stability and the ability to weather an impact with the bent leg opposite of the impact able to help to absorb shock, and then push back against the impulse to hold ground. Hands up in guard permit defensive actions and in a position to reach all those wonderful pouches of reagents. The slight pivot places the off hand forward for defensive purposes and will provide to further benefits: a smaller torso profile (remember vital organs!) and an angled surface increasing the amount of deflected blunt force and increases the chance a blow glances off causing surface damage only.

If my caster stood there straight legged and flat footed in a fight... I'd be mad. I'd call BS. He'd be dead.

 

While I personally don't think I'd have a problem with this, that undermines the advantages or having a shuffling deck. I think the whole point of the cooldowns at the start of combat is to simulate how prepared you are for combat. Obviously, one who's in his combat stance is far more mentally prepared than the one who got attacked by surprise.

So does the non-spellcasters...

Yet you need the weapon drawn to cast the spell... so which is it? Your argument on the matter is that there's no tooltip that says so but there could very easily be an in-game reason for it. Just like how in Diablo lore, the magic of rings in close proximity would cancel each other out, thus preventing you to wear more than one per hand.
There's no tooltip that says otherwise, yet the game prevents you from wearing more rings.

I'm not saying THIS is the explanation either, but you're neglecting that possibility.

@Merv DeGriff reiterated (and elaborated) my original point really well.

Oh that, we can both agree. See, the problem is that non-magic abilities are treated like spells. [Silent Movement], for example, shouldn't require a casting time nor should it have a buff duration. [Dodge] shouldn't have a buff duration. etc, etc.

Let spells be spells.

 

Well yes, one of my questions is 'why do we need a weapon drawn to cast a spell'

 

It's not "drawing a weapon". It's combat mode vs. non-combat mode.

 

You don't... You can cast empty handed. Like others have pointed out you are in a combat ready stance... waiting to dole the harshness out.

This gives you and every other type of player a COMBAT and NON-COMBAT state... for game mechanic reasons this is nescesary for both melee and magic. The change in stance also helps communicate to you and to other players your state. If you are in a COMBAT stance, you are clearly ready for a fight and I or others may get a flame arrow to the face.

Cool downs for locked glyphs entering a fight reflect being ready for a fight. What point is there to ambush tactics like stealth if the unprepared person in a combat is instantly ready?

Casting an offensive spell is combat, thus done in the COMBAT state. This is why you can cast a cure out of combat... because that is not a combat action and could be part of resting and healing.

@Gix and I both agree that things like stances... spell binder, dodge, defensive stance, passive stance, should be a toggle if locked and persist in being active whenever I enter combat if I left it on last time.

 

The game calls it drawing your weapon. Just sayin