Home ›
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
If they're intentionally putting out stuff that makes Supes seem gritty and distant, it might be a good indication of what the movie will be. I remember the horrible first trailer, too, with music lifted from The Lord of the Ring and nothing distinct about it at all. The whole approach of the trailer seemed to be "make the audience think it's about something unrelated, then reveal that it's about Superman".
It may be. Trailers are often known for how much they don't describe the movies, however, so at this point, it seems pretty silly to me.
All I can say is JLU had a more sensible approach to this.
@Everest regarding TMA:
Yeah, I knew TMA was Princess Apricot. That's why I said he was kind of childish.
Anyways, is it wrong that I have an irrational hatred of spellblades/magic knights/mageknights/people who dual wield magic and swords?
Yes and you should feel bad.
Especially if you're playing FFV.
I am actually
Wielding a sword just takes the point out of magic-wielding to me. What's the point of several highly destructive spells if you can just hack a monster to bits with your big dumb warrior experience?
Because magic can suffice where blades cannot, much as blades can suffice where magic cannot.
^^ and ^
Exactly why you lug around a warrior-bro to cover you.
Mystic Knight in FFV is one of the key components of the game's most broken and infamous combo.
(Namely: Dual Wield-Rapid Fire-Spellblade)
Twice the food, twice the camping space, half the treasure.
Hm...point
Aw, maybe it's because it breaks the (rather ridiculous in hindsight) stereotype that all mages are weak, anemic nerds.
Yes.
So much yes.
Infinitely better than pure mages. I mean, what kind of quasi-medieval person who expects to see violent conflict wouldn't have a basic effective grasp of how to use essential weapons? Fantasy magic academies are often pretty funny in this respect:
"Upon completion of your studies, you will be deployed in various dangerous scenarios where your skills may save your life and the lives of your colleagues. Yes, Balthazaar?"
"What about using a sword? Or dagger? I mean, if magic is highly prone to fluctuation via only partially understood arcane interference, wouldn't some basic fighting skills allow us to keep up with the fighters if it all went pear-shaped?"
"Balthazaar, see me after class. I will not have this establishment mocked by your outrageous, insulting suggestions. Everyone else, dismissed!"
It has to go down like this, doesn't it? There's just no other way. Relying on magic is like relying on wireless internet, or governmental support, or the integrity of your favourite band -- yes, it's marvelous when it works, but its failure is a question of "when" rather than "if".
Aren't dagger-wielding mages still considered pure mages? Like staff-wielding mages?
I'm talking less about the weapons themselves and more about the skills used with them. Staves are actually highly advanced, versatile weapons, and anyone who truly knows how to use one also knows how to use spears, poleaxes, halberds, bills, glaives and all manner of other polearms directly. Staff technique also contains, fundamentally, the use of two-handed swords, axes, hammers and so on.
Likewise, correct use of a dagger requires one to know unarmed fighting, because the use of a dagger is pretty much empty-handed combat that happens to include a pointy bit. So the traditional spellcaster weapons are actually versatile, effective weapons that require high degrees of skill to use to their fullest extent. If anything, the most sensible weapon for a spellcaster unskilled in combat is a brace of primitive pistols, perhaps with some kind of mass weapon (such as a mace) for backup. Primitive firearms weren't about degrees of skill, but about whether you could or could not use them. And mass weapons can certainly be applied with great skill, but are essentially about hitting someone on the head for very much ouchies.
Y'know, I quite like the idea of a wizard with a mace at their side and a brace of pistols on their chest. Interesting combo.
How would he lug around all that weight
I would assume mages should actually use their magic like their normal weapons. As opposed to huge big things.
Kinda more like warlocks than wizards in D&D.
^^ Basic fitness training? Not even. I mean, we're talking about approximations of the Middle Ages, here, where everyone walked or rode everywhere and people spent a lot less time sitting to do work. The basic fitness standard for everyday life is higher than in modern times, so the weak, brittle-boned wizard stereotype would only be appropriate for the significantly elderly. It was common for men in their fifties to fight on medieval battlefields, for instance. With the exception of medical matters, the medieval lifestyle was more conducive to fitness and health via its dietary factors and the regularity of physical exercise for all people. Your scholarly wizard is likely to be decently fit from a modern perspective, at the very least.
I remember The Ranger's Apprentice tackling something like this, albeit with Ranger talents in the place of magic.
Gilan is a Ranger, but he's also the son of an influential Knight. As such, he's the only Ranger who consistently carries around a sword with him.
This is discussed during one of the books- I think it's the first one, but it might be one of the later ones.
The reasoning given is simple; learning to master a sword takes a long time, years of practice, and the skills require a lot of upkeep or you'll go rusty. Most Rangers prefer to devote their time to practicing their Ranger talents- archery, throwing knives, stealth, tracking, etc.
This leads to characters getting in trouble occasionally, when they fight skilled swordsmen in close combat. Horace tackles those threats for the most part, however; and when he can't... well, Will usually escapes by the skin of his teeth.
That makes for some interesting conflicts; because, rather than preparing his characters for every conflict, Flanagan keeps in mind that his protagonists are very skilled, and they need some ways to be challenged.
The same principles apply to mages in most fantasy books, I feel. It's not only narratively more interesting to see them struggle against threats for reasons other than the other person having more brute force, they're also playing up their skills- much like many warriors would focus on honing their sword/mass weapon/polearm skills and whatever, not particularly learning how to master bows despite the disadvantage that puts them against master bowmen.
I assumed that mages used spells for that sort of thing.
That's kind of like using TNT to light a birthday cake.
I see what you mean; it's a convenient distinction because it helps produce tension and a clear set of "can" and "can't" factors. This is narratively effective and often justified through that.
In the case of medieval society, though, it's a question of degrees. Knights and mercenaries are going to be excellent swordsmen almost by default, and will understand what they're doing very deeply. But anyone can buy a sword if they have the money, or perhaps steal one. And they might have some basic knowledge and skill in using it, but skill differences can be quite severe. For instance, said knight or mercenary would know about the application of single-time combat and geometric principle, meaning their skills would be focused towards launching attacks that also cover them defensively; some Joe Blow with the same sword probably understands little more than basic attacks and parries, and may not even understand the synchronicity between them. In fact, the historical combat manuals speak of "common fencers", sometimes. I don't think this is meant to evoke a class distinction, but the difference between "masterful" teaching and the bare essentials of survival.
Let's take parries as an example. Someone subject to "masterful" teaching will parry with the point of their sword pointing towards their adversary, meaning that a parry is also a setup for a thrust -- there's your synchronicity. Someone subject to "common" teaching would likely have parried as we see in films and games and the like, with their sword point out to the side, or otherwise pointing somewhere their adversary isn't.
So our masterful parry contains its own counterattack, and forces an adversary to go on the defensive. The common parry might stop the incoming blow, but leaves the combatant on the defensive, vulnerable to follow-up strikes and so on. There are essentially a multitude of ways to use a sword wrong, a fair few ways to use one with basic correctness and a small handful of ways to use one masterfully. The distinctions are written in reality already, really.
Of course, I'm taking my usual perspective here, where historical fact in a fantasy context is a major tool of audience engagement. This isn't the case for every audience for every work, so I'm not so much arguing against you as much as I'm providing an optional alternative; a case in which using my perspective could provide its own clear distinctions and be used to effective narrative purpose.
I should sleep but I'm kind of sad.
Not much in the way of easy solutions for that. Trying to sleep, at least, is probably a good idea. If that's impossible, I suggest a mug of hot chocolate and a movie you like. Not that any of those things will fix anything, of course, but taking out a little time to prepare a comfortable experience can ease it a little. I find Miyazaki films are good for this purpose.
Mmm. Sort of.
A lot of fantasy books have a spellcasting system in which there's a verbal or somatic component; having to point at the enemy and shout "Alakazam!" in order to throw a fireball, for instance. In those cases, having a weapon is both advantageous and disadvantageous; it gives you a weapon to fall back on when your enemies engage you in close combat, but the weapon also interferes with your spellcasting abilities, meaning that many mages will prefer to forego weapons entirely.
Other fantasy books have magic systems wherein much of magic is due to arcane rituals. In this case, as most magic is not cast spontaneously and must be prepared ahead of time, a magic weapon may very well be advantageous. The same goes for settings in which magic is erratic; having a backup weapon for when magic is available is a very good idea.
Yet more fantasy books have settings wherein magic is as simple as thinking "I want that guy to be pushed back", perhaps visualizing him being pushed back or sacrificing some sort of energy. In settings like these, magic is very probably a more reliable weapon than a sword; after all, where a sword may kill an opponent, a fireball will do the same, and a sword cannot propel opponents away from you.
It all depends upon the nuances of the setting. Let's take The Dresden Files, for instance.
Much of the magic in The Dresden Files takes the form of ritual magic, which requires preparation and forethought. There is also magic that is able to be cast spontaneously, such as Dresden's fireballs.
Dresden wields a staff, but he doesn't use it as a weapon; he uses it as a focusing instrument, making his magic more powerful. However, he also carries a handgun on his person, and that weapon and has proven to be invaluable several times. Similarly, he has taken some martial arts lessons, and while he's tossed around like a ragdoll by more skilled opponents, the skills have come in useful.
However, it should be noted that most of Dresden's weapons are magical in nature, and he only resorts to his gun and his hand-to-hand training when he has no other recourse.
In that setting, it makes sense that many mages like to wield magic as their primary weapon. However, then there are the Wardens, such as Morgan, who take pride in their skill with swords, and are much more deadly with them than even most skilled mages.
So, in the end, I think whether weapons are a good idea is dependent on the setting, the specific characters involved and their skillsets, and the amount of time and skill needed to master the setting's magic.
What what what
No don't do that, Dracosketch
Chocolate is full of nice caffeine and sugar,both guaranteed to leave you awake.
If sleep has already failed, then a hot drink isn't going to do much harm. Better to indulge a little and ease oneself than try to force sleep if an honest attempt at it doesn't work.
Getting to your post, Nova.
Actually, hot chocolate's a pretty soothing drink. Mostly because of the warm milk in it.
Actually this whole discussion was inspired by TES, where you can kill a dragon with your awesome magicks but two hits from a bear will kill you.
That's because bears are unholy slayers of men.
Dragons are different to bears. Cave bears are stronger than most dragons, but only have half the health of even the weakest dragons, have no magic, and cannoy fly and strafe to attack you.
Dragons can be pretty deadly if you lack a decent ranged option, while cave bears are easy as all hell to beat simply by plugging them with arrows or staggering them with Unrelenting Force.