"Damage" is a rather broad Achille's heel, when you think about it. It's like saying warriors should have a 2x herb/vial balance so that afflictions are their Achille's heel. (Okay, so I'm overdoing it, but you get the point.)

No, I don't get it. I'm dumb like that.

If a mage/guardian knows that they can't take a warrior face to face, or know they are vulnerable to their damage... They should probably play defensive: keep distance and attack from the distance. Or, depending on the race, taking advantages of their weakness. Like for example, in my opinion a race like tae'daes should be screwed when aeoned or anything else that keeps them out of balance, or exhaust their supplies. Also, mages/guardians are best for group combat, that is where they could gather more strength and overpower a knight.

Eh, though I must say I'm just rambling. My experience in Lusternia is as miniscule as a quark. So maybe I shouldn't be commenting basing myself from my outside of Lusternia experience and deductions/assumptions.


Edit:

Just let us enter a hover stance, granting amazing avoidance. Problem solved.

Also, I think its a bit unfair to say that one race should be screwed when it comes to damage of any kind. We should be weaker, hell yes... but since combat is the dominant form of interaction in Lusternia, there should be some kind of benefit we get in its place. Remember, as far as I know, the only way to die in Lusternia is through damage (aside from a few select instakills).

Guardians can't attack from a distance, so you know, Desdemona.

...or, we can, with some stupid contrivances such as Rage Coven and World Tarot, but I don't need to explain why that's just not a good enough reason.

Also, it's easier said than done to escape sometimes, if you're off-eq because you just slung two runes/pointed a staff at someone. Also, aeon doesn't affect tae'dae worse than anyone else, that I can think of.

Also what Elryn said.

Eh, still. Warriors are good at face to face combat. Others not as good. Warriors don't have much synergy working in groups than the others. I think that fighting against any class requires a different tactic. Guardians=Warrior, group and afflict a lot. Retreat whenever you are able to heal. Mage= keep distance, be defensive, afflict, attack from distance, heal, afflict, and so on.

Also, Elyrn it is completely logical and reasonable to say that a weak race should be and will be screwed when facing against damage, even if it may sound unfair. Something like a 35(Tae'dae/Igasho) year old whaling against a 10 year old (faeling/furrikin).

I think that even when I have lack of experience, what I say should be considered as partially correct. Guardian/Mage archetypes that aren't as adept in face to face battle, should learn to keep the distance and team, especially when such mage/guardian is of a weak race.

Also, I think that mages/guardians depend on a combination between afflict/damage to win, not damage completely as most knights.

Like I said, what would you guys preffer? Speed/afflict knights or damage knights? If you say damage knights, then the amount of damage that knights deal is right as opposed to missing the ability to deal an 100% affliction (if the hit were landed).

An Guardians approach against a Knight should be different, and try to be able to get the benefit from any imbalancing Knights. Mages the same, they just need different approaches/tactics. Face to face isn't a real option when you know that you are making yourself vulnerable.

Though, something I would like to say, I think that sophisticated systems may make it harder to kill someone with afflictions. It would be nice to see people completely operate Lusternia manually for at least a day. It could be an interesting experience.

Faelings can be decent warriors as soon as Tae'dae can be decent mages

"We have high strength. Can't we, like, hurl our fireballs really hard?"

They shouldn't BE decent warriors, they should be able to SURVIVE against decent warriors. Des, teaming just isn't a solution. You shouldn't really use solo combat as a justification for -anything.- (Besides, even though Wiccans work MARGINALLY better in groups (and let's face it, Shine and Rage are hardly special), Guardians don't really work any more effectively in teams than Warriors do (i.e, just totally focus damage and nail people. Simple.)) So, yeah.

Every class uses damage to kill.

Every creature uses damage to kill.

I think Faelings should be extremely vulnerable to physical damage or blows, but since damage is so universal, this is a -big- disadvantage, and it should have a -big- advantage to offset it.

Combat. In any form of combat, the approach of a combatant will be congruent with it's capabilities, also it will at the very most focus on it's powers and guarding their weakness. A warrior can't fight from the distance, a warrior is mostly slow, a warrior is only apt at fighting face to face and can only win by dealing damage. Mages/Guardians are the opposite. Also, in real combat, chances are that you will not only encounter yourself face to face, so in this aspect I believe that groups can outmaneuver a knight. Eh, a warrior would constantly be forced to have to chase you around... knowing this you'd know that a warrior is coming at you, what do you do? Obstacle them, immobilize them... or whatever that enables you to keep distance and evade their attacks and keep yourself attacking.


Edit: Yeah, if a 30 year old kicks a 10 year old on the face, chances are that the 10 year old may end up severly injured. Therefore a 10 year old may want to choose to be elusive, maybe your elusiveness should be increased or at the very least your xp penalty removed.

Knights can also attack from adjacent rooms.

Whoa. The greatest distance-covering attack Knights have is probably Charge... meaning translation of the self into the target. That is not exactly attacking from the distance. Neither barge, and things like that. You translate yourself to the target eliminating the distance between you.

You're STILL labouring under the impression that Guardians are fast and able to fight from a distance. They-are-not able to effectively fight from a distance. And if you can obstacle/immobilise them to keep them at range (which doesn't really work), they can do the same to keep you IN range.

Xp penalty removed is one thing to cope with being sucky. But...yeah. They're still sucky.

I'll also point you to the fact that, for example, Furrikin do not make good mages/guardians OR warriors, because their advantage (balance) works for warriors, where they have 10 strength, and they only have 12 intelligence. Sooo...yeah.

My charge, in the right room to the right person does about 1K damage and fairly long stun. If charged into a statue room, its pretty nasty. As soon as I get balance back, I can stand up, leave the room, tackle, leave, and charge the other direction. If I'm shrouded, they can't do a thing.

Can charge go through boulders/walls/obstacles? Can charge do anything, without requiring your presence to be immediatly in front of your target? Therefore Charge is just an advance maneuver, a way to diminish the distance between you and your target. In other words, you "exntend" yourself. Consider a punch to someone's face as the charge of someone's fist onto someone else's face. Useless if you don't make direct contact, in fact requires of you to exntend yourself and contact.

I base my assumptions on that warriors are hack-and-slash butchers, the material vikings/samurai/knights/barbarians/berserkers/infantryman are made up of. A way to counter this is group attacks from the distance. That is the specialty of a guardian/mage. I never said a warrior was going to be all polite and let you keep the distance, I said that a warrior will do whatever it takes to relocate itself infront of you and impale you with their sword. You keep distance, group, one obstacles, the other attacks... Shiri, consider mages/warriors as capable of building up guerrila units with "archery". Completely different forms of combat, and edges. Warriors: damage only.

>_< Argh. I don't feel like I'm getting through here somehow. Desdemona, what you're saying is great, but it's TOTALLY idealistic. It just isn't like that in Lusternia. I'll say again. Take Wiccans. 2 ranged attacks.

Rage: With 4 other people, Waning, Moonburst and Dark Moon (8p useless skill, so we'll just keep it to the first two) can be fired through a thing worldwide for half an hour every 32 hours, and local area for...um...15.5 hours every 32, stopped by going indoors, underground, or shielding. ALSO is immobile, so the tactics you're saying warriors should use render this totally useless.
Shine: Lusts everyone on your enemy list for 1 power - but requires 9 people, so is NOT a combat thing. It's good if you're just going through a fairly unlucky Mage's demesne, but that's it. (Remember, lust doesn't stop you attacking, unlike love.)

And then Guardians: The only one I can think of is World Tarot, an optional skill, that costs 10 power and for the duration (about 20 seconds?) lets you fling tarot cards (NOT lust) outdoors, in the local area.

...I mean, come on. What the heck is that for ranged combat? As I say: Your ideas would be good, but that IS NOT HOW IT IS.

Idealistic? No. Completey realistic. If a man with a bat wants to hit you, he must move at range from you. He hits and connects. A man with a gun may shoot from the distance and will want to keep said distance. If a two man with guns encounter a person with a bat barricading, one man may want to go chase the bat-man while the other is shooting covering fire. Use your head. Like I said, strategy. Warrior is full frontal, mages/guardians may want to keep a warrior out of balance by focusing on distance attacks, while probably constantly sending a wave to meet the warrior and ensure that there is something being done.

Archers fire a rain of arrows: whip users move in... eh... Something weird like that. Warriors being brutes go: charge, make turtle maneuvers to defend themselves, archers send a wave of closer ranched attacks: archer-cavalry

Oh, and while I'm at it, the only ranged attacks mages have (staff/supersling, staffpoint) (Because you cannot call a demesne a ranged attack, because without staffsling or staffpoint it just won't take anyone -reasonably- skilled down...technically it is, but it can't be expected to win on its own, so saying mages should specialise in it is ridiculous) need to be done from the next room (or technically in a straight line with staffpoint, but it makes very little difference in the end) so if they count, charge et al. counts.

No, it IS idealistic, NOT realistic, because we are talking about LUSTERNIA here. We HAVE no arrows. We are NOT archers. I don't know why you think we do. I just explained all the range attacks we have. It's idealistic because although what you're saying applies in real life it DOES NOT APPLY IN LUSTERNIA. Because that's just not how our skills work.

EDIT: Anyway, I'm going to sleep, it's nearly 5AM. *cough* I'll respond in the...afternoon. If you post again.

Eh? A mages dominance over an area can't be considered as a ranged attack? It surely can, no matter what effects are happening on the demesne.

Charge counts, of course... but it doesn't count as a ranged attack... Have you seen people play rugby/american football? See people charging at each other tackling at each other? That requires physical contact at the cost of physical translation. Mean skin against skin. A magician would be like um... a man throwing rocks at an idiot who is trying to tackle them from 5-6 meters away.

Yes, this Lusternia but what I said is still applicable... or hey, show me how I can mentally control my sword in-game and send it slash at you while my soul performs Astral projection and takes control of your body and cut of all defences. Heh, this last statement is pointless

Um, what I am trying to say is that the things applicable rl are applicable here, unless Lusternia came up with its own sense of laws/dimension/time/space, completely contrieved out of thin air baring no resemblance to IRL. Warriors physical, mages/guardian magical. Thundar the Barbarian was never able to slash at a wizard unless he was a infront of them. Strategy is the dominant factor of combat. Um, mages/guardians combine distance attack with affliction/obstacling close range attacks, the warriors are cavement only good at brawling.

Edit: I predict an Elryn attack

Then why is it that at least 95% of a guardians abilities (and probably 60% of a mages) require you to be in the same location?