Reactions to the Witch Subguilds

[Molten Heart]

.

[Inks]

Even those firebombs being tossed around in riots would be great.

[racurtne]

It was pretty easy to fully branch a magicker. It   was a lot less grindy than any mundane guild and most guilds had a spell that if successful basically could kill a mundane regardless of days played.

Sure you don't have to play your mage that way. But it was a lot faster to get gud as a mage.

It didn't really bother me that this was the case, but it definitely was the case.

[Jingo]

All those mundane bombs that npcs throw are cool and all. But if they were given to say, assassins and burglars, their karma would defo have to go up.

[BadSkeelz]

I think they're pretty lame as-is myself. Maybe if they had a cap on how many people they could hit (like, 3). As it is they intersect with the Armageddon room system in a very broken fashion.

[Synthesis]

It was pretty easy to fully branch a magicker. It   was a lot less grindy than any mundane guild and most guilds had a spell that if successful basically could kill a mundane regardless of days played.

Sure you don't have to play your mage that way. But it was a lot faster to get gud as a mage.

It didn't really bother me that this was the case, but it definitely was the case.

Technically, it's still just as easy to git gud with those particular spells, if you picked that particular magick subguild.  You just don't have -all- of the other stuff to go along with it.

Personally, I'd be much more scared of the dude who can charge you, then rip off 3 suls and smoke your ass while you can't even flee than the guy who would only smoke your ass if you were not paying close enough attention to flee.  Or the guy who can sneak around after you, wait for you to use a combat command with hella delay, then mon un fuck you up while you're just wasting time stacking flee commands instead of alt+tabbing to Word to write your new PC like you ought to be.  Or the guy who can break into your house and LEGITIMATELY steal everything you own without anyone noticing.

[Riev]

I still submit that if the changes were due to "being a person first" that the extended subguilds really gave more coded power to elementalists. Just like being BORN TO BE A WARRIOR, Krathis were BORN TO BE A MAGE. I suppose this is justified by all the Main Guild skills being rearranged in the extended subguilds, but we didn't get Subguild Protector, and lose the choice to still be born to be a Warrior.

Some tribes breed for magickers. Some revere them. Some people enjoy the full range of spells, and having little else to back them up. Unless being a full magicker + subguild Gladiator was just too powerful, which I suppose I could understand.

I'm still behind the "if you were born to be a mage, then your abilities should match that of a mage. Extended subguilds are just what you've trained in" method of thought. Guilds have always been explained as what you were born to do, its where your mastery skills are, if you were born to be a ranger, you can PRETEND to be a thief but your are best at ranger-ing. Mages were born to be mages, they might pretend to be fighters, but they are best at using elemental forces to change the world

[Harmless]

I believe a rule was in place that you cannot have a karma mainguild and karma extended subguild. So no mainguild mage with protector subguild, you have to settle for gladiator or something. I am okay with that. (I will do anything for mainguild mges to be back after all)

[Lizzie]

Agreed with Reiv. I'd even be 100% behind being allowed to select fully-functional main mage guilds at the expense of not being able to select any "extended" subguilds, or skill bumps. So main-guild mage + regular subguild only.

[titansfan]

I played for many years with full mages out there.  The only ones that truly robbed me of plots through abusive means were whirans and drovians.

I'm fine either way,  but I do prefer the new way.  Again, I love magick but I really like having a character who can survive via mundane means who has a taste of magick. With so many people seeming to be negatively affected by this,  I see no negative in reintroducing mages as full guilds with whirans being a very high karmic level and watched constantly. Drovians/elkrans can remain virtual for all intents and purposes. My two sids on it.

[Riev]

I honestly have less care that some mages were REMOVED... though I always wanted to play an Elkran.

I'd be fine if the "remaining" mages were just still allowed to be full mages. Krathi, Ruk, Viv, or Whiran. You can choose which one, and just retool some of the elkran/drovian skills into applicable sets, if any.

[Refugee]

It'd be cool if there were some path, through great study and dedication, for mundane guild characters with an elementalist subguild to swap to an elementalist main guild and a mundane subguild. And maybe there is as a quest with staff support.

This is a fascinating idea!  Wouldn't that be fun?

[wizturbo]

The quest concept would be fun, but a quest for any guild would be fun.  I think everyone could rightfully resent magick guilds if their guild came with the opportunity for a special epic quest baked into it but mundane builds did not. Those special epic quests are probably better left for sponsored roles.  Needs to be some carrots for those roles that demand so much OOC work with them.

Also, how do staff decide which magickers to support with this quest?  Cries of favoritism are bound to come. 

Also it would be jarring for your warrior to suddenly not know how to fight, or your merchant to forget how to craft.

[KankWhisperer]

It'd be cool if there were some path, through great study and dedication, for mundane guild characters with an elementalist subguild to swap to an elementalist main guild and a mundane subguild. And maybe there is as a quest with staff support.

This is a fascinating idea!  Wouldn't that be fun?

Why can't a mundane become a Templar then ? Why do special snowflake mages need to be especially special snowflakes compared to mundanes? Why can't nobles become senior level and so on and so forth?

[Narf]

Mundanes might not be able to be Templars, but with enough work and dedication you can have a mundane with enough clout to get the special coded "ignore crimcode" feature. That's not something a mage can usually do.

[KankWhisperer]

Mundanes might not be able to be Templars, but with enough work and dedication you can have a mundane with enough clout to get the special coded "ignore crimcode" feature. That's not something a mage can usually do.

My point is that almost every role and class has arbitrarily limits placed on them by Staff decree.

[BadSkeelz]

I still submit that if the changes were due to "being a person first" that the extended subguilds really gave more coded power to elementalists. Just like being BORN TO BE A WARRIOR, Krathis were BORN TO BE A MAGE. I suppose this is justified by all the Main Guild skills being rearranged in the extended subguilds, but we didn't get Subguild Protector, and lose the choice to still be born to be a Warrior.

Some tribes breed for magickers. Some revere them. Some people enjoy the full range of spells, and having little else to back them up. Unless being a full magicker + subguild Gladiator was just too powerful, which I suppose I could understand.

I'm still behind the "if you were born to be a mage, then your abilities should match that of a mage. Extended subguilds are just what you've trained in" method of thought. Guilds have always been explained as what you were born to do, its where your mastery skills are, if you were born to be a ranger, you can PRETEND to be a thief but your are best at ranger-ing. Mages were born to be mages, they might pretend to be fighters, but they are best at using elemental forces to change the world

You're still "Born to be a Mage." You're just not "Born to be as codedly powerful a mage" as you were a few months ago.

Mundanes don't hate mages because they have a full spell list. They hate mages because mages are mages. Anyone complaining about Mages not being as "Magickal" anymore are really just complaining about them not being as powerful.

[Miradus]

Which is still a valid complaint if you enjoyed playing a powerful mage.

[Riev]

You're still "Born to be a Mage." You're just not "Born to be as codedly powerful a mage" as you were a few months ago.

I know what you're getting at, but you're saying here that "You're born to be <x>, just not to be <x>". Its a bit contrary to the point.

I also beg to differ. This change suggests that people are not, in fact, "Born to be a mage". They are born to be a ranger, who at some point in their life, finds they were "touched" by an element, or "suddenly manifests".

Again. I don't believe that the subguild elementals are a BAD thing. At all. I like that they were separated and give more rounded character options. I just also believe that if someone wants to choose to be a codedly powerful mage, subject to being guild-sniffed and found out, they should have that offered.

After all, I choose Warrior because I hope to get advanced weapon skills. Or an assassin because I like being codedly able to poison and backstab. I choose pickpocket because I'm a massive troll and love watching people blame elves. Why can't I choose Full Rukkian because I want to have all the benefits of a mage, and none of the mundane? Isn't that what the subguilds ARE? Mini warrior. Mini assassin. Mini Merchant? Mini Rukkian?

[chrisdcoulombe]

I like the subguilds and wish full magick was there as well. 
Smoke spice everyday

[BadSkeelz]

I know what you're getting at, but you're saying here that "You're born to be <x>, just not to be <x>". Its a bit contrary to the point.

andsoforth

I don't think what I'm saying is contrary to the point. I think people are conflating "Person who is imbued with some Elemental Sphere" (X) with "Full skill list superpower-potential Mage" (Y). Players are so used to thinking of magickers are do-anything licensed twinkery power-PCs that they've forgotten what magick actually is in the game world: something poorly understood, fickle, supposedly dangerous to be around and plain unnatural.

There should be no difference in attitude towards an old Guild-Mage and a Subguild-Mage. The presence of magick, regardless of breadth or quality is what's important. The only consistent argument I have seen out of magicker apologists is that "mages can't do as much anymore", which is the same thing as saying they're not as powerful. It shouldn't matter that you can't cast all the spells; being able to cast any spells is what should matter to your character.

But for some reason people seem to think not being able to be as powerful as they were means they can't actually roleplay magick anymore. Hm.

After all, I choose Warrior because I hope to get advanced weapon skills. Or an assassin because I like being codedly able to poison and backstab. I choose pickpocket because I'm a massive troll and love watching people blame elves. Why can't I choose Full Rukkian because I want to have all the benefits of a mage, and none of the mundane? Isn't that what the subguilds ARE? Mini warrior. Mini assassin. Mini Merchant? Mini Rukkian?

In short, because they're too powerful and (imho) don't really fit with the theme. It's not really a harsh world devastated by magick when some fully-branched Mage has it all under control and is immensely versatile and useful.

Edit: and before you say "But rangers!" at least the rangers actually have to go out and put their life on the line to skill up.

[Riev]

See, I think the major point where we disagree, BadSkeelz, is that you are arguing for the entire RP of the situation. Which is 100% valid and should be argued for.

I'm arguing for the fact that this is a game, which I play for different reasons than two hundred other people. From a game perspective, some of my choices have been removed in favor of lore, and my argument is that I was comfortable with the choices I had before.

Arguing FOR Full magickers? Bunch of asshole twinks that want to 'git gud'  and QQ about not being stroink.

Arguing AGAINST Full magickers? Mages were too powerful and according to the game world they never should have been that powerful regardless of how the game has portrayed them for 20 years. Read up on lore, and know as much as I do about the code AND the lore, pleb.

[BadSkeelz]

Arguing FOR Full magickers? Bunch of asshole twinks that want to 'git gud'  and QQ about not being stroink.

Arguing AGAINST Full magickers? Mages were too powerful and according to the game world they never should have been that powerful regardless of how the game has portrayed them for 20 years. Read up on lore, and know as much as I do about the code AND the lore, pleb.

Yeah, pretty much.

When making these decisions I think you have to look at the Guild from a Lore or Thematic Angle, a Gameplay Angle, a Game Balance Angle... probably some other things I'm forgetting. Let it just be said that I could find a lot to dislike about them on every level. (Except when intertwined with mysticism. That's always cool.)

If Full Guild mages are to make a comeback, I would like them to comeback without nil. You want to be a full power elementalist? Then you'll get full power, all the time.

[Riev]

I could totally agree with that. I always found nil to be a bit of an excuse. Only useful for something showy like HAH I DIDN'T ACTUALLY THROW A FIREBALL AT YOU.

Which is what the cantrips were for. I LOVE cantrips. That one Drovian one always made me giggle. Until I died because whoops.

[wizturbo]

If Full Guild mages are to make a comeback, I would like them to comeback without nil. You want to be a full power elementalist? Then you'll get full power, all the time.

+1

Totally agree with you there, as I've said before I love this.  It would change the whole dynamic of magick in a very good way, and help counter balance 'full' mage guilds to be required to take risks in order to train some of the more codedly dangerous spells which should have always been required to begin with in my opinion. 

I would go another step further...  if a spell requires a component to cast, require that component be present to get a chance to advance your skill in the spell.  Combat spells would require risk, non-combat but also powerful spells would require components, and suddenly magick isn't such an easy road to run down compared to the grind of combat skills.