Curse

cataphract · Oct 28, 2005, 07:34 AM // 07:34

bah, can't stand WoW.

i just don't like the look of the game. only thing i DO like in WoW is a wide variety of available pets and riding beasts. imagine riding your pet bear across kryta or making him dance for dwarven ale.
now that's a good idea. /dance emote for pets!! i mean, if russian bears can dance and drink beer why couldn't gw bears too?

MSecorsky · Oct 28, 2005, 03:53 PM // 15:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by NatalieD

I've been saying negative things because, well, (a) I don't see the need for another kind of swordsman, and (b) I still don't know what this class of yours is supposed to be, other than "another kind of swordsman". The things you need to decide here are, like, what role in a party does a swashbuckler fill, why would I want to team up with a swashbuckler over a warrior and vice versa... that sort of thing.

Valid points, for sure.. I don't envy the developers and powers that be that are trying to come up with new classes, that's for sure. Then again, why a bard or a shapeshifter or, gods forbid, an assassin or rogue as well? Really, there don't seem to be too many gaps in the current system as is... no actual needs that any new class is needed to fill.

Wellll... there is one reason to add a swordsman... I'd play one. I, for one, don't have any interest in a warrior. It's just not my cup of chowder. However, a melee character that was flashier and less brutish would appeal to me personally.

So then, why not another melee, if for no other reason than to add variety?

Sure, people talk about a hand-to-hand specialist... however I have a hard time seeing someone punch a mahgo to death.

Edit:

You know, I just took a walk to get a caffiene infusion and had a thought... the swordsman could add a new category of stances, defensive stances that are maintained like enchantments. For example,...

Wall of Steel Stance. 10 energy, 60 sec recharge. As long as it's maintained you have a 75% chance to block melee or arrow attacks while you are stationary and not attacking. The effects of the stance are not felt while moving or attacking, but the cost to maintain remains in place. The stance remains in effect until removed or you are knocked down.

Just a thought.

Valdis · Oct 28, 2005, 04:19 PM // 16:19

I think something like a Sorcerer would be awesome, though Im not sure of what kind of spells they could come up with.
If you know anything about the difference between a mage/wizard/invoker/illusionist vs. a Sorcerer...it could be very interesting..but they would have to make the sorcerers spells slightly weaker than an elementalists or the sorcerer class would take over the world..lol. Due to the fact of what a Sorcerer truley is..it would be very fun to play and lets face it, Very Dominant, probably too dominant

MSecorsky · Oct 28, 2005, 04:24 PM // 16:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Valdis

I think something like a Sorcerer would be awesome, though Im not sure of what kind of spells they could come up with.
If you know anything about the difference between a mage/wizard/invoker/illusionist vs. a Sorcerer...it could be very interesting..but they would have to make the sorcerers spells slightly weaker than an elementalists or the sorcerer class would take over the world..lol. Due to the fact of what a Sorcerer truley is..it would be very fun to play and lets face it, Very Dominant, probably too dominant

Well, they could summon dancing brooms into combat...

Jigs · Oct 28, 2005, 05:25 PM // 17:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by yuna of spira

Yea I saw the thread in sanitarium where i think you saw the bit about the ninjas. Like i said in that forum, too many ppl in suggesting ideas for new professions are adding exact replicas of other mmorpgs or popular games. like shapshifting? gee i never heard of that warcraft one before. It sounds cool, i agree, but I just dont see how it could fit into the guild wars atmosphere.

People, it is okay to have new classes that the other games have. This is a fantasy world game, every profession can exist there everything is possible it's just a matter of setting a plot for them. don't worry about originality, there is no such thing as original anymore, if there are, it is very rare or t's just recycled and mixed ideas.

Currently there are 6 available professions in Guildwars. But what happened to Mesmers? I rarely see them anymore. People don't want them in their teams. So in my understanding there are only 5 professions that people wants.. Having new professions will spice things up in GW.

NatalieD · Oct 28, 2005, 10:47 PM // 22:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Valdis

I think something like a Sorcerer would be awesome, though Im not sure of what kind of spells they could come up with.
If you know anything about the difference between a mage/wizard/invoker/illusionist vs. a Sorcerer...it could be very interesting..but they would have to make the sorcerers spells slightly weaker than an elementalists or the sorcerer class would take over the world..lol. Due to the fact of what a Sorcerer truley is..it would be very fun to play and lets face it, Very Dominant, probably too dominant

...what the heck are you talking about? "Sorcerer" is just a synonym. I'm not saying it can't be used to distinguish one kind of magic from another, but you have to specify. No such distinction is inherent in the word.

Valdis · Oct 31, 2005, 07:40 PM // 19:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by NatalieD

...what the heck are you talking about? "Sorcerer" is just a synonym. I'm not saying it can't be used to distinguish one kind of magic from another, but you have to specify. No such distinction is inherent in the word.

You could not be more incorrect...
If you have played anything other than GuildWars you would know the difference, ..its like night and day.
A mage, wizard, elementalist and the like all have to prepare their spells. Remember in D&D you had to gather componets and each night after you used your spells for that day, you had to relearn them before you could use them again?? This is my view on it, I see that "preparation time" as the mana that you use for each spell.
UNLIKE the above mentioned, a Sorcerer does not have to LEARN spells, gather componets or prepare them for the next time they want to use them. Sorcerers are magical to their very core, the spells they produce are from within themselves, they dont need (glittering dust, cats tail, dragon claw...in order to create a spell. They think and feel it, then it happens! If you don't believe me READ the D&D Players Handbook.. Now that you know what a Sorcerer is we can move on...
The great thing about a Sorcerer would be that you dont need energy or mana (whatever you want to call it) Since all their spells come from within, energy is not needed. Could you imagin being able to cast Meteor Storm continuously?? LOL..very unfair, but we can all dream. The one HUGE drawback to a Sorcerer is that they are limited by what spells and how many different spells they can cast. Since that is the case, your skill listing would be considerably smaller and your skill bar would be smaller but you could cast at will.

Try this one:
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/3E_intvw_SkipW2.asp

Oh yeah, and forgot to tell you that Sorcerers can also use SWORDS!!!

Xue Yi Liang · Oct 31, 2005, 08:17 PM // 20:17

The most needed profession seems to be the Spellchecker and Grammarchecker class.

Valdis · Oct 31, 2005, 10:18 PM // 22:18

You must be talking about yourself, last time I checked "grammarchecker" wasn't even a word.

Of course we would expect poor grammar like that from someone in California school system..lol, just look at your governor.

Just kidding about your governor, he was awesome in Terminator 2

Fitz Rinley · Nov 01, 2005, 03:23 AM // 03:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seth Deathcaller

is there anymore feed back that you guys would like to give...

I would still like to see the classes they have capable of being integrated better for use in a character that is a personification of the logical outcome of a person LIVING the life suggested by the primary and secondary combination.

Perhaps if secondary is:
1. Elementalist = A small/tiny elemental focus colored to most prominant element in use appears on forhead or helm.
2. Mesmer = A torc or neclace (that color codes to characters primary clothing, but glows).
3. Monk = A sash or additional tattooing that indicate orders have been taken.
4. Necromancer = Eyes glow black, red, green, or white according to most prominant necromancer attribute in use.
5. Ranger = Feathers or other tokens might be applied to helms, shoulderguards, bracers, etc.
6. Warrior = The build might appear beefier. (Afterall if the pets can modify with leveling so can the characters.)

Fitz Rinley

Fitz Rinley · Nov 01, 2005, 03:32 AM // 03:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Valdis

You must be talking about yourself, last time I checked "grammarchecker" wasn't even a word.

Of course we would expect poor grammar like that from someone in California school system..lol, just look at your governor.

Just kidding about your governor, he was awesome in Terminator 2

I may start a major argument with this! LOL.

But contrary to popular belief English, real English, is a language we are not acustomed to either speaking or writing in any said quantity. Because of this, even our academicians have forgotten it is an inflected language. This means words like 'grammarchecker' ought to be perfectly legal, although I might very well have placed a hyphen inbetween in this instance.

On the radio yesterday I heard one anouncer question another as to whether or not 'beefier' was actually a word. It is only because we have forgotten that words are a foundation, meaning the reality, and anything that can be understood in all the possibilitites of roots, prefixes, suffixes, and infixes is in fact good and excellent English. It is also encumbant upon the audience to understand their language. We have too long placed all responsibility on the orator and author and allowed our people to become indolent, spoonfed, and lazy in the digestion of their own language, and hence education.

Told you I'd start an argument,

Fitz Rinley

Fitz Rinley · Nov 01, 2005, 03:37 AM // 03:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Krompdown

Most people here are probably too young to remember how important it was to have a good BARD in The Bard's Tale trilogy. Guild Wars needs bards.

Any character classes that focus on music or the decoding of symbols would be a great addition. Those would be characters that it would be impossible to farm with, but would be ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY for getting through the actual game and/or into opposing guilds' bases.

Bard and scribe (or whatever you want to call them). Those are my off-the-top-of-my-head suggestions.

And GW still has nothing to compete with The Dreamspell.

Somehow, I'm sure I'm the only one here who knows WTF I'm talking about.

No your not! I too have gray hair and I'm proud of it! I played Bard's Tale on an Amiga. I don't see much hope for developing a Bard's class here though as it is something that is story telling oriented and involves the intricate use of interactive skills where multiple professions are equally intertwined. Guild Wars is fundamentally opposed to this. Secondary professions have no value.

Fitz Rinley

NatalieD · Nov 01, 2005, 03:53 AM // 03:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Valdis

If you don't believe me READ the D&D Players Handbook.. Now that you know what a Sorcerer is we can move on...

Ugh. I was afraid you were going to say this.

Look, kid, that meaning of "sorcerer" is unique to D&D. It is not universal and has no relevance to Guild Wars.

cryptic · Nov 01, 2005, 03:57 AM // 03:57

how about giving the ranger two weapon fighting...... or the ability to sneak past things

by the way i like the bard idea.......... it would be a great suport character and neat to hear the different tunes they would play to help the party or hender the enemies

Fitz Rinley · Nov 01, 2005, 04:03 AM // 04:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by NatalieD

Ugh. I was afraid you were going to say this.

Look, kid, that meaning of "sorcerer" is unique to D&D. It is not universal and has no relevance to Guild Wars.

I agree the D&D definitions of Sorceror are not universal. In most cases what is univeral about being a Sorceror is to practice magic/myricals which are not authorized by the Deity/ies of the Estate(s) thru the recognized/authorized clergy.

What is unfortunate is that the Primary and secondary class system is not sufficiently integrated to allow for the secondary class to be of any value. There are not enough attribute points for the skills to be maintained without sacking the primary class and there are not enough energy points (especially for warrior) for these to be used.

Characters are built too powerfully in a vertical manner and not well enough in a horizontal one. They have no place in there world. They have no relevance to any location in the world they are supposed to be inspired to save. The fundamental trauma of the Searing is only mildly seen in the Prince and never affects the played characters who have supposedly lived through the equal of a nuclear holocaust and the aftermath of a continued relentless war of genocide.

Fitz Rinley

NatalieD · Nov 01, 2005, 04:06 AM // 04:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fitz Rinley

What is unfortunate is that the Primary and secondary class system is not sufficiently integrated to allow for the secondary class to be of any value. There are not enough attribute points for the skills to be maintained without sacking the primary class and there are not enough energy points (especially for warrior) for these to be used.

Characters are built too powerfully in a vertical manner and not well enough in a horizontal one. They have no place in there world. They have no relevance to any location in the world they are supposed to be inspired to save.

For crying out loud, man, you've already got your own thread for this nonsense. Don't go polluting other threads that have no relevance to your little pet peeve.

Valdis · Nov 01, 2005, 04:04 PM // 16:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by NatalieD

Ugh. I was afraid you were going to say this.

Look, kid, that meaning of "sorcerer" is unique to D&D. It is not universal and has no relevance to Guild Wars.

Right back at you kid, none of us would be here if it were not for D&D, so get real! Of course I was going to say that, why wouldn't I? Who better to give an explanation about the class then the people who invented it??

Why is it that most of the "upper-class" citizens on this site think they know it all??
When one of their own is losing an argument they will try to rush in and save their companions...Most are too prideful to admit when they are wrong, hence they ruin their credibility when it could have been saved by being an adult, showing some integrity and shutting their misinformed, uneducated mouths.

LOL...here comes the wrath of the unemployed...lol. How else could you become a Councillor; you have to make an ungodly amount of posts. Sounds to me like someone is either unemployed or needs to put down the Jergens lotion and find a life. There is one exception to this rule --> If you have been a member on this site for about 4 or more months.

Now this WILL start a fight

Oh yeah, and if you attempt to flame what I have just said..All you are doing is exposing yourself as one of the misinformed, uneducated, or PRIDEFUL people I have described above

Thanks and good day

Symeon · Nov 01, 2005, 04:57 PM // 16:57

1. All grammatical arguments and arguments among different levels of forum society on this thread stop immediately!

2. To the point of this thread, here's what I'd like to say.
I'm sure someone has made a comment of the sort before but:

Look at the professions.
I know this may cause some dispute but:

Warriors: Mainly fighting based and their weapon matters.
Rangers: Mainly fighting based and their weapon matters.
Mesmers: Mainly casting based and their weapon doesn't matter a lot.
Monks: Basically purely casting based and their weapon hardly matters at all (except for energy benefits etc.)
Elementalists: Mainly casting based and their weapon hardly matters.
Necromancers: Mainly casting based, thier weapon doesn't matter much.

As you may see, there are four professions based around mostly casting and two professions based around mostly fighting and weapon use.

Therefore, surely, it can be said that the edition of another profession based around the use of a weapon would not harm the game.
I must say that the game definitely does not need another caster.
I think the idea of an assassin or ninja is really too off-Guild Wars, but I feel that a kind of fencer, as has been mentioned earlier in this thread, would be great.
This 'fencer' or perhaps '' probably should not use fists and feet as this does not really suit Guild Wars, but either a fighting pole or 'double sticks' - dual wielding. This character would be dissimilar to the warrior and ranger in firstly that he uses a pole and also his skills are rather based on whooping damage casters - he would be ideal against mesmers and elementalists. His skills would be based around the idea of balance, mind-reading, boosting the attack and damage of comrades, while decreasing that of the enemy and causing exhaustion of casters with his weapon, and trickery.

Attributes:

Balance Arts - based around the use of the pole/sticks, moves with it.
(damage with the stick increases with level, not points in this attribute, so it is not compulsory to have points in this attribute to use the weapon)
Hypnotic Arts - Mind-reading, mind control, ability to daze, and demoralise enemy.
Vocal Arts - Shouts, mumbles, boosting allies, worsening enemies
Trickery - only available to '' primary, the amount of points in it increases the chance of the enemy being confused of you (not seeing your actions properly)

Also, as the pole is too handed it will not be avaiable to warrior with secondary or ranger secondary. It will be avaiable to casters as they can use staffs, but that may/may not work.

This new profession could alter the balance in Guild Wars but it would in my view be a good addition (or something of a similar kind to it).
My idea....

NatalieD · Nov 01, 2005, 10:12 PM // 22:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Valdis

Right back at you kid, none of us would be here if it were not for D&D, so get real! Of course I was going to say that, why wouldn't I? Who better to give an explanation about the class then the people who invented it??

Why is it that most of the "upper-class" citizens on this site think they know it all??
When one of their own is losing an argument they will try to rush in and save their companions...Most are too prideful to admit when they are wrong, hence they ruin their credibility when it could have been saved by being an adult, showing some integrity and shutting their misinformed, uneducated mouths.

LOL...here comes the wrath of the unemployed...lol. How else could you become a Councillor; you have to make an ungodly amount of posts. Sounds to me like someone is either unemployed or needs to put down the Jergens lotion and find a life. There is one exception to this rule --> If you have been a member on this site for about 4 or more months.

Now this WILL start a fight

Oh yeah, and if you attempt to flame what I have just said..All you are doing is exposing yourself as one of the misinformed, uneducated, or PRIDEFUL people I have described above

Thanks and good day

Oh dear... I struck a nerve, didn't I.

In any case, I apologize for my previous post to you. It was mean-spirited and uncalled for.

But it is rather silly to cite a D&D book as an authority in a discussion not related to D&D. And yes, I know that D&D was instrumental in forming the genre of which Guild Wars is a part. But, as it happens, most works in the genre don't conform to D&D's rules or nomenclature. Guild Wars certainly doesn't.

D&D only invented its own idiosyncratic definition of "sorcerer". The word has been in use since long before D&D existed at all, let alone the much more recent introduction of the sorcerer class.

Valdis · Nov 01, 2005, 11:41 PM // 23:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by NatalieD

D&D only invented its own idiosyncratic definition of "sorcerer". The word has been in use since long before D&D existed at all, let alone the much more recent introduction of the sorcerer class.

You are correct about the "word" being used long before D&D. The point I was trying to make is that the "word" sorcerer was just that, only a word. The brains at D&D were the ones who did all the work. Meaning they created the backgrounds, personalities, skill sets, attribute points, and overall existence of what a Sorcerer is. Anyone can dream up a word for, in this case, a spell caster. In my opinion it was D&D who created this character, and it is their guidelines that we should be following, if it were to be incorporated into the game.
And yes GW is leading the way by not following there guidelines...example: In D&D Rangers not only fight with bows but are also specialized in swordsmanship, though not as inept as a warrior by any means. Yes in this game they can use a sword but have the same weapon penalty as if they were an Elementalist....Another example, Mages can also use daggers, whatever happened to daggers??

All I’m trying to say is that there were certain "rules" set along time ago, and I’ve always been in favor of breaking rules...lol. But if GW is to ever make a Sorcerer, it would be in their best interest to follow those rules. It would keep them away from the conventional caster, and give players a new way to use their brains in a constructive manner while exploring the vast possibilities of using a caster that doesn't require the use of energy. Oh yeah and don’t forget to give them a sword proficiency. Sorcerers are not masters of the sword but they can use one without penalty.