mage - ranger - battlemage

[Tibarius]

The origin of this game is a hack & Slash game. Thats why both mage and ranger have still very strong melee structure as well.

From a story point of view this seems rather wrong to me. Mages should be a spell-using-class while ranger is a man of the woods, focused on nature and ranged combat.

I think rangers could even focus more on bows, with melee as backup. Like a warrior just with swaped preferences. Fitting powers would be stuff like create arrows, tame animals, brew potions, poison arrows, multiple shot, penetrating shot (equivalent to mage's beam ability), chance to slow /stun targets, critical hits. Mage spells like acid bolt do not fit to rangers in my eyes.

So mages could develop to a true spellcasting class, rangers to ranged combat orientated with less magic. The gap could be filled with a new class - Battlemage.

That would be a melee orientated class that buffs up with magic but lacks heavy offensive spells. Str, Int, Dex would be main stats
Just a few ideas:
speed, offers extra-attacks
blur, makes harder to get hit
elemental brands on weapons
ac shield
mana shield - if you get hit, the damage is absorbed both by hp and mana
stability - +con for a certain amount of time
dodge - probability to evade blows
shield block - hmm rather fits for paladins

[Derakon]

Well, you know my attitude on this already.

[PowerDiver]

So mages could develop to a true spellcasting class, rangers to ranged combat orientated with less magic. The gap could be filled with a new class - Battlemage.

If you take melee away from mages, you turn all of the melee items they pick up into junk. They are fine the way they are. You can choose to forgo melee if you insist, and use the slot for egos such as defenders or *SlayAnimal* for their resists or stat plusses. That's the main reason for such weapons to exist in the first place.

There is already a battlemage, i.e. has mage spells and better melee combat than a ranger. It is labeled a "rogue", which I hope was a reference to the game roguelikes are descended from, but most people talk about it as if it is some stupid interpretation of the D&D thief class.

[Djabanete]

Well, you know my attitude on this already.

Now I'm curious, linky? I'm not on top of this forum enough to know what you're referring to.

Edit: I'm stupid, I found it.

[Tibarius]

rogue

Originally Posted by PowerDiver
There is already a battlemage, i.e. has mage spells and better melee combat than a ranger. It is labeled a "rogue", which I hope was a reference to the game roguelikes are descended from, but most people talk about it as if it is some stupid interpretation of the D&D thief class.

Haven't played rogue class yet. I don't know the origin of the name, with the word rogue i associate basically thief. I expect the class to have sneaky, tricky powers.

Why is it not called Battlemage if that is it's true nature???

[Derakon]

Because Angband stole a lot of names from D&D, though it didn't really bother to line those names up with what people expected.

Broadly, you have two full-casters who aren't great at melee or bows but get 0% failure rates, one no-caster who's great at physical stuff, and three hybrid classes that have varying degrees of skill with physical attacks and with magic. Rangers are relatively good magicians and missile users, but have bad melee; paladins have great melee and terrible bows; rogues have good melee and bows and bad casting.

In any event, a "battlemage" to me means "a mage who lends his powers in battles", which would mean he's artillery. If you want a name for a warrior who also casts spells, I'd call it something like "arcane warrior" or "spellsword".

[EpicMan]

Or Paladin, since he is a warrior who trades bows/stealth/devices for magic.

[Derakon]

But the paladin is a holy caster, and I get the impression what's desired here is an arcane caster. I'd say that the paladin and the warrior are the closest-to-stereotype classes that Angband has. Our rogues don't steal, our mages get into brawls, our priests have an aversion to daggers, and our rangers are Mary Sues...actually that last is pretty spot-on too, oh well.

[Napsterbater]

Why is it not called Battlemage if that is it's true nature???

Because they're not battlemages, they don't cast attack spells. Traditionally, a Battlemage is a wizard who specialized in attack magic. As opposed to one who devoted himself to magical research or enchanting objects/brewing potions. A warrior who learns magic would be considered a Spellsword, not a Battlemage.

[Tibarius]

spellsword

Thank you for the discussion, i realize we use the same words with quite a variety of meaning.

The class i had in mind with Battlemage is, considered the discussion maybe better called "spellsword" or "arcane warrior"

[Fendell Orcbane]

I think that FA is more what you are looking for classwise. Although its been a long time since I've played V. I too was disappointed in the mage class since I tended to use Umbar more than spells. Having said that Rift and create doors is what won the game. But 90% of the time it was high powered archery and melee because mana was in short supply. It might be different now. But give FA a try if you haven't already. Rogues are actually thief like and mages are well...mage like.

[Tibarius]

variants

Originally posted by Fendell Orcbane
I think that FA is more what you are looking for classwise.

Thank you for the idea.