Genesis Forums

Zhar wrote:fluffy ranger-type elf abilities

I shall (nearly) refrain from the obvious nazgul joke.

G.

gorboth wrote:

Zhar wrote:fluffy ranger-type elf abilities

I shall (nearly) refrain from the obvious nazgul joke.

G.

Haha, you don't have to state the obvious;)

Zhar:

I vote for number two obviously, this is a gap I would like to see as an option.

Gorboth: Why can't mattack be used with bows in close up combat? It seems like a very good opportunity to roleplay an archer without being forced to be a Ranger of the Westlands?

Just google bows fantasy and you'll find a bunch of bows that surely would hurt in melee combat.

I say if not OCC+Lay then number one, Rangers are hardly real Archers and Swarming with a bow doesnt even make sense.

Id rather have a real Archers guild then whats available, this also gives evils missiles instead of restricting them to two good guilds. An actual guild offers more equality and freedom in the role.

Greneth wrote:Seeing how everyone has been concerned about "Thematics" this is what I came up with. But your list proves my points that no one gives a damn about thematics.

Indeed, apparently nobody cares about thematics anymore, Monks are AAs, Rangers are shieldbearers, Knights are Valars, Spellcasters wear heavy plated armours and tower shields, the list goes on and on. But the point I was making, was that there are alot of guilds out there for them to theoretically join, as Zhar had earlier said that there were few guilds. If we go by your standards, there are very few laymans for many of the occupational guilds out there.. RoN = "Blademaster, Valar?" Neidar = "Shieldbearer" for example.. Not alot of options there.

Greneth wrote:Just because you can join a guild doesn't make it viable, sure you could join the Militia just for the watered down version of evade. Or the Heralds for a heal that you cannot be in combat for or any other spell for that matter bar one and yet somehow the only decent guild is a Minstrel that can heal in battle.

I think Militia would be a viable option, for those who desire an evade, and a secondary weapon for when their arrows run out. It even has a special to go along with it, it might not be the best combination however. As for thematics, I dont believe that the qualinesti elves would care what happens in middle earth, when they have their own problems, thus they are unlikely to enlist in a militia there.

As for heralds, you are basically saying that no player should join them?

Heralds offer amazing RP when paired up with Noldor racial. But this thread isn't about Heralds :/

Zhar wrote: 1. Change guild type from ranger to fighter, drop the stealth entirely and focus on combat abilities.

2. Irrelevant of the above, drop the OCC branch altogether and either leave it as a fluffy ranger-type elf abilities for rp'ers or offensive lay for Calians and Rangers.

3. Take a completely different approach. Maybe turn them into elven mages lay guild? Possibilities are many.

Occupational: Drop stealth entirely and focus on combat abilities.
Layman: Turn this into an independent offensive archer layman, thus allowing Occupational to join, along with Rangers and other guilds.

Carnak wrote:

Zhar wrote: 1. Change guild type from ranger to fighter, drop the stealth entirely and focus on combat abilities.

2. Irrelevant of the above, drop the OCC branch altogether and either leave it as a fluffy ranger-type elf abilities for rp'ers or offensive lay for Calians and Rangers.

3. Take a completely different approach. Maybe turn them into elven mages lay guild? Possibilities are many.

Occupational: Drop stealth entirely and focus on combat abilities.
Layman: Turn this into an independent offensive archer layman, thus allowing Occupational to join, along with Rangers and other guilds.

I second this.

Carnak wrote:

Greneth wrote:Seeing how everyone has been concerned about "Thematics" this is what I came up with. But your list proves my points that no one gives a damn about thematics.

Indeed, apparently nobody cares about thematics anymore, Monks are AAs, Rangers are shieldbearers, Knights are Valars, Spellcasters wear heavy plated armours and tower shields, the list goes on and on. But the point I was making, was that there are alot of guilds out there for them to theoretically join, as Zhar had earlier said that there were few guilds. If we go by your standards, there are very few laymans for many of the occupational guilds out there.. RoN = "Blademaster, Valar?" Neidar = "Shieldbearer" for example.. Not alot of options there.

Greneth wrote:Just because you can join a guild doesn't make it viable, sure you could join the Militia just for the watered down version of evade. Or the Heralds for a heal that you cannot be in combat for or any other spell for that matter bar one and yet somehow the only decent guild is a Minstrel that can heal in battle.

I think Militia would be a viable option, for those who desire an evade, and a secondary weapon for when their arrows run out. It even has a special to go along with it, it might not be the best combination however. As for thematics, I dont believe that the qualinesti elves would care what happens in middle earth, when they have their own problems, thus they are unlikely to enlist in a militia there.

As for heralds, you are basically saying that no player should join them?

Joining the militia for their watered down evade is silly and a quiver can hold 100 narrow-headed plus whatever you store, I doubt one would run out. Hence why only Ithilien, Calians and Kenders join them. For the jab. No one but Rangers and one Knight play the Valar, well maybe a few newbies. I could post a huge thing about why they are so bad but ill just leave it at no one joins the Valar just for their spells.

Not sure why a monk is a bad AA, or a ranger a bad sb, knight valar. Monks lore says nothing against it. Sb only requires defence of Neidar homeland and Knights of old had a clerical branch. As for the RoN and Neidar options... isnt that all anyone goes anyways?

Thematically a Qualinesti elf could care about what goes on in Middle Earth as many were sent out to become explorers to improve trade routes. The Thalas-Enthia encouraged it even.

Pretty sure he meant worthwhile guilds.

Carnak wrote:

Zhar wrote: 1. Change guild type from ranger to fighter, drop the stealth entirely and focus on combat abilities.

2. Irrelevant of the above, drop the OCC branch altogether and either leave it as a fluffy ranger-type elf abilities for rp'ers or offensive lay for Calians and Rangers.

3. Take a completely different approach. Maybe turn them into elven mages lay guild? Possibilities are many.

Occupational: Drop stealth entirely and focus on combat abilities.
Layman: Turn this into an independent offensive archer layman, thus allowing Occupational to join, along with Rangers and other guilds.

All cool and dandy, but how do I justify that? Create OCC guild with skills only and LAY with special only, just so that Rangers can join and have fun?

I believe that the best course of action here would be:

OCC: skills + special (fighter-type)
LAY: same as above but can only train special to sup jur, effectively giving you half the power of OCC

Would that make people happy?

@Greneth: Why AA Monks make me cringe?

- monks = peace loving undead haters
- aa = war loving undead subjects

See any discrepancies here?

Zhar wrote: OCC: skills + special (fighter-type)
LAY: same as above but can only train special to sup jur, effectively giving you half the power of OCC

Would that make people happy?

That would also work, reason I thought archer layman would be good as an independent one, would be to give the option for OCC archers to fully dedicate to their homeland, and give them the option of a secondary damaging ability.

As for execution of my suggestion, it could be something along the lines of:
OCC: High Skills + Special (Aimed Shot)
Layman: Journeyman Skills + Special (Quickshot)

Just an example, could spawn plenty of other ideas, if a direction was decided for the basic setup of the guilds.