Akashic brotherhood vs jedi
![akashic brotherhood vs jedi akashic brotherhood vs jedi](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/whitewolf/images/6/6d/04057.jpg)
![akashic brotherhood vs jedi akashic brotherhood vs jedi](https://img.game-news24.com/2021/09/MMORPG-SoulWorker-Year-One-Celebration-Event.jpeg)
This is partly a balance thing, game systems will "balance" a powerful magic by making magic users suck early on, even though that creates the exact opposite of balance. The first is that as a general rule, with rare exception, magic using classes start off weak but gain rapidly in power, whereas fighting classes tend to start off strong and advance at a steady rate until they are overtaken by spellcasters. There are a few reasons that warrior mages don't usually work that well. Hard to set a clear boundary here as well. Likely a lot of his prowess, reactions, and obviously the staff itself were magic born, but still fact is fact. On the other hand, main villain of Witchers Saga, Vilgefortz, powerful mage, beat the hell out of Geralt in very traditional way, with iron staff.
![akashic brotherhood vs jedi akashic brotherhood vs jedi](https://img.game-news24.com/2021/12/Fortnites-The-End-will-include-the-Last-Reality-and-The-Rock-as-the-Foundation-s-fund.jpeg)
Save the very first Witcher story, Witchers magic was extremely limited, so hard to really call them 'magic' - although it definitely was there. I can really only think of The Witcher right now, but it exists. Yet he still 'mage' to the boot, from very definition, and can kill stuff with sword better than most population. Yes, Gandalf has a sword, but he doesn't cast spells. Thus, with 'rules' being different everywhere, it's hard to even come with such distinctions. Magic is completely fictional, and 'fighting stuff' in most fantasy settings is mostly to completely fictional too - people swing swords and stuff, but it doesn't have much to do with reality we know. Personally, I would say that it's because archetypes like that have obviously very limited use. Yes, Gandalf has a sword, but he doesn't cast spells.ĭuskblades? Though their magical abilities are significantly more limited. Do you think there's a reason why that combination is the only one that doesn't work well, is it just coincidence, or is there something I've completely overlooked?īut I really can't think of any example of characters who are spellcasters but also swing a sword around while getting some synergy from it. If you reduce your spellcasting power a bit to complement it with combat capability, it ends up a total waste. One could argue that D&D clerics and druids are primary spellcasters with added weapons and armor, but they are good because they have no drawback to their spellcasting in 3rd Ed. But giving a mage mid-range weapons? Doesn't seem to make sense or be useful for anything. Also adding some magic to a warrior also works well. Now a spellcaster with added skills in sneaking and knives is not such a bad idea. For the "skilled magic warrior" I can really only think of The Witcher right now, but it exists.Įxcept the "fighting mage", a spellcaster with some added armor and weapon skill but still with the focus on spellcasting. Jedi would be "magic warriors", rangers would be "skilled warriors", and so on. Now all these cases make sense for RPG characters and there are lots of examples for them in fiction. And even a "skilled magic warrior" if you want. Now if we combine the classes with each other ata 2:1 ratio, we also get the "magic warrior", "skilled warrior", "fighting thief", "magic thief", "skilled mage", and the "fighting mage". D&D with its cleric and druid is the only example I know in which priests are very different from mages, but pretty much everything else follows these three principles. I was doing some thinking about the subject of charcter class archetypes and came to the conclusion, that "fighting mages" don't work:Īssume, like most RPGs, the tree basic character types warrior, thief, and mage.