I don't think of it as a stereotype, I think it just makes sense. If you were a powerful wizard who could manipulate matter and forces of nature with your mind, why would you bother wearing something as heavy and uncomfortable as a suit of armor?
I don't like the D&D perspective where wizards don't wear armor because it interferes with their abilities. I think the fact that wizards typically wear robes is a sign of their power, not of their weakness. That's exactly why Dr Manhattan walks around stark naked in Watchmen... if you have that much power, what's the point of wearing clothes at all?|||I would wear armor. Awesome, ornate looking armor. The ornate part as the sign of power thing, and the armor as a backup.
Also, Dr. Manhattan didn't go nude as a sign of power. He did it because he gained no benefit from wearing clothes and ascended past shame.|||The classic wizard spends more time studying arcane tomes or practicing his magic incantations than exercising. So he is physically weak and unable to wear heavy armor. He trains his intellect more than his body.
The classic warrior trains his body more than his intellect. He may wield a maul with ease that a wizard would even have trouble picking up and wear full plate mail to boot.|||Quote:
I would wear armor. Awesome, ornate looking armor. The ornate part as the sign of power thing, and the armor as a backup.
Also, Dr. Manhattan didn't go nude as a sign of power. He did it because he gained no benefit from wearing clothes and ascended past shame.
To each his own. Personally, if I had that kind of power I don't think I'd ever bother changing out of my pajamas.
As for the Dr M thing, I never meant to imply he went nude as a sign of anything. All I meant was that he went nude because he didn't need any kind of clothing, so why bother? And to me, that exemplifies his power. Sort of making a statement by not needing to make a statement, if you follow.
Quote:
The classic wizard spends more time studying arcane tomes or practicing his magic incantations than exercising. So he is physically weak and unable to wear heavy armor. He trains his intellect more than his body.
The classic warrior trains his body more than his intellect. He may wield a maul with ease that a wizard would even have trouble picking up and wear full plate mail to boot.
That's an excellent point, although I think that once a wizard masters telekinesis, as mages in the Diablo universe have, strength should become irrelevant.|||Quote:
The classic wizard spends more time studying arcane tomes or practicing his magic incantations than exercising. So he is physically weak and unable to wear heavy armor. He trains his intellect more than his body.
The classic warrior trains his body more than his intellect. He may wield a maul with ease that a wizard would even have trouble picking up and wear full plate mail to boot.
I know plenty of smart people who are in good shape. Again you fall into the stupid stereotype of wizards. Who is to say that wizarding isn't innate kind of like Harry Potter? That would require study yeah but a well-balanced studyt that includes physical effort. Plus physical wellness would be an asset in combat for really anybody. The idea of a battle mage to me is just plain awesome.
Ok here is proof that you can't see past the stupid stereotype - why robes? Why not pants and a t-shirt? Robes (dresses) as a sign of strength? lol Why not dresses, flowers, high heels, makeup, earrings, a purse, fishnet stockings, nail polish, lipstick, feather boa, a lisp, assless chaps, an 8 ball in your mouth etc? Because if you are wearing all those things and still win then you really must be badass.
In fact let's talk about warriors. The best ones are not completely retard-level stupid. Think about Bill in Kill Bill. The best ones are in fact super smart. Having ALL of the positive assets (strength, speed, skill, smarts) is better than just 3/4 of them. Same with a mage/wizard.|||Quote:
I know plenty of smart people who are in good shape. Again you fall into the stupid stereotype of wizards.
Chill dude. I said the CLASSIC WIZARD. I did not say that it is impossible for a wizard to be in good shape or strong. There is a difference between being in good shape and being strong by the way.
A classic wizard has to spend countless hours practicing the magic rituals and pouring over magic tomes. It would be hard to be an expert wizard and an expert fighter and strong enough to wear full plate mail and weild a huge maul at the same time.
Quote:
The idea of a battle mage to me is just plain awesome.
Sure, but a fighter-mage has to sacrifice womething. He won't be as good of a fighter as a dedicated fighter and he won't be as good of a wizard as a dedicated wizard.
Quote:
Ok here is proof that you can't see past the stupid stereotype - why robes?
Lol! Chill dude. I didn't say I can't envision a character that is master of everything. I said the CLASSIC wizard and CLASSIC warrior.
I don't think that the "stereotype is stupid." It is hard to be master of everything eh?
Oh, and why not robes? I didn't say everyone's wizard's should be forced to wear robes, I just said I'd like to see robes available.
Quote:
Why not pants and a t-shirt? Robes (dresses) as a sign of strength? lol Why not dresses, flowers, high heels, makeup, earrings, a purse, fishnet stockings, nail polish, lipstick, feather boa, a lisp, assless chaps, an 8 ball in your mouth etc? Because if you are wearing all those things and still win then you really must be badass.
I wouldn't care if you wanted to put your male wizard in a dress and make up but mine wouldn't be.
Quote:
In fact let's talk about warriors. The best ones are not completely retard-level stupid. Think about Bill in Kill Bill. The best ones are in fact super smart. Having ALL of the positive assets (strength, speed, skill, smarts) is better than just 3/4 of them. Same with a mage/wizard.
Again, I was talking about the CLASSIC warrior and wizard. Wizards overall will be smarter than warriors and warriors will be more physically developed.
Of course in Diablo 2 you had the option of making your character's stats whatever you wanted them to be but that will not be present in Diablo 3 unfortunately.|||There's a huge difference between someone who actually trains in a combat form and someone who is just in good shape who picks up a weapon. Hand to hand combat, especially with weapons, is an enormously specialized and skilled activity. This is obscured by heartwarming modern movies about medieval days, where a few hardy peasants can pick up old swords and/or hay forks and defeat armored and well-equipped brigands/evil soldiers, but in reality they'd be peasant-burgers in about 3 seconds. Swords and spears aren't guns. They don't instantly level the playing field between the skilled and the amateur. Generally, they widen it. A big guy might grapple with and win an open-handed fight against a boxer, but give them both a sword and the fencer will cut the Hulk to ribbons. (Not that guns do either, since um... aiming is hard. But in movies amateur good guys always shoot better, and most of us imbibe that fiction.)
I spent 5 years learning a weapon-based form of martial arts, and by the end of that time I had gained an understanding of how combat worked with sticks, staves, swords, etc, that wouldn't have made any sense to me 5 or 4 or even 2 or 3 years previous. And I was just doing it for fun, a few hours a week.
Imagine someone spending 8+ hours every day, for years and years, doing nothing but combat training and sparring? There's a level of body control, focus, and weapon manipulation (such as what the master of my school possessed) that's not only impossible to imitate for a beginner, but it's impossible even to comprehend.
That's how good the Barbarian or Monk would be, in combat. They'd kill you with attacks you never even saw them initiate, and that you were utterly helpless to defend against. (Not even counting their magical skills and vastly superior strength and speed.)
No mage, even one with fairly good physical strength and stamina, would have the faintest hope of competing on that level. Which isn't to say that heavy armor and a weapon would be useless, since the monsters are fairly awful fighters, but I don't think it's reasonable to compare a battle mage to a real melee combatant, in terms of weapon prowess. Unless the mage is some sort of super prodigy who can master the spells so quickly and effortlessly that he's still got hours a day for sparring, but then you're getting away from "traditional" versions of magery, and changing the terms of the debate.|||Quote:
There's a huge difference between someone who actually trains in a combat form and someone who is just in good shape who picks up a weapon. Hand to hand combat, especially with weapons, is an enormously specialized and skilled activity. This is obscured by heartwarming modern movies about medieval days, where a few hardy peasants can pick up old swords and/or hay forks and defeat armored and well-equipped brigands/evil soldiers, but in reality they'd be peasant-burgers in about 3 seconds. Swords and spears aren't guns. They don't instantly level the playing field between the skilled and the amateur. Generally, they widen it. A big guy might grapple with and win an open-handed fight against a boxer, but give them both a sword and the fencer will cut the Hulk to ribbons. (Not that guns do either, since um... aiming is hard. But in movies amateur good guys always shoot better, and most of us imbibe that fiction.)
I spent 5 years learning a weapon-based form of martial arts, and by the end of that time I had gained an understanding of how combat worked with sticks, staves, swords, etc, that wouldn't have made any sense to me 5 or 4 or even 2 or 3 years previous. And I was just doing it for fun, a few hours a week.
Imagine someone spending 8+ hours every day, for years and years, doing nothing but combat training and sparring? There's a level of body control, focus, and weapon manipulation (such as what the master of my school possessed) that's not only impossible to imitate for a beginner, but it's impossible even to comprehend.
That's how good the Barbarian or Monk would be, in combat. They'd kill you with attacks you never even saw them initiate, and that you were utterly helpless to defend against. (Not even counting their magical skills and vastly superior strength and speed.)
No mage, even one with fairly good physical strength and stamina, would have the faintest hope of competing on that level. Which isn't to say that heavy armor and a weapon would be useless, since the monsters are fairly awful fighters, but I don't think it's reasonable to compare a battle mage to a real melee combatant, in terms of weapon prowess. Unless the mage is some sort of super prodigy who can master the spells so quickly and effortlessly that he's still got hours a day for sparring, but then you're getting away from "traditional" versions of magery, and changing the terms of the debate.
It's funny because all you mention is his skill with a blade when the actual debate was really about armour and defenses. Well I guess I liken a battle mage to the D1 sorcerer who was basically a tank that tosses fireballs. In that scenario you have a skilled spell caster buff (and manly) enough to stick on some armour and not just wear skirts and dresses because "he's so weak from constant study".
In fact take a look at the Iron Wolves from D2 and you see they are wearing chain/breast plate combos while tossing flames.
The guy above mentions "i'm talking about the classic mage"...well that really is the essence of the sterrotype isn't it? That a mage is so weak he has to wear robes. That's the sterotype that I hate... and that the Diablo world doesn't follow.|||As CCCenturion said, Wizard and D2 Sorceress and D1 Sorcerer represent the same caster subclass, but they are different characters lorewise, that was what Jay Wilson really meant.
But yeah, it is funny because Jay Wilson in Flux's recent interview / round of questions mentioned the 'D2 Wizard' instead of 'D2 Sorc'. I guess it is really hard to set them apart in your head as both are catchy phrases and are common used words for a mage character, and besides the lore and the fact the magic of the wizard is no longer just plain str8forward fire / cold / lightning, they are indeed playstyle wise, the same.
Same could be said about Necro and Witch Doctor, they both fill the summoner class but are radically different characters. The similarities begin and end with the fact they both surround themselves with a barrage of minions. Otherwise, unlike the Wiz / Sorc, I believe there are no skills carried over from D2 Necro onto the D3 WDoctor. Except maybe terror and confuse, which are still under different implementation this time round. And even the lore is radically different, unlike Wizard which was trained under the Eastern mages from D1 and D2, so there are *some* similarities, The Necro and WD have far more different lore and roles in the Land of Sanctuary, and share very different backgrounds.|||Quote:
I don't think of it as a stereotype, I think it just makes sense. If you were a powerful wizard who could manipulate matter and forces of nature with your mind, why would you bother wearing something as heavy and uncomfortable as a suit of armor?
I don't like the D&D perspective where wizards don't wear armor because it interferes with their abilities. I think the fact that wizards typically wear robes is a sign of their power, not of their weakness. That's exactly why Dr Manhattan walks around stark naked in Watchmen... if you have that much power, what's the point of wearing clothes at all?
Blue dong for the loss... LOL
Anyways Wizard or sorceress/sorcerer they will still be your pure casting type of class, which is the class I am going to play.
No comments:
Post a Comment