The relationship between Spell Blade and the sword

Mage
21

However, SpellBlade does not start with a Sentinel like Void Knight or Paladin, but with a mage.
And if VoidKnight or Paladin are wars, although they use magic, it is natural for them to wear armor, use axes, clubs and other weapons.
SpellBlade starts out as a Mage, and is a mage subclass. And it was not me who invented it, but the developers. And the fact that he defends himself with the help of Wards (at least as planned), and not with the help of armor and a huge HP, also comes from the class of magicians, not warriors.
So it is with weapons. SpellBlade is not a guardian who can handle all weapons at once. This is a magician who uses a sword.
Just like the Pathfinder (for example from D&D), he is not a magician, but a subclass of warriors.
Therefore, SpellBlade must obey the rules on which it is based.

I do not mind (I even fully support it) that he could be a “warrior with an elemental attack”, I just say so as not to dwell on this. Didn’t turn a mage into a Sentinel.
So that those mechanics that already exist work efficiently (I’m talking about triggers) and expand.
Look at Druid (new). He can be a warrior (bear), a mage (sprigan), or an assassin (beetle).

What’s your problem for SpellBlade to be more than just a “fiery sword warrior”? Why are you opposed to the mechanics that developers have already created in the form of spell striggers working effectively?

By the way, it is called SpellBlade, not “Battle Mage”, not “prismatic warrior” not “warrior of fire and lightning” and so on.
The developers gave him a specific lore. A magician who uses a sword.
Not Sentinel, who learned spells.

Yes, I stuttered in another topic about such options, but I’m not a developer, so I don’t have to follow rigid guidelines. Although I agree that they are not suitable and you need to use (strengthen) those mechanics with Ward that are already there.
In that thread, I also spoke about expanding the protection capabilities through Ward. I’m not fixated on something and I’m not trying to customize the game for myself, but I’m looking for different options to solve the problem.

22

Again, I’m not saying that SpellBlade needs to be redone, in my opinion, it is enough to just adjust what is already there.

For example, passive spell damage, why not bind this skill to a sword? This will allow us (if we need it) to spend points and use a sword instead of scepters.

Take a passive that increases damage over time. Why not tie to swords? This will allow the use of Scimitars rather than scepters.

Why not give a passive, which gives a % to the melee element of damage to swords. And not use a crutch in the form of a Crystal Sword?
Need maximum flat damage, take Dawn Blade. Need Crete, use Katana. We need over time damage, we use the Scimitar.
We need Spell Damage, swing the skill and take the sword, which is more suitable, and not staves, sceptres, daggers and so on.

Don’t want to run around with two swords, get a two-handed one, and make it useful with your skills.
Or use a sword and shield. And not scepters, as it is now (for example, for auras or spells)

23

'Cause then you’ve removed the other weapon bases as options from the Sepllblade. Having that be turned on as a passive is a decent idea, assuming it’s balanced, which is the difficult part, such that the swords are comparable to other bases but not always best in slot.

1 Like
24

Should a magician who uses a sword use other bases?
For example, Sork uses staves or one-handed Wands counterparts. He should not use axes and lances.
It’s the same with SpellBlade. He is a magician who uses a sword instead of Staves. He doesn’t need axes or scepters. Let druids or warriors use them.
And about the balance. This is the task of the developers. In my opinion, it’s better to balance the skills than to release crutches in the future so that SpellBlade can live.

25

What rules?
The rules that the developers made up when they designed the game?
Or traditional rules about role playing game classes?

I agree, a Spellblade could be a warrior base class with magic… But it can also be a Rogue base class with magic (ranger route)… and it can be a Mage base class with melee… you could even have an Acolyte with melee if you wanted… In some way, it could fit in anywhere… I think they just put it where it is because they though a melee ability in the mage class was missing…

Maybe its the translation, but you say things like “SpellBlade is not a guardian who can handle all weapons at once. This is a magician who uses a sword.” Why? Who says this is correct?

If someone wants to play a spellblade with a sceptre & shield - why cant they? Maybe they will not make a top tier BiS meta build, but they will still have fun and be able to do the content available right now…

The spellblade is made up by the developers - its not wrong - maybe it doesnt work properly yet and, imho, definitely needs some things changed/balanced/more gear variety, but the class is whatever the developers want it to be…

2 Likes
26

As you said, only the developers determine what is right and what is wrong. That’s why I express my opinion here regarding certain things.
If the developers consider it superfluous, so be it, if it is useful in something, then it is good.

The usual rules of logic.
For example, make a Barbarian or Druid out of a magician.
Make Sorcerer from Sentinel.
Make a Necromancer from Rogue.
This sounds delusional. If the developers so choose, they can of course do so, but they did not.

They took base classes. And gave these base classes subclasses. that’s about 2 plus 2.
When your world and your rules, you can set the number 3 or 5. But for this, there must also be some kind of logic.

And by this logic, SpellBlade is a mage, not a Sentinel and not a primalist, and not a rogue. By this logic, the developers have given spell triggers. And even if you like the fact that SpellBlade plays from melee damage, this does not mean that he lost the ability to play from spells (through triggers.)

Regarding the swords. I just want Spell’s closeness to the Blades to be more pronounced. Not necessarily exactly as I say, I only give examples, not specific things.
And I hope the developers hear me. Or they will do something even better. I love how they make LE and I believe they will make an interesting game.

1 Like
27

The discussion is certainly good, especially if we can get to the root of people’s belief in things (like Spellblades “needing” to use a sword).

28

Let me give you one real case. Many years ago, I played a spaceship game (it still lives on).
I once came up with an idea that didn’t fit very well with the current system. But the developers liked it and made new classes based on this idea.

When I talked to the developer, he said that you never know what might result from this or that idea.
Therefore, I have never seen a problem in expressing certain thoughts, even if someone does not like them.

1 Like
29

I’m a bit confused now. So if I understand correctly you want the Spellblade even to be more dedicated to swords?

I thought it was the other way round from the first few posts…

30

Rules of Logic? but this is a fantasy game and magic by its nature suspends a strict adherence to logic laws of any kind… Sure there needs to be some basic logic behind the base class ideas like Mages, Rogues, Sentinels, Primalists etc but fantasy allows logic to take a back seat in favour of creativity for the master classes and how they could potentially build / evolve…

For example:

A Void caster build in LE right now is a Sentinel based Sorceror who does all damage from Spells - and it is VERY VERY powerful… I find it a great class/build but it doesnt really seem logical for a melee character to be doing massive spell damage…

Delusional is a very strong word in English so I am assuming that the translation has made this mistake… Your suggestions like a Necromancer Rogue sound really good… it doesnt sound delusional to me… it sounds interesting and even pretty close to the idea of the Rogue Shadows… What are shadows? Ghosts? Pretty close to Necromancers ideas of spectres/undead wraiths…

I think that you are taking the “Blade” part of “SpellBlade” too seriously… Sure the design theme centres around the concept of using a Sword but it doesnt need to - the concept of a Spellblade to me still works fine even if the build doesnt use a sword or even dual wield swords… In fact, I’l like it if a Spellblade could dual wield the +# Lightning hammers but the devs decided they didnt want to allow that… :wink:

I think that there is definitely an issue around how the developers have restricted Spellblades… and after playing all three elemental versions for hundreds of hours I personally think its frustrating that they have the restrictions around spells / triggers etc in space… BUT I believe that Spellblades would be OP if the restrictions were not in place… Doing the levels of melee damage they already do and adding more powerful spell/triggers/modifiers etc would likely break things…

The developers read everything on this forum… They dont always reply… but they DEFINITELY read it all… and they DO consider everyones suggestions and use the feedback to gauge how their changes are impacting the players… and they DO make changes IF they decide that they are needed…

1 Like
31

Depends whether it’s a hard magic or soft magic system. Hard magic would be rules-based (if a caster does X they get Y, if Z has been said to be impossible, it can’t happen, the rules don’t always need to be made known to the reader/user, but they exist), while soft magic would be whatever the writers/etc thinks is awesome & rules/logic/suspension of disbelief be damned!

Wheel of Time would be an example of a hard magic system. It has rules on what the channellers can & can’t do, even if they don’t necessarily know what the rules are & think that stuff is impossible when it’s not (like healing stilling). Star Trek (plus Dr Who in the most recent few series & Star Wars after the original films when they branched out into the expanded universe books) would be an example of soft sci-fi where the writers are quite happy to just make #### up to get the crew out of a situation with bonus points if it involves needless technobabble.

So no, just because something is fantasy doesn’t mean that logic & rules can’t or shouldn’t be applied.

32

Yes… never said there isnt a place for logic… but fantasy allows the POSSIBILITY of bypassing logic in some way…

By its very nature, fantasy of any kind does not have to confirm to the logical & known laws of the real or imaginary created world… based in magic or simply undiscovered or unknown science…

Magic systems with hard or soft rules makes no difference imho… You could go absurd Terry Pratchet, traditional Tolkien or Dan Simmons and Asimov… You could even MAKE UP the rules and logic in a fantasy world be it magical or sci fi… If it fits, then it works… its fantasy, its make believe…

33

You said that "magic by its nature suspends a strict adherence to logic laws of any kind… ". To me that means that you believe that through magic the writers of fiction can do whatever they want “'cause magic”. Which doesn’t have to be the case, is all I’m saying.

34

It seems to me that the very fact of the existence of classes in LE is an important point here.
There are many games with a classless system that allows you to erase boundaries, rules and logic as much as possible.
But the developers started with a class system, this already suggests that they have action logic and boundaries.

The fact that the Druid comes from the class “close to nature”, the Lich and the necromat from the adept of black magic, and the paladin from the guard, also speaks of the presence of logic and boundaries.

For example, a Druid, not a magician, turns into beasts. This is an example of classical logic. And Sork and SpellBlade come from a magician.

Although it is permissible for a magician to transform into magical entities (not related to nature), or into other mystical entities. And this is also consistent with the logic.

And the fact that the original classes have an extension of this logic due to subclasses does not violate the general logic that the developers adhere to.

35

The fact is that I believe that SpellBlade should use swords of his choice (and not only those that are specially created for him, like Crystals or some unique ones).
And at the expense of their own skills, to increase their effectiveness.

That is, take Crystal Blade for example. In my opinion, it should not be (or at least not with such efficiency), but there should be an ability (passive) of SpellBlade himself, which gives such a boost for swords.

I have already cited above as an example, for example, passives for strengthening a spell. For example, make it like now +20 to spell damage (with any weapon). If a sword is used, it is increased by + N.
Or the same thing with a passive for damage over time. Base bonus, + bonus if using a sword.
(I gave only examples, I’m not saying what needs to be done specifically like this)

I don’t mind that players can use something else if they want it, even with staves, even scepitres, even with axes, it’s a matter of their imagination.
But the very role of SpellBlade should be brighter, and the possibilities for swords expanded.

1 Like
36

I think we are confusing logic and rulesets…

Logic to me is defined by the ruleset… which is created by the developers to govern their creation and everything within it. The ruleset is entirely made up and becomes the basis for any logical interpretation intended by the developer/designer…

Traditional Rulesets - like DnD etc - might form the basis for the LE ruleset, but I do not ASSUME that they apply exactly to LE so I do not ASSUME that LE wants me to think of a Class in the traditional interpretation like a NWN or BG or anything else…

If the LE ruleset defines Druids as the shapechangers with a nature theme, then logic dictates that Druid classes transform physically into other forms of a natural shape. I would then find it illogical based on this rule for a Rogue to be able to transform into a Rat…

Take spellblade right now… Its illogical that a Spellblade cannot hold a 1h hammer in its off hand… why not? Is the hammer too heavy? But a spellblade can hold a 2h sword? Does it cause him harm? Will he drop it on his toe? The ruleset for Spellblade determines that a Spellblade cannot hold a 1h hammer in the offhand… So for me it then becomes a logical explaination based on the ruleset the developers have designed…

I think we have long since left the thread & my original “devils advocate” questions to you…

My general summary is that you have very useful suggestions & ideas - and I agree with a lot of them - however, I think that you are too “distracted” by the traditional views on rpg classes and are struggling to see that it isnt that important (imho) vs improving the deficits of the Spellblade class within the ruleset that the devs have created for it…

1 Like
37

Communicating with you and others on this topic, I realized another problem.
You see SpellBlade as an independent class that essentially has nothing to do with a mage or Sork (except that they have elemental damage).
Because magician and Sork are spells, and SpellBlade is a melee element. In fact, for you he is a warrior who, apart from the barrier and the warp, should not use anything from the magician.

Take a look at the Paladin for example, who can use almost all of Sentinel’s skills and many of the Void Knight’s skills (and vice versa). Because there is no contradiction between Sentinel and its subclasses, they are all warriors. The difference in damage is corrected by conversion.

That is, we see a high level of interaction, and hence diversity in the possible gameplay and builds. We see a similar thing in Primalist, where many skills from adjacent classes are combined.
The problem of SpellBlade, as in the perception of his essence (for someone he is a warrior, for someone a magician). And also that they have a different base of damage, spell and melee, which is difficult to combine, it is not enough just to use conversion.

38

Yeah, that needs to be changed/fixed.

39

What you describe also holds true for Rogue (Bladedancer/Marksman) and Acolyte (Lich/Necromancer)

This is mainly due to all 3 of them, missing the 3rd mastery, which will most likely create a better overlap between masteries, because all 6 of the current masteries of those 3 classes are on very opposite sides of a spectrum (Spells VS Melee; Melee VS Bow; Spells VS Minions).

For Acolyte it’s the least severe currently, but for Rogue and Mage it is.

I think Mage and Rogue will make a lot more sense with the 3rd mastery and it will tremendously increase build variety with some mix and match builds using multiple different things.

1 Like
40

This will of course add more diversity and more different assemblies, but it won’t solve the problem I’m talking about.
For example, I (and I know that I’m not the only one), like the fact that the developers left the mechanics for using spells.
The question is how to improve this system so that it organically connects these classes, for those who want it.
And you don’t need to tell me that there is Sork for spells, they are different things.