Mar 9 2011, 2:55 pm
|
|
Kozuma3
  |
The troll response to the "Who care" part Superantx , that's just what i see.
|
Keeth wrote:
1) What is the difference between a mage and an arch-mage?Arch mages are evil? I dunno =P 2) What's the difference between ranger and archer? These classes are usually synonyms.Archers are more realistic class, they just shoot arrows. Rangers are more mythical. Rangers usually have magical arrow abilities and/or the ability to use animal companions. 3) How is a zombie a class?Can't say I've ever seen an RPG with zombie as a class lol. Though I have seen a few games where you can play as zombies... 4) What is the difference between a warrior and a berserker?When I think warriors, I think more like a knight, in full armor with a sword and shield. Berserkers are more like barbarians, big guys running around in leather armor dual wielding axes. Even if they were just subclasses, they could offer radically different play styles. 5) Is the holy knight supposed to be a Paladin? If so, what is the corrupt knight? Which leads me to...Probably paladins... Dunno about Corrupt Knights. Maybe like a Death Knight from WoW? A warrior with necromancer type powers. | |
+4 internetz to Falacy
| |
Warrior/Samurai/Corrupt_Knight/Holy_Knight/Beserker - 12
Archer/Ranger/Ninja - 4 Mage/Priest/Necromancer/Arch_Mage - 15 Zombie/?? - 1 @Falacy: Aragorn didn't have any magic powers. Ranger just means they have a high perception rating (Tracking/Woodsman stuff) and they're decent with melee weapons | |
Well, if you look at the words "arch mage" I guess you could compare it to "arch enemy". An arch enemy is an enemy you feel is a much greater enemy to you than all the rest. So I guess an Arch Mage is basically an upgraded Mage. When you type it into google, it defines it as "a very powerful mage", so the only difference between the two is that one is more powerful or greater than the other.
| |
SuperAntx wrote:
@Falacy: Aragorn didn't have any magic powers. Ranger just means they have a high perception rating (Tracking/Woodsman stuff) and they're decent with melee weapons He commanded a giant army of slimers! And Legolas was an archer =P | |
He didn't use any magic to control the undead army, they just recognized his authority because of the sword.
| |
@Superantx
.....or did he? | |
Nope, he didn't.
| |
I think we have a winner.
| |
"magical or medical"
It's one tiny bullet point with an out for non-magic healing. The main traits of the class are focused on perception and dexterity. You wouldn't call a warrior an archer if he has the ability to use a crossbow. Same goes for the ranger with his healing abilities. | |
...or would you?
| |
SuperAntx wrote:
You wouldn't call a warrior an archer if he has the ability to use a crossbow. Same goes for the ranger with his healing abilities. And I'm not calling the ranger a mage because he can use magic. Most of their magic is nature based - along the lines of animal taming. Think of hunters in WoW. They can set ice traps, shoot arcane and poison arrows, but are also more agile/aware as you seem to be leaning towards (they can track and such). And they have pets =P | |
Think of hunters in WoW. They can set ice traps, shoot arcane and poison arrows, but are also more agile/aware as you seem to be leaning towards (they can track and such). And they have pets =P Which brings us to the problem with this entire post. He is asking a very vague question with no frame of reference. These class names are thrown around (except for zombie, which has never been used anywhere ever) all over the place, and almost always take on their own traits and concepts. Hunter, archer, ranger... these terms have been used in multiple capacities. Sometimes they are just bow-users, sometimes they're bow-users with supplemental magic abilities, sometimes they're bow-users with pets, and sometimes they're bow-users with magic and pets. Warrior almost always classically refers to just a guy who is good with melee weapons, which is why they are often refered to/associated with barbarians, soldiers, knights, etc... Cleric and priest are also often used interchangeably, but not always used similarly. Classically, clerics have a strong knack for melee combat, but in most modern uses, clerics/priests are completely incapable of physical combat and must rely on magic spells and healing themselves. And then there are the classes that I've never actually seen used anywhere, like arch-mage or corrupt knight. Unless a corrupt knight is just a warrior that uses "dark" magic. If that is the case, then I'd say a death knight is an adequate modern equivalent. If it's a paladin that worships an evil god, then the only equivalent I can think of is an anti-paladin, which I have never seen used anywhere other than DND - though in practice, they are the same thing as a paladin. | |
Which is exactly why I said "Depends heavily on the game, and what each class can do in it." in my original response.
| |
I figure zombie is more of a race than a class, the undead in WoW being the most obvious example.
But, yeah, this whole poll is bogus since there's no frame of reference. | |
So then. Do you prefer melee(tank/damage), ranged, support/healing, magic, or companions/summoner, or some combination =P
Assuming this poll was to determine preferred play styles. | |
lol ninjas are bad ass and it doesn't even have 1 vote! Hahahaha thats awesome.
| |
Ninja-like classes usually suck in RPGs though. They can get off one powerful stealth attack, and then die from 2 seconds of actual combat.
| |