Talk:Approved RP Characters
Is the information contained on this page relevant any more, with the dawn of the custom class/race capabilities that are now built into the game? --Lokthull 22:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I do believe Diiroehn was a lich. And quite famous at that. And shouldn't Rheven be listed under Revenant?
Vamps
Is there any way we could get an admin to perhaps write pages for Pure Blood and Born Vampires, so everyone is operating under the same general description of them. I've heard a number of different things about these subraces of vamp, ranging from having virtually no differences with sired vamps; to being ten times as strong and being able to cure sired vampirism. I would appreciate some kind of clarification, if possible, as to the admin stance on this issue.
Mage skill categories
Mancers are specialists in a particular branch of magic.
According to the WIKI Mancer page, Mancer is the term given to a subset of Mage where the practitioner only has one discipline of magic that he or she follows. An official example already in Hollow of this is the Necromancer. These "Mancers" are proficient in their particular discipline. "
a specialist is a person who devotes himself or herself to one subject or to one particular branch of a subject or pursuit. A mancer is a mage specialist... so yeah... having two mancer titles is kinda impossible. Keep in mind that you can't just learn all the stuff and you forever know it. You need to study to keep the skills current and well honed as well. This is why you can't really have two specialties or two Mancer titles.
Just to start the conversation, I found this ranking order online. Initiate, Apprentice, Disciple, Adept and Master
So with this system you could not be a master at any branch of magic unless you are a mancer, as it requires total devotion to that discipline. If you devote your studies to two, you could achieve adept in both. Three, you can't get above disciple in them. Then again, I don't want to stifle RP either. Just musing... but my musings are always right."
Master: To become a master of any branch of magic you must devote your time only to that branch of magic at the expense of others. So attaining a rank of Mancer, you would forgo learning much about any other area. In essence you would be limited to one branch of magic, but could use others... just not as well as most mages could.
Adept: To become an adept you must devote almost all of your time on a branch of magic. So you could conceivable attain the rank of Adept in two branches of magic while forgoing any exceptional skill in the other areas.
Disciple: Same as above, but you could not become an Disciple at more than three branches of magic.
and so on...
So what do you guys think? --Dergious 22:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I, personally, see no reason as to why not a character may be able to be master two mancing disciplines. If a general mage can master a number of different magicks, yet a mancer can master only one, then doesn't that kind of put Mancer's on a lower foot-hold than general magic users? I, personally, believe that 'Mancer' should refer to anyone who has full control of any of the disciplines outline on the Mancer wiki page, not just a mage that devotes him/herself to a single discipline. I mean, yeah, I suppose you gotta put some restraint on them, but really, why wouldn't a mancer be able to master joint disciplines, if enough time and effort was put into the learning?
~ Nasurate.
Good point Nasurate. Maybe we should start with defining what we are talking about.
Mancer I perceive them as pretty much achieving unparalleled ability in that discipline. Meaning they are total, utter and undisputed bad asses in that discipline. They achieve this by learning the basics of other areas of magic, but only truly developing a single area. So while they would be awesome at that discipline, they would be relatively weak in the other areas.
Disciple, I see as being extremely good at an area or areas of magic, but could not compete with a Master (or Mancer) in their given area of expertise.
The difference between the two titles are both very small and somewhat huge, if that makes sense.
Also, why couldn't a character be a mancer in 8 areas instead of two?
--Dergious 22:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Because that would be far to much for a mind to comprehend. No one can deal with that amount of magical prowess, it is physically impossible. I would say, at best, three is the limit one can deal with, and only if they are of a seasoned age, have a very strong mind, and are born from one of the magically adept races .eg. Elf, Drow, Vampire, ect.
I see where you are going with your Mancer/Disciple thingy, but still, what is to prevent someone, who puts enough time and effort into it, reaching Mancer level skill in two areas of magic?
~ Nasurate.
Well, to answer your question... Mancers wouldn't have enough time to learn all of that, and also be able to keep the skill level current and well honed.
Say you learned a fireball spell. Ok you know how to cast it. A pyromancer would essentially raise the art of using a fireball spell to a level that would not be achievable for someone not devoting all of their time with fire spells. After they get to that level, if they suddenly started learning say... necromancy and became extremely well versed in that school of magic, they couldn't expect to be able to throw a fireball with the same ability or power level that they could when they were devoted only to the Pyromancy. This is because it would take a massive amount of study and practice to learn necromancy, during which they wouldn't be able to keep their pyrmancy skills current.
So they could still be great at both, but unable to stay at the Mancer (or master) level in both.
Hope that made sense. --Dergious 23:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
But they're still practising the magic of a Pyromancer/Necromancer, so regardless of their skill, surely they could be considered both, if they use the same magic as both the classes, even if it is not to the level of one that uses that magic discipline only?
~ Nasurate.
Well now we are getting back to the question of what a Mancer is. I see them as the ultimate in that branch of magic. Like a closer in baseball. Most closers couldn't be a starting pitcher, but dominate for 6 or 3 outs. Most starters can't be closers... different skill sets in the same position.
So essentially, knowing some fire magic doesn't make you a pyromnancer. Being unbelievably good at pryomancy, and studying it almost exclusively makes you one. IT is also why pyromancers can cast better fireballs than a general mage who isn't one.
--Dergious 23:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I think, if I read this correctly and with my meager brain power who knows, what Derg is getting at is, a Mancer spends all their time and energy on a specific skill, such as pyromancy. So much so that they spend years from early childhood on up simply studying how to improve that skill. Instead of throwing a simple fireball, they can now manipulate fire into doing other things, such as making tendrils like vines to wrap around their victim..and so forth. Not only can they make Fire, but they can direct Fire into doing whatever is needed at the time, from starting a cooking fire, to building a shield or wall for defense. Now, if have completely missed the point here, simply ignore this little to-do. I had a character who was a mage but concentrated all her energy on Fire, even though she was proficient at other magics, her preference was that of pyromancy. ~Arysel
Woah, so like... Wait, here. I don't know if anyone feels this is so justly wrong or what-not, but why can't mancer be a general term? Maybe it describes the type of magic that the -mage- prefers to use. I like mage. It's a good word, we've had it for years, it covers all this stuff. Trying to distinguish and break down each tiny little factor in what a magic user does, is silly, in my not-so-humble opinion. Why not be a mage; then, perhaps you are a pyromancer. You're a magic user, you've got some general magic know-how, you just generally focus on fire. You're a fire mage, but you do know other magics, like some ice, and um, stuff. Why do we need to label it directly? Be an expert mage; what you choose to focus on, is your perogative. So that's my stance on this. In short: I say not to label. -- Jaidin.
Well, that was a good idea, Jaidin... until they made the Mancer a Approved Class, as it is pretty much an uber magin in that particular discipline. Once you needed approval for it, it made it more than just one who prefers that discipline. The general view of Mancer is that they specialize and are therefore more powerful in that area of magic... experts if you will. So when people put Terramancer And Flectomancer And Ranger And pyromancer on their bios or rp, they are saying that they are experts in ALL of those areas. The perception of Mancer as a specialist precludes having more than one according to the WIKI. Now I agree with you in that a mage can have the basics in all areas, and even be really really good at more than one discipline... but if you are going to RP that for you character don't use the Mancer title.
Remember, at the top of the mancer page it says "According to the WIKI Mancer page, Mancer is the term given to a subset of Mage where the practitioner only has one discipline of magic that he or she follows. An official example already in Hollow of this is the Necromancer. These "Mancers" are proficient in their particular discipline. "
Mancer is being added to bios like it is easy to achieve. Sometimes they have a non-mage class AND 2 or 3 mancers added on for flavor. THat is where this conversation came from.
--Dergious 17:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
-- Keter 17:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- I personally don't see the need for the "mancer" title at all. As Jaidin said, we were fine for years with just mages, this whole deal of defining what mancers can do, who can be a mancer, can you be a dual-mancer, it just seems like adding convolution where none is necessary. Mages are mages, some specialize on certain magics, others don't. Most of these 'mancers' aren't even approved anyway, not to mention, if you're not a mage, you shouldn't be a skilled magic user of any type. If it's a brawl and people aren't god modding then who cares what their title is so long as it's within thier class/race, if it's a judged duel then the judges will decide what's reasonable. If they wanted a dozen different mage categories they probably would have made them selectable classes as they did with illusionist and necromancer, otherwise just be a mage and be done with it. If someone is really focused on titles and levels, there is a Mage's Guild that can provide such.
That is a good point Keter, I wouldn't mind seeing it go away. The larger issue is evident whenever you read a bio these days.
I look right now and I see one character that is (according to their bio) a spell blade, a mage, an assassin AND a paladin. I focused on the multiple mancer idea just to keep it simple. One person is a Ranger and two kinds of mancer. People wanting to specialize AND add so many different abilities is pretty much a don't do in my opinion...
Staying on topic, if Mancer stays, we need to lock it down. Part of the problem is admins approve the bios with claims of "Mancerhood", even though it requires approval. Only people who have proven they have the rp ability to pull off a Mancer title should recieve them.
--Dergious 17:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)