Ok, after thinking on balance. It think casters should do 25-30% more damage than any melee. I think that is most of the blance problem. Melee clsses get betetr defense and better offense. Personally i belive lightning bolts and fireballs are just a wee bit more dangerous than swords. Another point i was htinking of is intiative. If a mage attacks first or any ranged attack for that matter. Bows, throwing weeapons, spells ect.. they should get a free round if they engage first. since the oponet has to close with them. A warrior with a sword 50 yards away cannot hit a mage who just threw a fireball. If you see my point. Also casters are limited to how much the can cast. A mage will have more damage at first, but once the mana is gone so is the damage. Currently in mud mages have less damage and the mana problem. Give your thoughts on this.
Although I could care less about initiative, the damage thing is dead on. Although the % is based on the spell the trend is that mages should avg around 25% higher damage than the melee folks avg. Little less for druids, priests are averaged a little lower than the avg combat round of a combat person.
Yes I find the ini realistic, I just don't think it would be fair.
Yeah i agree. It would be a little unfair. I was also toying with the idea of spell crits. A fireball to the face is a bit more tramatizing then one to the foot. I dont see why spells cant hit weak spots too.
Edit
As an afterthought. instead of a free round spells cold have a better chance of a critical strike. Lets say a +10 to spell crit if the target is unawares.
Spells just aren't gonna crit. Maybe some spells, but not all. Like thunderclap...sometimes thunderclap gets a 'crit' and stuns people. Certain spells could be made to crit, but I don't want to making coding that makes it possible.
Well, IMHO, if you want more damage, you should lose something. I.E. - if there's any AlterSp +X eq out there, you can increase it like that, but in the process will likely drop some of your +manargn gear. Tanks lose some combat (unless they keep encumberance low), other classes get spells and/or combat at the cost of lower AC. Mages don't need a huge bump, they have a low exp chart and a good chance of killing a LOT of mobs other classes couldn't (sleep = evil). It could even be argued that Mages need more survivabilty than damage, truth be told.
Right, that would be an excellent arguement if you were on a balanced field to begin with. Since I think most people are addressing this game in the same light as majormud, I'm simply replying in the same way.
I'm not suggesting that mages are pathetic, but in the interest of creating balance, and justification for exp charts I believe mages need slightly higher avg damage, and much higher max damage.