Cerunnir | Mon 28-Jun-04 10:57 AM |
Member since 21st Oct 2003
294 posts
| |
|
#4980, "Manacles should be looked at."
|
The entrance of outlanders means there will be wanted mages trying to retrieve/raid against tribunals. I know this has been taken up before, and the answer was "Use wands/scrolls". This might be possible yes, but it will limit the strenght of the mage by ALOT, a #### load in fact. I dont think manacles have been changed much in a long, long time. So it dont conincide with the current situation of the game. Why should a level 20 warrior be able to remove all the offensive power of a mage, which depend on casting to retrieve effectivly. That you can use wands, really, isnt enaugh if you face an enemy in PK range. If you have imm knowledge, or general sick knowledge of wands.. maybe. But against a fairly skilled player that might prep abit, it wont work.
Really, really consider atleast making manacles work like immolation'ish. Making spells fail sometimes, that would make them more tuned in with the backdraw warrior types get from them.
|
|
|
Manacles should be looked at.
[View all] , Cerunnir, Mon 28-Jun-04 10:57 AM
RE: Manacles should be looked at.,
Hutto,
29-Jun-04 11:57 AM, #19
RE: Manacles should be looked at.,
Valkenar,
28-Jun-04 04:15 PM, #6
To the imms,
Wilhath,
28-Jun-04 12:56 PM, #1
Heh.,
Cerunnir,
28-Jun-04 01:53 PM, #2
The point has been made in the past.,
permanewbie,
28-Jun-04 03:45 PM, #4
Well. You are missing the point.,
Cerunnir,
28-Jun-04 04:01 PM, #5
RE: Well. You are missing the point.,
Grurk Muouk,
28-Jun-04 07:09 PM, #8
RE: Well. You are missing the point.,
Balrahd,
28-Jun-04 08:43 PM, #9
RE: Well. You are missing the point.,
Narissa,
28-Jun-04 09:09 PM, #10
RE: Well. You are missing the point.,
thornheart,
29-Jun-04 04:36 AM, #16
RE: Well. You are missing the point.,
Grurk Muouk,
29-Jun-04 03:40 PM, #20
RE: Well. You are missing the point.,
Alynana,
30-Jun-04 08:55 AM, #23
without wishing to spoonfeed,
incognito,
30-Jun-04 09:21 AM, #24
RE: without wishing to spoonfeed,
Alynana,
30-Jun-04 09:47 AM, #25
hold on,
incognito,
30-Jun-04 10:31 AM, #26
RE: hold on,
Alynana,
30-Jun-04 11:01 AM, #27
can't argue with that,
incognito,
30-Jun-04 11:07 AM, #28
RE: hold on,
Hutto,
30-Jun-04 12:24 PM, #30
You're missing the point. It should not be that goddamn...,
Little Timmy (Anonymous),
30-Jun-04 12:20 PM, #29
RE: Mysuggestion is:,
Balrahd,
01-Jul-04 12:50 AM, #34
RE: Mysuggestion is:,
incognito,
01-Jul-04 04:23 AM, #35
RE: Well. You are missing the point.,
Xaannix,
28-Jun-04 10:51 PM, #11
I think...,
permanewbie,
28-Jun-04 11:38 PM, #12
Im sure,
Xaannix,
28-Jun-04 11:54 PM, #13
exactly.,
permanewbie,
29-Jun-04 12:28 AM, #14
Look. To be clear:,
Balrahd,
29-Jun-04 01:15 AM, #15
RE: Look. To be clear:,
Grurk Muouk,
29-Jun-04 04:05 PM, #21
RE: Look. To be clear:,
Balrahd,
30-Jun-04 02:48 AM, #22
No. There is no comparison. There is no contrast.,
Little Timmy (Anonymous),
30-Jun-04 12:25 PM, #31
RE: No. There is no comparison. There is no contrast.,
Grurk Muouk,
30-Jun-04 03:32 PM, #32
RE: No. There is no comparison. There is no contrast.,
Little Timmy (Anonymous),
30-Jun-04 04:12 PM, #33
I just dont see it,
Xaannix,
29-Jun-04 07:32 AM, #17
there is that one scroll,
incognito,
29-Jun-04 10:42 AM, #18
I disagree. This is a serious issue.,
Little Timmy (Anonymous),
28-Jun-04 02:30 PM, #3
Serious or not, it's been beaten to death...,
Wilhath,
28-Jun-04 06:17 PM, #7
| |
|