greywardens.com/awakening/awakening-spells/
AwakeningsWiki Update: Battlemage and 4 new spells
#26
Posté 20 février 2010 - 04:15
#27
Posté 20 février 2010 - 04:29
KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Arcane Warrior + Battle mage = one nasty combo
See, I'm betting it actually won't be as good as it sounds. I mean, I bet it would be lethal for a short burst, but I think that the Arcane Warrior drain on Mana would limit the use of Battle Mage.
#28
Posté 20 février 2010 - 05:26
seems like Arcane Warrior + Battlemage is the most OP combo now.
#29
Posté 20 février 2010 - 05:28
#30
Posté 20 février 2010 - 05:29
#31
Posté 20 février 2010 - 05:57
#32
Posté 20 février 2010 - 06:58
#33
Guest_Stoomkal_*
Posté 20 février 2010 - 07:02
Guest_Stoomkal_*
One is about magical combat.
Questions?
#34
Posté 20 février 2010 - 07:05
Stoomkal wrote...
One is about magical combat.
How is that different from a normal mage not specced as a spirit healer?
#35
Guest_Stoomkal_*
Posté 20 février 2010 - 07:16
Guest_Stoomkal_*
One is *focused* on martial combat.
One is *focused* on attack spells.
Do you need a picture?
#36
Posté 20 février 2010 - 07:40
#37
Posté 20 février 2010 - 07:53
#38
Posté 20 février 2010 - 08:18
#39
Posté 20 février 2010 - 08:45
#40
Posté 20 février 2010 - 09:32
Stoomkal wrote...
One is *focused* on healing (sh can cast attack spells, btw)
One is *focused* on martial combat.
One is *focused* on attack spells.
Do you need a picture?
Your not answering his question. The battle mage is a close combat mage. his spells are more like miasma. i have seen a spell that did constant aoe damage around him it was also a sustainable spel. while people are indeed premature with their conclusions i would not doubt that a battlemage+AW is a very good synergie
#41
Guest_Stoomkal_*
Posté 20 février 2010 - 09:46
Guest_Stoomkal_*
This is the thread that told you what they were, afterall.
#42
Posté 20 février 2010 - 10:14
awesome
overpowered
any reason to get previous specialisations.....?
I still wish they would be able to hit with the staff.... physically, that would complete it.... and lay up a restriction....
#43
Posté 20 février 2010 - 10:32
#44
Posté 20 février 2010 - 10:33
Dark_Ansem wrote...
overpowered? I wonder what becomes of them when they run out of mana or are placed against an extremely physical enemy.
They drink one of the 11tybillion mana pots in your invetory?
#45
Posté 20 février 2010 - 10:39
Stoomkal wrote...
One is *focused* on attack spells.
Do you need a picture?
No but it doesn't make a lot of sense to have a mage who is in the thick of melee combat without armor or weapons geared towards close quarter combat. Besides a mage who focuses say on the primal spells is focussed on attack spells.
Modifié par Morroian, 20 février 2010 - 10:40 .
#46
Posté 20 février 2010 - 10:50
I actually wanted a battlemage...but it should have done differently...
1-modus: Battle Mage - allows you to hit with your staff physically...
2-Arcane field
3-repulsion field
4-smaller radius version of elemental chaos (as opposed to my initial idea of paralyze mind blast)
hand of winter feels like a 5th tier ice spell, and should not easily be gained in addition to those powerfull specialisation spells.... even on nightmare it would seem to me like ''easy cruiser''.
also having a modus ability to hit with your staf physically would be more interesting and fitting for a battle mage....
before they say, we increased difficulty!
then increase the effectness of previous specialisations as well!, otherwise we will only have 16 spells to choose from the entire game, as the other ones are rendered useless.....
Modifié par Knal1991, 20 février 2010 - 10:53 .
#47
Posté 20 février 2010 - 10:52
relhart wrote...
Dark_Ansem wrote...
overpowered? I wonder what becomes of them when they run out of mana or are placed against an extremely physical enemy.
They drink one of the 11tybillion mana pots in your invetory?
what if they are over?
#48
Posté 20 février 2010 - 11:41
They don't sound all battlemage spells as someone is saying.
#49
Posté 20 février 2010 - 01:08
#50
Posté 20 février 2010 - 01:15
Thanks!





Retour en haut






