shin-adam Posted August 12, 2005 Share Posted August 12, 2005 Level 50: Snare Costs 4 earth 4 water 4 natures Holds your opponent for 10 seconds I was thinking since mages get this what about warriors or rangers?? I was just thinking maybe something like this: Rangers - Paralyse(sp?) arrow Lvl 65 range It would paralyse your enemy for about 10 seconds like snare and keep them down for awhile, this has a chance to miss, break so on.. Warriors - Bombinokers(sp? LOL) Bronze-Rune These things are connected in chains two big balls that you spin and then throw at your enemy and they trip up, and are immobilized for 10 seconds.. Lol just a thoguht :>!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runescapeking Posted August 12, 2005 Share Posted August 12, 2005 How about when a ranger or warrior attacks there is a 5% chance that the opponent will get stunned. Of course the higher the type of weapon or arrow the chances increase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outsanity Posted August 12, 2005 Share Posted August 12, 2005 How about when a ranger or warrior attacks there is a 5% chance that the opponent will get stunned. Of course the higher the type of weapon or arrow the chances increase. I think that in order to even consider this, there would have to be a limitation. Just as mages have to PAY for the spell, rangers and meleers should have to pay for the attacks. Perhaps a special that uses up 100% of your bar, or maybe we could introduce special weapons that have a certain amount of charges...lets just say 10. You can use these 10 in intervals of 1 minute's time. (every 60 seconds you can paralyze your opponent for 10) but after the 10 charges are up, you have to pay to get them charged again. Just a thought... :? |2,300+ Total|138 Combat|12 Lvl 99 Skills|99 Slayer| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackalope14 Posted August 12, 2005 Share Posted August 12, 2005 How about when a ranger or warrior attacks there is a 5% chance that the opponent will get stunned. Of course the higher the type of weapon or arrow the chances increase. I think that in order to even consider this, there would have to be a limitation. Just as mages have to PAY for the spell, rangers and meleers should have to pay for the attacks. Perhaps a special that uses up 100% of your bar, or maybe we could introduce special weapons that have a certain amount of charges...lets just say 10. You can use these 10 in intervals of 1 minute's time. (every 60 seconds you can paralyze your opponent for 10) but after the 10 charges are up, you have to pay to get them charged again. Just a thought... :? I like the charge Idea, this would make it more even amoung warriors rangers and mages. What about with rangers though? I think they should have to buy a certain type of arrow that paralyzes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubsa Posted August 12, 2005 Share Posted August 12, 2005 The idea is that this is a mages skill. In order to keep balance. This is ridiculous, it's basically saying you want Rangers to be able to shoot 2 handers and warriors to summon magic balls to fight for them. Let the classes have their own skills for Guthix's sake. This is how much you all raised for charity. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Domovoi Posted August 12, 2005 Share Posted August 12, 2005 How about when a ranger or warrior attacks there is a 5% chance that the opponent will get stunned. Of course the higher the type of weapon or arrow the chances increase. I think that in order to even consider this, there would have to be a limitation. Just as mages have to PAY for the spell, rangers and meleers should have to pay for the attacks. Perhaps a special that uses up 100% of your bar, or maybe we could introduce special weapons that have a certain amount of charges...lets just say 10. You can use these 10 in intervals of 1 minute's time. (every 60 seconds you can paralyze your opponent for 10) but after the 10 charges are up, you have to pay to get them charged again. Just a thought... :? I like the charge Idea, this would make it more even amoung warriors rangers and mages. What about with rangers though? I think they should have to buy a certain type of arrow that paralyzes. Yeah, if we combine these ideas it would help rangers and meleers to stop people from running in the wilderness or monsters. It'd be nice to see a different kind of "snare". Domovoi123-Level 80 f2pNoxious 0ne-Level 46 f2p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karvinen Posted August 12, 2005 Share Posted August 12, 2005 It would make magic pointless if you could snare with the cheaper classes too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wl_daniel Posted August 12, 2005 Share Posted August 12, 2005 BTW...my friend told me that you can't eat shoot arrows back if you get snared is this true? I don't think so but I never tested it out,only bind :? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lpinkus Posted August 12, 2005 Share Posted August 12, 2005 I suppose this is an attempt to "balance" things, if you're assuming mages are overpowering. If that is the case, then I could see why someone would want this. However, it sounds like a magic skill, and it would really have to be disguised so that it doesn't resemble magic. Outsanity said something to that effect. Personally, I don't find mages (with comparable combat levels) overpowering, but I'd be interested to hear what others think. lpinkus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_D_r Posted August 12, 2005 Share Posted August 12, 2005 I used to say the same but as time goes on rs gets more complex in terms of the triangle. Think of it like this: Mage- snare Ranger- agility. High agility + karils kicks [wagon] Warrior- Raw power. Can KO faster than rest of classes. so theyre all the same way of in term's of 'Occam's Razor.' Which basically means all different ways of looking at the same thing: a successful PK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raiden2k2 Posted August 12, 2005 Share Posted August 12, 2005 Bad idea in some ways, good in others. Some people would riot over this; Some people would make Jagex's babies. I personally like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lol000999 Posted August 14, 2005 Share Posted August 14, 2005 no only pure magic could hold sum1 and have you seen how much money it costs like 1 entanlge (yes entangle not snare) costs like 2k per spell its unfair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elk Posted August 21, 2005 Share Posted August 21, 2005 I allways thought that mages got the hold spells and warriors\rangers didn't because mage armour... Well, let's face it, it does nothing for defence.. :-( (Compared to range and melee) Yes I am a girl. No, I won't be your girlfriend. :oops: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terakaern Posted August 21, 2005 Share Posted August 21, 2005 If meleers and rangers were able to snare in this way, then two more things would be needed: Mages would need better armour. That is the sacrifice they make to be able to bind/snare/entangle. If a meleer could snare them they lose the advantage they have over a meleer. For the warrior ability, mages would have to have some resistance to it. Likewise meleers would need some resistance to the ranger ability. Just keeping the triangle in order (as rangers have considerable resistance the mage ability). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ishbar Posted August 21, 2005 Share Posted August 21, 2005 I think there really isn't a consistent ballance of power anymore. Teams of Mages certaintly do alot more than a team of Melee's, and even if there were Rangers to vs Mage's are more likely to have Defence of Arrows...the way things are now have became inconsistent..this would certainly not bring ballance at all and is a bad idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NinjaGriffon Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 i agree with bubsa's almighty teachings! Small Children Scared Count:3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now