I still don't get what's the big difference

Except the mage has learned to use their mana one way, and the warrior has learned to use it in a another way. Them not being capable of replicating the warriors technique makes perfect sense.

I have really nothing to offer that hasnt been already said, but good on you for posting best girl

IS THAT FUCKING DIGIMON?

>Best girl
>Not Nokia
Patamon's pre-evolution

I don't think anyone actually understands what you are saying because your vague musings only make sense if you operate under the assumption that magic works in a certain way when it's actually a complete clusterfuck, not even franchises like Final Fantasy keep a consistent definition of it across one game to another.

You are arbitrarily reducing "mana" into a min-sum exercise in which the only thing that separates the abilities of one user to another is intention which is simply not true in most if not all of the settings in which martials are empowered by the same thing as casters.

No, they're wrong for shitposting. All they dropped was a pointless statement that only affirms they're unable to keep pace with the discussion, despite everyone else being able to.

>everyone else is able to understand what OP is saying

Why is it that only shitposters are too stupid to follow along?

I mean, even the first guy to reply in the thread who made some pretty solid sincere replies was having trouble understanding the guy. It is pretty fucking confusingly phrased.

>Choosing the incarnation of retardation

Sounds more like you are too austistic to realize absolutely no one understands what you are trying to babble about. You operate on another level, a lower one if you will, you expect people to engage you but you won't even get outside of your arbitrary frame of reference,

Are you talking about a specific setting?, your setting?, do you actually think there are no settings in which tomes and staves work differently, no one knows, it's just you being mental.

That last part is thanks to poor phrasing, and that's not connected to how you are confused to the point where you can't join in at the start of the conversation.

You're literally a moron who decided to flaunt how stupid he was, and when called out on it, decided to affirm it.

Surprise! Not OP. And, most of the people not hung up on shitposting forced memes are probably not OP as well.

So, quit showing off how dumb you are already, you autist.

I'm not the guy you were replying to. I'm a neutral observer pointing out you're being an asshole and that the OP's phrasing was ridiculously obtuse and awkward.

It's no surprise that you think "depends on the setting" is a meme, you must hear it a lot considering you are too obtuse to think about fictional stuff in a way other than what personally makes sense to you.

I think I'm getting a better hang on this now. I remember Final Fantasy actually separated well at VI those kinds of things, woth mana being used by general magic, but other skillsets deriving of different forces, like Sabin's Blitz attacks.
I think the problem is I'm viewing it more on the MMOs side of things, where mana is more like an energy source, but basically Mages and Warriors are using it differently somehow.
OP here, I think I'm understanding better now because I was first treating as mana=power in itself, but it should be more like mana=power source that turns into "something" that produces results, so while a Mage and Warrior can have nearly equal amount of mana, the way they apply cause different results, so a mage should be restricted to wands due to that, meanwhile a sword would need this "something" different from what the mage produces, restricting its usage to a warrior

I bet. But, you still made the stupid mistake of thinking poor phrasing was what was confusing the idiots, when it's their basic inability to see beyond a very basic mental limitation of there's to have a complete mental shutdown unless a specific setting is dictated.

>Wands, rods and one-handed focuses channel harmful, self-destructive energies into energy-efficient, single target attacks
>Staves also amplify this power and act as a grounding mechanism
>Grimoires store power instead of directly channeling it from a staple magic source, acting as one-off grenades that spellcasters could not reasonably cast. They usually fire off in a shortrange arc.
>Magical beam-shooting melee weapons act as wands, but their physical form is impractical for properly controlling the flow of magic and this results in sloppy manifestation.
>Daggers and Maces are more precise due to their economy of form and axis of symmetry respectively. Battlemages favour these two weapons.

...I'm gonna go with the occam's razor solution and say that you're wrong on that one.

It's a shitty forced meme spammed by passive aggressive idiots who don't want or can't figure out how to say what their actual issue is.

Everything can depend on setting. It's a non-statement. Just saying that puts you at the mental level of a retarded memester.

This OP? His issue is that he wasn't clear with his phrasing, not that he didn't establish what setting he was referring to.

This actually a nice way to separate their usages

Quite obviously, the OP is talking about a setting in his mind which he hasn't decided on yet because it doesn't exist. However, we assume everyone here is properly attuned to the hivemind, so OP doesn't need to explain anything, we just know. Giving clear explanations damages one's connection to the hivemind, so we can't tell you anything, sorry.

If your setting has wands, staves, And grimoires as magic implements then i like to imagine they just channel the magic in different ways. Wands could be pre-loaded with spells, but only one spell at a time. Staves could just be a focus for the casters internal magic like an empty gun and the wielder's magic is the ammo, and grimoires could have several spells written into it that could be used by anyone able to read the inscriptions, like a leather bound collection of scrolls. A magic weapon could be similar to the wands like this, but they are still weapons so any fighter trained in its use can use it as well as they could any normal weapon it would just have an additional property of using magic

>It's a shitty forced meme spammed by passive aggressive idiots who don't want or can't figure out how to say what their actual issue is.

I can make long streams of buzzwords too

>Everything can depend on setting. It's a non-statement. Just saying that puts you at the mental level of a retarded memester.

Why is telling someone that it depends on the setting not a valid answer?, if you don't like being told then put more effort into your OPs.

>This OP? His issue is that he wasn't clear with his phrasing, not that he didn't establish what setting he was referring to.

What setting?, Digimon?

By Occam's Razor, you should only look at the evidence provided, ie. the posts where the idiots just flailed and issued a pointless non-statement, while everyone else was able to move past that and actually address the actual issues.

>Why is telling someone that it depends on the setting not a valid answer?

How can you read an explanation (Everything can depend on setting), completely ignore it, and still proceed to defend a pointless non-answer like you have some kind of point to make?

You are retarded. But, since you being retarded depends on the setting, let me specify.

Here and now, you are retarded.

The difference is supposed to be in how the power is accumulated, which in an indirect way governs how it is spent.

So for grimoirs, what if each page is a rare magical writing, that takes effort to copy or burns your brain every time you cast the forbidden secrets of old ages?

How does the staff accumulate charges?

How much does it fatigue the fighter to shots beams and yell "EXCALIBURRR!"?

Theese are resources that other types of training/lifestyles/classes can't get. A wizard doesnt have chi, just gigantic balls for daring to speak eldritch rites. A staff user isn't brave or strong, just magically talented and perhaps rich with whatever staves need.

Couple this with extra-effects that are class specific and its a big deal.

Bonus points for difficult to cast situations (imagine the only easy to access spells are all aoes because military, and its always danger-close with scatter? Or the moral/social quandry of using Balefire)

So it'd be in sheer power staves>magic weapons>grimories, but grimories would be useable by anyone to have its effects while magic weapons although more specifc would have more power and staves would only work at the hands of mages?

So what do you want me to reply?, should I make suggestions on how to difference them from each other?, should I try to pry open the psychological process that made him arrive to his conclusions?

OP already made in his mind the decision that those implements are apparently not diffrerent enough from each other, in some mysterious not-specified frame or reference, so I say it again, depends on the setting.

I see, so aside magic in itself, a weapon could have a toll in the stamina (cooldown), while a stave would be possibly only on mana, both would however work by amplifying while a grimoire could give more versatility of usage at some other cost

Look at how just about everyone else isn't a retarded fuckhead like you. And, you insist the only way to reply is to shitpost like a retarded fuckhead.

How much more of a retarded fuckhead are you going to be, while trying to defend your shitty forced meme? It's a pathetic non-answer for pathetic idiots, and look at you fail to even imagine that other people are not as stupid as you happen to be, even while it's being demonstrated.

You're a sad sack of shit, and you should put on a trip so people can filter your retarded ass. Now quit derailing this thread by showing off how unapologetically retarded you just so happen to be.

Staves are only as powerful as the individual using them and the quality of the staff, grimoires are as powerful as what is contained within its pages, and magic weapons are as powerful as the spell placed on the weapon and the skill/strength of the wielder

Understood. This also would open possibility of rarity and pricing on grimoiries as since their overall power is independent of the user, they could find more use in the hands of someone with less power, while more powerful people would either seek stronger grimoiries or make use of staves and weapons that have power depending on the user himself

>The differences are ones you create from yourself, because magic users deserve equipment variety too.
But why not give them mechanical differences as well? Some general concept along the lines of staves can make your spells more powerful but use more energy, wands let you cast faster, grimoires allows you to cast a greater number of spells since you don't need to memorize them.

The choice of focus is a reflection on the type of magic user that is using it.

Mages using wands focus on precision, the wand is small and easy to maneuver giving an increased chance of hitting with beams and rays.

Mages using a grimoire tend to be more scholarly than other mages and rely on their vast knowledge of magic to give them an edge over other magic users. Their grimoire, a lengthy collection of years of research allows them to know (maybe cast) more spells than the average mage.

Staves are great amplifiers of a spells potency, a mage who uses them can cast evocation spells stronger than other mages.

Orbs are the focus of the defensive mage, all defensive spells are more potent when cast.

Components pouches are the choice of focus for alchemists and conjurers. Any conjured item or creature is more potent when called forth by such a mage.

The funny thing is that Fate manages well that distinction. Aside Shirou, since when he traces the history of the weapon he gets to unleash its power too, any random person that tries using one of those weapons would fail. Gilgamesh probablycan't release the full power of most of his weapons and in Strange Fake arming a mage police force with Noble Phantasms didn't yield results right away, since they couldn't draw the full power of them and it was pointed out they'd need time and experience to eventually be able to do so.

Likewise, no mage can hold a staff and automatically be able to shoot beams. In both cases, the person needs practice to use magic or one of those weapons

That's kinda my point. There's no inherent, intuitive difference, so if you're designing mechanics just make up differences as makes sense for your system.

They are different tools for different uses. Since we do not use magic like that in this world, the particular details of those differences varies from game ti game.
For example, knives. There are as many types of knives as their are functions a knife is useful for. You could use a multitool pocketknife to clean a fish, but a fish knife would work far better. You don't use a paring knife to cut candy, or an Alaskan fish knife to serve cake.
Think of it like that.
The right tool for the right job.

Who's the girl(bottom)?

Yuuko Kamishiro from Digimon Cyber Sleuth

>2018
>Still using magic

If you can't style off as wizard then you alredy failed at your job
Being unable to create floaing magic circles to fire off lasers is like being a swordsman that can't twirl his sword
No one would hire wizard that can't do something this basic

In no tabletop game have I played are their wands and staves that act as weapons that shoot attacks, outside of one third party archetype for Gunslinger in Pathfinder. This seems more like a video game thing