Talk:Scholar

Semantics

Saying Profs are battle if they can melee denies the fact that Bolters can battle by casting. Thus, Soldier is a better term.

Brent

In the world of Ragnarok Online, "Battle" is not an ambiguous connotation as you are making it out to be. Battle refers to a class that primarily melees a monster, or building part of the character towards this objective when it is regarded as potentially counter-productive/PVM oriented. Bolters suited for int/dex with little defense stats would not want to stand there attacking a monster. There are hybrids of characters that can be mentioned; I do not think Soldier is a good term to use because the majority of the RO population is unfamiliar with it.

--Rav 20:11, 27 July 2008 (MDT)

The majority of the RO population is unfamiliar with it because the term "Soldier" is a radical terminology intended to sever the illogical association between "battle" and "melee". It is true that "Battle" in RO refers to a close combat class that deviates from its default design as intended by utility and so-called efficiency. For example, the Priest that chooses to go hand-to-hand against monsters, and the Professor who chooses to bring his fights to close quarters rather than following the norm and staying afar. Despite this, it is an association that defiles the true meaning of the word "battle" when applied to the Professor class, or even the rare Wizards who choose the path of the hand-to-hand fighter for that matter.

Professors and Wizards are capable of engaging in long-range and short-range battles, compared to most classes where their forte lies in either one or the other. Wizards who choose to follow the path of close combat is counterproductive. Focusing on this aspect of combat undermines who they are. However, professors who choose to follow the path of close combat does not necessarily undermine their very essence. These Profs can still support others, albeit not as good as the common Bolters or Supporters due to their skill spread. They can also engage in ranged combat, though not as well as the Bolter due to a slower casting time (lest they are rich enough to acquire the equipment necessary to zero all casting times). In spite of this, they are also effective in close combat, and actually shine in it. You're looking at a character that can fight from a distance, that is not afraid to let the enemy approach him, and that is STILL capable of support roles. A real-life soldier easily fits these three roles perfectly. Hence, the terminology. So, why not "battle"?

1. Walking down the path of close combat is only counterproductive in PvP in the early stages. The latter stages of this Prof's life involve not leveling, but item hunting.

2. Calling these professors "hybrid types" is actually LACKING because they encompass all three archetypal builds of the professor and yet STILL excel at something the other two can't excel in: close combat! And you should know that the term "hybrid" is also a term associated with "jack of all trades; master of none". But you have a build that excels in something.

3. Bolters have a "plateau" level of power. The "counterproductive" professors have vast potential. Whether the bolter or the so-called "counterproductive" professor is better than the other battle can only be determined through a thorough investigation... in terms of killing their targets.

4. While the majority of the RO population are unfamiliar with the term as of yet, the term "Soldier" is also intended to instigate a logical revolution, in that it will actually remind players the absurdity of applying the condescending term "Battle" to a job class that has long-term benefits for players. It is also for this reason that the term "Soldier" also emerged; the label "Battle" has negative connotations and people often look down on these "counterproductive" professors, refusing to acknowledge the vast potential they hold within, potential already being cultivated by new equipment and even a technique available ONLY to these "counterproductive" professors that can grant enormous leverage in the tide of battle if used prudently.

The condescending term "Battle" would have been appropriate for the close combat professors during their state as a Sage. It would have been appropriate had Double Bolt been programmed to register only precast bolt spells, had equipment like the Ring of Flame Lord, Kettle Hat, Decadent Strategy, and the Ledger of Death never been released, or had the effects of the Spirit of the Sage benefited Bolters!

It would also have been appropriate if they couldn't use Books and that books weren't unbreakable! It would've been appropriate if their skills did not nurture the path of close combat, like Wizards. In fact, the very label that is "Battle" would have been QUITE apposite had Gravity chosen to set the "counterproductive" build as a PvM-only one, similar to the Battle Priests in that they can only kill monsters given what they have, with little, if not minimal, supporting capacity. But no! The Profs so looked-down-upon were given the capacity to kill, to own! They were raised above a stagnant life of counterproductivity and defiance of the norm! Gravity even wants players of these "counterproductive" Professors to dedicate themselves to it, because their fully realized power only comes through sheer dedication, persistence, and luck... or just a hell lot of money/connections.

If the term "Battle" is still condescending in that characters slapped with this label are considered "potentially counterproductive", then why is Gravity giving these "novelty" professors opportunities to rise above that connotation? The term "Soldier", radical as it is, RESPECTS this potential, this versatility in ranged and close combat, and in support.

The only reason why a more apt term for the so-called "Battle Profs" has not surfaced until the philosophy for the radical label that is the "Soldier Prof" was because people would not understand, their minds closed to the possibility of something that defies the norms of spellcasters being something that can actually kill. SymbioticGenius has a particularly strong "Soldier Prof" that he knows he can own people with. But perhaps the reason why he forced himself to conform with the rest was not just because the people would find it radical, but also because the people were unaware of the immense potentials held by the close combat Professor. Now that Gravity is beginning to give players opportunities to raise these supposedly PvM-only builds past that very barrier, the terminology SHOULD be replaced by something that respects not only the damage potential of the close combat professor, but also the intense dedication and persistence its player has exerted to mold that very professor to the most powerful state it can achieve.

Soldiers are fully experienced in battle, capable of killing people from a range, or from close quarters. Soldiers can provide support when needed, the support not just limited to cover fire. Soldiers are dedicated to their mission. Soldiers are persistent to meet their objectives. The term "soldier" respects both the player and the way he has decided to play his character. That... is the Soldier Professor.

Of course, this doesn't mean that one needs to impose the term on another. People who refuse to acknowledge the term "Soldier" can still do so, perhaps out of conformity's sake. These people should just refer to these Professors as "Melee Professors", since the Soldiers excel in close combat. If not, well, maybe it goes to show that they just want to stick to the term "BATTLE" and are content with living with the rest of the RO population looking down on them because they're "battle types that aren't effective at all in PvP" and associating them with a waste of time and money. Looking at it that way, it's kind of pathetic that a majority still view Soldiers as weak, which can be both a good and a bad thing. After all, being overwhelmed by a "weak, pathetic, PvM-only, Battle Professor" can be a surprising thing.

Wow, I am not even reading that block of text because I am pretty sure anyone would understand what I am referring to. I scanned your post briefly and all I saw was "WE'RE NOT COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE!!!!1111111" or something.

--Rav 15:09, 29 July 2008 (MDT)

People have been fighting over semantics for ages, so I'm not going to try and argue. However, taken from wikipedia: The word 'encyclopedia' comes from the Classical Greek "ἐγκύκλιος παιδεία" (pronounced "enkyklios paideia"), literally, a "[well-]rounded education", meaning "general knowledge". As such, "general knowledge" is that widely accepted by the community. Along this consensus alone, "Battle" is more well accepted than "Soldier", for the basic reason that "Soldier" does not convey much meaning (it just means "a fighter", well everyone fights).

Overall, my vote is for the "Battle" term because of its acceptance. Brent, please mark your posts with two dashes and four tildes (--~~~~) so we know they you wrote it. Thanks =) --Steax 19:52, 29 July 2008 (MDT)

Builds

I dont think changing the INT on the VIT/DEX build from 1~40 to 50~105 makes any sense at all. That is not a minor adjustment of stats, it is a rather drastic change. Also, i'm pretty sure stone curse wont miss just because of int/matk thats too low. --Biochemistness-76 08:29, 29 July 2008 (MDT)

I'm sure Heaven's Drive will miss. And it is important for range revealing (something along the lines of Detect but without revealing traps). - Brent