Issue of Merchants and sub-guilds with related skills

[Gaare]

/Detrail/

I totally agree with Bestatte.  After usual first Byn character, as a nOOb I decided to play a merchant. I did not use any of my crafter skills rather than the ones I picked from subclass, because simply I did not know merchants are the masters of crafting.. Heh.

[LBO]

I think that the helpfile in General Information / Guilds has not been updated in line with the helpfile Guild_Merchant which has the additional sentence:

Furthermore, they have great talent in many forms of crafting, from simple cups to intricate forms of weaponry.

[Maybe42or54]

Usually descendants of the old Dune Traders, merchants quickly learn the ways of the desert, the most profitable trade routes, and possess a handy charm for making friends of even the most bitter templar.

And I don't like that because it implies, to me, that merchant is a job you are either born with or aren't born with.

[Angela Christine]

Usually descendants of the old Dune Traders, merchants quickly learn the ways of the desert, the most profitable trade routes, and possess a handy charm for making friends of even the most bitter templar.

And I don't like that because it implies, to me, that merchant is a job you are either born with or aren't born with.

But isn't that the way skilled trades are usually passed on in societies without formal schooling?  You are a barber, stonemason, dentist, farmer, weaver, etc. because that is what your mom, dad, uncle, grandparent, etc. was, and s/he taught you the trade.  You CAN go against the flow, decide "I don't want to turn planks into chests for the rest of my life, I want to be a bard" or whatever, but the usual thing is to go into the family buisness because as a kid you get trained for free while you help out the family.  That's why people have family names like Miller, Smith, and Carter, because at some point their ancestors were millers, smiths or carters.

Most people with the merchant guild probably come from families with a lot of merchants, that is how they learned the merchant starting skills.  That doesn't mean your PC has to be from a merchant family, anymore than your Rebel PC has to be old enough to have been a member of The Rebellion, or your Scavenger PC has to be from the ruins of Tuluk.  The doc gives a likely explanation of how you got those skills and where people with those skills are most likely to fit into the world, but it isn't a straight-jacket.

[Angela Christine]

FAQ 12

How common are the various guilds?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


There are sixteen guilds in Armageddon currently. These guilds are listed, in approximate order of frequency, below (the most commonly encountered guild is listed first).


Warriors:
The guild of warriors is a typically honourable crowd, whose chief pursuit is that of a good fight.


Rangers:
Desert wanderers, demiwarriors, who have a keen sense of direction and who spend much of their time hunting and travelling.


Pickpockets:
Con artists, excellent thieves, who can as easily steal the sword from your side as they can walk down the street.


Burglars:
Experts at breaking-and-entering, who plunder the homes of the wealthy or rob tombs of the long dead.


Assassins:
Hired killers, masters of the first strike, who are able to deal quick deadly blows from the shadows.


Merchants:
Those that deal in every-day trade, who are much quicker to the tongue, than a blade.


Templars:
The warrior-priests of the city-states, who are the embodiment of the law.

Water Elementalists:
Spellcasters with the power over life and death, who are the most respected and honoured among the mages.


Stone Elementalists:
Solid, solitary, these mages are able to call up the very strength of the earth for protection.


Wind Elementalists:
Mages of the air, adept at moving unseen and travelling great distances with the utterance of a spell.


Sun Elementalists:
Deadly, fierce combat-mages whose magicks sear the very life from the bones of their enemies.


Lightning Elementalists:
Mages of lightning, able to maneuver the paths of energy in quick blasts.


Shadow Elementalists:
Secretive, elusive, mages that use the shadows in their struggle against Suk-krath.


Void Elementalists:
Hated universally, elementalists of Nilaz strive to oppose all the elements.


Psionicists:
Mindbenders that are able to manipulate the Way to serve their designs.


Sorcerers:
Life-draining mages who gamble away health for power in the pursuit of mastery over magick.

Maybe there isn't a shortage of merchants at all.  According to this Warriors, Rangers, Pickpockets, Burglars, and Assassins are each supposed to be more common than Merchants.  Basically all the non-magickal guilds are supposed to be more common than Merchants.


Angela Christine

[Agent_137]

Subguilds hunter/archer/possibly thug.
Problem solved.

Those don't really give much in the way of combat, honestly, at least not in the way that merchants are really lacking:

Archers know all the ins and outs of all forms of missile weapons, bows, slings and crossbows. They are also crafters who know not only how to make their weapons, but also make use of feathers left over from constructing arrows.

Hunters, who have made their living hunting, are generally good at tracking their prey, as well as skinning it. They also have the ability to shoot their prey from a distance using the arrows that they created.

Thugs are well-used to the use of brute force, able to effectively kick an opponent in combat, as well as how to effectively knock out a target. However, they also know how to take to their heels when needed.

[/size]

Those give a little more survivability, but are more suited to rounding out a warrior or other guild than a merchant. Merchants are hopelessly reduced to talkers currently. This being bad or good is very debateable.

Personally, I think a combatish subguild to help round out the non-combat primary guilds would be nice. Hell, I'm in great favor of more subguilds in general. This would be a good place to start.

off the cuff subguild ideas:
Knife-fighter
Swordsman
Shield and spearman
Dunesman

These combat subguilds would give about the same bonus as non-combat subguilds give, of course. The burglar knife-fighter would never equal a warrior of equal time input bearing a knife, but he'd certainly be better off than the next burglar down the line, or some pickpocket/thug making a failed attempt at clobbering him.

I like the dunesman idea, though I haven't really thought it out at all. Just something to give those non-rangers who intend to spend a goodly amount of time in the desert. Though then people will want dunesmen to have the ability to go through storms without ranger help, and they'll  think that because they're a merchant/dunesman they don't need to hire any one to help them, etc. And that would get messy. like I said, I haven't really thought out that idea.

Basically, I think more subguilds would be great, and that a few should be combat oriented the way many subguilds are craft oriented.

[wizturbo]

Agent, while at first glance I would agree with you, with the addition of magickers though NO.  BIG NO.  Add combat ability to a magicker, and your going to have a lot of trouble on your hands.

[Marauder Moe]

Magickers with combat subguilds... hehehe... hehe... yikes.  :shock:

If you want to play a merchanty (social) character with some combat skills, be a burglar with a crafting subguild.

Though, I do think that either the staff needs to change Cavalish to only be a skill you get when special app'ing a merchant family member (I heard one of the imms mention this one) OR add a subguild that gives Cavalish as a skill.

[wizturbo]

Magickers with combat subguilds... hehehe... hehe... yikes.  :shock:

If you want to play a merchanty (social) character with some combat skills, be a burglar with a crafting subguild.

Though, I do think that either the staff needs to change Cavalish to only be a skill you get when special app'ing a merchant family member (I heard one of the imms mention this one) OR add a subguild that gives Cavalish as a skill.

I disagree.  If you need cavilish that badly, special app the character to have it added and give ample justification.  The value of the language is that it is well guarded, and not many people know it.

[Marauder Moe]

Every guild_merchant knows it.  As I said, it should be one way or another, depending on how the staff thinks the language should fit in the world.  If it's supposed to be common and everyone and their uncle Amos who owns a shop can speak it, then it should be in a subguild too.  If its something that usually only the great merchant houses speak, then it should be acquired through the special application, not the guild (remove it from guild_merchant skill list).

[Anonymous]

1. I don't believe there is a need in new sub-guilds unless new skills are to be implemented.
2. I don't believe there is a need in new combat skills unless major revamp of combat system is planned.
3. I do believe some "social" skills are needed, so Agent (not some merchant family member necessary, just your basic administrator and organizer) might become a separate class with those unique skills while retaining some moderate fighting abilities and non-crafting mercantile skills.
4. Speaking of Cavalish, I'd like to see it or Bendune added to skill set of linguists (if to anyone's at all).

[The Dude]

Agent, while at first glance I would agree with you, with the addition of magickers though NO. BIG NO. Add combat ability to a magicker, and your going to have a lot of trouble on your hands.

By this logic we might as well remove half-giants and sorcerers and anything powerful.

This game isn't about class balance, it's about realism. Why would a person inclined toward magick be any more or less capable of learning swordsmanship than any other?

Being that the extent of subguild ability is quite limited anyway, I would agree with the addition of combat-based subguilds. We have crafting subguilds, we have thieving subguilds and we even have a few ranged-attack subguilds. Why not limited combat ones?

[wizturbo]

Agent, while at first glance I would agree with you, with the addition of magickers though NO. BIG NO. Add combat ability to a magicker, and your going to have a lot of trouble on your hands.

By this logic we might as well remove half-giants and sorcerers and anything powerful.

This game isn't about class balance, it's about realism. Why would a person inclined toward magick be any more or less capable of learning swordsmanship than any other?

If you want to be realistic, there should be no classes what so ever.  Everyone should be able to go learn sorcery, be a master warrior, pick pockets, open locks, and craft fine jewelry if they train to do all those things.  This is a game.  It is very balanced, despite some people's claims it is not.  You give magickers combat ability, and I guarantee you there's going to be problems.

In my experiences, magickers are extremely dangerous as it is, you give them the ability to wield weapons decently on top of that, and there will be game balance issues that will make people whine and whine, and probably with just cause.

[Ghost]

By this logic we might as well remove half-giants and sorcerers and anything powerful.

This game isn't about class balance, it's about realism. Why would a person inclined toward magick be any more or less capable of learning swordsmanship than any other?

Nah but there is a weakness for everyone.  Even the strongest halfgiant lacks sharp wits, and the strongest sorcerer lacks the swordplay.

This is not for balance.  But everything has a weakness.  Combining sword and magick though, it would be too perfect, and I believe, every nine magicker out of ten would pick that subguild.  Which does not sound too right to me.

[Maybe42or54]

I disagree.

I have never played a magicer, but then again, I only have enough karma to log back in everyonce in a while.

Since not all magickers are born knowing that they are magickers, I think they should be able to take up mediocre skills in fighting if they were in fact a fighter before they finally let them selves realize it.

[joyofdiscord]

In my perfect wonderful world where everything is exactly how I want it to be, and everyone does as I say, magicker classes (except sorcerers) are SUBGUILDS.  The same skill trees, but acquired as a subguild.  Crazy, you say?  Yes, it probably is, but here's my logic.   Magick isn't something people have a choice about.  It's either innate, or some wierd elemental event thrusts the powers upon them.  That magicker still might be practicing his wilderness survival skills or his thiefly abilities, before or after manifesting his powers, because that's more important to who she is.   Person first, magicker second, doncha know.  Sorcery is a path of study, so it's fine as a main class.

So, yes, this would mean elementalists could become one-hit-kill backstabbers and one-spell-kill Krathians at the same time.  So?  Magickers aren't intended to be "balanced", in the sense of having the same level of power.  They are balanced by being in the hands of responsible players, and that's what karma is for.  Besides, magickers do have a weakness: they are magickers and everyone hates them.  The main issue of believability I see is that if elemental magick happens to take a lot of practice and dedication to get better at, they wouldn't also be able to dedicate their lives to their main guild skills.

This would also completely do away with "Well, Jimbob is a complete loss with weapons, is about as stealthy as an inix, and can't sew a wristwrap to save his life.  Gee, I think he must have magic powers.".  Also, I think it would be much more creepy to find out that your Byn sparring partner or your thief sidekick is cursed with magickal powers.  I think that's the way it should be.  A magicker, who can successfully hide her powers, or who hasn't yet manifested, should be able to fit in the world in all the same ways as non-magickers, and I think that would really add to the atmosphere of the game.

Of course, this idea will never, never happen, not in a King's Age, but that's my dream.

[lazycritic]

That would be kinda nice. The thing about Zalanthas is that ICly, everyone should be suspect as a magicker. Right now it's blatantly obvious that only a few could even possibly be a magicker.

If magickers were a subguild tacked onto a main guild, Tuluk could take on some Inquisition-esque intrigue and become more intresting.

But it'll never happen. And it might be a bad idea. If it did happen, they couldn't be full elementalists.

[moab]

The problem is that we are guild based instead of skill based.  If we got rid of the guilds and allowed people to choose their skills (that would be capped based on your stats and IC opportunities for learning / practice) this (and many other) issues would be resolved.

[wizturbo]

The problem is that we are guild based instead of skill based.  If we got rid of the guilds and allowed people to choose their skills (that would be capped based on your stats and IC opportunities for learning / practice) this (and many other) issues would be resolved.

At the same time, a hundred other issues would pop up that could be worse.  These sorts of issues are never 100% perfect, its just the nature of the universe that each system has its benefits and disadvantages.  I happen to like the current system just because my 'twink' side really has little room to dream.  I spend all my time thinking about the -character- not the skills, because thinking about the skills is pointless, you choose your class, your subclass, and thats the extent of it.  

If you need a special skill addition to fit the -character- you can special app and request it.  The imm's are reasonable, if the character is well thought out but its needs stonecrafting to properly play the role, ask for it and you're likely to get it.

[The Dude]

The thing about Zalanthas is that ICly, everyone should be suspect as a magicker. Right now it's blatantly obvious that only a few could even possibly be a magicker.

And that exactly is what really detracts from the whole magicker thing, for me.

[Tamarin]

Why are we still debating this?  It's clear that merchants are a great class...In fact, I think it's clear to me that every class is a great class.  Every class has something that the other classes don't.  And even that's irrelevant, because it's what you do with it that counts.

[lazycritic]

Why are we still debating this? It's clear that merchants are a great class...In fact, I think it's clear to me that every class is a great class. Every class has something that the other classes don't. And even that's irrelevant, because it's what you do with it that counts.

What's "clear" to you is not clear to me. You may think it's clear to you, but don't assume that that your opinion applies to everyone else in the world. That's always a dangerous assumption. Since you asked, the reason this is being debated is that what's clear to you is not clear to all others - they aren't sure that merchants are a great class(personally, I think merchants are fine as they are).

And no, it's not irrelevant, because classes are OOCly limited in what they are capable of doing. You could make the argument that it's pointless to debate it because there's no other way to preserve balance - but you didn't(it's been made enough times, anyway).

[Anonymous]

Merchants (and I've played some - successfully and not so) are not an obviously good class.

The staff actually supports this when they make posts for certain roles.

How many times have you seen "Need a character for an important role, no magickers please."

The staff actually has to artifically support merchant characters because all the other classes could pretty much do what a merchant does.  After all - what does a merchant do:

1. Buys
2. Sells
3. Networks
4. Organizes
5. Speaks a nifty language
6. Pilots a wagon
7. Crafts

If the staff didn't require the use of merchant / merchant-like characters for some roles, I bet you would see less of them.

The requirement for many clan-heads or other leadership characters to be one of warrior, merchant, ranger (with a preference for the first two) really points to a problem, doesn't it?

I like the idea of merchant characters - but I only play them if I have to (required for the role by an Imm) or if I want access to nifty expert crafting skills.

Otherwise my ranger is going to be able get the supplies he needs, my magicker is going to be able to buy and sell the stuff he finds and my sorcerer is going to be able to network just fine.

The one benefit of merchant class is that if forces you to rely on others to get things done and that's an advantage for those who can't delegate very well.

I've often considered applying for a skill-less character (with the exception of sirilish and see how far I get.  Hrm.

[Tamarin]

My point, SIR, is that the classes don't matter.  This is a ROLEPLAY game.  Ask any staff and they will tell you that the most powerful characters in game history have been good roleplayers, not characters with maxxed skills.  It is, quite literally, possible to conquer the known world without ever using your coded skills.

That is the point, and if you don't GET that, I'm not going to bother explaining it any further to you.

[Anonymous]

My point, SIR, is that the classes don't matter.  This is a ROLEPLAY game.

While we are at it, let's just get rid of all coded mechanics since this is a ROLEPLAY game.

Armageddon strikes a balance between freeform roleplaying like mushes or whatever and hack and slash muds.  Just because it's a ROLEPLAY game doesn't mean discussion of mechanics and classes issues means the person doesn't 'get it'.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled condescension.