Customized SKills...

[jhunter]

And I disagree that this is perfecting it.

The system now is balanced. Each guild does what it does and does that best. What's wrong with that?

And the only guild that is hard to play off as another is the magicker guilds. I've passed most of the rest off as others a few times. Guild sniffers bug me...but I think I'm good at dealing with them in such a way as to prevent them from sniffing me out guild-wise.

Like I said earlier in this thread. I wouldn't be opposed to keeping the main guilds and pooling the subguild skills, including the caps into a list that was point based to choose from for your secondary skills.
This would -not- include uncapped, main guild-only skills.

I don't want to see non-warrior specialized types disarming. I don't want to see non-assassin specialized types backstabbing. That sort of thing. I don't want to see merchants sword-fighting and doing well at it. They shouldn't be.
The original idea would turn people into a sort of jackofalltrades guild. Where anyone can be doing anything...a smattering of this "specialty" a smattering of that "specialty"...that makes no sense. You either specialize in one area and suck at most other things or you suck at alot of things.

[Maybe42or54]

I think that is best also.

[Wykydtronn]

Does it make in logical sense for my ranger to have archery? When hes lived in the south his whole life?  There is not many bows and arrows down there.

Now have you ever try to get a iso solo ranger started in the south?  Its nearly fucking impossiable.

And anyone who feeds me this "Join a clan" or "Armageddon is harsh" can eat a fucking pine cone.

What I wouldn't do just have to have just a tiny bit better skill with swords. Is that too much to ask?  A chance to not get raped by everything in the red desert, because my idiot ranger doesn't know which end of the pointy stick goes where?

[jhunter]

Does it make in logical sense for my ranger to have archery? When hes lived in the south his whole life?  There is not many bows and arrows down there.

Now have you ever try to get a iso solo ranger started in the south?  Its nearly fucking impossiable.

And anyone who feeds me this "Join a clan" or "Armageddon is harsh" can eat a fucking pine cone.

What I wouldn't do just have to have just a tiny bit better skill with swords. Is that too much to ask?  A chance to not get raped by everything in the red desert, because my idiot ranger doesn't know which end of the pointy stick goes where?

You can get bows and arrows in the south, they are made from bone and chitin instead of wood for the most part. And with all the dangerous beasts it would make -more- sense to take them down with arrows from a distance instead of getting up close and having your head torn off.

[Marauder Moe]

Does it make in logical sense for my ranger to have archery? When hes lived in the south his whole life?  There is not many bows and arrows down there.

Your ranger doesn't start with archery.  Your ranger starts with the potential to learn archery.  You still have to practice it, and if IC circumstances continue to deny you a bow and arrows, then you won't have archery.

What I wouldn't do just have to have just a tiny bit better skill with swords.

Would you find a teacher and practice?

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Hmmmm.

So, let's graduate (for now, never will I ever let my dreams die forever) to sub-guild pooling.

So, I log on, create Roi the Warrior, and then am asked to either select a secondary-skill set, or to individually select the secondary skills I want.

You're assigned a point pool with which to do this. I'll assume that giving different skills different point values is a good idea?

Here's a question. I still can't create a sword packing thief with this system, and there is no good IC reason that I couldn't. So, on the heels of that thought...

Instead of receiving selectable skills during class selection, selection of a class could give you things like, parry from the start, quit-outside from the start, steal at a high cap, etc....you see? Instead of classes dictating a list of skills, it inpart benifits, like higher caps, the ability to do certian things, and in the case of karma classes only, literal skills.

So, you select Ranger, you get quit-outside, higher archery cap, high skin cap, high hunt cap, and so many points.

Warrior, you get parry, disarm, and bash from the start, all non-selectable skills, high weapon % caps, and so many points to spend deciding on other skills.

Whatcha think about that?

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Let me add that because the class Warrior would be geared to what they currently are, choosing other skills would actually impart penalties on them instead of min-maxxing, because the caps would still be in effect, and they would get a lot of skills with no bonus at all because they are a class not normally skilled in so forth and so on.

[jhunter]

Maybe.
Like you were explaining there would have to be certain ones that are not pickable under any circumstances other than if you choose the type that is going to primarily specialize in that area. Can't have any non-warriors maxxing out weapon skills, disarming, bashing, parrying from the start....that sort of thing.
No backstabbing non-assassins...etc...

[Marauder Moe]

I'll admit that I'd be far less opposed to removing subguilds in favor of some sort of skill-buy system.  Don't change the primary guilds at all.  No buyable skills that aren't already in a subguild either.

[Maybe42or54]

I'm not in favor of having to buy skills in any way, shape, or form. I'd be more open to "Pick a few of these skills."

[Marauder Moe]

I'm not in favor of having to buy skills in any way, shape, or form. I'd be more open to "Pick a few of these skills."

What's the difference?

[Maybe42or54]

If you had to buy them there is going to be that one skill everyone has because they all had one point extra. That is kind of annoying.

[Marauder Moe]

You have to limit skill picks somehow, though, right?

Or do you mean like
pick one of the following: slashing weapons, bludgeoning weapons, piercing weapons.  
Pick two of the following: basketweaving, tanning, dyeing, toolmaking
?

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I'll admit that I'd be far less opposed to removing subguilds in favor of some sort of skill-buy system.  Don't change the primary guilds at all.  No buyable skills that aren't already in a subguild either.

Then how can I make the sword-packing thief?

I'm thinking that any skill that you can get that your class does not have set caps for will come with an automatic 50% cap.

So, the Warrior (coming with bash, parry and disarm, high sword, axe, club, kick, and dagger caps) who didn't take Axes and chose to give up that and Daggers for the sneak skill would only have a 50% chance, ever, of doing it right.

The Ranger (coming with outside-quit, scan and listen, high flee, rescue, hunt, etc caps) who decided that kick was a good choice for his character would only ever have a 50% chance of doing it.

The Thief (with the good dagger cap, steal, giggle, etc caps) with the sword will never be better than average with it.

I think that sub-guilds pretty much make this distinction anyway.

[Maybe42or54]

You have to limit skill picks somehow, though, right?

Or do you mean like
pick one of the following: slashing weapons, bludgeoning weapons, piercing weapons.  
Pick two of the following: basketweaving, tanning, dyeing, toolmaking
?

Yes, something like that.

[Marauder Moe]

Then how can I make the sword-packing thief?

Make a warrior.  Pickpocket is already a subguild skill.

Weapon skills are too powerful for subguilds, even with a cap.  Backstab is too powerful, even with a cap.

[Cale_Knight]

What would the point be in taking a skill like sneak or hide if it never worked more than half the time?

Some abilities (sneak, hide, bash) are only really useful if you can count on them working reliably. Others (hunt, listen, etc) don't necessarily have to go off first time every time to be incredibly handy.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

There is no class/sub combination that allows me to make a city sneak/hide warrior.

Pickpocket is not a thief. I said a thief that uses swords.

Weapon skills are -not- too powerful for subguilds ... we already have a subguild with sap as a skill. What the heck is the difference between sap and backstab?

[Many Faces]

That is an extremely valid point that 7DV just made.

sap is ungodly powerful.  Unbelievably.  Just like backstab.

Sap does not kill flat out, and there for gives more RP possibilities... but still, it instazonks an opponent if you're strong/good enough... and most sap'ers take a hefty strength race.

[Aldiel]

The guild system we have right now is restrictive, but also quite nice in another way - it keeps everyone from having the same set of skills and different classes have different caps on how high a skill can go I'd like to keep it that way.

You know, I always wished that it wouldn't just cap, but slow--become like twice as hard to progress after a certain point.  I also wish if you kept preforming a skill to the point you had like 10 percent into it, it would pop up in your skill list at 1 percent.

[jmordetsky]

I've always been fond of background questionairres. Where depending on how you answer each question skill levels are asigned to you, the questions are check against your BG and the questions are always architected to avoid specifc combination.

Though, most people I talk to hate them.

[picklehead]

I only skimmed this.. but.. although this idea might avoid twinking, I think in the end you'll still end up with "cookie-cutter classes" like you do in games like World of Warcraft, where people eventually figure out the most advantageous skillset for what they want to do. Is this a bad thing? I don't know.. but I rather like how things are setup now.

[House Rising Sun]

I've never seen much harm in doing something similar to this.

Though the guild/subguild system is pretty neat, I've always thought it'd be better to have the ability to swap out one or two skills in some manner, to better satisfy a pc's needs. For example, a desert wanderer screams ranger simply for survival skills, but the vision calls for someone skilled in hand to hand combat rather than a hunter, so archery is dropped in exchange for parry and hunt in exchange for disarm.

Some class-specific skills and abilities would be protected, so you have to be an assassin to backstab, a ranger to quit out in the wilds, a warrior to have those high skill caps, a magicker to... magick. Branches become obsolete except for powers that grow off each other, as with a magicker or psionicist.

Point is, there's a lot of ways this could be done without ruining either the simple flavor of char creation mechanics or the unbalance of the game, and if anything it could prevent certain forms of ooc twinkery.

[Gazarsgo]

I think it is actually less work for the staff to accept customized starting skillsets proposals as special apps than to try to balance the entire skill system against a point valuation.

I don't see any substantial (IMO ) gain from this change, and it also makes the game far more intimidating to new players.

[jhunter]

For example, a desert wanderer screams ranger simply for survival skills, but the vision calls for someone skilled in hand to hand combat rather than a hunter, so archery is dropped in exchange for parry and hunt in exchange for disarm.

Fuck that. The day we have disarming rangers or parrying newbie non-warriors is the day I quit.

This is a perfect example of why the guild system is great as it is.