Training backstab in the Bynn

[Krath]

I agree with this. My problem with Not being able to "practice" backstab is because it is realistic to train it. If any of you have had any martial arts
training with weapons at all you will know you practice with wooden weapons on each other. Why cant backstabbing with wooden/sparring
weapons just be perceived as a light blow against a critical pressure point, an artery, or any spot which will cause the maximum amount of pain?

Why can't you backstab someone that you're already in combat with? I think you'll find that the two questions have the same answer. The nature of backstabbing isn't just 'critical strikes.' It's 'surprise critical strikes from someone who you weren't in combat with.' If someone is waiting for you to backstab them in the middle of a sparring ring, well, you aren't really surprising them, are you? And if you do surprise them and jump them without consent, well, that's not really 'sparring', is it?

Ok, I can see where you are coming from, and it isnt necessarily always about surprise. If you constantly work on striking a certain vital point, when the time comes to use it against an opponent, you will be proficient in striking that specific area. IE, Choke holds, Submissions, The "button"(which all good fighters know about). I do not think training backstab in the Byn or in any clan is a problem so long as you rp practicing through emotes of targeting a specific area of the body, then after several emotes try a backsatb or two, aiming for that spot with a blunted weapon.  That is how martial artist do it in real life, and if you doubt that, go take any martial arts class and you will know that before you can go spar, you have to practice your form and aim and SHOW proper discipline and restraint before you get in the ring because you COULD hurt someone.

[Simple]

Maybe, yea. But I think the best is logging or doing it sensibly in battle. I don't wanna be the first one to kill someone...

[jstorrie]

Ok, I can see where you are coming from, and it isnt necessarily always about surprise. If you constantly work on striking a certain vital point, when the time comes to use it against an opponent, you will be proficient in striking that specific area. IE, Choke holds, Submissions, The "button"(which all good fighters know about).

You train choke holds and submissions by training the 'subdue' skill, which has very little to do with backstabbing.

If you want to do a session of identifying and aiming for pressure points, that's cool, but
a) why does your PC have any idea about pressure points?
2) tapping people on their pressure points is still not backstabbing them, though it might be appropriate to log a lot of it and request a skill bump that way.

[Krath]

Ok, I can see where you are coming from, and it isnt necessarily always about surprise. If you constantly work on striking a certain vital point, when the time comes to use it against an opponent, you will be proficient in striking that specific area. IE, Choke holds, Submissions, The "button"(which all good fighters know about).

You train choke holds and submissions by training the 'subdue' skill, which has very little to do with backstabbing.

If you want to do a session of identifying and aiming for pressure points, that's cool, but
a) why does your PC have any idea about pressure points?
2) tapping people on their pressure points is still not backstabbing them, though it might be appropriate to log a lot of it and request a skill bump that way.

That is what I said -IE- choke holds, submission, the button. And why does your pc know about pressure points, because you can get backstabbed on your body in more places that are non-fatal, than those that are, that is why you need to tap or practice striking that area without maximum force. And Critical strike doesnt just mean a hard hit, it means an aim shot at a "soft" or "tender" Location. How are you going to know what areas are soft and tender to get a critical strike without training?

this may come of cocky and arrogant but it isnt meant to, but have you ever taken any kind of martial arts training and learned to use weapons in such? The training is exactly as the above, as is with the Navy seals on hand to hand combat( I know this because my brother is one).

[jstorrie]

I maintain that that sort of training would not be, in Zalanthas, training of the backstab skill. It'd be training weapons skills, parry, subdue, etc.

[psionic fungus]

Which is why I suggest getting rid of the skill altogether.

Critical Strike + Called Shot +Bonus from Initiative + Bonus from Being Hidden =

One bad-ass, realistically TRAINABLE "backstab" that we can describe however we want, via command emoting.

This only applies to 2.Arm, of course.  For now... We suffer.

[some guy]

I dislike that the backstab skill is completely unrelated to your sneak, hide and piercing weapon skills. Make these skills a coded part of backstab and you could become decent (not great) at it through sparring and practice, which I consider realistic. The rest would come from "studying anatomy" (backstab tregil, backstab rat, backstab child) as is already the case.

[jstorrie]

Which is why I suggest getting rid of the skill altogether.

Critical Strike + Called Shot +Bonus from Initiative + Bonus from Being Hidden =

Why wouldn't a combatant always be going for critical strikes? And why wouldn't a combatant always be aiming for the best possible 'called shots'? I don't see how either of those work as viable skills.

[brytta.leofa]

Which is why I suggest getting rid of the skill altogether.

Critical Strike + Called Shot +Bonus from Initiative + Bonus from Being Hidden =

Why wouldn't a combatant always be going for critical strikes? And why wouldn't a combatant always be aiming for the best possible 'called shots'? I don't see how either of those work as viable skills.

A high chance of missing or opening yourself up to extra attacks?  Stamina loss?  "Disarm" and "bash," for instance, are pretty well balanced against this; they're not something you would use in a real fight unless you are confident of your ability.

I would imagine that the average combatant should want to stick with "hit amos" rather than trying fancy maneuvers.  But if a highly skilled warrior wants to open a fight with "hit amos neck", he's got a chance of ending it right there.  (Even more so a rogue class who can open the fight from concealment.)

Honestly, I most like this for use against subdued opponents.

[psionic fungus]

Why wouldn't a combatant always be going for critical strikes? And why wouldn't a combatant always be aiming for the best possible 'called shots'? I don't see how either of those work as viable skills.

If you read the more elaborate idea proposals for Critical Strikes and Called Shots (elsewhere, in the Reborn forum) you will see that they are intended to be used during combat, and by all combat classes (with differing degrees and areas of effectiveness).

Critical Strike would probably be a primarily passive skill, but also used to determine the effectiveness of Called Shots.

Called Shots, while it probably doesn't have to be its own skill, would have to be balanced so that they are not used exclusively, perhaps being a slightly slower than average attack.  Called shots could be used on parts of the body other than fatal ones, to disarm, disfigure, hamstring, or whatever else.

[Mood]

Code Select Expand

>sneak
You slow down, and start moving carefully.

>draw sword
You unsling a small, obsidian-edged sword from your back.

>hemote grips ~sword tightly, moving behind ~amos and crouching down.
You grip your small, obsidian-edged sword tightly, moving behind the tall, muscular man and crouching down.

>hit amos legs (with a snarl) [drawing it viscously across the backs of his knees]
With a snarl, you hit the tall, muscular man in the legs with your small, obsidian-edged sword, drawing it viscously across the backs of his knees.

The tall, muscular man cries out, falling down!

Do want.

[jstorrie]

Why wouldn't a combatant always be going for critical strikes? And why wouldn't a combatant always be aiming for the best possible 'called shots'? I don't see how either of those work as viable skills.

If you read the more elaborate idea proposals for Critical Strikes and Called Shots (elsewhere, in the Reborn forum) you will see that they are intended to be used during combat, and by all combat classes (with differing degrees and areas of effectiveness).

Critical Strike would probably be a primarily passive skill, but also used to determine the effectiveness of Called Shots.

Called Shots, while it probably doesn't have to be its own skill, would have to be balanced so that they are not used exclusively, perhaps being a slightly slower than average attack.  Called shots could be used on parts of the body other than fatal ones, to disarm, disfigure, hamstring, or whatever else.

Right. But why would any fighter-type not be focusing on getting critical strikes or landing called shots? I don't see why assassin-types would be better at this than straight fighter-types. Or are you suggesting that non-stealthy warriors don't aim for vulnerable areas, and keep slashing the body like robots?

I know quite a few games give skills like this to the 'assassin' or 'finesse' fighting classes, but quite a few games give fighters a 'taunt' ability, too, and that doesn't mean we should have taunt. I don't understand the reason for having skills like the ones you've proposed.

[brytta.leofa]

I'm not speaking for psionic fungus here and may be perverting his ideas.

Right. But why would any fighter-type not be focusing on getting critical strikes or landing called shots?

They should focus on that, within their abilities.  They won't try fancy work against a more skilled opponent because the risk is too great:
You attempt to stab the tall, muscular man in the throat, but he parries your awkward blow and lunges past your guard.
The tall, muscular man bludgeons you very hard on the head...you reel from the blow!

(Why don't warriors currently try to disarm / bash / kick on every round with every opponent?  It's tiring and sometimes dangerous.)

Right. But why would any fighter-type not be focusing on getting critical strikes or landing called shots?
I don't see why assassin-types would be better at this than straight fighter-types. Or are you suggesting that non-stealthy warriors don't aim for vulnerable areas, and keep slashing the body like robots?

Warriors should be better at this, like all standard weapon skills, once the fight is engaged.  Rogues should have a tremendous bonus for a surprise attack, something that warriors can't do.  The rogue either beats the warrior quickly or loses, just like today.

[jstorrie]

Rogues should have a tremendous bonus for a surprise attack...

Yes, I understand that you are asserting it SHOULD be that way. I am trying to ask WHY.

[Mood]

Rogues should have a tremendous bonus for a surprise attack...

Yes, I understand that you are asserting it SHOULD be that way. I am trying to ask WHY.

Because your victim has their guard down?

[jstorrie]

Why should only rogues get a bonus for attacking someone who has their guard down?

[Maybe42or54]

Because warriors get the advantage all other times?

[jstorrie]

Class balance is not a design concern for Armageddon.

[psionic fungus]

I never said that there shouldn't be an initiative bonus for warriors.  There should.  If you attack someone first, you should get a bonus.  If they are unarmed you should get an additional bonus.  If they're watching you and have weapons out, the initiative bonus should be negated.

I also think that "approach" code should be utilized, so that you have to have "approached" someone to engage them in combat.  Stealthy classes would get the advantage of being able to get into range unnoticed.

Since they can not hide, straight warriors would never get the -additional- bonuses that being hidden imbues.  Part of this bonus could directly apply to critical strikes, since being hidden before making your attack should give you additional opportunity to wait for the appropriate time...

You assume that these skills would or should not apply to warriors and rangers, but I believe they should... Just in different ways. For example, Rangers could get critical strikes on animals, Rogues on humanoids, and Warriors both (but at a 66% cap).

[Mood]

Why should only rogues get a bonus for attacking someone who has their guard down?

They should.

[brytta.leofa]

Since they can not hide, straight warriors would never get the -additional- bonuses that being hidden imbues.  Part of this bonus could directly apply to critical strikes, since being hidden before making your attack should give you additional opportunity to wait for the appropriate time...

Yeah, that's what I meant to say about roguish guilds getting "surprise" bonuses.  Not for starting the fight, but for Stealthily Approaching Their Targets.  I agree that rogues probably shouldn't get a bonus for something that's more warriorish than rogueish (simply starting a fight, with no hide/sneak involved).

Class balance is not a design concern for Armageddon.

It is in the sense that each class has interesting--and at least vaguely logical--limitations.  Some classes are inherently more powerful, but every class seems to have something to be afraid of.

[Mood]

I agree that rogues probably shouldn't get a bonus for something that's more warriorish than rogueish (simply starting a fight, with no hide/sneak involved).

I don't, really. Rogues win with quick, dirty fighting.  They should get at least as big a bonus as warriors, if not more.

[a strange shadow]

I agree that rogues probably shouldn't get a bonus for something that's more warriorish than rogueish (simply starting a fight, with no hide/sneak involved).

I don't, really. Rogues win with quick, dirty fighting.  They should get at least as big a bonus as warriors, if not more.

/agree

Their weakness is the lack of defense for prolonged encounters.

[some guy]

Balance doesn't have to be of the WoW kind where each class is meant to be able to compete with the next on an even playing field. The Armageddon balance is that each guild is valuable in its own right and has the means to achieve certain things, at least in theory. When that balance is removed, you can clearly see the impact it has on the game, with an absence of such characters. Some of the most prominent examples are pickpockets, accomplished assassins who actually work as hired hitmen and not Kadius Hunter With High Backstab, and city-elves. This is not because these types of characters aren't as good at fighting as a warrior, or because they can't make money as fast as a merchant, but because they pose some obstacles that are too great for most players to bother playing them. These obstacles are often of an OOC nature, such as the crime code's more unrealistic aspects, or the insane difficulty of practicing backstab in a realistic manner.

[jstorrie]

I don't, really. Rogues win with quick, dirty fighting.  They should get at least as big a bonus as warriors, if not more.

I don't know how well you're going to prove your point if your only argument in favour of this is 'just because,' Mood.