Disengage and Bash

[Synthesis]

Currently, the only time you can (as far as I've seen) 'disengage' from combat is if you're not being targeted by any opponent.

I was thinking:  wouldn't it make sense to be able to 'disengage' when someone/thing fails a bash on you?  After all, whatever just failed to bash you is on the ground code-wise (this could be interpreted as merely off-balance for RP considerations...but the effect is the same).  At any rate, if they're either off-balanced or on the ground for a significant period of time (post-bash lag is definitely significant), it seems like you should be able to turn tail and make good your escape while they're unable to effectively engage you.

I don't have any idea how this would be coded, or if it would even be possible without major revisions to the code, but if it -were- a simple thing to code, it seems like a good idea.

The only down-sides (if they can be considered down-sides) to being able to do such a thing is that warriors who rely on bashing would have to be extremely careful against assassins, burglars, pickpockets, and subclass thugs.  Said classes/subclasses would be able to disengage and immediately attempt a backstab or sap, while the warrior was down, giving them a pretty nice bonus to the attempt.  Another down-side would be that -anyone- could disengage and immediately attack the downed warrior/critter, gaining both the first-attack bonus (which seems to be present...I don't know if it's a coded thing, but it -seems- like first attacks get a bonus) and the vs. sitting opponent bonus.

Personally, I like the idea of making it dangerous to bash sneaky-types...warriors get enough advantages against them (disarm and kick) so that they retain their hard-coded combat advantage against said types.  The only exception, obviously, would be against warrior/thugs.

At any rate, one of the major reasons for using bash in a combat situation is to prevent the target you're bashing from fleeing (the other is to gain a vs. sitting opponent bonus...but this is less important because if you fail, -you- become the sitting duck, thus most players don't use it in this manner unless they're fairly certain of success, i.e. they're muls, half-giants, or very experienced bashers).  Thus, it seems to make sense (given the similarity of success benefits vs. failure consequences for other skills) that the downside of a bash failure would be to make it easier for the opponent you're trying to stop to get away.

[John]

I love this idea It would stop opponents with no stamina from killing each other  :lol: As hilarious as "I want to stop fighting you I just can't make myself stop either" is, I think it'd be good if there was a work around for it

Another down-side would be that -anyone- could disengage and immediately attack the downed warrior/critter, gaining both the first-attack bonus

Perhaps disengage could get given a small lag to stop that? Or perhaps "kill"/"hit" could be given a small lag at the beginning of it (giving people that time to type out a charging emote ) which would help stop that problem. Just a couple of ideas.

Said classes/subclasses would be able to disengage and immediately attempt a backstab or sap, while the warrior was down, giving them a pretty nice bonus to the attempt.

I think the sap/backstab lag would balance that.

Also if someone wants to disengage and the fighter on the ground doesn't want too, then they can immediately attack once their lag has finished.

[spawnloser]

Yeah, I think John's right with the thing about sap and backstab delay.  Seriously, it feels like it takes forever before you actually hurt people with those.  Where are they, India?  How long does it freaking take to whack someone in the back of the head??  Okay...I'm starting to rant.  I'll stop.  I like the part about disengaging, but seriously, if someone fails a bash on you and you don't want to be fighting them, why not just flee?  With the before delay on most anything that you'd need to disengage to do you'd have a warrior out of bash delay attacking you again.  I also gotta say, if you're not good at bash, you gotta get good some way, so people that suck at it will still probably do it.

[John]

if someone fails a bash on you and you don't want to be fighting them, why not just flee?

Don't have enough movement points.  Chance you'll fail. I also find it extremely jarring to flee when sparring. A lot more jarring then lack of punctuation  

[EvilRoeSlade]

I like this, but my only problem is that bash is a weak enough skill already.  Before having something like this implimented, I'd like to see succesful bashers enjoy giving their opponent a period of lag equal to lag on the bash command, and having no lag on the bash command provided they succeed.  Thats what the helpfile on bash promises after all.