Subguild with Warrior Skills?

[jmordetsky]

Pretty easy - try not to get caught up on the name - but should there be a subguild that gets disarm and bash with a reasonable cap?

[spawnloser]

Had to vote 'no' as any subguild that has both would basically turn any non-warrior combat class into a warrior, at least until they max out and the warrior keeps getting better.  A subguild that had one or the other, though, I could support.

[jmordetsky]

Had to vote 'no' as any subguild that has both would basically turn any non-warrior combat class into a warrior, at least until they max out and the warrior keeps getting better.  A subguild that had one or the other, though, I could support.

I was thinking on that as well but - I was thinking the most flagrant would be like burglar or ranger in short term vs longer term. Short term - you wouldn't have parry, so you would not be as good. Long term - the caps would get you and you would never be as good as a warrior. It would let you defend yourself against disarm a bit and get the ability to bash.

I'm split myself - voted yes because I think it would be neat, but I don't think the game suffers as a result.

[Xeran Van Houten]

Bash might make sense added to the Guard subguild... or either one, maybe, but considering the trend in pcs not lasting very long, to have both in the same subguild would be like having guild_1/warrior_lite.

[Spoon]

I'd say no, simply because warriors don't have anything going for them expect the fact they kick ass at combat. This isn't a problem, because they're warriors. I also don't think disarm (described in the docs as an 'expert' maneuver) or bash (just full on aggressive recklessness) fit in with any other guild. If you want to be a barbarian swordmaster, you've got to pick the warrior class. These are pretty much a warrior's unique skills.

[Thunkkin]

I think a subguild with a low-cap in each of the four major weapon types plus a low-capped parry would be awesome.

[A Dry, Quiet War]

I'd like to see some subguilds provide low-capped weapon skills.

Hunter, Nomad- piercing_weapons
(Hunters obviously aren't going out with nothing but a bow.  Most human tribals will be handling weapons from an early age, even if they never get that good.)

Thug- bludgeoning_weapons

Weaponcrafter- all weapon types, capped very low.

[jhunter]

I could possibly see bash added to the thug skillset but I wouldn't ever want to see anyone besides warriors using such a specialized combat skill as disarm.

[Twilight]

If bash worked the way it did ten years ago, I would say sure.

As it stands now, with the additional modifiers added in that borked up any sort of bash defense in the extreme cases, I would feel far more comfortable with a moderate disarm being added to a subguild than I would a moderate bash.

[FantasyWriter]

I voted straight-up NO on this one.

Like SpawnLoser said, it would turn any other combat guild into an almost warrior.

[Sephiroto]

I say yes because:

• Subguild skills aren't as robust as primary guild skills
• Warriors are better offensively and defensively than other guilds.
• Simple bashes and disarming movements shouldn't be so difficult to learn that only warriors will have a moderate success rate against an opponent of the same race.
• No matter how good subguild bash and disarm are, a warrior with the same stats, equipment, and off/def will almost always outclass the subguild skill.
  

[jmordetsky]

I say yes because:

• Subguild skills aren't as robust as primary guild skills
• Warriors are better offensively and defensively than other guilds.
• Simple bashes and disarming movements shouldn't be so difficult to learn that only warriors will have a moderate success rate against an opponent of the same race.
• No matter how good subguild bash and disarm are, a warrior with the same stats, equipment, and off/def will almost always outclass the subguild skill.
  

Agree. I don't think having these will allow you to be *near* a warrior. I stand behind:

Short term - you wouldn't have parry, so you would not be as good. Long term - the caps would get you and you would never be as good as a warrior.

I think what it would allow is that your ranger/burglar/assassin/merchant would have some understanding of a soldier skill and as X-D pointed out in the other thread - you would be better at defending yourself against both skills.

[Dar]

If some subguild offers bash, Someone will make a max height RF delf with (non-mundane guild)/thatsubguild, and go off sparring Jihaens. And that's just 'one' example. Please ... let's allow warriors keep their skills exclusive. They are a boring, limited guild as it is.

[Sephiroto]

If some subguild offers bash, Someone will make a max height RF delf with (non-mundane guild)/thatsubguild, and go off sparring Jihaens. And that's just 'one' example. Please ... let's allow warriors keep their skills exclusive. They are a boring, limited guild as it is.

Someone might just do that.  And they'll probably end a very dead RF non-mundane very quick, especially versus the ninja Jihaen class.

Non-mundande guilds + combat subguild skills aren't all they're cracked up to be, even with all sorts of crazy boosts to help.  Sap is a very dangerous skill, but I haven't heard of anyone complaining about certain subjobs using taking advantage of that skill in the same manner described above.   How many HG merchant or magickers do you see running around using a subguild that gives sap to take advantage of their coded strength?  None, most likely.  That's the same sort of argument as your D-elf non-mundane with bash.  Really?  As a non-mundane (your euphemism for magicker) the last thing you want is to fail a bash and end up on the ground!  And against a Jihaen no less....

It would be more benificial for people to devote energy explaining how we can expand the very limited number of skills that warriors class gets, since you seem to find it such a limited and boring class as is, instead of offering up every point possible, well thought or not, that counters the attempts that are being made my players and staff to allow more skill customization thorugh guild/subguild options.

[Bogre]

I think a 'Brawler' subguild that had a boost to starting unarmed, bash, and subdue might be a good one. Maybe the holding liquor, ala mercenary.

[Synthesis]

The only warrior skills I would care about in a subguild (that aren't already in a subguild) are weapon skills and parry.

No point in having disarm or bash if you're not a warrior.

Well...I suppose a non-warrior half-giant would like to have subguild bash, but that's about it.

[jstorrie]

Subguild bash would be pretty attractive to giants/muls, but then so is subguild subdue, which is already available. It's maybe kosher, but what other skills would you put in that subguild? You couldn't put subdue for reasons of balance. Shield use and armor maintenance, maybe, for a soldier subguild? Eh, I'm not sold.

I worry that if parry and disarm were subguild-takeable, the swarm of rangers and assassins with disarm would ensure no one would ever play warrior again. Can't really support that. Warriors need a bit more love, really.

[Synthesis]

I would create a "veteran" or "swashbuckler" subguild with low (pickpocket-style) capped parry, slashing weapons, and piercing weapons.

[number13]

I vote "yes" because it would assist in curtailing guild-sniffing.  The Guard sub-class already sucks enough that adding disarm at a low cap wouldn't hurt anything.

[Gunnerblaster]

Disarm is an amazingly scary skill. I, personally, would not like to see it made into an accessible skill for subguilds.

Bash, on the other hand, would be alright with me - If added to something like Thug or Mercenary. It's a skill that, should it fail - Always puts you at a very dangerous disadvantage. It's a solid hit or miss. Give it a low-ish, but still usable, cap.

I vote No for Disarm.

I vote Yes for Bash.

[Fnord]

Yes, because Pandora's box has been opened with Ranger's unique skills.

[jstorrie]

I vote "yes" because it would assist in curtailing guild-sniffing.  The Guard sub-class already sucks enough that adding disarm at a low cap wouldn't hurt anything.

guard rulz, u crazy

[X-D]

Not to mention, Failing Disarm can be as bad if not worse then failing bash.

[jhunter]

-If- disarm were added to any subguilds, I think that warriors should have a higher starting percentage as a base. I still see it as an advanced combat skill much like backstab for assassins.

[Conspiracy Theory]

I'm all for making the mundane classes less unique, personally. I don't really like the whole class based system thing as a whole in fact.

[AmandaGreathouse]

I'm all for making the mundane classes less unique, personally. I don't really like the whole class based system thing as a whole in fact.

+1. I've seen someone post something about turning Arm into Morrowind. Say what you want, but the skills/class system on there is actually pretty great. You can do any mundane skill with a small chance of success, and any class skill with a large chance of it.

[Kryos]

No need for this, in my opinion.  Sandstorm guidance becoming a skill fixed several glaring omissions in my mind, whereas this could fix only one omission, not so glaring.

[Salt Merchant]

I'm all for making the mundane classes less unique, personally. I don't really like the whole class based system thing as a whole in fact.

I think Nessalin once pointed out that with a classless system, everyone would have hide, parry, fireball and backstab.

Classless systems work great for single players games. I suggest not so much in a multi-player game. Enforced specialization is a good thing; it draws players together (rather than everyone being a lone god).

[Akoto]

I think Nessalin once pointed out that with a classless system, everyone would have hide, parry, fireball and backstab.

Classless systems work great for single players games. I suggest not so much in a multi-player game. Enforced specialization is a good thing; it draws players together (rather than everyone being a lone god).

Agreed.

[X-D]

Heh, off topic, if I got to choose any 4 skils/spells in game, none would be the 4 listed and would very likely surprise you.

On topic, Enforced classes are already fading or at least getting blurred. No reason to not complete the blurring....If only to enhance playability. (mild sarcasm)

[jstorrie]

I would create a "veteran" or "swashbuckler" subguild with low (pickpocket-style) capped parry, slashing weapons, and piercing weapons.

even [REDACTED BY SHALOOONSH.  Really, dude?  Really?  Talking about skill branches now?] would be insanely overpowered if one of the melée-oriented elementalist classes could take it. nooooo way, dude.

[Qzzrbl]

Honestly, a melee oriented elementalist guild choosing this for the low-capped weapon skills would more often than not turn out to be a mistake.

With some of the shit magickers can do, I don't think they need or even want weapon skills.....

It's like saying that a nuclear bomb is fine-- but when you attach that machine gun to it, it's overpowered.

That's been my experience, anyway.

___________________________________________ <--- That's my "getting back on track line". :3


I personally wouldn't seen any problem with adding a few more subguilds to flesh out our characters skills a little more.

As it stands, there are a load of merchant subguilds, two or three hunting subguilds, nifty accent and language subguilds, a subguild that gives you like.... a 20% chance to pull off a rescue or subdue, and a few stealth-based subguilds.....

There's a pretty big lack of combat in there, right? Or is it just me?

I'm not quite understanding the reasoning behind arguements that make it look like a few combat subguilds would somehow nerf the warrior class or make magickers more destructive than they already are.....

I think it'd be pretty nice to have a merchant that could actually have a chance fend off that would-be mugger, or a magicker who's whole life didn't apparently revolved around OMGMAGICKANDCRAFTING, or a warrior that doesn't totally suck mek balls upon creation-- without having to waste one of our extremely limited numbers of special apps.

[IAmJacksOpinion]

I voted "yes" because I think it would be neat, even though I don't give a rat's ass either way.

If it went in, personally I would prefer to see it split up. Thugs get bash and mercenaries or acrobats get disarm. Something like that. I think guards have enough, personally.

Also, yes, weapon skills would be nice. (Thugs get sap, but no but no bludgeon? Rebels and nomads can craft spears, but not use them?)


HOWEVER, I think this is going to be a SOL type deal, since a lot of revamping ideas have been shot down in the past couple years for the simple reason of the ever present threat of Arm2.0 hanging over our heads.

[allieday1]

I am all for the lets all walk in the storm. I mean we'll get to find more bodies and sell the boots like back in the old days. Now days the towns and taverns are full because of weather, so with this we have more folks going on a venture. But as for other skills in the subs, I am not to sure if that will turn out ok but who knows?

[Salt Merchant]

Maybe one subguild choice could just be "extra experience".

This would take the form of modest boosts to a guild's core skills.

[jstorrie]

Honestly, a melee oriented elementalist guild choosing this for the low-capped weapon skills would more often than not turn out to be a mistake.

I'm suggesting that with such a subguild they'd be choosing it for parry. Magickers with parry would be bonkers, I think they're a bad idea eh.

[Synthesis]

Honestly, a melee oriented elementalist guild choosing this for the low-capped weapon skills would more often than not turn out to be a mistake.

I'm suggesting that with such a subguild they'd be choosing it for parry. Magickers with parry would be bonkers, I think they're a bad idea eh.

Parry would be an insignificant contribution to the ability of a magicker to wreak havoc.  It would be great for burglars and merchants who also want to do a little bit of fighting.  Not so much for any other class, because they already branch it (unless they just wanted to skip the grinding time).

Weapon skills in a subclass would obviously benefit only merchants and magickers, unless you gave all four basic weapons, which would allow pickpockets/burglars/assassins to use some different weapon types, albeit at probably reduced maximums.  Again, this boost to melee offense would be insignificant in the case of a magicker.

I suppose I should qualify that:  the subclass definitely would benefit -newbie- magickers in combat, but that's just about it.  Any magicker beyond 10 days' played doesn't need parry any more than a warrior needs toolmaking.  I suppose I should qualify that, too:  any of -my- magickers beyond 10 days' played.

[FantasyWriter]

With some of the shit magickers can do, I don't think they need or even want weapon skills.....
It's like saying that a nuclear bomb is fine-- but when you attach that machine gun to it, it's overpowered.

Sig'd

[jstorrie]

Parry would be an insignificant contribution to the ability of a magicker to wreak havoc.  It would be great for burglars and merchants who also want to do a little bit of fighting.  Not so much for any other class, because they already branch it (unless they just wanted to skip the grinding time).

I can't really get into specifics here for obvious reasons, so you're just going to have to take my word for it, Synthesis. There are some magickers who are pretty terrifying when they go tooth-and-nail on you, and having parry would turn them into basically unstoppable distributors of mass destruction.

It's kind of like yeah, they already had nukes, but now they're also ninjas. People with nukes are trouble enough, I don't think we want a bunch of ninjas with nuclear shuriken.

[Synthesis]

Parry would be an insignificant contribution to the ability of a magicker to wreak havoc.  It would be great for burglars and merchants who also want to do a little bit of fighting.  Not so much for any other class, because they already branch it (unless they just wanted to skip the grinding time).

I can't really get into specifics here for obvious reasons, so you're just going to have to take my word for it, Synthesis. There are some magickers who are pretty terrifying when they go tooth-and-nail on you, and having parry would turn them into basically unstoppable distributors of mass destruction.

It's kind of like yeah, they already had nukes, but now they're also ninjas. People with nukes are trouble enough, I don't think we want a bunch of ninjas with nuclear shuriken.

Yeah, because subclass parry would totally turn you into a ninja. 

I really wouldn't assume that you know anything more than I do about whatever it is you're mysteriously referring to, either.

[Qzzrbl]

One would imagine that parry in a subguild would have a pretty low cap..... Or at least I would.

I don't think subguild parry would be able to hold a candle to warrior/ranger/assassin parry.

Just as subguild thief steal isn't anywhere near pickpocket steal, and that crafter subguilds aren't anywhere near merchant crafting.

[jstorrie]

I really wouldn't assume that you know anything more than I do about whatever it is you're mysteriously referring to, either.

Well you're suggesting magickers ought to be able to get parry from a subguild! I don't think we can really hash it out on the GDB given that magick isn't to be discussed in that close of a detail, but my vote's definitely against it.

[spawnloser]

I think you're overestimating the power of subguild skills.

[musashi]

I think having signature abilities like disarm, backstab, direction sense ... given with low caps to subguilds is a good idea just for the sake of making guild sniffing more difficult.

I've never seen a subguild skill rise to an overpowering level myself. Subguild skills seem to me to be nearly always laughably low compared to the primary guilds that get them.