Reasoning behind warrior skills

[Kismetic]

I think you can both sap and backstab a fighting target.  You, yourself, cannot be engaged in combat when doing so but the target can be.

D'oh!  Don't listen to me newbies, I'm a newb. 

[MeTekillot]

When I played a really badass warrior PC and someone was spouting off about some hidden sneaky being in the room, I'd always throw off heavily sarcastic emotes about him being extremely inattentive or bad sighted or something since warriors don't get scan.

say (staring dully at the same shadow every other PC with scan in the room is staring at) I don't see nothin'.

[Sephiroto]

Balance?  Forced interaction?  Teamwork?

Then I want to special-ap a PC who has access to all skills in exchange for not being able to speak, psi, or have any friends.  That's fair, right?

[Thunkkin]

Balance?  Forced interaction?  Teamwork?

Then I want to special-ap a PC who has access to all skills in exchange for not being able to speak, psi, or have any friends.  That's fair, right?

As long as you remove the ability to emote and think.

[Spoon]

When I played a really badass warrior PC and someone was spouting off about some hidden sneaky being in the room, I'd always throw off heavily sarcastic emotes about him being extremely inattentive or bad sighted or something since warriors don't get scan.

say (staring dully at the same shadow every other PC with scan in the room is staring at) I don't see nothin'.

I love it when people blatantly overrule their OOC knowledge like this.

[Sephiroto]

Balance?  Forced interaction?  Teamwork?

Then I want to special-ap a PC who has access to all skills in exchange for not being able to speak, psi, or have any friends.  That's fair, right?

As long as you remove the ability to emote and think.

But my favorite command in this game is 'think'!  And I want to be able to emote out my lonliness or lackthreof (being a hardass loner).  Is it that unreasonable to want to play a PC who relies on noone?

I'd never see this happening for lack of staff support, but I -would- play a PC like this if it was hard-coded.

[Xagon]

Already've done it

...

He didn't last too long, however. It was basically Conan the Barbarian meets MacGuyver.

[Thunkkin]

I'm not sure how having "all" skills is necessary for surviving as a hard-ass loner ... you mean out of the box or something?

[Sephiroto]

I'm not sure how having "all" skills is necessary for surviving as a hard-ass loner ... you mean out of the box or something?

Survival, no.  One only needs to have a few skills to do that, or a lot of knowledge and luck, but more skills help.

For this said character, I'm saying saying I'd want access to all skills, either off the bat or through branching.  The exception would be magick and psionics (though that would be fun too) because that would be too ridiculous.  With all those mundane skills I would kill my own food, skin it, cook it.  Make weapons from its bones.  Armor from its hide.  Tools from things I forage.  Build a hut.  Sew my own clothes.  Craft my own jewelry.  Build my own, crude cart.  Tame beasts.  Ride them.  Harvest lumber.  Throw it on my cart.  Drag it to my hut.  Build a house.  Set traps around it.  Defend against beasts.  Gather more wood.  Build a wagon.  Tame more animals.  Hitch them to my wagon.  Pilot said wagon.  Fix it when it breaks.  Discover new lands.  Like a boss.

No coins, no people.  Just me and nature.

[Potaje]

I'm not sure how having "all" skills is necessary for surviving as a hard-ass loner ... you mean out of the box or something?

Survival, no.  One only needs to have a few skills to do that, or a lot of knowledge and luck, but more skills help.

For this said character, I'm saying saying I'd want access to all skills, either off the bat or through branching.  The exception would be magick and psionics (though that would be fun too) because that would be too ridiculous.  With all those mundane skills I would kill my own food, skin it, cook it.  Make weapons from its bones.  Armor from its hide.  Tools from things I forage.  Build a hut.  Sew my own clothes.  Craft my own jewelry.  Build my own, crude cart.  Tame beasts.  Ride them.  Harvest lumber.  Throw it on my cart.  Drag it to my hut.  Build a house.  Set traps around it.  Defend against beasts.  Gather more wood.  Build a wagon.  Tame more animals.  Hitch them to my wagon.  Pilot said wagon.  Fix it when it breaks.  Discover new lands.  Like a boss.

No coins, no people.  Just me and nature.

Perhaps if this game was downloadable you would be the ideal person to have it. Seems the whole Multi-user environment would have no point for your wants.

[Synthesis]

If you're going to be snarky, it really, really helps to have somewhat of a useful or intelligent point to make.

Otherwise, you just sound like a dick.

[Sephiroto]

Perhaps if this game was downloadable you would be the ideal person to have it. Seems the whole Multi-user environment would have no point for your wants.

But then I wouldn't get to deal with desert elves, magickers, and the occasional raider.  I never said I didn't want to interact with people.  I said he couldn't have friends.  His enemies may be innumerable.  I'd expect the challenge to be quite high.

P.S.  Don't be a dick.

[Sokotra]

I'm not sure how having "all" skills is necessary for surviving as a hard-ass loner ... you mean out of the box or something?

Survival, no.  One only needs to have a few skills to do that, or a lot of knowledge and luck, but more skills help.

For this said character, I'm saying saying I'd want access to all skills, either off the bat or through branching.  The exception would be magick and psionics (though that would be fun too) because that would be too ridiculous.  With all those mundane skills I would kill my own food, skin it, cook it.  Make weapons from its bones.  Armor from its hide.  Tools from things I forage.  Build a hut.  Sew my own clothes.  Craft my own jewelry.  Build my own, crude cart.  Tame beasts.  Ride them.  Harvest lumber.  Throw it on my cart.  Drag it to my hut.  Build a house.  Set traps around it.  Defend against beasts.  Gather more wood.  Build a wagon.  Tame more animals.  Hitch them to my wagon.  Pilot said wagon.  Fix it when it breaks.  Discover new lands.  Like a boss.

No coins, no people.  Just me and nature.

Perhaps if this game was downloadable you would be the ideal person to have it. Seems the whole Multi-user environment would have no point for your wants.

Really I don't think it would be that horrible for him to do that or want to do that.  It would seem reasonable to me that his character would be able to do that stuff, to a certain degree.  He might not be a master jeweler or armor crafter, but it would make sense for someone that lived and survived their lifetime in the wilds to be able to do all of that stuff... think about the original Pioneers or anyone that has to live out in the wilds, away from civilization.

[Blackisback]

I'm not sure how having "all" skills is necessary for surviving as a hard-ass loner ... you mean out of the box or something?

Survival, no.  One only needs to have a few skills to do that, or a lot of knowledge and luck, but more skills help.

For this said character, I'm saying saying I'd want access to all skills, either off the bat or through branching.  The exception would be magick and psionics (though that would be fun too) because that would be too ridiculous.  With all those mundane skills I would kill my own food, skin it, cook it.  Make weapons from its bones.  Armor from its hide.  Tools from things I forage.  Build a hut.  Sew my own clothes.  Craft my own jewelry.  Build my own, crude cart.  Tame beasts.  Ride them.  Harvest lumber.  Throw it on my cart.  Drag it to my hut.  Build a house.  Set traps around it.  Defend against beasts.  Gather more wood.  Build a wagon.  Tame more animals.  Hitch them to my wagon.  Pilot said wagon.  Fix it when it breaks.  Discover new lands.  Like a boss.

No coins, no people.  Just me and nature.

But...but....

...Class balance! :tears:

[jstorrie]

Really I don't think it would be that horrible for him to do that or want to do that.  It would seem reasonable to me that his character would be able to do that stuff, to a certain degree.  He might not be a master jeweler or armor crafter, but it would make sense for someone that lived and survived their lifetime in the wilds to be able to do all of that stuff... think about the original Pioneers or anyone that has to live out in the wilds, away from civilization.

Those guys are just rangers with a utility subclass.

[Synthesis]

As a side note, it would be fine if everyone got pretty much every skill to a middling level, but there were VAST differences between "apprentice" and "master."

E.g.  The best you could do with "apprentice" woodworking is whittle a crappy-looking gwoshi statuette that's literally worthless, or build a shitty wooden shelf that's worth maybe 10 'sid...meanwhile, at "advanced" woodworking...the sky's the limit.  Same thing with armorcrafting...maybe you can make yourself a functional-enough breastplate out of scrab shell, but nobody's going to -pay- for something that looks like that, and it's probably a little heavier than the good stuff, and the straps aren't top-notch, so its condition degrades much more rapidly, and it's pretty uncomfortable, so you lose some stamina points...etc. etc.

But the way the crafting and skill systems work now probably isn't amenable to implementing something like this.

[Nyr]

I don't like the second part of your post. It basically says "this is how it is because this is how it is," without going into anything further. Well, things are always true because they're true until they're changed. I realize that you need to do a ton of tough GDB moderation and that it's not fun, and that generally this means that you don't want to expand on things... But I didn't find that portion of the post helpful.

That's okay; I didn't like the above-quoted portion of your post.  It basically says, "I didn't like part of what you said." I don't like it because I don't really think it's relevant to the discussion here about warriors and their skills or lack thereof.  You're dragging in other things like GDB moderation and reading way too much into something that is a simple response to your post, in which you stated that you thought warriors should be good at scanning (with a tenuous link to other guilds having the ability, one of which you found to be silly).  It boils down to "I made a post in which I stated that it is my opinion that warriors should be able to do this or that" countered by a staff member saying "but we don't agree because the helpfiles say this or that."  Of course you aren't going to like that, your opinion just got snubbed.   

So in conclusion, I can see the argument for warriors not having scan. It's about game balance, and there are ways to work around it.

I stated something similar to this in the second post on this thread, which explains why things are the way they are.  Later on, more things got posted, so I didn't feel a need to go back and re-explain staff position, however paraphrased or simplified.  I directed things to the helpfile at that point, thus the "things are the way they are because things are the way they are."  The whole thread in context may make that second part that "you don't like" a little more palatable then.  If not, oh well!   

We're not going to give warriors backstab, by the way.  I think it's kinda obvious we wouldn't, but just to be clear, we are not going to do that at all.

[musashi]

We're not going to give warriors backstab, by the way.  I think it's kinda obvious we wouldn't, but just to be clear, we are not going to do that at all.

You're such a dick Nyr. 

[MeTekillot]

We're not going to give warriors backstab, by the way.  I think it's kinda obvious we wouldn't, but just to be clear, we are not going to do that at all.

You're such a dick Nyr. 

now i will never be ezio auditore

[Taven]

I don't like the second part of your post. It basically says "this is how it is because this is how it is," without going into anything further. Well, things are always true because they're true until they're changed. I realize that you need to do a ton of tough GDB moderation and that it's not fun, and that generally this means that you don't want to expand on things... But I didn't find that portion of the post helpful.

That's okay; I didn't like the above-quoted portion of your post.  It basically says, "I didn't like part of what you said." I don't like it because I don't really think it's relevant to the discussion here about warriors and their skills or lack thereof.  You're dragging in other things like GDB moderation and reading way too much into something that is a simple response to your post, in which you stated that you thought warriors should be good at scanning (with a tenuous link to other guilds having the ability, one of which you found to be silly).  It boils down to "I made a post in which I stated that it is my opinion that warriors should be able to do this or that" countered by a staff member saying "but we don't agree because the helpfiles say this or that."  Of course you aren't going to like that, your opinion just got snubbed.   

So in conclusion, I can see the argument for warriors not having scan. It's about game balance, and there are ways to work around it.

I stated something similar to this in the second post on this thread, which explains why things are the way they are.  Later on, more things got posted, so I didn't feel a need to go back and re-explain staff position, however paraphrased or simplified.  I directed things to the helpfile at that point, thus the "things are the way they are because things are the way they are."  The whole thread in context may make that second part that "you don't like" a little more palatable then.  If not, oh well!   

I'd like to note that based on what you've said I can't really respond to this without it being considered a further derail and off-topic. So I'll make one post on the issue, and then let it drop.

First of all, I didn't go OMG STAFF IS BAD THEY ARE SO MEAN GAH WHY LIFE IS SO UNFAIR. I constructively talked about the first part of your post, and ended up agreeing with you. I was saying that I liked what you said because it further facilitated discussion and made it so that the reason behind a staff position. There's the whole first portion of my post that says that. As players, we like to know why staff decides what they decide, not just that they've decided it.

The post you linked has the same approach that I disliked. We aren't even disagreeing on the end result (I agree at the end of my post that I can see why warriors do not have scan), we're differing only on the approach. I can't really say more on that then what I already said in my original post, but I found a post like Seeker's, even though it says essentially the same thing, to be far more approachable.

Please, everyone continue on in the topic. I don't want to cause a further derail.

[Sokotra]

As a side note, it would be fine if everyone got pretty much every skill to a middling level, but there were VAST differences between "apprentice" and "master."

E.g.  The best you could do with "apprentice" woodworking is whittle a crappy-looking gwoshi statuette that's literally worthless, or build a shitty wooden shelf that's worth maybe 10 'sid...meanwhile, at "advanced" woodworking...the sky's the limit.  Same thing with armorcrafting...maybe you can make yourself a functional-enough breastplate out of scrab shell, but nobody's going to -pay- for something that looks like that, and it's probably a little heavier than the good stuff, and the straps aren't top-notch, so its condition degrades much more rapidly, and it's pretty uncomfortable, so you lose some stamina points...etc. etc.

But the way the crafting and skill systems work now probably isn't amenable to implementing something like this.

This would be cool because at least, in a pinch or because you live away from civilization or have no 'sid, you could craft a functioning object (shelf or makeshift breastplate or whatever) that would not be worth much sid-wise, but would allow you to be a "survivalist" in a land where being such is very necessary.  The shelf might fall apart if you dropped it or it got banged around too much or you tried to put too much weight on it... the scrab-shell breastplate you tied together might fall apart after several good hits... but at least these things would be functional until you scavenged something better.

So yeah, after thinking about it, it might not be such a bad idea for everyone to be able to perform most skills (even scan and climb and stuff) at a basic level... and you might be really horrible at it for a long time and only reach a fairly low level of ability after "training it up" so that things would still be balanced.  Not that I don't like how it is in Arm right now.. but perhaps for the next version of the game, have they mentioned doing something like this?  If not, I wouldn't mind at least seeing some more variety and maybe a wider range of skills and levels of ability.  I guess that would be sort of like having a second or third subguild.  Heh.. *shrug* not sure how that would work out, except maybe each subsequent choice of subguild that you picked would have progressively lower skill-caps.

Or would it be more interesting and force people to interact more if it remained as it is now?  You all have probably discussed this before... sorry if I am derailing. 

[Potaje]

Perhaps if this game was downloadable you would be the ideal person to have it. Seems the whole Multi-user environment would have no point for your wants.

But then I wouldn't get to deal with desert elves, magickers, and the occasional raider.  I never said I didn't want to interact with people.  I said he couldn't have friends.  His enemies may be innumerable.  I'd expect the challenge to be quite high.

P.S.  Don't be a dick.

If you're going to be snarky, it really, really helps to have somewhat of a useful or intelligent point to make.

Otherwise, you just sound like a dick.

Only being a dick if thats how you take it, there was little intention in it.

That said, I think Synthesis is a bit to sensitive to my comments. But whatever, I'm sure Seph, you should know it was ment as a dick statement.

I'm not sure how having "all" skills is necessary for surviving as a hard-ass loner ... you mean out of the box or something?

Survival, no.  One only needs to have a few skills to do that, or a lot of knowledge and luck, but more skills help.

For this said character, I'm saying saying I'd want access to all skills, either off the bat or through branching.  The exception would be magick and psionics (though that would be fun too) because that would be too ridiculous.  With all those mundane skills I would kill my own food, skin it, cook it.  Make weapons from its bones.  Armor from its hide.  Tools from things I forage.  Build a hut.  Sew my own clothes.  Craft my own jewelry.  Build my own, crude cart.  Tame beasts.  Ride them.  Harvest lumber.  Throw it on my cart.  Drag it to my hut.  Build a house.  Set traps around it.  Defend against beasts.  Gather more wood.  Build a wagon.  Tame more animals.  Hitch them to my wagon.  Pilot said wagon.  Fix it when it breaks.  Discover new lands.  Like a boss.

No coins, no people.  Just me and nature.

[edited to add]

So that its clear, I was merely remarking on the bold part for which it was clearly stated, no people, not just no city folk. Or what have you. So, taking my statement as a dick statement, well thats all on you.

[Rhyden]

This is one of those questions similar to the timeless questions of life, like the chicken and the egg, or why paper always beats rock.

I like to think each class has their unique sets of skills to promote multiple PCs working together with complimenting skillsets, and thusly increasing player-to-player RP.

[Zoltan]

I don't know if anyone's mentioned it yet, but backstab is utterly unnecessary for a warrior of even moderate skill. If it makes you feel better, pretend that every "frightening" hit you land on some dipshit is a backstab.  

I like the guild system as it is, but I look forward to the possibilities of 2.arm. The only thing that ever makes me a little bummed is that every PC starts off less fearsome than a fluffy little kitty, but eh. Them's the breaks. And even that only gets frustrating when I really want to "do shit" with a character not long after chargen. (Yes, yes, I know you don't need mad skillz to wield social/political power almost immediately. I've done that. But sometimes you want to be the one pulling the trigger rather than ordering it to be done.)

It used to bother me that my characters could never see hidden people being obviously hidden in certain areas, but then I got over it. I just play my PCs like they don't notice, or that they don't care. However, if a hidden dude decides to hold a conversation with me while hidden, well, I'm probably going to write up a player complaint. Same if you repeatedly fail steal on me. On the bright side, I can't recall too many times that that sort of thing's happened to me.

[Nyr]

The post you linked has the same approach that I disliked.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize we were rating staff posts.  Your job on the GDB is not to take staff to task for how they portray themselves on the GDB or their bedside manner in posting. If you have something pertinent to complain about, put in a staff complaint.

The OP question has been answered by a few people and some good discussion has come forth from it, so I'm going to lock this thread.