Reasoning behind warrior skills

[MeTekillot]

The 30 day ranger mounts a sandy brown inix.

The 30 day warrior falls under the 30 day ranger's trample.

[Qzzrbl]

The 30 day ranger mounts a sandy brown inix.

The 30 day warrior falls under the 30 day ranger's trample.

The 30 month ranger mounts a sandy brown inix.

The 30 month warrior meets the inix's charge and reel-locks the ranger....

And the inix....

At the same time.

[Mr.B]

As many have said, warrior skills are pretty self-explanatory. It seems the topic also leans toward how weak they are perceived to be, in comparison to other classes. Warriors rule at kicking butt, plain and simple. Warriors, like rangers, usually end up operating outdoors. I think this may be some of the reasoning behind the skinning skill, allowing them to be a bit more self-sufficient outside of a city by default then say, an assassin by contrast. At the same time, they aren't as specialised in this as Rangers are, which I think is a good thing. Lack of scan/climb? There are only a couple of stances to take with this. One, all classes should have scan/climb to some degree. Two, only those that should be able to get proficient should have it.

Personally, I think the "watch" skill we have is a comfortable middle-ground in place of scan, and it's ubiquitous which is great. As for the climbing, there's climbing gear and subguilds for a reason. In case scaling the shield wall is important to you, you can always opt to go for one of those handy rockclimbing subclasses.

[Kismetic]

There have been several good posts here that are relevant to the point, which is that guilds are balanced to fairness and interaction.  Knowing you can't do x, now you gotta find some sucka who can.

Warriors are a vanilla class, you'll find they mostly rock at fighting and situations pertinent to fighting.  Hence, 'Warrior.'


Why no climb?  Well, honestly, if everyone had climb, who would be left to fall off the Shield Wall?

[IAmJacksOpinion]

Honestly, if you know what you're doing, a skilled warrior can be invulnerable to damn near anything mundane-- including assassins. I mean, shit, staff had to give the other guilds -some- way to escape a raging warrior, right?

Scan is some seriously powerful shit, yo.

At the high end, it's almost impossible for any other guild to go toe to toe with a warrior and win. But that's why the other classes are designed so that they don't HAVE to go toe to toe. Rangers and assassins are still pretty bad-ass fighters, somewhere down the line, so if scan/climb/skin are important to you, just choose a ranger. Ranger/thug or ranger/guard are excellent warrior-lite choices.

[NOFUN]

Code Select Expand

The 30 day warrior is here, fighting the 30 day ranger

Feeling very clever, the 30 day ranger thinks:
      "Yeh boi instadeath poison"

The 30 day ranger stabs at the 30 day warrior with his poisoned knife, but the 30 day warrior just parries his ass to the floor.

The 30 day warrior smacks that shit right out of the 30 day rangers hand.

The 30 day warrior says, in sirihish:
     "lol go pick a real guild after I send u back 2 chargen skrub"

The 30 day warrior slashes at the 30 day ranger, dealing unspeakable damage.

The 30 day ranger crumples to the floor


Ftfy

[MeTekillot]

that's not the message for unspeakable damage, yo. also we should probably go back to some semblance of whatever the topic had to do with

[EldritchOrigins]

Warriors have skinning to keep them humble.

[musashi]

Everyone knows a 30 day ranger wouldn't be fighting a 30 day warrior in melee.

He would be shooting at him from 2 rooms over with poisoned arrows, and then hiding when the warrior came running.

But more on topic, I think that the reasoning presented in the OP about warriors and scan sounds pretty solid ... it's just that ... as has already been pointed out ... if you give warriors scan ... they win the game.

[jstorrie]

I'm generally more scared of being pk'd by warrior PCs than anything else. Note that warriors can use bows too; may have crazy riding skills based on subguild or race; and if they are even remotely sociable, someone may have poisoned their weapons too. And unlike a ranger or assassin, I'm probably going to have a hell of a time disabling them without magick.

Warriors are rad. Fear not.

[Taven]

This thread already seems pretty derailed, but I'd like to get it back on track.

I think it's odd that warriors don't get scan, while a ranger in the city can spot a sneaky lurking in the tavern easily. That warrior might be a soldier, and his job is to be aware of such things, while the ranger is used to spending all his time outside. Seeking hiding people in a city environment has nothing to do with being able to find things hiding in the outdoors. We already have skill separation between city sneak and outdoor sneak, why not have it for scan?

You could have rangers be super good at finding things outdoors, like they already can with enough training. Then, you could have warriors have a city scan, so that they could be more aware of people creeping up on them. If you're concerned about balance, make the warrior have a skill cap that isn't master. Maybe they can only scan at advanced, or maybe journeyman. This allows them a chance to catch people in the city (if you're a soldier, for example), without making it impossible to play a sneaky.

If I want to make a soldier who actually spots criminals before the crime occurs, it makes more sense to be a ranger, with the current way the skills are laid out. If I want scan as a warrior guild, I have to pick a subguild that has it (and glancing over the subguilds, nothing screams "this has scan" at me), and assuming I pick correctly, my PC still loses out on the possibility of having anything else. I'm not arguing that warriors should be master scanners who can't ever be touched, but I am saying that as a soldier, it would be useful to be able to scan. When I played a merchant PC, they were better at finding city sneakies then the soldiers, and that's just plain silly.

I don't care about climb and skinning. I think you should have to pick the appropriate subguild for those.

[Marauder Moe]

Skill Scan    (Perception)
This skill allows a keen use of observational techniques and good vision to spot invisible and hidden persons. Any such persons will appear as shadows or blurs only. After turning this on, a period of time will ensue during which your character be able to see these things. Note that as with skill hide and skill sneak, there are city and wilderness versions of this skill, and it will obviously operate better in the appropriate environment.

FYI

[Taven]

Skill Scan    (Perception)
This skill allows a keen use of observational techniques and good vision to spot invisible and hidden persons. Any such persons will appear as shadows or blurs only. After turning this on, a period of time will ensue during which your character be able to see these things. Note that as with skill hide and skill sneak, there are city and wilderness versions of this skill, and it will obviously operate better in the appropriate environment.

FYI

This makes more sense. However, my point still stands. Ranger scan is still too high, in my opinion, in the cities. I've experienced how rangers can see people hiding in the city, and it's pretty damn amazing. Warriors, on the other hand? Not so much. Again with the merchant example, how my merchant could out-sight soldier PCs for sneakies. That doesn't make sense to me.

[Nyr]

You don't have to be guild_warrior to be a soldier.  In fact, if you want to be a great soldier within a city-state, the best thing to do is to go with guild_assassin or perhaps guild_burglar.  You use a guild_warrior (not that you're guild-sniffing for that, but for the sake of the argument) for the brute force dumb stuff, like pointing them at something to kill it, or ordering other people to do stuff.

How can the merchant scan better than the warrior?  See helpfile.
How can the ranger scan better than the warrior?  See helpfile.

It's not doing any good to stretch the meaning of what warriors are into what you want them to be.

[NOFUN]

Oh! Answer my question next, the one about backstab/sap~ Just seems more logical that a fighting guild would get all the fighting skills with no other skills than the current warrior who has most combat skills and bandage/skinning

[Taven]

You don't have to be guild_warrior to be a soldier.  In fact, if you want to be a great soldier within a city-state, the best thing to do is to go with guild_assassin or perhaps guild_burglar.  You use a guild_warrior (not that you're guild-sniffing for that, but for the sake of the argument) for the brute force dumb stuff, like pointing them at something to kill it, or ordering other people to do stuff.

How can the merchant scan better than the warrior?  See helpfile.
How can the ranger scan better than the warrior?  See helpfile.

It's not doing any good to stretch the meaning of what warriors are into what you want them to be.

I dug up the references that you are referring to.

They are also skilled at assessing an object's value, getting excellent prices from all but the
stingiest traders, and noticing every detail around them. Furthermore, they
have great talent in many forms of crafting, from simple cups to intricate
forms of weaponry.

Ranger skills involve hunting persons or animals, exceptional powers of
observation, a strong aptitude for archery, and some moderate skill with
weapons.

I like the first part of your post, because you comment constructively about how to deal with a lack of skill that a warrior has, in regards to a specific point that I made. You're saying that maybe the assumption that you need to be a warrior to be a soldier is where the flaw is, instead of arguing that warriors need the scan skill. I've seen some exceptional soldiers who were sneaky guilds, and they're some of the scariest. The problem with that is that in Allanak (I can't comment on the Legions because I have yet to play a Legionnaire), is that there is ONE unit of soldiers. This one unit is expected to deal with both out-of-city things, and in-city things. Now, if you're an assassin or burglar, you're going to have issues on out-of-city things. However, you can still argue that that's an issue with IC leadership. ICly, you could arrange for your PC to sit out on dangerous outdoor missions that you won't be helpful for anyway. If the Templars take you anyway, then again, that's an IC issue. I like that you bring that up, because it's constructive.

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.

I think my thing about warriors having scan is that I relate scan to guarding. Now, there is a guard skill so that if someone pops out and attacks, you can jump and defend them. You can also guard a direction and then watch that direction, for a chance and seeing people. Surely, doesn't that cover everything? Why do I connect scan to guarding? Well, what about if you're in a room? Wouldn't knowing if a spy was lurking in a room be relevant? If I hire someone to be a guard, wouldn't it be nice if they could not only guard an object from being picked up, but also from people (spies), lurking and listening? However, the argument against this is that warriors are already super skilled, and that this would derail the game balance. Using people of other guilds is doable. I consider that a work around, and I don't think that it would seriously unbalance the game for a warrior to have low-level scan abilities... But it's not a huge thing.

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.

[Kismetic]

You don't have to be guild_warrior to be a soldier.  In fact, if you want to be a great soldier within a city-state, the best thing to do is to go with guild_assassin or perhaps guild_burglar.  You use a guild_warrior (not that you're guild-sniffing for that, but for the sake of the argument) for the brute force dumb stuff, like pointing them at something to kill it, or ordering other people to do stuff.

Absolutely this part.  I've always seen it as Rangers dominate the wilderness, and Assassins rule the city.  Warriors rule them both at the same time, but only if the elements are correct (like, you didn't fail that backstab and get your face blown off, or you didn't miss with that poisoned arrow).  Rangers and Assassins aren't near as good without poison, and it reminds me how brutal Zalanthas is --  it's the equivalent of a Black Talon bullet.

Oh! Answer my question next, the one about backstab/sap~ Just seems more logical that a fighting guild would get all the fighting skills with no other skills than the current warrior who has most combat skills and bandage/skinning

This is purely a matter of balance.  Would it seem feasible that a master Warrior know all the right places to utterly destroy someone?  Yes.  Would anyone play anything but a Warrior if they could scan, backstab, turn you into origami -AND- craft (by subguild)?  Doubt it!

The code is, however, up to your interpretation.  Backstabby types have studied the anatomy of living things in order to render a quick kill, and even the docs say Assassins more resemble Warriors late in their careers.  Warriors are just adept at the technique of battle, which includes repelling vicious assaults of any (edit:  mundane [Magickers rule]) nature (assuming you have the right equipment, heheheh).

[Kismetic]

You can also guard a direction and then watch that direction, for a chance and seeing people.

Heh, if only.  You can guard and watch at the same time, but never the same thing.

[NOFUN]

Would anyone play anything but a Warrior if they could scan, backstab, turn you into origami -AND- craft (by subguild)?  Doubt it!

I said the exact opposite, it just seems odd to mean that a warrior has so many non-combat skills while lacking some of the more useful combat skills. (If you're on the attack end, anyway)

For me, a warrior shouldn't have skinning and bandaging because they are warriors. They aren't hunters, or phsyicans. They. Are. Warriors. I don't see why warriors shouldn't be given backstab/sap, not only is it a skill that seems suitable for the warrior background but the whole guild was (from what I understand) created to excel in combat. Why shouldn't they be overpowered in combat?

[Kismetic]

@ NOFUN:

I would argue that Warriors, rather than having so many non-combat skills, have less than any other guild in the game.  Also, who needs backstab when you can has bash/kick/disarm?

Or as a comment from a purely traditional roleplay sense about my all-time favorite class:  "Rogues do it from behind."

[AmandaGreathouse]

NOFUN:

Warrior/Thug:

Subguild Thug    (Character)
Thugs are well-used to applying brute force in subduing an opponent. They are able to effectively kick an opponent in combat, and they possess the ability to knock out a target. However, they also know how to take to their heels when needed

And I can say pretty bluntly that if you're in front of someone you shouldn't be stabbing them in the back. Sounds like something someone sneaking around might do though.

[NOFUN]

who needs backstab when you can has bash/kick/disarm?

I don't really see that as a valid argument, it'd be like saying why does a ranger need the ability to forage for food/quit outside when they've got awesome archery skills and poisoning and mount skills.  The answer to that, would be because they're rangers. It's what they're good at doing.

Sorry to answer a question with a question, but why shouldn't warriors have backstab/sap?

NOFUN:

Warrior/Thug:

Subguild Thug    (Character)
Thugs are well-used to applying brute force in subduing an opponent. They are able to effectively kick an opponent in combat, and they possess the ability to knock out a target. However, they also know how to take to their heels when needed

And I can say pretty bluntly that if you're in front of someone you shouldn't be stabbing them in the back. Sounds like something someone sneaking around might do though.

Babies first documentation fight

Backstab:
This skill is a generic term for 'critical strikes' against an opponent.
The victim of a backstab is not necessarily 'stabbed in the back'-- the
attack could be from any direction. If your character successfully
backstabs someone, the target has been 'hit in a vital location,' and will
be badly injured, the severity of the injury depending on your character's
backstab skill level.
Your character does not necessarily need to be hidden for him/her to
attempt a backstab.

Also a back-stab/sap can be performed while in combat, so it really isn't so stealthy at all.

Also seems kind of unfair that warriors have to pick a subguild for the one skill which they should have anyway, since they possess all the other skills a thug has. It'd be like making a ranger pick archery just because.

[Taven]

You can also guard a direction and then watch that direction, for a chance and seeing people.

Heh, if only.  You can guard and watch at the same time, but never the same thing.

I stand corrected. 

Solution: Hire two warriors?!

[AmandaGreathouse]

Sorry to answer a question with a question, but why shouldn't warriors have backstab/sap?

Because they're not assassins, they're warriors.

warriors have to pick a subguild for the one skill which they should have anyway.

Which one? Backstab or sap? That's two different skills.

Also seems kind of unfair

See rule #4:

Complaints of unfairness will not be given an audience.

Edit to add: That's not meant to be snarky, if it comes off as such. Simply blunt.

[Kismetic]

That feeling where you feel like you've won an argument on the GDB, but then realise that no changes will be made regardless and you've wasted an evening.

You didn't win that argument!  The winning answer was:  "game balance."

Back in that thread, you.
I'm going to give you such a verbal beating that your self-esteem will drop to the negatives.

Code Select Expand


backstab NOFUN

The hawk-faced, blue-eyed man suddenly attacks you from behind with his dagger!
The hawk-faced, blue-eyed man inflicts a grievous wound on your neck with his stab!
You reel from the blow.

NOFUN, even though backstab doesn't necessarily have to be in the back, I think it is assumed this attack is best made while not defending (try backstabbing when you're toe to toe with someone, locked in combat).  That's why Assassins, like rogues of old, attack best from the flank while the fighter takes the punishment.