Reasoning behind warrior skills

[NOFUN]

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

The fact they're warriors is exactly the reason they should have it, they should be destroying people in combat. The main differences between an assassin and a warrior is that an assassin can shadow some one until they're vulnerable, sleeping/unarmed/naked as they're about to mudsecks and have the ability to poison blades, which coupled with throw makes them very deadly.

A warrior on the other hand, isn't going try to strike you with poisoned throwing weapons or shadow someone until they're vulnerable. They're just going to stab someone in the face. That is the difference between warriors and assassins, not coded backstabbing/sapping.

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

I'd assume the same concept still applies, since the only difference is the weapon type used.

[BleakOne]

Sap is a different coded skill to backstab, not just weapon difference.

[musashi]

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

I was always under the impression that once combat was going, it was not possible for a person engaged in combat to backstab or sap.

[NOFUN]

Sap is a different coded skill to backstab, not just weapon difference.

It's a different coded skill, but its still the same concept. Attempting to land a "critical-hit" with a piercing weapon or a bludgeoning weapon.

I was always under the impression that once combat was going, it was not possible for a person engaged in combat to backstab or sap.

Just what I gathered from the help file on back-stab.
Notes:
   It is possible, though difficult, to backstab fighting victims.

[musashi]

It's a different coded skill, but its still the same concept. Attempting to land a "critical-hit" with a piercing weapon or a bludgeoning weapon.

Sap is meant to do lots of stun damage and hopefully one hit TKO someone.
Backstab is meant to do lots of health damage and one hit kill someone.

[NOFUN]

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.

SOMEBODY STOP THE INTERNET I WANT TO GET OFF

[Seeker]

NOFUN,  you are looking for a logical justification.  Doesn't exist.  Or at least not one that you are likely to accept or agree with using your interpretation of what classes actually are.  

A large part of ArmageddonMud is based on the Rock-Paper-Scissors model.  Models are internally consistent;  they have their own rules that are the base premises.  These rules do not depend on external facts for their validity.

In Rock-Paper-Scissors models, one of the rules really is that Rock beats Scissors because Rock beats Scissors. This is only because those accepted rules make a workable, interesting game, not because actual real-world rocks are better somehow that scissors in a fight.  If it was real fight, no way would anyone come at you with Paper.  Ever.

The real reason Warriors don't get backstab is because original game designers and current staff think it makes a better game that way.  Sorry dude.  

[musashi]

Just what I gathered from the help file on back-stab.
Notes:
  It is possible, though difficult, to backstab fighting victims.

I haven't played a warrior, or an assassin to date so I'm not sure about backstab but I have played the odd ranger/thug and I could have sworn that once combat begins, you cannot sap or backstab anyone again until you get out of combat.

That's not to say that a personal uninvolved in the fight entirely could not join the fight with a backstab or a sap attempt.

I mean, if you have persons A, B, and C ... and A, and B are already fighting while C is just in the room, then C could backstab/sap someone, but neither A nor B could unless they get out of combat first. That's what I was thinking.

[Kismetic]

IIRC, you can not sap once combat is initiated.  Yes, you can backstab in combat.

[musashi]

Yes, you can backstab in combat.

[Synthesis]

this thread is lulz

class-based system, bro, it's been around since 1st ed. d&d

deal

[Potaje]

Yes, you can backstab in combat.

Musashi, tested and proven that both are a big negatory. You must first be out of combat (yourself)

[Sokotra]

Yes, you can backstab in combat.

I've not played very frequently for a long time, so I've lost touch with all the changes.   You use to not be able to backstab during combat as far as I know.  Maybe he means you can backstab other targets during combat, but not the target you are defending against? That or you can only backstab during combat if someone else is up front and you are just assisting.
 

Musashi, tested and proven that both are a big negatory. You must first be out of combat (yourself)

That's what I thought.

[musashi]

I always figured that that was the case. I mean, that sap/backstab were combat starters, but not skills that you can keep using once combat is going like disarm/kick/bash.

Like how charge works now since the code tweak and the addition of trample.

But yeah I always figured that it was possible for someone who wasn't currently in combat to backstab/sap someone who was.

[Thunkkin]

But I want to play my ooze-master PRC, dammit!

I wouldn't mind if there was a subguild with a low-capped scan (journeyman). Then a warrior could potentially stand on guard and catch the riff-raff but not the true masters of deception.

[musashi]

But I want to play my ooze-master PRC, dammit!

I wouldn't mind if there was a subguild with a low-capped scan (journeyman). Then a warrior could potentially stand on guard and catch the riff-raff but not the true masters of deception.

I'm reminded of a funny story someone once told me about playing in the Allanaki AoD.
All the AoD PC's were instructed to stand outside the entrance to the Rinth and watch for people coming and going.
But all the AoD PC's were warriors, and all the Rinthi PC's were sneaky types ...

Guess how effective that turned out to be? 

[Blackisback]

NOFUN,  you are looking for a logical justification.  Doesn't exist.  Or at least not one that you are likely to accept or agree with using your interpretation of what classes actually are.  

A large part of ArmageddonMud is based on the Rock-Paper-Scissors model.  Models are internally consistent;  they have their own rules that are the base premises.  These rules do not depend on external facts for their validity.

In Rock-Paper-Scissors models, one of the rules really is that Rock beats Scissors because Rock beats Scissors. This is only because those accepted rules make a workable, interesting game, not because actual real-world rocks are better somehow that scissors in a fight.  If it was real fight, no way would anyone come at you with Paper.  Ever.

The real reason Warriors don't get backstab is because original game designers and current staff think it makes a better game that way.  Sorry dude.  

You heard it here, folks. There's no reason to look for a logical justification for something because: It is the way it is because they say it is.

this thread is lulz

class-based system, bro, it's been around since 1st ed. d&d

deal

1st edition D&D was not built towards class balance and fighters (IE warriors) had climb.

[Sokotra]

NOFUN,  you are looking for a logical justification.  Doesn't exist.  Or at least not one that you are likely to accept or agree with using your interpretation of what classes actually are.  

A large part of ArmageddonMud is based on the Rock-Paper-Scissors model.  Models are internally consistent;  they have their own rules that are the base premises.  These rules do not depend on external facts for their validity.

In Rock-Paper-Scissors models, one of the rules really is that Rock beats Scissors because Rock beats Scissors. This is only because those accepted rules make a workable, interesting game, not because actual real-world rocks are better somehow that scissors in a fight.  If it was real fight, no way would anyone come at you with Paper.  Ever.

The real reason Warriors don't get backstab is because original game designers and current staff think it makes a better game that way.  Sorry dude.  

You heard it here, folks. There's no reason to look for a logical justification for something because: It is the way it is because they say it is.

Actually, I think pretty much all of the reasons listed so far have been pretty logical.  Heck, if you want - and myself and tons of people have done this before - make your next character an Assassin or Burglar and tell everyone you are a Warrior or Guard or whatever.  Yeah, it may take a while longer to get your combat skills up to par, but RP'd correctly could be possible and a lot of fun.... and you could climb or backstab to your heart's content.  Ranger/guard or ranger/thug is also an option that works pretty well and you could easily call yourself a Soldier or Guard or whatever you want - and actually might work out better in many circumstances.

I like the variety that the guild/subguild system brings and I think it works out pretty well.  I would definitely be happy with even more variety and other choices to "spend your character points" on, but so far so good.

[musashi]

And if that fails and you just really want to scan as a warrior ...

... special app baby ... you could even ask the staff to take your bandaging/skinning skill away to compensate!

[Seeker]

NOFUN,  you are looking for a logical justification.  Doesn't exist.  Or at least not one that you are likely to accept or agree with using your interpretation of what classes actually are.  

A large part of ArmageddonMud is based on the Rock-Paper-Scissors model.  Models are internally consistent;  they have their own rules that are the base premises.  These rules do not depend on external facts for their validity.

In Rock-Paper-Scissors models, one of the rules really is that Rock beats Scissors because Rock beats Scissors. This is only because those accepted rules make a workable, interesting game, not because actual real-world rocks are better somehow that scissors in a fight.  If it was real fight, no way would anyone come at you with Paper.  Ever.

The real reason Warriors don't get backstab is because original game designers and current staff think it makes a better game that way.  Sorry dude.  

You heard it here, folks. There's no reason to look for a logical justification for something because: It is the way it is because they say it is.

Shame on you.

Pointing out that some things are designed for game mechanic reasons (ie "for fun", "for interest" or "for balance") instead of semantic reasons (what the words "Warrior" or "all types of combat" might be interpreted to mean) is nothing like the statement you attribute.

(edited for typo and to remove a double statement)

[Blackisback]

NOFUN,  you are looking for a logical justification.  Doesn't exist.  Or at least not one that you are likely to accept or agree with using your interpretation of what classes actually are.  

A large part of ArmageddonMud is based on the Rock-Paper-Scissors model.  Models are internally consistent;  they have their own rules that are the base premises.  These rules do not depend on external facts for their validity.

In Rock-Paper-Scissors models, one of the rules really is that Rock beats Scissors because Rock beats Scissors. This is only because those accepted rules make a workable, interesting game, not because actual real-world rocks are better somehow that scissors in a fight.  If it was real fight, no way would anyone come at you with Paper.  Ever.

The real reason Warriors don't get backstab is because original game designers and current staff think it makes a better game that way.  Sorry dude.  

You heard it here, folks. There's no reason to look for a logical justification for something because: It is the way it is because they say it is.

Shame on you.

Pointing out that some things are designed for game mechanic reasons (ie "for fun", "for interest" or "for balance") instead of semantic reasons (what the words "Warrior" or "all types of combat" might be interpreted to mean) is nothing like the statement you attribute.

(edited for typo and to remove a double statement)

Those were your words, not mine. Just sayin'.

[Seeker]

I stand by my words.  I picked 'em carefully enough.  Anyone can disagree and that's what discussion is all about;  we can even have our opinions improved from time to time by the process. 

Please, though, just say what you want to say and don't incorrectly reinterpret my words and pretend that I did it for you.  All cool.

[Kismetic]

I'm sorry, I wasn't specific.  You can backstab a fighting target, but you can't sap a fighting target.  Is this wrong?

I haven't played a sneaky type in a very long time, always been more into Rangers and Warriors.

Random:  For some reason, I only play combatants ...  the hell?

[Sokotra]

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.

[Qzzrbl]

As far as scan goes....

Code Select Expand

watch west
You start watching the western exit

To the west, you see: Someone sneaks in from the north.

To the west, you see: Someone sneaks to the east.

shout (looking back towards the gates) Look alive boys! We got'a sneaker!

The tall, muscular man starts scanning the area.

The tressed, tressy-tressed woman starts scanning the area.

The tall figure in the militia cloak of doom starts scanning the area.

The tall, muscular man backstabs the fuck out of someone.

The short figure in the dark, hooded cloak crumples to the ground.

Teamwork, folks.