Armageddon General Discussion Board

...capped at 1% would be useless, right?  You could try everything, but succeed at nothing.

But suppose we had a new main guild--call it "Tinker," because "Generalist" is boring and I don't like "Grebber"--that gave every single mundane skill in existence, arranged in two or three branch tiers.  Every single skill.  Backstab, parry, sap, search, charge, city hide, country hide, weaponcrafting.  Pull leaf.  Everything.  But, probably, with a low cap.

If you capped all these skills at the same maximum, what's the highest cap that wouldn't break the game?

(My vote is for journeyman.  I'm guessing that the real code hounds here will say something lower.)

Mid-way from apprentice to journeyman. Say, at a 40-50% success rate.

A caveat: No craft skills, except cooking.

EDIT: And no subguild!

What's the point?  Most mundane guilds get all the skills they need eventually, anyway.  Sure, it sucks being a warrior sometimes, but that's the price you pay for being a minister of death, praying for war.

I'd play it.

Also, it would be pointless to have certain skills, but have them capped low.

Hide, sneak, scan, listen, steal, archery...none of them are worth a damn until you get to (advanced)...before that they're just n00b traps.  Just look at all the poor subclass thieves who get pwned thinking they can actually steal things just because the skill is on their list.

And on the flip side, many skills are truly useful at apprentice, to the point of overpowering nearly any guild, specialy if you get to add everything else in.

This guild sounds like a great way for creative people to break the game in interesting and surprising ways.

Some skills are way too good even at apprentice, as X-D says. It's a cool idea but basically every skill in the game would need a balance overhaul in order to accommodate it.

A jack of all trades, I don't support it, it'll mean the death of every other mundane guild. Why be a warrior and be a minister of death when anybody from that hybrid-mundane guild could shoot a bow, hide as well as sneak in both city and wilderness, forage anything, poisons, traps, picking and all those fun sneaky stuff, plus anything else thats fun regardless of whether it works well or not.

It'll mainly be:
a) The gickers
b) The merchants
c) The mundane-hybrid guild
d) The normal mundanes trying to spite the mundane-hybrid guild

Quote from: Reiteration on August 02, 2010, 06:56:29 AM
A jack of all trades, I don't support it, it'll mean the death of every other mundane guild.

I don't think that's true, unless the cap is fairly high.  You can get ridiculous bunches of skills by making a ranger or assassin with a complementary subguild.  People still make warriors because they can, given a few dozen days of play, eat everything for breakfast.

But this isn't a serious proposal; it's a thought experiment. :)

If I were making a serious proposal, it would be to give everyone all mundane skills capped at the not-really-useful stage.  Everyone can hide in the most advantageous circumstances, everyone has a chance of seeing those humanoid tracks in the sand, but you're not going to make a successful career out of skills that aren't in your guild/subguild.

Low caps means quickly maxxing skills means quickly branching too.  Add to this the fact that some skills can too easily imbalance things even at novice, as already said, and I can't support this class idea in any fashion.

Quote from: Samira on August 02, 2010, 02:30:36 AM
This guild sounds like a great way for creative people to break the game in interesting and surprising ways.

Yeah, I like the original poster's idea.  +1

I'm not sure this would work well.

Quote from: brytta.leofa on August 02, 2010, 09:43:01 AM
But this isn't a serious proposal; it's a thought experiment. :)

:)

Just because it's a thought experiment doesn't mean it's not ill conceived.   :P


But anyway... I don't think it would be terribly game-breaking, but also it isn't just a matter of all mundane skills and all with the same cap.  Not all skills are created equal.

Personally, assuming I'm understanding the intent correctly, I'd rather have delayed main guild choice.

On one hand, I prefer the way it is now where people have to choose to specialize. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Though maybe if there was a jack-of-all-trades guild with across the board lower caps compared to traditional main guilds, minus certain combat related skills (eg - backstab, disarm, archery), then maybe I could get behind it. That might make a character that can work independently or make for a versatile employee, but they will never become amazing at something like any of the other mundane guilds eventually would.

Might as well allow open skill, and skill-cap selection. This wouldn't be that far from it in my belief. And having a character with hideously low capped combat skills, could create some very -- very nasty shit, with enough effort. Ever seen a ranger in a fist fight? Think that, but much worse.

Quote from: Drayab on August 02, 2010, 09:07:34 PM
On one hand, I prefer the way it is now where people have to choose to specialize. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Though maybe if there was a jack-of-all-trades guild with across the board lower caps compared to traditional main guilds, minus certain combat related skills (eg - backstab, disarm, archery), then maybe I could get behind it. That might make a character that can work independently or make for a versatile employee, but they will never become amazing at something like any of the other mundane guilds eventually would.

I agree with pretty much everything you said. I would like to add, that a "jack-of-all-trades" guild should also not have any branching involved in their progression. What you start with is what you get.  I could see the low-capped version of archery being there but I certainly agree with backstab and disarm not being available to such a guild. I would also add that sap and trapping should not be part of the skillset either. The caps for this guilds skills should be about apprentice level, IMO.

I guess my goal, if I were sure I had one, would be to have a guild that could masquerade as any other guild up through about day 5.

Which would mean having all guilds' starting skills but none of the skills that only come from branching.

Class Idea:  Idiot Savant
Description:  Idiot savants do not dedicate themselves to any particular set of skills, but have a quick-thinking aptitude for figuring out tasks on the fly.

Skills:  All mundane skills, set at 5%.  The idiot savant CANNOT improve these skills.
Ability:  Once per three IC hours, the idiot savant may use the genius command.  This command boosts one of the savant's skills to the journeyman level for 10 minutes or until the savant makes a skill check with that skill. 

"Can you tan hides?"

"Sure, let me see that one."

You pick up the purple polka-dotted hide.

> genius tanning

> examine hide (turning it over a few times with a critical eye)

> think (his mind racing) I bet I can fake this.  If I just remove the fur like so and then ...

> craft hide into tanned

You tan the hide.

> tell employer (with a casual grin) No problem.  I've done these millions of times before.

That's not how idiot-savants work.

An idiot-savant (stereotypically) is someone who is exceptionally gifted in one area, but completely useless at everything else.  Sort of like elementalists.  *rimshot*

Intriguing, Mr. T.

A blood-red barbed sheaf arrow flies in from the west and strikes your arm!
You feel very sick.
> shout imprecation
You shout, in sirihish,
  "Stinkin' neckers!"
> genius shield_use

QuoteSavant
[C18: from French, from savoir  to know, from Latin sapere  to be wise; see sapient ]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/savant (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/savant)

QuoteSavant syndrome (pronunciation of savant: sa-vahnt, sav-uhnt), sometimes abbreviated as savantism, is not a recognized medical diagnosis, but researcher Darold Treffert describes it as a rare condition in which people with developmental disorders  have one or more areas of expertise, ability, or brilliance that are in contrast with the individual's overall limitations. Treffert says the condition can be genetic, but can also be acquired.

According to Treffert, about half of all people with savant syndrome have autistic disorder, while the other half have another developmental disability, mental retardation, brain injury or disease. He says, "... not all autistic people have savant syndrome and not all people with savant syndrome have autistic disorder". Other researchers state that autistic traits and savant skills may be linked, or have challenged some earlier conclusions about savant syndrome as "hearsay, uncorroborated by independent scrutiny".

Though it is even more rare than the savant condition itself, some savants have no apparent abnormalities other than their unique abilities. This does not mean that these abilities weren't triggered by a brain dysfunction of some sort but does temper the theory that all savants are disabled and that some sort of trade-off is required.

QuoteAccording to Treffert, the term idiot savant (French for "learned idiot" or "knowledgeable idiot") was first used to describe the condition in 1887 by John Langdon Down, who is known for his description of Down Syndrome. The term "idiot savant" was later described as a misnomer because almost not all reported cases fit the definition of idiot, originally used for a person with a very severe mental retardation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savant_syndrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savant_syndrome)