Several questions in regards to warrior skills, not including subguilds.
1.) Why no climb skill?
It seems like climbing is a skill that any warrior would (and probably should) have. I find it odd, however, that warriors cannot attain the climb skill without the use of subguilds. Is there any particular reasoning behind not having access to this skill? Heck, even the D&D Fighter has climb as one of his (few) available skills.
2.) Why no scan skill?
At some point in their careers, warriors will probably be required to stand guard or otherwise be vigilant. Whether it's keeping a sharp eye out for thieves or making sure no one approaches an encampment unnoticed, it will be required. It seems odd, then, that warriors would not have access to the scan skill as a standard or branching ability. Is there any particular reason for this?
3.) Why skinning?
The question is clear.
There is definitely reasoning behind everything done by those that staff the game, create documentation, or set up the code for the game. This reasoning may not satisfy you; in this case, the reasoning is pretty straightforward, stated in the helpfiles for warriors:
QuoteA warrior's skills involve only the many aspects of fighting.
Why no climb skill? We don't believe warriors need the climb skill, therefore, they don't have it.
Why no scan skill? We don't believe warriors need the scan skill, therefore, they don't have it.
Why skinning? We believe warriors need the skinning skill, therefore, they have it.
Why do we think these things? We have a lot of guild and subguild options, and it is staff position (reflected by these multi-faceted options) that no one character in this game should be able to do everything, thus forcing them to interact with and rely on other characters. Based on discussion related to Armageddon Reborn, it is likely that guilds there will be less rigid than in the current iteration of the game.
QuoteA warrior's skills involve only the many aspects of fighting.
...and skinning. Fighting and skinning.
P much.
Oh man, if warriors lost the skinning skill...
...EPIC wailfest.
Quote from: Nyr on June 02, 2011, 03:48:51 PM
This reasoning may not satisfy you
I see it does not. Hopefully it will turn out for the best and won't dramatically affect your character concepts. Good luck!
A warrior's chief weapon is surprise.
Surprise and skinning.
Skinning and surprise.
Their two weapons are skinning and surprise. And ruthless bashing.
Their *three* weapons are skinning, surprise, and ruthless bashing ... and an almost fanatical compulsion to Kick.
Their *Four* ... no ... *Amongst* their weapons ... amongst their weaponry ... are such elements as skinning, surprise ... I'll start a new post.
But rangers can do everything?
Uh oh, am I going to break the thread? :o
Quote from: Spoon on June 02, 2011, 06:18:04 PM
But rangers can do everything?
Uh oh, am I going to break the thread? :o
No they can't. Warriors can do things rangers cannot, and vice versa.
Quote from: Blackisback on June 02, 2011, 03:24:48 PM
Several questions in regards to warrior skills, not including subguilds.
1.) Why no climb skill?
It seems like climbing is a skill that any warrior would (and probably should) have. I find it odd, however, that warriors cannot attain the climb skill without the use of subguilds. Is there any particular reasoning behind not having access to this skill? Heck, even the D&D Fighter has climb as one of his (few) available skills.
2.) Why no scan skill?
At some point in their careers, warriors will probably be required to stand guard or otherwise be vigilant. Whether it's keeping a sharp eye out for thieves or making sure no one approaches an encampment unnoticed, it will be required. It seems odd, then, that warriors would not have access to the scan skill as a standard or branching ability. Is there any particular reason for this?
3.) Why skinning?
The question is clear.
Short answer: Balance. All guilds/subguilds must be balanced. By picking a certain guild/subguild you are basically "spending your points" on what skills you get.
Why no climb or scan? Things like climbing and scanning are more for scavengers, burglars... maybe rangers and assassins or whatever. If you gave warriors climb, those other classes (and/or sublcasses) would be effectively weaker because warriors would be sort of over-powered. Why play a scavenger or burglar when you can just play a warrior? Yeah, you could play a warrior/scavenger... problem solved. If you want to play a warrior/guard with climb then you are asking for too much. Balance is a big part of the game. Picking guard you get other things instead of climb. Hence the balance. Other classes might get other stuff instead of guard or kick, etc.
I think skinning is sort of like a basic survival skill like cooking... sort of. Except I imagine certain guilds start out or are just not as good at it as guilds like ranger, etc.
So, yeah, balance. You give up certain things to be better at fighting and stuff.
Quote from: wizturbo on June 02, 2011, 06:48:08 PM
Quote from: Spoon on June 02, 2011, 06:18:04 PM
But rangers can do everything?
Uh oh, am I going to break the thread? :o
No they can't. Warriors can do things rangers cannot, and vice versa.
yeah rangers don't get parry even though all classes have a chance to parry whether they have the skill or not
oh and uh
i don't think they get disarm? i mean, it's not as if disarm is trumped by "em whips out his spare weapon;draw staff"
Quote from: Sokotra on June 02, 2011, 06:58:11 PM
:words:
Balanced towards what? Why does there need to be class balance in an RP game that's not necessarily built towards PvP?
Quote from: MeTekillot on June 02, 2011, 07:00:32 PM
yeah rangers don't get parry even though all classes have a chance to parry whether they have the skill or not
:3
Why do warriors need climb? And the lack of scan is the only thing that makes a warrior vulnerable to an assassination attempt, since in a straight up fight a warrior would destroy an assassin
Yeah, you guys suck at knowledge ;D
Anyways, I was joking. Going into balance/imbalance thing is going to end up in a bad place. My real thoughts on the subject is that you don't pick a warrior for their skills/balance compared to other classes. You pick warrior because you want to play a fighter who FIGHTS EVERYTHING!
Ps. Everyone can climb, but not everyone has the potential to become a mountaineer/cat burglar.
Quote from: Blackisback on June 02, 2011, 07:14:40 PM
Quote from: Sokotra on June 02, 2011, 06:58:11 PM
:words:
Balanced towards what? Why does there need to be class balance in an RP game that's not necessarily built towards PvP?
Balanced towards fairness. How would you like it if you picked a warrior guild that got nothing but dual wield and slashing weapons, while assassins got kick, subdue, guard, climb, bash, piercing weapons, backstab, etc. Know what I'm saying? It's not only for PvP, but conflict is a big part of the game (with good role-play behind it). The coded aspect of the game is important to back up the RP that is focused upon. Yeah things aren't going to be perfectly balanced, that's where a lot of the RP comes into play.
Quote from: Sokotra on June 02, 2011, 07:25:25 PM
Quote from: Blackisback on June 02, 2011, 07:14:40 PM
Quote from: Sokotra on June 02, 2011, 06:58:11 PM
:words:
Balanced towards what? Why does there need to be class balance in an RP game that's not necessarily built towards PvP?
Balanced towards fairness. How would you like it if you picked a warrior guild that got nothing but dual wield and slashing weapons, while assassins got kick, subdue, guard, climb, bash, piercing weapons, backstab, etc. Know what I'm saying? It's not only for PvP, but conflict is a big part of the game (with good role-play behind it). The coded aspect of the game is important to back up the RP that is focused upon. Yeah things aren't going to be perfectly balanced, that's where a lot of the RP comes into play.
Not even just fairness, but for interactive purposes. Or, to elaborate, so your PC is forced to interact with other players to do things they can't do by themselves.
Edit: Oops, Nyr already said that. Point still stands though!
Several questions in regards to warrior skills, not including subguilds.
1.) Why no climb skill?
It seems like climbing is a skill that any warrior would (and probably should) have. I find it odd, however, that warriors cannot attain the climb skill without the use of subguilds. Is there any particular reasoning behind not having access to this skill? Heck, even the D&D Fighter has climb as one of his (few) available skills.
This isn't D&D, a good majority of the mondane guilds get climb and those that don't have the option of taking some subclass to obtain it, the more you pass the skill out the less nifty it is. Warriors don't require it.
2.) Why no scan skill?
At some point in their careers, warriors will probably be required to stand guard or otherwise be vigilant. Whether it's keeping a sharp eye out for thieves or making sure no one approaches an encampment unnoticed, it will be required. It seems odd, then, that warriors would not have access to the scan skill as a standard or branching ability. Is there any particular reason for this?
Warrior with Scan well.. suddenly can trump all the non-warrior fighty types in more than just melee.
3.) Why skinning?
The question is clear.
It makes the guild more playable, it spices up the 'rangery' types you might encounter in the wilds.
These are just my understandings of it anyway.
Warriors get scan, sneak, hide, wagonmaking and rangerquit or fuck this game. Majikal out.
I've always wondered why warriors don't start with backstab/sap. Just seems odd that some one who spent the majority of there lives fighting/learning to fight can't do so quietly/without getting the attention f the whole city.
oh my bad
Ain't even
That feeling when somebody makes you feel like you've said something stupid but don't know what it is
sorry, bro.
Rangers do get parry.
Quote from: ranger dox
... detect sounds from far away, work with poisons, and parry enemy blows...
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? Hence they don't get climb.
Warriors skills make them fighting -machines-. They fight better than any other class. It's what they do.
If you want to do things other than fighting, and your subguild selections just aren't cutting it, then perhaps you should check out the other guilds, or maybe even a special app.
::Edited to add::
Also, the "watch" skill is useful.
Very useful.
Ranger skills and warrior skills may be similar in some ways, but I don't really see one as better than another. One is better in certain circumstances, and the other is better in others.
Also, I think warriors get skin because in a world like Zalanthas, someone who fights for a living would pick up how to prepare their kills with moderate skill.
Quote from: BleakOne on June 02, 2011, 08:52:14 PM
Also, I think warriors get skin because in a world like Zalanthas, someone who fights for a living would pick up how to prepare their kills with moderate skill.
It also provides the class with a means to support itself that doesn't involve being employed by other PC's.
The 30 day warrior is here, fighting the 30 day ranger
The 30 day warrior says, in sirihish:
"yeah boi i got my skillz up on u"
The 30 day ranger says, in sirihish:
"Remember that nick I gave you?"
The 30 day warrior says, in sirihish:
"yea y?"
The 30 day warrior keels over!
The 30 day ranger says, in sirihish:
"I put instadeath toxins on it, yo."
The 30 day ranger mounts a sandy brown inix.
The 30 day warrior falls under the 30 day ranger's trample.
Quote from: MeTekillot on June 03, 2011, 07:17:24 AM
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.
(http://i444.photobucket.com/albums/qq163/Qzzrbl/mongo-punches-horse_o_GIFSoupcom.gif)
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.
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?
Quote
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.
Quote from: Saellyn on June 03, 2011, 06:53:17 AM
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
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
Warriors have skinning to keep them humble.
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.
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.
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.
Quote
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
Quote from: Marauder Moe on June 03, 2011, 03:39:36 PM
Quote
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.
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.
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
Quote from: Nyr on June 03, 2011, 04:41:20 PM
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.
Quote from: Guild Merchant HelpfileThey 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.
Quote from: Guild Ranger HelpfileRanger 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.
Quote from: Nyr on June 03, 2011, 04:41:20 PM
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.
Quote from: NOFUN on June 03, 2011, 04:56:11 PM
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).
Quote from: Taven on June 03, 2011, 06:07:16 PM
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.
QuoteWould 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?
@ 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."
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.
Quotewho 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?
Quote from: AmandaGreathouse on June 03, 2011, 06:30:18 PM
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.
Quote from: Kismetic on June 03, 2011, 06:16:21 PM
Quote from: Taven on June 03, 2011, 06:07:16 PM
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?!
Quote from: NOFUN on June 03, 2011, 06:41:19 PM
Sorry to answer a question with a question, but why shouldn't warriors have backstab/sap?
Because they're not assassins, they're warriors.
Quote from: NOFUN on June 03, 2011, 06:41:19 PM
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.
Quote from: NOFUN on June 03, 2011, 06:41:19 PM
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.
Quote from: NOFUN on June 03, 2011, 07:10:20 PM
Quote from: Kismetic on June 03, 2011, 07:09:20 PM
Quote from: NOFUN on June 03, 2011, 07:08:13 PM
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.
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Sap is a different coded skill to backstab, not just weapon difference.
Quote from: NOFUN on June 03, 2011, 06:41:19 PM
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.
Quote from: BleakOne on June 03, 2011, 07:32:17 PM
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.
Quote
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.
Quote from: NOFUN on June 03, 2011, 07:37:11 PM
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.
QuoteThat 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
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.
Quote from: NOFUN on June 03, 2011, 07:37:11 PM
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.
IIRC, you can not sap once combat is initiated. Yes, you can backstab in combat.
this thread is lulz
class-based system, bro, it's been around since 1st ed. d&d
deal
Quote from: musashi on June 03, 2011, 08:07:23 PM
Quote from: Kismetic on June 03, 2011, 08:04:03 PM
Yes, you can backstab in combat.
:o
Musashi, tested and proven that both are a big negatory. You must first be out of combat (yourself)
Quote from: musashi on June 03, 2011, 08:07:23 PM
Quote from: Kismetic on June 03, 2011, 08:04:03 PM
Yes, you can backstab in combat.
:o
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.
Quote from: Potaje on June 03, 2011, 08:38:51 PM
Musashi, tested and proven that both are a big negatory. You must first be out of combat (yourself)
That's what I thought.
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.
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.
Quote from: Thunkkin on June 03, 2011, 08:45:21 PM
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? :D
Quote from: Seeker on June 03, 2011, 07:56:44 PM
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.
Quote from: Synthesis on June 03, 2011, 08:19:40 PM
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.
Quote from: Blackisback on June 03, 2011, 08:53:40 PM
Quote from: Seeker on June 03, 2011, 07:56:44 PM
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.
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!
Quote from: Blackisback on June 03, 2011, 08:53:40 PM
Quote from: Seeker on June 03, 2011, 07:56:44 PM
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)
Quote from: Seeker on June 03, 2011, 09:23:43 PM
Quote from: Blackisback on June 03, 2011, 08:53:40 PM
Quote from: Seeker on June 03, 2011, 07:56:44 PM
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'.
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.
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?
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.
As far as scan goes....
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. :)
Quote from: Sokotra on June 03, 2011, 11:10:50 PM
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. :D
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'.
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?
Quote from: Sephiroto on June 04, 2011, 02:54:24 PM
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.
Quote from: MeTekillot on June 04, 2011, 01:41:46 PM
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.
Quote from: Thunkkin on June 04, 2011, 03:53:59 PM
Quote from: Sephiroto on June 04, 2011, 02:54:24 PM
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.
Already've done it ;)
...
He didn't last too long, however. It was basically Conan the Barbarian meets MacGuyver.
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?
Quote from: Thunkkin on June 04, 2011, 04:55:26 PM
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.
Quote from: Sephiroto on June 04, 2011, 05:11:56 PM
Quote from: Thunkkin on June 04, 2011, 04:55:26 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Potaje on June 04, 2011, 05:55:56 PM
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.
Quote from: Potaje on June 04, 2011, 05:55:56 PM
Quote from: Sephiroto on June 04, 2011, 05:11:56 PM
Quote from: Thunkkin on June 04, 2011, 04:55:26 PM
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.
Quote from: Sephiroto on June 04, 2011, 05:11:56 PM
Quote from: Thunkkin on June 04, 2011, 04:55:26 PM
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:
Quote from: Sokotra on June 04, 2011, 06:19:53 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Taven on June 03, 2011, 06:07:16 PM
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. :-\
Quote
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 (http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,41426.msg610727.html#msg610727) 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.
Quote from: Nyr on June 04, 2011, 07:21:35 PM
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. >:(
Quote from: musashi on June 04, 2011, 08:01:16 PM
Quote from: Nyr on June 04, 2011, 07:21:35 PM
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
Quote from: Nyr on June 04, 2011, 07:21:35 PM
Quote from: Taven on June 03, 2011, 06:07:16 PM
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. :-\
Quote
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 (http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,41426.msg610727.html#msg610727) 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 (http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,41426.msg611044.html#msg611044) 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 (http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,41426.msg611098.html#msg611098), 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.
Quote from: Synthesis on June 04, 2011, 06:53:46 PM
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.
Quote from: Sephiroto on June 04, 2011, 06:15:20 PM
Quote from: Potaje on June 04, 2011, 05:55:56 PM
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.
Quote from: Synthesis on June 04, 2011, 06:00:56 PM
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.
Quote from: Sephiroto on June 04, 2011, 05:11:56 PM
Quote from: Thunkkin on June 04, 2011, 04:55:26 PM
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.
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.
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. :D
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.
Quote from: Taven on June 04, 2011, 10:38:55 PM
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.