I like it too. Maybe we can do something not unlike the specialty mages skill ceilings...but for weapons. You'd have to get a little stereotypical, but I don't think it'd be too detrimental.
Rangers can GM single bladed and only expert everything else - Paladins can only master double edged and great blades and expert everything else...something like that. 4 attacks, disarm, doorbash, riposte. But then give fighters 5th attack and an AC bonus upon joining the guild.
Rangers and Disarm
The game already favors rangers with high dex and mid/light armor. Heavy armor is pretty useless now and this is seen when a GM'ed warrior can only beat a non-GM ranger by using the disarm skill. (not to mention all the saving throw bonuses you get with a high dex).
I personally think the way things are currently is just fine. If rangers are to get the disarm skill, then the warrior class should get their own skills at the same time.
In non PVP, I don't see how a ranger with no disarm skill is such a terrible thing, just team up with a warrior.
I personally think the way things are currently is just fine. If rangers are to get the disarm skill, then the warrior class should get their own skills at the same time.
In non PVP, I don't see how a ranger with no disarm skill is such a terrible thing, just team up with a warrior.
This is inaccurate, because as the code stands, a ranger in light armor can't even get the full benefit of the higher dex bonus cap of the light armor.Grafghur wrote:The game already favors rangers with high dex and mid/light armor. Heavy armor is pretty useless now and this is seen when a GM'ed warrior can only beat a non-GM ranger by using the disarm skill. (not to mention all the saving throw bonuses you get with a high dex).
I personally think the way things are currently is just fine. If rangers are to get the disarm skill, then the warrior class should get their own skills at the same time.
In non PVP, I don't see how a ranger with no disarm skill is such a terrible thing, just team up with a warrior.
Leather armor offers a max dex bonus of 8... but in order to have a dex bonus of +8, you would have to have a DEX of 26! The current max anywhere in the game for any stat if 19-20, so, that's a +5 bonus.
As a result, any armor lighter than hide armor for a ranger yields no bonus right now, and would actually reduce his AC. The best AC bonus you can muster right now, as a ranger or rogue with a 19-20 dex... IF you can find and get said DEX, is to wear studded leather (+3 AC) for a total of +8 AC. If you wear the hide armor you construct from the tanning trade, you get a max dex bonus of +3 with a +4 armor covering, for +7 max total to AC (+8 max IF you are a GM in leatherworking and produce a masterwork piece of armor). Most rangers are going to hover around +6 to +7 AC, IF they had the foresight to know they should sink points in DEX.
Contrast this to the fighter in plate armor: Plate armor gives an armor bonus of +8, with a max dex bonus of +1. That's a total of +9 to AC. Platemail offers +7 to AC, with a max dex bonus of +0, for a total AC bonus of +7. So, a heavy fighter is packing on anywhere between +7 and +9 to his AC, with the additional benefit that he doesn't have to invest in a high DEX.
So, no. Light armor on a ranger is NOT more effective than a fighter in plate armor, the math proves it. It works just the way the game designers intended; the choice to fight heavy in heavy armor, or to fight light with light armor and high dex balance each other out.
"There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men."
Kregor - Ranger of Tangled Trees
Rozor - Lady Luck's Duelist
Tygen - Ranger-Bard of Mielikki
Kregor - Ranger of Tangled Trees
Rozor - Lady Luck's Duelist
Tygen - Ranger-Bard of Mielikki
What may be ideal is not always true in practice.. I can tell you right now I get hit more than a ranger does. I have since the original code change on heavy armor when it started to affect dodge.
Regardless of the code, I have less AC than a ranger. I've had it checked by both Lathander and Mask and they said my character was fine.
Just thought I'd share.
Regardless of the code, I have less AC than a ranger. I've had it checked by both Lathander and Mask and they said my character was fine.
Just thought I'd share.
This land shall come to the God who knows the answer to War. -Ninety-Nine Nights
Well, i dunno, but Orplar doesn't have a very great dex either when he is unspelled. even when he is spelled it shifts from very good to great.
While I love learning all the extra things that are being posted, what about things that go along with the orginal thread?
I didn't quite understand Horace's last post.
While I love learning all the extra things that are being posted, what about things that go along with the orginal thread?
I didn't quite understand Horace's last post.
"Be bold and let your feet guide you upon your own path. With any Luck, you'll wind up in a fabulous place. Work upon your skills, perfect them. You will be rewarded as you want" - Orplar Leafall, Lucks Guide
Orplar,
I believe Horace's last post was an attempt at differentiating the classes of warriors, based on weapon abilities. Much like a suggestion that was previously made on another post of having certain spells able to be mastered by specific schools of wizards, the same could be done for the warrior class.
He then went on to give examples of his suggestion. It sounds like rangers would be near the same on combat terms as fighters with the exception of: Armor proficiency, 5th attack, and a proposed AC bonus when joining the fighters guild/class.
I believe Horace's last post was an attempt at differentiating the classes of warriors, based on weapon abilities. Much like a suggestion that was previously made on another post of having certain spells able to be mastered by specific schools of wizards, the same could be done for the warrior class.
He then went on to give examples of his suggestion. It sounds like rangers would be near the same on combat terms as fighters with the exception of: Armor proficiency, 5th attack, and a proposed AC bonus when joining the fighters guild/class.
You may believe in luck and misfortune, but you are not governed by them - Learaso of Westgate
I see. Thank you Rawlys! I dont think that sounds too bad either. Still must say im in favor of Kregor"Be bold and let your feet guide you upon your own path. With any Luck, you'll wind up in a fabulous place. Work upon your skills, perfect them. You will be rewarded as you want" - Orplar Leafall, Lucks Guide
I'd have to disagree with every class getting disarm, or even rangers getting disarm. Disarm isn't just "I hit your stick with my stick and you lose yours" you'd have to actually learn how to remove their weapon and it wouldn't really be easy, and if everyone got it classes that do have it would lose the crux of their PvP ability.
I'm not trying to sound like a spam whore here but if you change disarm to one use per fight it will honestly do almost nothing in the fight. The person you disarm will lose one of their weapons, for maybe one attack round. I personally see nothing wrong with disarm, and this is coming from experience with my chars w/o disarm against people with disarm.
When you roll a class you accept all limitations for that class, code or IC. Rangers not getting a disarm is a code limitation of that class, if you want disarm roll a fighter.
I'm not trying to sound like a spam whore here but if you change disarm to one use per fight it will honestly do almost nothing in the fight. The person you disarm will lose one of their weapons, for maybe one attack round. I personally see nothing wrong with disarm, and this is coming from experience with my chars w/o disarm against people with disarm.
When you roll a class you accept all limitations for that class, code or IC. Rangers not getting a disarm is a code limitation of that class, if you want disarm roll a fighter.
Telk
Telk, it has already been made near-worthless in PVP. Even if spammed, I can spam: get <weapon name>;wield <weapon name> more often than you can spam disarm.Telk wrote:I'd have to disagree with every class getting disarm, or even rangers getting disarm. Disarm isn't just "I hit your stick with my stick and you lose yours" you'd have to actually learn how to remove their weapon and it wouldn't really be easy, and if everyone got it classes that do have it would lose the crux of their PvP ability.
It wouldn't change anything in PVP as the defenses to disarm, which is the attack of opportunity, is already in the game. The bonus of disarm, which is the opponent having to go prone (no dex bonus) and having to take an attack of opportunity retrieving the weapon are not coded.
Missing out on an extra, single attack a round while you retrieve your weapon is nearly negligible when you consider you just got an extra one: your attack of opportunity for the person trying to disarm you.
After you read above, you'll see where I disagree with the first part of this statement. The second part, however, I would like to address: it would change nothing. The only time currently that disarm is really worthwhile is in "PvE" or player versus mob combat. In those situations, disarm can be powerful. But, when you consider the amount of mobs that have ridiculously jacked up melee damage (which has not been available for a player) even without a weapon, disarm is then negated. Some UM mobs are a good example of this.Telk wrote:...if you change disarm to one use per fight it will honestly do almost nothing in the fight. The person you disarm will lose one of their weapons, for maybe one attack round. I personally see nothing wrong with disarm, and this is coming from experience with my chars w/o disarm against people with disarm.
Now, this is not a complaint. I know it is difficult for the builders to balance mob power versus the power of an entire group. I'm not suggesting it be changed, either. I like a good challenge. I don't want these areas to be a cake walk. I'm just bringing it up as food for thought.
This land shall come to the God who knows the answer to War. -Ninety-Nine Nights
IF, we made disarm the way D&D has it, instead of the clunky percent chance thing, it would be balanced, and actually work for both parties involved.
As it is, roll a percent chance, then the opponent IF they have grip has a percent chance to avoid it. Unbalancing because only a couple classes even GET grip, only mediated by the fact that you don't really get all the penalties you SHOULD get for being disarmed.
D&D would have you make an attack (which, by the way, would also mean sacrificing one of your regular melee attacks that round) This opens up a free attack by your opponent (happens instantly, doesn't count against his attacks per round) unless you have improved disarm. then AFTER the attack of opportunity, the opponent makes his OWN attack roll, then compare, the higher attack roll wins, if its you, the opponent's weapon is on the ground. If the opponent wins, he then makes a SECOND roll against yours, and if you lose, he actually countered the disarm, and you fumble your own weapon. Statistically your chances of loosing your own weapon are slim, unless you're stupid enough to try and disarm someone with a much higher attack bonus than you.
And as Selveem said, once the weapon is on the ground, you should have to incur an attack of opportunity just to be able to grab it. We've debated this one before, so I'll just say, the endless spam war of disarm, grab, disarm, grab is stupid, and the solution isn't just limiting the grabbing, it's finding ways to limit the disarming. A disarm is an attack, like a melee attack, it should COUNT in the round you do it. Allowing you to spam it over and over is no different than when fighters could spam the hitall key to get an extra 12 attacks around against everyone in the room (and yes, Christophe and I counted how many extra attacks you could get, testing up in Hartsvale, it's why the attack is disabled now *raises hand so everyone knows who to thank*)
Every attack, should have a counter attack, THAT is balance, not allowing one class an exclusive market for something that only really works in PvP, because, frankly, PvP is not the main goal of this MUD, at least, that's what I'm inclined to understand.... there is the word *limited* in front of the term in the Mud listings for FK.
As it is, roll a percent chance, then the opponent IF they have grip has a percent chance to avoid it. Unbalancing because only a couple classes even GET grip, only mediated by the fact that you don't really get all the penalties you SHOULD get for being disarmed.
D&D would have you make an attack (which, by the way, would also mean sacrificing one of your regular melee attacks that round) This opens up a free attack by your opponent (happens instantly, doesn't count against his attacks per round) unless you have improved disarm. then AFTER the attack of opportunity, the opponent makes his OWN attack roll, then compare, the higher attack roll wins, if its you, the opponent's weapon is on the ground. If the opponent wins, he then makes a SECOND roll against yours, and if you lose, he actually countered the disarm, and you fumble your own weapon. Statistically your chances of loosing your own weapon are slim, unless you're stupid enough to try and disarm someone with a much higher attack bonus than you.
And as Selveem said, once the weapon is on the ground, you should have to incur an attack of opportunity just to be able to grab it. We've debated this one before, so I'll just say, the endless spam war of disarm, grab, disarm, grab is stupid, and the solution isn't just limiting the grabbing, it's finding ways to limit the disarming. A disarm is an attack, like a melee attack, it should COUNT in the round you do it. Allowing you to spam it over and over is no different than when fighters could spam the hitall key to get an extra 12 attacks around against everyone in the room (and yes, Christophe and I counted how many extra attacks you could get, testing up in Hartsvale, it's why the attack is disabled now *raises hand so everyone knows who to thank*)
Every attack, should have a counter attack, THAT is balance, not allowing one class an exclusive market for something that only really works in PvP, because, frankly, PvP is not the main goal of this MUD, at least, that's what I'm inclined to understand.... there is the word *limited* in front of the term in the Mud listings for FK.
"There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men."
Kregor - Ranger of Tangled Trees
Rozor - Lady Luck's Duelist
Tygen - Ranger-Bard of Mielikki
Kregor - Ranger of Tangled Trees
Rozor - Lady Luck's Duelist
Tygen - Ranger-Bard of Mielikki
To be fair, though, Kregor.. in D&D casters get one spell per round. Sometimes, less. With feats, like twin spell, possibly two. I can guarentee in FK they get far more than three without feats.
There's plenty of balance with disarm already in being able to grab your own weapon. *Shrug*
Edited to include: Also, grip rarely works. I have never once seen it increase outside of training it with coin from a mob. And, I wasn't suggesting Fighters or any other class only have exclusive rights to it. Above, I actually listed I think it should be available to everyone to be fair. It's not a determining factor for balance as to a key component that makes fighters powerful. Half of the classes already have it: Bards, thieves, fighters, and Paladins. The only exceptions being rangers, priests, and wizards, and druids.
There's plenty of balance with disarm already in being able to grab your own weapon. *Shrug*
Edited to include: Also, grip rarely works. I have never once seen it increase outside of training it with coin from a mob. And, I wasn't suggesting Fighters or any other class only have exclusive rights to it. Above, I actually listed I think it should be available to everyone to be fair. It's not a determining factor for balance as to a key component that makes fighters powerful. Half of the classes already have it: Bards, thieves, fighters, and Paladins. The only exceptions being rangers, priests, and wizards, and druids.
This land shall come to the God who knows the answer to War. -Ninety-Nine Nights
I agree that disarm should be a part of a ranger's skill set.
Unfortunately, there is already a huge discrepancy between the balance of the classes. It seems like everyone knows that if you want to be all powerful and dominate the MUD though code, it's best to play a wizard or priest. I can't count the times that I've been in a PvP situation against a flying wizard on killmode: nofight that just sits and cast spells while I cannot even engage in combat. There's also the inadequacy of feats and skills (the dual wield tree, bluff, tumble, etc...) that make the current classes lacking.
So give rangers disarm, it only makes sense IC and OOC. I think it sounds like a good step towards the ultimate goal of making classes what they should be, rather than what they currently are.
Unfortunately, there is already a huge discrepancy between the balance of the classes. It seems like everyone knows that if you want to be all powerful and dominate the MUD though code, it's best to play a wizard or priest. I can't count the times that I've been in a PvP situation against a flying wizard on killmode: nofight that just sits and cast spells while I cannot even engage in combat. There's also the inadequacy of feats and skills (the dual wield tree, bluff, tumble, etc...) that make the current classes lacking.
So give rangers disarm, it only makes sense IC and OOC. I think it sounds like a good step towards the ultimate goal of making classes what they should be, rather than what they currently are.
"We could kill /everyone/."