Improved Disarm

[Alitar]

Excellent. Thank you Raona!

[Selveem]

I like sticking with SRD in most cases, but I don't have a problem with Improved Disarm not granting a +4 bonus as long as locked gauntlets aren't in the game and grip is so difficult to increase.

[Alitar]

Which it is. It really... really is.

[Tarven]

Which it is. It really... really is.

Not any harder than a number of other skills, though. I can think of two areas off the top of my head, of sufficiently high level, where I get disarmed frequently. Successfully disarmed, I might add. Though, again, that's as a rogue. Fighters have an advantage already in that regard.

[Selveem]

Which it is. It really... really is.

Not any harder than a number of other skills, though. I can think of two areas off the top of my head, of sufficiently high level, where I get disarmed frequently. Successfully disarmed, I might add. Though, again, that's as a rogue. Fighters have an advantage already in that regard.

Just for the record, Grip is the hardest combat skill in the game to increase. There is not a single other combat skill in the game that is harder to increase (with exception to Riposte which I believe is broken). The only other skill in the game more difficult to increase would probably be armorsmithing (and maybe weaponsmithing). If you haven't tried actually increasing grip skill on a single character, I suggest you try it. If you're trying to legitimately increase it, I'll see you in a few years.

I don't mean the response as an attack on Tarven; I think it's important to make this point before people reading these series of posts might be mislead.

[Tarven]

Just for the record, Grip is the hardest combat skill in the game to increase. There is not a single other combat skill in the game that is harder to increase (with exception to Riposte which I believe is broken). The only other skill in the game more difficult to increase would probably be armorsmithing (and maybe weaponsmithing). If you haven't tried actually increasing grip skill on a single character, I suggest you try it. If you're trying to legitimately increase it, I'll see you in a few years.

I don't mean the response as an attack on Tarven; I think it's important to make this point before people reading these series of posts might be mislead.

Have you tried leveling sap? Or dirtkick? Poison Weapon? Influence? Grip is an automatic, at least, and doesn't have -massive- stamina hits. It's also possible to succeed multiple times in a single battle, in the right area. I'm not saying it's not difficult, I'm saying there are others that are just as difficult, if not more so. Though I still think the skill is obsolete by and large, as voiced in another thread.

[Selveem]

Have you tried leveling sap? Or dirtkick? Poison Weapon? Influence? Grip is an automatic, at least, and doesn't have -massive- stamina hits. It's also possible to succeed multiple times in a single battle, in the right area. I'm not saying it's not difficult, I'm saying there are others that are just as difficult, if not more so. Though I still think the skill is obsolete by and large, as voiced in another thread.

I have, actually. I have a thief, too, named "Fox" (Xaden). Sap isn't difficult to pull off; there's not a whole lot of special conditions for it. Though, I don't see Sap as particularly useful anymore. Dirt kick, I have not. Influence I haven't bothered to try to level as I didn't see it as useful either. Either way, the amount of mobs you can use these skills on is not restricted to two areas, one of which is fairly heavily traversed by others.

[Tarven]

Have you tried leveling sap? Or dirtkick? Poison Weapon? Influence? Grip is an automatic, at least, and doesn't have -massive- stamina hits. It's also possible to succeed multiple times in a single battle, in the right area. I'm not saying it's not difficult, I'm saying there are others that are just as difficult, if not more so. Though I still think the skill is obsolete by and large, as voiced in another thread.

I have, actually. I have a thief, too, named "Fox" (Xaden). Sap isn't difficult to pull off; there's not a whole lot of special conditions for it. Though, I don't see Sap as particularly useful anymore. Dirt kick, I have not. Influence I haven't bothered to try to level as I didn't see it as useful either. Either way, the amount of mobs you can use these skills on is not restricted to two areas, one of which is fairly heavily traversed by others.

I said I could think of two areas off the top of my head. I'm sure there are others. Sap might not have many special conditions (though I've never gotten it to work in combat, I think others have said it can, it's just pointless) but it also uses a large amount of stamina.

Dirtkick can only be used against non-aggressive mobs, misses at least 95% of the time, fully trained, and uses up 10% of my stamina per use, at level 40. So out of 20 attacks with it, I generally hit once, and that's for 5 minutes of resting to full. So yes, there are many other, equally difficult, skills to level. Also, in the 2 areas I was thinking of, I very rarely see anyone else.

[Alitar]

With the new combat code, I think the +4 disarm has become warranted. We're moving closer to canon with our combat system and the canon 3.5 disarm SRD now fits significantly better.

[Tarven]

Actually yeah. I had thought to mention that but forgot. Thanks for bringing that up.

It's very important to point out though, that the +4 doesn't apply to counter disarms, only disarms you initiate.

Also, though, this is another justification for getting rid of Grip.

[Alitar]

I fear I can't agree with the removal of grip. Until a 'draw both' option might be implimented(and even after really) fighters simply suffer more from a disarm than is typical in SRD. In SRD the rounds wait for you rather than speed past after you're disarmed. In SRD it takes a round to retrieve a blade at most and you're instantly wearing it. In FK, at least 1 round is likely to elapse before you begin the process of re-arming. It will then take a round to retrieve the weapon, then possibly a third round to put it into your hand.

Naturally this will provoke the response of "Then pallies should get it!" so I'll respond to that as well, and here we'll delve into the differences in casting between FK and SRD(Which are necessary because who wants to wait a day to memorize new spells?).
The differences in casting between FK and SRD make spells more versatile in FK than they are in SRD. It's easier to make adjustments to your spell list and it's easier to keep your spells prepared for whatever might come. After all, we don't need to wait two hours(one day icly) for all our spells to come rushing back, we have them slowly filter back throughout that day. Significantly better.
The relevance of this difference is simply that with casting being better, the addition of grip and fifth attack(very, very rarely hits since it recieves no BAB) balance this out.

edit** forgot to explain relevance

[Tarven]

But grip and fifth attack can play very large roles in a single battle, where the gradual return of spells will not. You, as a fighter, get the advantage of gaining health much much faster than you would in SRD. That's the balance for spells.

Healing
After taking damage, you can recover hit points through natural healing or through magical healing. In any case, you can't regain hit points past your full hit point total.

Natural Healing
With a full night's rest, 8 hours of sleep ormore, you recover 1 hit point per character level. Any significant interruption during your rest prevents you from healing that night.

If you undergo complete bed rest for an entire day and night, you recover twice your level in hit points.

So, if you'd like to spend 40 RL minutes in an inn for 50 HPs, then you go right ahead. If you were 'out' of spells, and meditating, at level 50, it would take at -least- 20 minutes to regain them all, I'm pretty sure.

With regards to Grip:
Fighters, and other warrior types, already get +5 over the next best scores, which is rogues and priests, in addition to whatever your str bonus, and weapon focus feats, give you. Another +4 to your attempt if you have improved disarm, which you probably will, given as fighters get a bazillion feats. Granted, some of those can be countered by other things, but that's the way the cookie crumbles. You can't sit there and talk about going closer to SRD, and then shake your head when it doesn't benefit your class. I've actually voiced some things recently that will have -negative- impacts on my characters.

And if you want to talk about advantages? How about the fact that everything happens face to face? How about the fact that you can type 'murder <target>' and you're already within 5 feet, where in SRD there's no way I would let someone get within 5 feet of my rogue, unless I was backstabbing them. Or my mage. Ever.

Fighters have a -distinct- advantage in the FK environment, in that everything starts in melee range, and fighters are the melee powerhouse. So please, don't talk to me about how disadvantaged fighters are, or how awful it would be to lose fifth attack and grip.

[Alitar]

Gradual return of spells aids in single combat because it means you can more easily be /prepared/ for that combat. A spelled up paladin, mage, cleric... those are insanely effective.

But grip and fifth attack can play very large roles in a single battle, where the gradual return of spells will not.

They don't. Grip is circumstantial and doesn't come into play very often unless against Paladins, rangers(?) and clerics (Rogues too, but it's acknowledged that it might be good to reassess some things for them so lets leave them out of this for now) Fifth attack is simply improbable. It's a chance to get one more crit in /if/ you manage to roll it at all. It has an impact, to be certain, but not a 'very large role' by any means. The two combined make up for the increased versatility and more effective system for spells in my opinion.

Healing speed being faster applies to all however Paladins /do/ recieve healing spells that Fighters do not. With a turn to SRD on the healing front(which simply shouldn't happen, just as the SRD spell system wouldn't work here) those spells would be a boost but my point is that at present, that boost doesn't appear to be needed to obtain balance. Not to mention, it still takes long enough to heal that those are still quite effective in combat and aggressive situations.

With regards to Grip:
Fighters, and other warrior types, already get +5 over the next best scores, which is rogues and priests, in addition to whatever your str bonus, and weapon focus feats, give you. Another +4 to your attempt if you have improved disarm, which you probably will, given as fighters get a bazillion feats. Granted, some of those can be countered by other things, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

Largely canon, largely balanced, and as a result, largely irrelevant. You acknowledged as much in the last sentence but if I'm missing the purpose of this paragraph, please rephrase it for me. Also... I don't think I've ever seen a cleric bother trying to disarm. They have MUCH better things to do with their rounds. As for rogues, they're getting looked at.

You can't sit there and talk about going closer to SRD, and then shake your head when it doesn't benefit your class. I've actually voiced some things recently that will have -negative- impacts on my characters.

Please can we keep this polite, not try to make it personal, and not try to turn it into a competition? Also, considering my two main toons are paladin(squire still) and fighter, I'm keeping quite a fair hand to try and keep balance between the classes. (despite my opinion that pallies should really have an upper hand)

As for the advantages that fighters have in the closeness of combat, your mage recieves the same benefit of having spells come back faster and your rogue has a decent-sized thread discussing the reasons its broken so should be exempt from being a part of this conversation for now.

So please, don't talk to me about how disadvantaged fighters are, or how awful it would be to lose fifth attack and grip.

I didn't once imply it would be 'awful' to lose fifth/grip, I said they serve a purpose to provide balance between /paladins/ and /fighters/. While we're trying to keep these classes balanced, those two skills have a purpose. In my honest opinion? Playing a paladin is difficult. Getting them through being a squire is taxing at best and having them come out of it as 'balanced' doesn't seem fitting to me. I'd like to see paladins have a step up(or three, they're paragons of humanity as I see it) but unfortunately, that's not the discussion here and I don't yet have the spurs to find out exactly what suggestions I could make as to where they stand /exactly/ and what adjustments the playerbase might deem fair.

Now -please- help me show everyone that you and I and everyone else on this forum can discuss this without drawing hyperbolic parodies of eachother's words and without the aggression that turns these things into an argument rather than a comfortable debate.

[Tarven]

I like how you left out this line:

Fighters have a -distinct- advantage in the FK environment, in that everything starts in melee range, and fighters are the melee powerhouse.

And as far as healing spells on a Paladin? Cure serious is the best they get. Dollars to doughnuts says not even very many of those. Buff spells? A few, but with very short durations, so it's not like they're going to be constantly casting them to maintain them indefinitely. Probably very situational. And if this was tabletop, chances are you'd be doing one fight every 3-4 days, so the spell system accommodates the increased pace of the MUD, as does.

Fighters also have the advantage of twelve feats over paladins. TWELVE. That means you can spend 3 greater weapon focus, weapon specialization and greater weapon specialization, giving you +1 to hit and +4 damage, that paladins cannot ever have, and still have room for 9 other feats. Not to mention that these cover entire categories of weapon here, instead of very specific types. And these are ALWAYS on.

You don't need grip. It is an unbalanced mechanic, and strays from SRD. Granted, I can see waiting for its removal until the command stacking issue is fixed up a bit more. But to say that being disarmed is any more disadvantageous for a fighter than a cleric or rogue is absolutely absurd. Regardless of what fixes rogues need. Not to mention, as has already been stated, you're looking at a -minimum- +5 advantage in your disarm rolls, right off the top. That includes defensive rolls to prevent being disarmed.

And for the record, the reason you've never seen a cleric attempting to disarm is because it's not on their skill list.

[Gwain]

I'd support the +4 disarm for fighters, I think its a good addition for npc confrontations and a fighter with the time and experience to have it would be even more essential to the group dynamic. I'd love to see counters to it made for pvp confrontations if any currently exist in srd. Thanks for suggesting it.

[Tarven]

I'd support the +4 disarm for fighters, I think its a good addition for npc confrontations and a fighter with the time and experience to have it would be even more essential to the group dynamic. I'd love to see counters to it made for pvp confrontations if any currently exist in srd. Thanks for suggesting it.

Fighters already get a +5, due to BaB, the +4 being discussed here is from taking the improved disarm feat.

[Selveem]

Re:Tarven:

I'm not really certain what experience has caused you to think so very highly of grip, but I fear your crusade may be a bit like marching a throng of archers against a swarm of gnats. Sure, there's a chance you might hit one or two, but in the end what you have is primarily a waste of energy and a lot of disappointment.

Grip is a slight advantage, yes. I think a fighter (think, for a moment, what that word means) should have an advantage over other classes in a stand-up fight. It's what they do. It's why their class is named as it is. Fighting is their bread, butter, and honey.

Fighters have a -distinct- advantage in the FK environment, in that everything starts in melee range, and fighters are the melee powerhouse.

As someone who has played fighters for a very, very long time and actually enjoys dueling other players' characters, I have to say you might be comparing the class to some obviously underpowered classes.

For a bit of a history lesson: at one point in time, Invokers or Priests were the absolute top (having three offensive shields on at once) vs Harming your opponent to a full 1% their health in a single casting. However, even during that time Fighters were really powerful with their hitall command and damage reduction. Over the years, that changed, but one thing remained: Priests remained top tier. Regardless of distance concerns, a strong Priest could wtfpwn a strong fighter. And, versus a wizard, they would win unless some crazy fluke occurred - even if they didn't start spelled up (ask Zorinar about all the duels vs Selveem).

What I can't do for you is forecast the future or even speculate on the present (as I've not dueled anyone since the code changes to casting).

Despite that, I have always hated the idea of taking things from classes to balance them as opposed to increasing the power of other classes when it can be avoided. On a personal level, I can certainly understand your interest in making rogues stronger, but I really wish you'd consider that prospect without seeking to diminish other classes before we really get started fixing rogues.

Fighters also have the advantage of twelve feats over paladins. TWELVE. That means you can spend 3 greater weapon focus, weapon specialization and greater weapon specialization, giving you +1 to hit and +4 damage, that paladins cannot ever have, and still have room for 9 other feats. Not to mention that these cover entire categories of weapon here, instead of very specific types. And these are ALWAYS on.

No offense intended towards the staff, but, there are still a huge amount of feats still not in-game for most characters. Second, even the ones selected for FK are pretty damned near vanilla and, even worse, we're still lacking tons. Some feats, like Greater Heavy Armor Optimization, were even intentionally excluded from the game. Even many of the weapon specialization feats still aren't in game anywhere I've seen, but mentioning greater weapon specialization? ... I don't think it's a good idea to use non-existent or promised features of the game for your supporting arguments.

And for the record, the reason you've never seen a cleric attempting to disarm is because it's not on their skill list.

I'm not certain the original post there was intended to reference FK priests. In D&D, however, I can tell you I've never had a session with any of my groups where a Cleric wasted their time trying to disarm an opponent. As the original post states, there are far better actions said Cleric can take to better increase their odds of winning the combat.

In the end, I think your efforts are better focused on adding things to the game rather than taking things away. But, hey, that's just one old player's opinion.

[Tarven]

First off, Selveem, I can tell you, for a fact, that greater weapon specialization is in the game. Maybe not for all weapons, but at the very least for greatswords.

The only things I'm asking to be taken away from the game are things that are remnants of old code, that no longer match SRD.

Grip, from what I can tell of the code, actually works sort of like dodge. It increases the DC of your opponent to be able to disarm, on a successful grip roll. But it only shows as a success if the difference between failure and success is that range of DC that grip covers. It's not like it's a 'reroll' to see if your opposed roll fails.

Fighters are far OP right now. I can also guarantee you that no level 50 fighter has ever dropped below 66% from a single harm, unless the code was changed since that time.

I also agree that fighters -should- have an advantage over other melee classes in a stand up fight. And they do. Believe me they do. I just ran the numbers for Mask, and it's ridiculous.

You also need to take into account the fighter's superior hit point totals. On average, with an equal constitution, you'll have 50 more HPs than either a cleric or ranger, and 100 more than a rogue, 150 more than a wizard. And that's with -equal- con, which isn't likely to happen in the latter two cases.

And yes, you -should- have to factor in ranges, because SRD was created with the idea of characters being able to move around, position themselves, and throw spells from ranges of 400-1200 feet away. Not 5.

As I've stated before, DnD is supposed to be a rock/paper/scissors dynamic (though with a 4th item). Wizard>cleric>fighter>thief>Wizard. You can see this in the way saving throws are distributed.

The problem with adding to classes is that it doesn't always undo the balance tilt in all directions. It might elevate thieves, for example, to give them something, but fighters will still have an advantage over other classes that they shouldn't.

The simple fact that fighters have the best chance to disarm any opponent gives them an edge over clerics. Using a 2h weapon, you get a +4, you also factor in all your to hit bonuses, and BaB (make an alias to turn off power attack before you disarm, for example, and you'll have a better chance). Clerics in tabletop would be able to disarm. The way things are currently, they don't even get a chance to counter-disarm if you fail, because they don't have the skill.

People continue to say that grip isn't that great, and that power attack 'hardly ever' hits (using a +2 weapon against a mobile with an AC of 20, you'd have up to a 65% chance, even if using power attack. 80% chance without. I'd hardly call that 'hardly ever'). If they're not great, why do people argue so much against losing them?

[Selveem]

First off, Selveem, I can tell you, for a fact, that greater weapon specialization is in the game. Maybe not for all weapons, but at the very least for greatswords.

I didn't specify which weapons. But, even weapon specialization is missing for a few that come to mind.

Fighters are far OP right now. I can also guarantee you that no level 50 fighter has ever dropped below 66% from a single harm, unless the code was changed since that time.

Yes, the code has changed since then, but Harm is still pretty strong. That's besides the point. I can't speak for how well Fighters do against other classes at the moment, but I do remember Andreas (a Paladin) winning one of the previous tournaments even against some solid opponents, despite lacking grip.

You also need to take into account the fighter's superior hit point totals. On average, with an equal constitution, you'll have 50 more HPs than either a cleric or ranger, and 100 more than a rogue, 150 more than a wizard. And that's with -equal- con, which isn't likely to happen in the latter two cases.

And, yet, even an old code fighter like Selveem who was all GM'd out on his attacks and everything couldn't stand a chance against Zorinar even if the fight started unspelled. What you neglect to factor into those calculations are that all the other classes (save rogues) have spells that can heal themselves. Priests and Wizards, in particular, can heal themselves very well. Unless you can get rid of a ton of their HP and make them miss heal at least one round, you aren't making progress.

And yes, you -should- have to factor in ranges, because SRD was created with the idea of characters being able to move around, position themselves, and throw spells from ranges of 400-1200 feet away. Not 5.

Yes, but Ranges are pretty much an impossible concept on a MUD without making it really obnoxious to code and even more obnoxious for the players to manipulate.

People continue to say that grip isn't that great, and that power attack 'hardly ever' hits (using a +2 weapon against a mobile with an AC of 20, you'd have up to a 65% chance, even if using power attack. 80% chance without. I'd hardly call that 'hardly ever'). If they're not great, why do people argue so much against losing them?

That's pretty easy to answer if you actually take the time to think about it. If you came into my house and tried to take my old computer that isn't very good at all, I'd fight you for it, too. Regardless of how you feel about it, you're still motivated to take something away from others because you don't want them to have it (for whatever reason). I'll fight you for it.

What I can tell you is that, if Grip was so great, you wouldn't see Selveem with only expert-level grip after two thousand, eight hundred and twenty three hours played.

[Tarven]

Actually, that has to do with the way learning is coded. In fairness, Grip has a very very tiny chance to go up. As do most passive skills. The difference is, this is a 'triggered' passive skill.

But, whatever. I'm not going to argue. This has nothing to do with thieves, or wizards, or clerics. Other people have made it about that. It's about fighters.

A Paladin won? Really? Say it aint so. <.< Oh wait, they have lay on hands.

Your fighter couldn't stand up to Zorinar on old code, no. Have you tried it since the slowing down of spells? Have you tried it against any wizard since then?

Also, I've suggested a 'ready' command, to Mask, so that you can wait until an enemy casts, in order to disrupt their casting, as per SRD. You lose your full round attacks, but prepare yourself to smack em to disrupt their spells if they don't make their concentration check.

Wizards have -1- spell that allows them to regain hit points, and even then, at maximum, it's not near what a cure critical even can pull off (A spell that only bards, out of hybrid casters, get, incidentally). Though they do get stone skin.

The thing is, you're comparing everything to 'old code' this and 'old code that', when the idea is to move forward to all the new code changes.

I've said my piece, and I'm tired of repeating myself. You absolutely will not convince me that there is a necessity for fighters to have grip, nor fifth attack. You have plenty of other advantages, even above and beyond SRD. If you don't like it, try playing a class that requires effort.