Improved Disarm

[Tarven]

Just a note: since a failed disarm now provokes a counter, will a counter move count towards your three?

Out of curiosity oes this still happen if the disarming person has improved disarm? Shouldn't, according to SRD, but the help file only mentions the AoO.

[Alitar]

This is a good point and its implementation would make that feat more desirable.

[Alitar]

I can confirm that presently improved disarm still provokes the counter-disarm. As Tarven said, I believe SRD says it should be otherwise.

[Raona]

Ok, to make sure I have this right:

Improved disarm should:
Not provoke an attack of opportunity (and it does not, so that works)
Not allow the target to counter (but it does, so that's not working per SRD)
Provide a +4 bonus to the disarm attempt (but it doesn't, as best I can tell, so that's not working per SRD)

Right?

Moving this to suggestions.

[Alitar]

Sounds about right. I haven't actually checked the SRD myself but I gather Tarven has.

[Tarven]

Ok, to make sure I have this right:

Improved disarm should:
Not provoke an attack of opportunity (and it does not, so that works)
Not allow the target to counter (but it does, so that's not working per SRD)
Provide a +4 bonus to the disarm attempt (but it doesn't, as best I can tell, so that's not working per SRD)

Right?

Yes indeedy.

[Tarven]

Something else that I would bring up, though it won't make me very popular..

If disarm rules have been brought to SRD standards (opposed attack rolls etc), then grip is sort of an obsolete/overpowered skill. Only 3 classes are allowed Disarm, in FK (as opposed to any class being able to make the attempt in SRD). Fighter, Paladin and Rogue. That's understandable from a theme/RP standpoint. However, since it -is- an opposed roll, fighters already have a distinct advantage. At level 50, fighters have +20 for their 'to hit' in addition to whatever else they gain from weapon focus, greater weapon focus, a typically superior str, etc. Paladins share this to hit bonus, if not the GWF feat potential, and thieves get, at best, +15 (SRD rules. BY FK standards I'm not sure they get even that). That means that even on a rogue with improved disarm, the fighter still gets at minimum probably a 5% advantage in the opposed check.

Fighters already get an additional attack, above and beyond what SRD allows for. Let alone if they're dual wielding. Grip to me just seems to me to be an advantage that an already overpowered class doesn't need, especially given other balancing actions that have been made as of late.

[Selveem]

Re: Tarven:

Would you believe I actually agree with you, to a point? But as I've stated before, without disarm vanilla fighters would be REALLY boring. If you take away grip, you might as well remove disarm as a skill and make it a simple command. If you do that, you should take away parry, dodge, attack skills, spell skills, language skills, and weapon skills. Suddenly, the MUD has become very, very boring for anyone who attempts an adventure.

Where's the progression? What's there to do when not RPing with another person aside from a limited number of quests? You've also devalued platinum, too, as training is not actually necessary.

If you want to remove things specifically because they don't work that way in cannon, it would take a lot of changes and probably piss off a good number of people who actually took the time to train up the skills.

Another great concern I would believe is that everyone was exactly the same on reaching level 60, save for feats and a few magical items here and there. What's the incentive to host events of skill if it's all luck of the draw with nothing to work towards?

[Tarven]

I'm not saying that fighters shouldn't have disarm. Nor am I saying that I think that everyone -should- really have it. I was just pointing out a difference.

But I also stated that this skill is based on an old mechanic for the MUD. One that has been upgraded to give fighters an advantage already. Grip gives them an additional and unfair advantage over the two classes that actually have the skill, that they really don't need.

Fighters might be 'boring', but they're also very much 'easy mode'. They don't take a lot of skill to play, and they don't really have a peak. They start off strong, and continue getting stronger, where other classes have to work considerably harder to attain that strength.

Aside from that, fighters -do- have other skills to use during combat. Bash, punch, kick... You can argue all you want that the latter two aren't very useful, but bash is incredibly powerful, especially in a group battle. On my rogue, I didn't even bother training kick, so believe me, I'm not overestimating its usefulness.

The suggestion of removing grip from the game wouldn't make fighters any more 'exciting'. It would just eliminate that small imbalance.

[Aldren]

I can see agreeing with either of the arguments, (re: Selveem and Tarven), however, I am a wholehearted fan of not removing things, but adding things. I don't see what's inherently wrong with the grip skill, but I think there are other skills, feats, spells, abilities, etc not currently coded that would benefit other classes that are suggested to "suffer" that would benefit the MUD as a whole, rather than hindering (and I'm using that term very loosely) a fraction of the MUD.

[Tarven]

Well, I can see how in PVE the grip skill wouldn't be that unbalancing, and pretty darn useful to fighters to have. Is there perhaps a compromise, and make it so that it doesn't come into play in PvP encounters?

Though, overall, yes, I'd really like to see other classes get some love. I don't think we're suffering -horribly- (rogues for example), but there are some mechanics and tactics in tabletop that I would normally use, that I cannot here, that can be frustrating. In tabletop, with a rogue, I -can- stand up, toe to toe, with a fighter of equal level. Granted, I haven't tried of equal level here, but, given the mechanics that I've seen, I'm just not sure it would ever happen. Perhaps I'll consider it again when I cap out, and start getting some skills to competitive levels.

All that being said, I don't think that PvP should be the focus here. It's a part of an RP MUD, and should be, in that aspect, but the fact that people (myself included) are constantly thinking along the lines of "How will this affect my survivability in PvP" as opposed to "How will this affect my RP" is somewhat sad. PvP should be, in my opinion, a last resort, not an ultimate motive.

[Tarven]

I can see agreeing with either of the arguments, (re: Selveem and Tarven), however, I am a wholehearted fan of not removing things, but adding things. I don't see what's inherently wrong with the grip skill, but I think there are other skills, feats, spells, abilities, etc not currently coded that would benefit other classes that are suggested to "suffer" that would benefit the MUD as a whole, rather than hindering (and I'm using that term very loosely) a fraction of the MUD.

Though, I would add, a major 'balancing' factor was brought into play with cast times. One that was solid, and I believe, an improvement to the game overall. It could be considered 'hindering' that class, but it's because they had an advantage that they shouldn't have, given the mechanics.

[Selveem]

Re: Tarven:

This is getting really divergent of the topic, but I'll continue the discussion as long as no one else minds.

With regards to grip, it's quite simple, really. Locked gauntlets don't exist in FK. Grip, however, does. Think of Grip like a "locked gauntlet lite" option.

In FK, a Rogue or Ranger most likely wouldn't use a pair of locked gauntlets because their skills take an armor check penalty of at least 6. Additionally, they can't freely use the hand which is wearing a locked gauntlet. I won't bother discussing them further, because it seems like a waste of time. The only exceptions to the current rule I could see would maybe be Cleric and Paladin. I haven't played my Cleric recently in any spars and Paladin requirements are not to my taste, so I can't say how good they are vs Fighters in particular. What I can say is that Cleric were the most powerful class on FK last I sparred (before the combat changes) and that Andreas (a Paladin) was able to best a number of Fighters in a tournament not too long ago that I couldn't believe he won against.

The discussion of other skills seems like a waste of time: bash is not the skill it used to be because gone are the days when bash increased damage for the duration of the stun and kick/punch are of minor assistance (and in most cases do more harm than good due to the stamina use and lag).

I agree rogues need love; as a matter of fact, I made a post with that title. Druid, also, need love. Regardless, that isn't anywhere close to what is being discussed here so I'll leave it at that.

[Briek]

I made the original suggestion that resulted in the changes to disarm(or so it appears as the changes mirror that of my suggestions) and the whole reason I suggested it in the first place is to balance out the advantage of grip gave a fighter because disarm was far too easy.

Now the changes have been made you are essentially suggesting we reverse them and remove grip, when the arugment was against removing grip from the very beginning.

I think this suggestion takes us back to square one.

[Tarven]

I made the original suggestion that resulted in the changes to disarm(or so it appears as the changes mirror that of my suggestions) and the whole reason I suggested it in the first place is to balance out the advantage of grip gave a fighter because disarm was far too easy.

Now the changes have been made you are essentially suggesting we reverse them and remove grip, when the arugment was against removing grip from the very beginning.

I think this suggestion takes us back to square one.

Actually, my assumption was that the changes were because of and created up to, the standards of SRD, since that's why/how most of the changes occur. If I'm wrong, then nevermind entirely. =P

[Alitar]

To add my two cents, I think grip is fine the way it is. I once thought pallies got the short end of the stick, but having given it consideration I think pally and fighter are quite equal in a PVP setting.

Now, to perhaps aim the thread back to the original topic of disarm. I don't feel it would be imbalanced for improved disarm to match SRD with ONE exception. That +4 bonus to disarm has no place here because of the difference in how a "Round" breaks down here. In SRD, a disarm takes up an important aspect of the round wherein here the disarm is something like a 'free' action.

tl;dr Grip is fine as is - improved disarm should match SRD except for the +4 bit.

[Tarven]

Ah, good point, with the 'free action' bit. I would agree the +4 is a bit strong, given that. But, no AoO and no reverse disarm would be pretty nice.

[Alitar]

It would seem you an I are in agreeance here Tarven.

[Tarven]

Yep, to an extent. Though in all fairness, spells should be actions that require full attention, and are, essentially, free here, too. As free as Disarm, Gouge, or any other skill/ability, anyway. Clerics, for example, gain a very large benefit from being able to both attack 3 times in a round (3 very buffed up times in a round) and still be able to heal their buddy.

[Raona]

Ok, I'm hearing something of a consensus that Improved Disarm should be modified to prevent counter-disarm attempts, but not provide a bonus to the actual disarm roll. I'll leave it at that and this will sit until we've time to tackle such things, unless there is further strenuous objection. Don't hold your breaths on any change here, we currently have bigger fish to fry.