Previous Thread
Previous
Expand All
Collapse All
Ignore Author
Reply
<<If it makes sense to "flinch" and check evasion when you can't even see the attack coming, then it makes perfect sense to "flinch" and check shield.
No, not really at all. By the time you notice and flinch, assuming its a completely unspotted backstab, the blade should be less than an inch away from punching into your kidneys . Try interposing a shield into that small of a space in less than a hundreth of a second. It will never happen. Don't believe me? Get a friend to do a little experiment. Get a trash can lid(one with a handle on top) this will be your shield. Now give your friend a knife and have him set up behind you with the knife nearly touching your back. Now let your friend yell "go" and have him stab you. When he yells "go" try and block the knife before he can stab you with it. Are you bleeding now? Good, You should be. Because time, space, and physics are all working how they are supposed to.
-Berserker Sigmer Heldnhammer-
God Hates A Coward
<<By the time you notice and flinch, assuming its a completely unspotted backstab, the blade should be less than an inch away from punching into your kidneys . Try interposing a shield into that small of a space in less than a hundreth of a second. It will never happen.>>
On the same token, try sitting around and thinking real hard, then going completely invisible. Or try yelling so hard that you make it impossible for people to hide. Or heck, just try doing a dance and getting immensely stronger, faster, tougher, etc. for doing it (note: Dragon Dance is, most likely, the Macarena). You could even try picking up a 30-foot stone statue and swinging it around like a cat on a string.
Put simply, arguing the point of "realism" in DR really doesn't work too well.
Drongol's Player
PC also stands for "Paying Customer."
On the same token, try sitting around and thinking real hard, then going completely invisible. Or try yelling so hard that you make it impossible for people to hide. Or heck, just try doing a dance and getting immensely stronger, faster, tougher, etc. for doing it (note: Dragon Dance is, most likely, the Macarena). You could even try picking up a 30-foot stone statue and swinging it around like a cat on a string.
Put simply, arguing the point of "realism" in DR really doesn't work too well.
Drongol's Player
PC also stands for "Paying Customer."
Try interposing a shield into that small of a space in less than a hundreth of a second. It will never happen.
That's exactly what I'm asking for, a chance to. Just because you don't think I'll have enough time to do it, doesn't mean I can't do it. Let it be a check and we'll find out if I can move it in time.
Don't believe me? Get a friend to do a little experiment. Get a trash can lid(one with a handle on top) this will be your shield. Now give your friend a knife and have him set up behind you with the knife nearly touching your back. Now let your friend yell "go" and have him stab you. When he yells "go" try and block the knife before he can stab you with it.
Blocked and my body is wound free.
Stabbity, block, you go thud.
Use that beer sponge you call a brain!
That's exactly what I'm asking for, a chance to. Just because you don't think I'll have enough time to do it, doesn't mean I can't do it. Let it be a check and we'll find out if I can move it in time.
Don't believe me? Get a friend to do a little experiment. Get a trash can lid(one with a handle on top) this will be your shield. Now give your friend a knife and have him set up behind you with the knife nearly touching your back. Now let your friend yell "go" and have him stab you. When he yells "go" try and block the knife before he can stab you with it.
Blocked and my body is wound free.
Stabbity, block, you go thud.
Use that beer sponge you call a brain!
Heck folks..I think we should be thankful that we have an evasion check for a successful backstab, let alone a shield check. I agree with ya Kolaisa..just a slight turn could in theory move your shield to perhaps hinder a backstab..but a successful backstab is a successful backstab and we are lucky we have any checks at all.
~Rednilk
~Rednilk
Quick question I believe I have posted on stealth folder a week ago but didn't see any response. I might be wrong though. Someone told me that ambush was broken until after the freeze, well the freeze is up and I was wondering more or less when can we have ambushed worked on. After combat changes I can't ambush, I have asked many thieves and they told me it's not working right at the moment and that someone had said it would be fix. I want to be able to ambush again properly without going off balance as badly as very badly balanced. Attacking creatures that I have more than enough weapon to kill and enough stealth to hide/stalk on quite often.
War Hawk Catullus
War Hawk Catullus
<<Quick question I believe I have posted on stealth folder a week ago but didn't see any response. I might be wrong though. Someone told me that ambush was broken until after the freeze, well the freeze is up and I was wondering more or less when can we have ambushed worked on. After combat changes I can't ambush, I have asked many thieves and they told me it's not working right at the moment and that someone had said it would be fix. I want to be able to ambush again properly without going off balance as badly as very badly balanced. Attacking creatures that I have more than enough weapon to kill and enough stealth to hide/stalk on quite often.>>
Ambushing follows the combinations as well, Catullus. Like, you have to ambush feint, ambush yadda yadda. To improve your balance upon each ambush.
-Ruffles
Always highly controversial, never watered down.
Role-playing is contagious, catch the fever.
http://www.pleaseprey.com/gummi.html
Ambushing follows the combinations as well, Catullus. Like, you have to ambush feint, ambush yadda yadda. To improve your balance upon each ambush.
-Ruffles
Always highly controversial, never watered down.
Role-playing is contagious, catch the fever.
http://www.pleaseprey.com/gummi.html
I found that out the hard way but yes that is the problem one should not have to do a combo to ambush. Ambush and poach are special moves not normal moves they should be separated by regular attacking mechanics. I don't know how much you ambush but believe me is a pain and a half to pull off one successful ambush after combat changes. I train my stealth to receive the proper bonus when attacking, poaching works decently just that you can't poach two-legged creatures, humanoids, players etc, which it's an annoyance as is and therefore cuts down on what I can hunt. Now you can't ambush properly unless you go through the sequence, retreat since non survival primaries can't hide melee and advance, to pull off that move. In case you aren't aware ambushing feint/draw/sweep are garbage attacks, only seems to land decent hits with slice or chop, which by the way I feel chop should be the only ambush attack.
War Hawk Catullus
War Hawk Catullus
<<I don't know how much you ambush but believe me is a pain and a half to pull off one successful ambush after combat changes. I train my stealth to receive the proper bonus when attacking>>
What your posting there makes sense absolutely. And why? Because with POACH, SNIPE, FIRE/SHOOT and CAST, you have to type just those commands for your function to be achieved. With melee/pole ranged combat, you need to use combinations to achieve balance which allows you to achieve more success. Of course it's easier to handle to just FIRE/SHOOT or CAST at a creature. Something which I hope will be remedied to be brought more in line with melee combat.
Would you rather type A, B, C, D, E, F to achieve something or type H to achieve the same thing with less amount of input commands needed? Something I will be discussing with Veyl in-depth at Simucon along with some suggestions to remedy this situation with some ideas that might be planned and some that might not be planned.
-Ruffles
Always highly controversial, never watered down.
Role-playing is contagious, catch the fever.
http://www.pleaseprey.com/gummi.html
What your posting there makes sense absolutely. And why? Because with POACH, SNIPE, FIRE/SHOOT and CAST, you have to type just those commands for your function to be achieved. With melee/pole ranged combat, you need to use combinations to achieve balance which allows you to achieve more success. Of course it's easier to handle to just FIRE/SHOOT or CAST at a creature. Something which I hope will be remedied to be brought more in line with melee combat.
Would you rather type A, B, C, D, E, F to achieve something or type H to achieve the same thing with less amount of input commands needed? Something I will be discussing with Veyl in-depth at Simucon along with some suggestions to remedy this situation with some ideas that might be planned and some that might not be planned.
-Ruffles
Always highly controversial, never watered down.
Role-playing is contagious, catch the fever.
http://www.pleaseprey.com/gummi.html
I don't entirely understand which side of the spectrum you were refering to. However, I will try and instill my perspective in regards to your question.
Currently snap shots with bow are weak and even more so are called shots or rather snap called shots. I can't hit something half my bow skill and significantly less reflex than my agility that way. I would prefer they increased the accuracy of snap shots and decreased the accuracy of aimed shots. Aimed shots seem to shoot with more skill than your raw rank in your range weapon of choice in the other hand snap shots shoot with far less than your rank in bow. Hell I lost my train of thought, <chuckle.
Well lets see, for melee combat I find it too many different attacks to pull off good balance, position and in return well timed and landed hits. Wherein, using attack command it's takes longer to gained your combat advantage as well as land hits but when they do hit they damamge well enough. I prefer that be changed to less attacks. I believe they should just left all the verbs as we had them but instead instill special properties to each individual attack. Like say a chop would be most effective if your enemy was proned or lying down. A sweep attack would inccur you a great defensive penalty but in return you would throw your opponent off balance and possibly casuse them to stumble in you were successful. I would love for the draw command to encompass an attack straight out of your weapon holster. So if I had my scimtar sheathed in my weapon harness and I type draw, I would get the 2rt with draw + 1 extra rt since I have to pull it out and draw it in a single motion. I don't like the combo change as much as I thought I would like it. Because we still can't control combat as I thought we would be able to. Combat is still pretty basic in my mind.
That's why I do hope they start making special attacks for us barbs. In real life attacks have meaning, hear they are only accounting for balance, position and damage they aren't accounting for anything else. Same in brawling mode. I use to be a professional fighter when I was younger and I know that when you kick someone for instance that your opponent is thrown off balance and it's easier for you to follow up with your hands, there are times when you or your opponent stumble and or lose your footing, only time I see this happening in DR is when you 1) you or you opponent removes your leg or when either of you stun each other.
I have to leave work, so I will continue my thoughts later.
War Hawk Catullus
Currently snap shots with bow are weak and even more so are called shots or rather snap called shots. I can't hit something half my bow skill and significantly less reflex than my agility that way. I would prefer they increased the accuracy of snap shots and decreased the accuracy of aimed shots. Aimed shots seem to shoot with more skill than your raw rank in your range weapon of choice in the other hand snap shots shoot with far less than your rank in bow. Hell I lost my train of thought, <chuckle.
Well lets see, for melee combat I find it too many different attacks to pull off good balance, position and in return well timed and landed hits. Wherein, using attack command it's takes longer to gained your combat advantage as well as land hits but when they do hit they damamge well enough. I prefer that be changed to less attacks. I believe they should just left all the verbs as we had them but instead instill special properties to each individual attack. Like say a chop would be most effective if your enemy was proned or lying down. A sweep attack would inccur you a great defensive penalty but in return you would throw your opponent off balance and possibly casuse them to stumble in you were successful. I would love for the draw command to encompass an attack straight out of your weapon holster. So if I had my scimtar sheathed in my weapon harness and I type draw, I would get the 2rt with draw + 1 extra rt since I have to pull it out and draw it in a single motion. I don't like the combo change as much as I thought I would like it. Because we still can't control combat as I thought we would be able to. Combat is still pretty basic in my mind.
That's why I do hope they start making special attacks for us barbs. In real life attacks have meaning, hear they are only accounting for balance, position and damage they aren't accounting for anything else. Same in brawling mode. I use to be a professional fighter when I was younger and I know that when you kick someone for instance that your opponent is thrown off balance and it's easier for you to follow up with your hands, there are times when you or your opponent stumble and or lose your footing, only time I see this happening in DR is when you 1) you or you opponent removes your leg or when either of you stun each other.
I have to leave work, so I will continue my thoughts later.
War Hawk Catullus
Was just replying to your post, but I can either post what I mean in more detail in a combat folder or explain it via AIM. Either way works.
-Ruffles
Always highly controversial, never watered down.
Role-playing is contagious, catch the fever.
http://www.pleaseprey.com/gummi.html
-Ruffles
Always highly controversial, never watered down.
Role-playing is contagious, catch the fever.
http://www.pleaseprey.com/gummi.html
<<(note: Dragon Dance is, most likely, the Macarena).
I always considered it to be more like the hustle but you know whatever. And I think we all have seen badger dance.
<<Blocked and my body is wound free.
Then either your friend is either incredibly slow or incredibly inept(you may want to look into getting new friends) OR you are a liar. I agree that after the backstab (assuming you didn't just get stabbed in the spine) that you should be able to bash the thief away with the shield but by then its too late you are already bleeding like a stuck pig.
-Berserker Sigmer Heldnhammer-
God Hates A Coward
I always considered it to be more like the hustle but you know whatever. And I think we all have seen badger dance.
<<Blocked and my body is wound free.
Then either your friend is either incredibly slow or incredibly inept(you may want to look into getting new friends) OR you are a liar. I agree that after the backstab (assuming you didn't just get stabbed in the spine) that you should be able to bash the thief away with the shield but by then its too late you are already bleeding like a stuck pig.
-Berserker Sigmer Heldnhammer-
God Hates A Coward
Kolaisa,
With enough backstab, you won't even get an evasion check. Sure, you will "fail to dodge" but that is because the system has to say something and the programmers defaulted it to use evasion. Backstab negates evasion just like it negates shield and parry. Typing backstab does not mean the system immediately ignores shield and parry. Even a "successful" backstab doesn't immediately ignore shield and parry. There are degrees of success just like any other skill. You could change your argument to say that shield isn't counted enough, but even if shield suddenly became the best melee defense against backstab you would still die because the only real defense for backstab is perception. Melee skills are equally worthless when in this situation.
With enough backstab, you won't even get an evasion check. Sure, you will "fail to dodge" but that is because the system has to say something and the programmers defaulted it to use evasion. Backstab negates evasion just like it negates shield and parry. Typing backstab does not mean the system immediately ignores shield and parry. Even a "successful" backstab doesn't immediately ignore shield and parry. There are degrees of success just like any other skill. You could change your argument to say that shield isn't counted enough, but even if shield suddenly became the best melee defense against backstab you would still die because the only real defense for backstab is perception. Melee skills are equally worthless when in this situation.
With enough backstab, you won't even get an evasion check.
From what's been posted and what I've seen even to the smallest degree evasion is checked. Although It may be negated to the point of it being unmeasurable, it's still checked. If it's going to check evasion let it check shield.
Stabbity, block, you go thud.
Use that beer sponge you call a brain!
From what's been posted and what I've seen even to the smallest degree evasion is checked. Although It may be negated to the point of it being unmeasurable, it's still checked. If it's going to check evasion let it check shield.
Stabbity, block, you go thud.
Use that beer sponge you call a brain!
The fact that Evasion is checked when you are getting backstabbed has nothing at all to do with the fact that you are making a conscious choice to dodge its more that you are flinching. Its not as if you have trained yourself to at the sign of anything emerging from the shadows to swing your shield around and block, but you are likely to flinch or jump when it happens.
-Berserker Sigmer Heldnhammer-
God Hates A Coward
-Berserker Sigmer Heldnhammer-
God Hates A Coward
-Berserker Sigmer Heldnhammer-
God Hates A Coward
-Berserker Sigmer Heldnhammer-
God Hates A Coward
The only reason it checks evasion is because the system requires it. Whenever you "roll" to hit in combat, you have to check evasion. It is the only thing that actually determines hit or miss. Shield and parry reduce the opponent's ability to attack. When evasion is checked in this situation, it's basically zero anyways. I think you're missing the fact that you fail to block with your shield because you fail to see the attack. You aren't evading, either, for the same reason.
its more that you are flinching.
well I personally have a different idea of flinching. You flinch and dodge, I flinch and block.
but you are likely to flinch or jump when it happens.
well now if I'm going to "jump", I am certainly going to try to throw my shield in the way of the attack.
Whenever you "roll" to hit in combat, you have to check evasion.
exactly, if it's going to check evasion, then it should by all means check shield.
I think you're missing the fact that you fail to block with your shield because you fail to see the attack. You aren't evading, either, for the same reason.
If I fail to see an attack, doesn't mean I still can't completely evade the attack. I can still perfectly dodge a backstab if the skill difference is that great and namely their backstab is that low. If I can't see an attack, this attack, any attack, and can still be able to evade it, then I should have every right to block that attack with my shield with my shield even though.
In another respect, every action causes roundtime. even at melee, your backstab causes as little as 1 second. In that one second while you are ramming a knife into the back of my skull, I have the ability, however slight, to dodge and evade your knife. In that time I would naturally block with my shield rather than "jump away" and dodge it. do I have time to swing my shield around in the time you thrust your knife? absolutely. but that doesn't mean i actually do get it swung around in time or not. But there is a definite and justified cause and need for shield to be checked.
Kolaisa
Stabbity, block, you go thud.
Use that beer sponge you call a brain!
well I personally have a different idea of flinching. You flinch and dodge, I flinch and block.
but you are likely to flinch or jump when it happens.
well now if I'm going to "jump", I am certainly going to try to throw my shield in the way of the attack.
Whenever you "roll" to hit in combat, you have to check evasion.
exactly, if it's going to check evasion, then it should by all means check shield.
I think you're missing the fact that you fail to block with your shield because you fail to see the attack. You aren't evading, either, for the same reason.
If I fail to see an attack, doesn't mean I still can't completely evade the attack. I can still perfectly dodge a backstab if the skill difference is that great and namely their backstab is that low. If I can't see an attack, this attack, any attack, and can still be able to evade it, then I should have every right to block that attack with my shield with my shield even though.
In another respect, every action causes roundtime. even at melee, your backstab causes as little as 1 second. In that one second while you are ramming a knife into the back of my skull, I have the ability, however slight, to dodge and evade your knife. In that time I would naturally block with my shield rather than "jump away" and dodge it. do I have time to swing my shield around in the time you thrust your knife? absolutely. but that doesn't mean i actually do get it swung around in time or not. But there is a definite and justified cause and need for shield to be checked.
Kolaisa
Stabbity, block, you go thud.
Use that beer sponge you call a brain!
I know you think that you should be able to block a backstab with a shield, but you are wrong. Every thinking person would and does disagree with you, because the notion of blocking a "successful" backstab with a shield is patently absurd.
As it turns out, you do in fact have a chance to block a backstab with your shield; the messaging will tell you that you blocked the short sword or rapier or whatever with your shield. If, however, you do not notice that you are about to be backstabbed, or you fall victim to what we call a "successful" backstab, then you do not have time to drag your shield around behind you, or to turn around and block, or do anything that involves using your shield. Instead, you might, just might, be able to twist two to four inches away from the blow, such that the backstab only cuts open your fat rolls instead of your kidney or maybe hits a lung instead of the heart, or possibly is completely turned away by your armor or whatever.
I know that you play a shield using character who wears heavy armor and therefore relies on parry and shield, and you probably have all your stance points allotted to these defenses, and you want to have some defense against backstab. Give it up. Your defense against backstab is perception, and that failing, a last ditch effort at evasion, which under most circumstances is also worthless. Your arguments make no sense from a standpoint of game verisimilitude, and will fall on deaf ears from a game mechanics and playability standpoint.
If you were to argue that the setup of skillsets is unjust, and that perception and evasion should be secondary skills for paladins, if not primary, I would agree with you. That is a system flaw which causes illogical skill distribution in many classes. Feel free to continue whining about shields, however, if you wish to continue giving ammunition to those of us capable of logical thought who post here.
That is all.
--(\/)ordraug the Mage
As it turns out, you do in fact have a chance to block a backstab with your shield; the messaging will tell you that you blocked the short sword or rapier or whatever with your shield. If, however, you do not notice that you are about to be backstabbed, or you fall victim to what we call a "successful" backstab, then you do not have time to drag your shield around behind you, or to turn around and block, or do anything that involves using your shield. Instead, you might, just might, be able to twist two to four inches away from the blow, such that the backstab only cuts open your fat rolls instead of your kidney or maybe hits a lung instead of the heart, or possibly is completely turned away by your armor or whatever.
I know that you play a shield using character who wears heavy armor and therefore relies on parry and shield, and you probably have all your stance points allotted to these defenses, and you want to have some defense against backstab. Give it up. Your defense against backstab is perception, and that failing, a last ditch effort at evasion, which under most circumstances is also worthless. Your arguments make no sense from a standpoint of game verisimilitude, and will fall on deaf ears from a game mechanics and playability standpoint.
If you were to argue that the setup of skillsets is unjust, and that perception and evasion should be secondary skills for paladins, if not primary, I would agree with you. That is a system flaw which causes illogical skill distribution in many classes. Feel free to continue whining about shields, however, if you wish to continue giving ammunition to those of us capable of logical thought who post here.
That is all.
--(\/)ordraug the Mage
>>If it's going to check evasion let it check shield.<<
It's already been explained to you (twice in this thread, that I can see) that it does check shield - assuming you succeed in the perception check. (In which case the backstab fails and becomes simply a thrust.)
Why you'd think you should get a shield check against an attack in the middle of your back you didn't see coming (which is what happens if you fail the perception check) is beyond me. Be glad you get an evasion check.
(Incidentally, the magic-primary guilds also have attacks that check only evasion, not shield. Lightning Bolt for Warmages, Burn for Moon Mages, Chill Spirit for Clerics, etc. Backstab is by no means an isolated thing in that respect.)
It's already been explained to you (twice in this thread, that I can see) that it does check shield - assuming you succeed in the perception check. (In which case the backstab fails and becomes simply a thrust.)
Why you'd think you should get a shield check against an attack in the middle of your back you didn't see coming (which is what happens if you fail the perception check) is beyond me. Be glad you get an evasion check.
(Incidentally, the magic-primary guilds also have attacks that check only evasion, not shield. Lightning Bolt for Warmages, Burn for Moon Mages, Chill Spirit for Clerics, etc. Backstab is by no means an isolated thing in that respect.)
If you were to argue that the setup of skillsets is unjust, and that perception and evasion should be secondary skills for paladins, if not primary, I would agree with you.
consequently, your train of thught would be absurd. I think the skills sets are fine.
Your defense against backstab is perception, and that failing, a last ditch effort at evasion, which under most circumstances is also worthless.
You're right, if I see the attack I can block it, that's called an ambush though. I'm talking about a backstab where I'm granted the ability, time, whatever to dodge out of the way as a flinch or last ditch effort. well my last ditch effort is to block with my shield. There has no been one sound reason, justification or cause to refute why I should not be able to to attempt a block on a successful backstab. Time? no, I'm faster and stronger than you, much faster and stronger. Physics? please, physics don't apply here as is if I can already dodge this attack.
the notion of blocking a "successful" backstab with a shield is patently absurd.
only be you and a few other think it is. Allow the same lines, evading a "successful" backstb is absurd as well, but I can. So why should I not be able to block it? no reason besides the fact that a few people fear it could tank an ability for them or grant a nice bonus to a needed skill(shield).
Stabbity, block, you go thud.
Use that beer sponge you call a brain!
consequently, your train of thught would be absurd. I think the skills sets are fine.
Your defense against backstab is perception, and that failing, a last ditch effort at evasion, which under most circumstances is also worthless.
You're right, if I see the attack I can block it, that's called an ambush though. I'm talking about a backstab where I'm granted the ability, time, whatever to dodge out of the way as a flinch or last ditch effort. well my last ditch effort is to block with my shield. There has no been one sound reason, justification or cause to refute why I should not be able to to attempt a block on a successful backstab. Time? no, I'm faster and stronger than you, much faster and stronger. Physics? please, physics don't apply here as is if I can already dodge this attack.
the notion of blocking a "successful" backstab with a shield is patently absurd.
only be you and a few other think it is. Allow the same lines, evading a "successful" backstb is absurd as well, but I can. So why should I not be able to block it? no reason besides the fact that a few people fear it could tank an ability for them or grant a nice bonus to a needed skill(shield).
Stabbity, block, you go thud.
Use that beer sponge you call a brain!
Sorry Koliasa, but your arguement was extremely thin in the first place and with each extra post it loses even more credibility...
>>If you were to argue that the setup of skillsets is unjust, and that perception and evasion should be secondary skills for paladins, if not primary, I would agree with you.
You would agree evasion should be secondary if not primary for a paladin? That truely is just nuts considering the whole point of a paladin is that getting hit tends to be insignificant due to their extreme armor.
>>There has no been one sound reason, justification or cause to refute why I should not be able to to attempt a block on a successful backstab.
On the contrary, there have been numerous reasons and justifications why you couldnt and shouldnt ever be able to block a successful backstab with something you are holding to your side or infront of you.
The only lacking thing has been the reasons and justification as to how or why someone WOULD be able to do so. Truth is, no one else wants to touch this subject with a barge pole because everyone else can see how ludicrus it is to think you could ever block with a shield.
>>only be you and a few other think it is
Everyone except you would be more accurate.
>>If you were to argue that the setup of skillsets is unjust, and that perception and evasion should be secondary skills for paladins, if not primary, I would agree with you.
You would agree evasion should be secondary if not primary for a paladin? That truely is just nuts considering the whole point of a paladin is that getting hit tends to be insignificant due to their extreme armor.
>>There has no been one sound reason, justification or cause to refute why I should not be able to to attempt a block on a successful backstab.
On the contrary, there have been numerous reasons and justifications why you couldnt and shouldnt ever be able to block a successful backstab with something you are holding to your side or infront of you.
The only lacking thing has been the reasons and justification as to how or why someone WOULD be able to do so. Truth is, no one else wants to touch this subject with a barge pole because everyone else can see how ludicrus it is to think you could ever block with a shield.
>>only be you and a few other think it is
Everyone except you would be more accurate.
Ok I have to state my opinion on this matter again, I did nearly a year ago but nothing was changed. Also if a GM gets a hold of this info I do pray you find it appealing.
First off I want to address Kolaisa. My dear kind vallant knight, you can defend against an ambush because the person jumps out of hiding and attempts to land a hit on you while you are off guard. The whole message you leap from hiding getting a slight advantage on your opponent, startling your opponet or completely surprising your opponent indicates that yes you gained a bonus from your stealth to hit your foe but all defenses are still active at his end.
When you backstab notice how there is no message other than your hit, I was backstabbing yesterday and it didn't even say you come out of hiding though you do. Basically, backstab is an assassination move type. You have crept right behind your opponent and are about to stab him, here the only thing that is checked is your stalking ability I believe right before the backstab occurs. Which is going to determine whether my movement was noticed, heard, felt etc and if the backstab is successful then you're out of luck. Such an attack can't be defended against because like the analogy the other person made. First off think of it this way, you knew your friend was behind you and you were testing whether or not you could move forward to doge it or spin around in an attempt to block it. You logic is flawed in that you have no idea you have been stabbed, well until you feel that coolness in your back and start to feel your life essense escaping from you.
Secondly, my suggestion had been that backstab stays as if but the effectiveness of armor increase so say I.E. I use leathers because I train stealth a great deal so if I were to get BS'ed and fail the perception check I should bleed like a big, However, if a paladin in full plate armor would get backstabbed their armor should be extremely difficult to penetrate, and that so called logic about a thief being able to find the nitches between armor to poke at, well one thing is stalking behind me another is having enough time to maintain behind me without me having any sense of your presense long enough for you to find a good spot to stab at. Basically, on Paladins or anyone that wear plate armor the thief should have a very hard time cutting through armor defense either that or the thief would have to be knowledgable in that armor type to be able to recude the penalty. The more LP/HP skill a thief has the more he would reduce the armor penalty applied to his backstab. That would give an edge to the paladins in defending against such an attack.
I will add though, that the penalty not be high enough that the paladin would completely cancel out backstabs do to their high armor skill. Just impose a penalty that would weaken the backstab somewhat unless the thief's skills are much higher than the paladin. I suggest the following.
Ranger being backstabbed in the wilderness (only) would recieve a bonus to defend against. It would be governed by their ranks in the animal lore skill. Basically, given their enviroment they would be warned of possible threats to them near by. I know this is a bit unfair giving rangers have the highest perception and can snipe themselves but this is a free bee just incase some were interested to hear it.
Paladin's backstab check would be thieves stalking/backstab/LP/HP armor/weapon skill+agility against paladins perception/armor skill+reflex. Maybe add the stalking/backstab/armor/weapon skill then subtract paladins armor/perception skill and have a degree of effectiveness according to how many ranks remain from whomever won the skill check.
War Hawk Catullus
First off I want to address Kolaisa. My dear kind vallant knight, you can defend against an ambush because the person jumps out of hiding and attempts to land a hit on you while you are off guard. The whole message you leap from hiding getting a slight advantage on your opponent, startling your opponet or completely surprising your opponent indicates that yes you gained a bonus from your stealth to hit your foe but all defenses are still active at his end.
When you backstab notice how there is no message other than your hit, I was backstabbing yesterday and it didn't even say you come out of hiding though you do. Basically, backstab is an assassination move type. You have crept right behind your opponent and are about to stab him, here the only thing that is checked is your stalking ability I believe right before the backstab occurs. Which is going to determine whether my movement was noticed, heard, felt etc and if the backstab is successful then you're out of luck. Such an attack can't be defended against because like the analogy the other person made. First off think of it this way, you knew your friend was behind you and you were testing whether or not you could move forward to doge it or spin around in an attempt to block it. You logic is flawed in that you have no idea you have been stabbed, well until you feel that coolness in your back and start to feel your life essense escaping from you.
Secondly, my suggestion had been that backstab stays as if but the effectiveness of armor increase so say I.E. I use leathers because I train stealth a great deal so if I were to get BS'ed and fail the perception check I should bleed like a big, However, if a paladin in full plate armor would get backstabbed their armor should be extremely difficult to penetrate, and that so called logic about a thief being able to find the nitches between armor to poke at, well one thing is stalking behind me another is having enough time to maintain behind me without me having any sense of your presense long enough for you to find a good spot to stab at. Basically, on Paladins or anyone that wear plate armor the thief should have a very hard time cutting through armor defense either that or the thief would have to be knowledgable in that armor type to be able to recude the penalty. The more LP/HP skill a thief has the more he would reduce the armor penalty applied to his backstab. That would give an edge to the paladins in defending against such an attack.
I will add though, that the penalty not be high enough that the paladin would completely cancel out backstabs do to their high armor skill. Just impose a penalty that would weaken the backstab somewhat unless the thief's skills are much higher than the paladin. I suggest the following.
Ranger being backstabbed in the wilderness (only) would recieve a bonus to defend against. It would be governed by their ranks in the animal lore skill. Basically, given their enviroment they would be warned of possible threats to them near by. I know this is a bit unfair giving rangers have the highest perception and can snipe themselves but this is a free bee just incase some were interested to hear it.
Paladin's backstab check would be thieves stalking/backstab/LP/HP armor/weapon skill+agility against paladins perception/armor skill+reflex. Maybe add the stalking/backstab/armor/weapon skill then subtract paladins armor/perception skill and have a degree of effectiveness according to how many ranks remain from whomever won the skill check.
War Hawk Catullus
I myself always saw backstab as more than just a really good thrust at someones back. Its a close, powerful, well placed blow to a vital region. In fact, I picture many thieves backstabbing by jumping up real close to the person, and thrusting their weapon into the victim while standing riiiiight behind them. Not lunging from a bit away towards the back. If it was lunging, sure, makes sense that you could stop it with a shield. But rather than testing it with a friend, who you know is behind you, who jumps out from hiding, you test it with a friend, who sneaks up behind you, almost close enough to pull out the hair on the back of your head, and then suddenly grabs your shoulder with his left hand and jabs you with his right before shoving you away and getting into a fighing stance. Kinda hard to interpose a shield when they are literally RIGHT behind you.
>>The calculations used for armor are in no way related to what I suggested, I'm quite aware that armor is always checked in any damage inccuring instance, however with this particular move armor imposes no benefit.
I don't understand, what do you mean by "armor imposes no benefit"?
~ Nutawa
_______________________________
Gidske's Armor Guide: http://www.heromachine.com/drealms
Character Portrait: http://www.heromachine.com/drealms/nutawa.jpg
I don't understand, what do you mean by "armor imposes no benefit"?
~ Nutawa
_______________________________
Gidske's Armor Guide: http://www.heromachine.com/drealms
Character Portrait: http://www.heromachine.com/drealms/nutawa.jpg
Nope I dont understand either. I have done a lot of tests with BS, checking how big the perception, stalking, BS and weapons factor in aswell as stats and type of weapons used. I have also tested a lot on armors and even had instances of my target forgetting to put his armor back on.
Armor type is a huge factor in BS, paladins while usually lacking in the skills to counter avoiding the backstab being successful, generally tend to be the hardest to inflict any damage on due to their plate armor. So to say that in this move armor imposes no benefit is a rather bold statement which to be honest is completely incorrect.
Armor type is a huge factor in BS, paladins while usually lacking in the skills to counter avoiding the backstab being successful, generally tend to be the hardest to inflict any damage on due to their plate armor. So to say that in this move armor imposes no benefit is a rather bold statement which to be honest is completely incorrect.
First off, great idea Cat. Simply put when you say "You have crept right behind your opponent and are about to stab him, here the only thing that is checked is your stalking ability I believe right before the backstab occurs." evasion is also checked to however the slightest degree. Well if it's going to check evasion, check shield
Stabbity, block, you go thud.
Use that beer sponge you call a brain!
Stabbity, block, you go thud.
Use that beer sponge you call a brain!
Yes although armor always imposes some benefit because of the fact that you aren't hitting skin but it's absorbing damage it still doesn't affect BS much. If you would like to test this tomorrow or Sunday which is when I'll be in game we can. Simply, Attack the test subject with your melee weapon that is wearing plate with all defense set to 0 then BS them with all their defenses up. That would show you if it's your skill in the weapon or the BS doing the work. I have seen similar test done in the past and BS just inflict insane damage even to a paladin of course if you remove the armor it would do more damage but what I'm trying to say is that the calculation for that attack and a regular attack isn't right.
First off say you have 300 HP and I have 200 ME 300 BS and I attack with my weapon you wouldn't take a big blow even if you had no defense because of the fact that the ratio of protection from your armor to my weapon is enough to fend off/absorb a great deal of the blow but when you BS that logic is a bit different. Your BS attacks as if the weapon is still close to the range of ranks you have but when the damage is delt, it's deal like if you just used a claymore to backstab.
Simply put, and I'm not entirely sure but it's my perspective of what's happening is that the check is just made to see if you land the backstab and afterwards the modifier x2 or x4 whatever it is currently for backstab is applied. So in this regard the armor was almost useless in protecting. As opposed to the plain attack you hit damage calculated and then subtracted from the armor. I don't know exactly how the mechanics work maybe a GM can step in and explain it better but this is what I have gathered from older messages and from testing of backstab.
PS: My words aren't gospel yes but it's planly clear that armor isn't working as it should when it comes to a pallie defending against BS, quite frankly I dont' really care but I'm the type of person that I like to see everyone get their fair share and in this instance pallies aren't. Long (PS) <chuckle. Oh and for the record I only play a barb the thief is my real life brother in laws character and the testing have been done with my many thief friends. So it's not like I"m trying to water your attacks, you can abuse me with backstab all you want I just don't think the current mechanics for paladins defending against backstab are fair and being that they are survival tertiary and trying to protect against it in the aspect that Kolaisa spoke about isn't practicle I feel this is a good remedy to that dilema.
War Hawk Catullus
First off say you have 300 HP and I have 200 ME 300 BS and I attack with my weapon you wouldn't take a big blow even if you had no defense because of the fact that the ratio of protection from your armor to my weapon is enough to fend off/absorb a great deal of the blow but when you BS that logic is a bit different. Your BS attacks as if the weapon is still close to the range of ranks you have but when the damage is delt, it's deal like if you just used a claymore to backstab.
Simply put, and I'm not entirely sure but it's my perspective of what's happening is that the check is just made to see if you land the backstab and afterwards the modifier x2 or x4 whatever it is currently for backstab is applied. So in this regard the armor was almost useless in protecting. As opposed to the plain attack you hit damage calculated and then subtracted from the armor. I don't know exactly how the mechanics work maybe a GM can step in and explain it better but this is what I have gathered from older messages and from testing of backstab.
PS: My words aren't gospel yes but it's planly clear that armor isn't working as it should when it comes to a pallie defending against BS, quite frankly I dont' really care but I'm the type of person that I like to see everyone get their fair share and in this instance pallies aren't. Long (PS) <chuckle. Oh and for the record I only play a barb the thief is my real life brother in laws character and the testing have been done with my many thief friends. So it's not like I"m trying to water your attacks, you can abuse me with backstab all you want I just don't think the current mechanics for paladins defending against backstab are fair and being that they are survival tertiary and trying to protect against it in the aspect that Kolaisa spoke about isn't practicle I feel this is a good remedy to that dilema.
War Hawk Catullus
Im sorry Catullus but I completely disagree. Yes there is a modifier on a successful backstab, it doesnt hit with just your plain weapon ranks, it uses your backstab ranks to aid its success. But how heavy a blow you land is still dependant on their armor type and skill just like any attack is.
In my recent experiments, I was able to successfully backstab my Paladin sister everytime, but the extent of my hits were light, good, and an occasional hard hit. Against my IG brother who is a barbarian with higher armor ranks (+20), higher stats, and wearing leather, I was able to land awesome, devastating and apocalyptic strikes to him. Both targets were not using any kind of buffs and had no injuries or burden.
To say that armor plays very little part in backstab is simply incorrect. Without weapon ranks, you could successfully backstab someone all day long and never deal any damage to them, backstab doesnt magically grant someone amazing skill ranks that they didnt earn, it does however give a boost just like many spells and abilities grant boosts to peoples offenses and defenses and other skills.
>>>>I just don't think the current mechanics for paladins defending against backstab are fair and being that they are survival tertiary and trying to protect against it<<<<
Paladins are armor primary, armor is one of the best defenses against backstab. Seeing a person wont make their weapon skills go away. All guilds have their advantages and disadvantages and besides which, the best defense against backstab is to simply not give anyone a reason to backstab you.
In my recent experiments, I was able to successfully backstab my Paladin sister everytime, but the extent of my hits were light, good, and an occasional hard hit. Against my IG brother who is a barbarian with higher armor ranks (+20), higher stats, and wearing leather, I was able to land awesome, devastating and apocalyptic strikes to him. Both targets were not using any kind of buffs and had no injuries or burden.
To say that armor plays very little part in backstab is simply incorrect. Without weapon ranks, you could successfully backstab someone all day long and never deal any damage to them, backstab doesnt magically grant someone amazing skill ranks that they didnt earn, it does however give a boost just like many spells and abilities grant boosts to peoples offenses and defenses and other skills.
>>>>I just don't think the current mechanics for paladins defending against backstab are fair and being that they are survival tertiary and trying to protect against it<<<<
Paladins are armor primary, armor is one of the best defenses against backstab. Seeing a person wont make their weapon skills go away. All guilds have their advantages and disadvantages and besides which, the best defense against backstab is to simply not give anyone a reason to backstab you.
actually your best defense against backstab is not to piss off a thief. :-)
---
A scavenger troll arrives, scouring the area.
The scavenger troll exclaims, "I dinks I like da' Moongate!"
The scavenger troll bends over and picks up the Moongate. After appraising it, the troll places the Moongate in its frayed knapsack
---
A scavenger troll arrives, scouring the area.
The scavenger troll exclaims, "I dinks I like da' Moongate!"
The scavenger troll bends over and picks up the Moongate. After appraising it, the troll places the Moongate in its frayed knapsack
I truely disagree with you and like I said we can test this tomorrow. Backstab mulplies damage this I know for a fact it has even been posted under the stealth folder by gm's. I know thieves that have one hit killed a paladin with a freaking dart, you do the math. You know how much skill you need to win a check by the inflict massive damamge? I doubt you know but I tell ya them darts hitting like a Cyclops 2HE.
PS: I'm going to stop my conversation here because I don't want you guys to think I'm trying to get your BS wateted like I said, about half my friend in DR are thieves and I don't care at all if you one hit killed me with a thumb tac but against somenoe with HP armor it just doesn't seem right.
War Hawk Catullus
PS: I'm going to stop my conversation here because I don't want you guys to think I'm trying to get your BS wateted like I said, about half my friend in DR are thieves and I don't care at all if you one hit killed me with a thumb tac but against somenoe with HP armor it just doesn't seem right.
War Hawk Catullus
<<I know thieves that have one hit killed a paladin with a freaking dart, you do the math. >>
size matters not.
on the other hand, i know moonmages that have 1-hit killed people with a carrot. <tkt>
---
A scavenger troll arrives, scouring the area.
The scavenger troll exclaims, "I dinks I like da' Moongate!"
The scavenger troll bends over and picks up the Moongate. After appraising it, the troll places the Moongate in its frayed knapsack
>>Backstab mulplies damage this I know for a fact it has even been posted under the stealth folder by gm's. I know thieves that have one hit killed a paladin with a freaking dart, you do the math. You know how much skill you need to win a check by the inflict massive damamge?
Multiply? sure, most abilities and spells that buff skills do the same, but its still skill based. One hit killed a paladin with a dart? Only if there was a large skill difference.
I have seen plenty of people one hit killed by an LE from a normal attack. I see plenty killed with 1 cast and even remember witnessing many one hit kills when roaring kaith followed by an attack turned it into an unbelievably powerful attack. (Not sure how powerful kaith is now by the way) But these are just parts of the game, when someone takes advantage of their bonuses, they often will excel, but like everything they can all be negated by training your own skills to cancel it out.
Honestly I doubt they would downtweak backstab now, since I can only 1 hit kill things with it that normally take me about 2-3 hits in the open. So while the bonus is large, its in noway overpowered or unfair, it requires skill and considering your hitting a vital area, of course its going to kill quicker than a regular attack.
This has become a rather silly arguement. Being able to get a shield behind you in the time it takes for someone to thrust a blade from inches away from you into you, is just silly if ya didnt know they were there then it would be in you before you even thought about a shield. And now the 'armor doesnt make a difference' arguement is even sillier.
Multiply? sure, most abilities and spells that buff skills do the same, but its still skill based. One hit killed a paladin with a dart? Only if there was a large skill difference.
I have seen plenty of people one hit killed by an LE from a normal attack. I see plenty killed with 1 cast and even remember witnessing many one hit kills when roaring kaith followed by an attack turned it into an unbelievably powerful attack. (Not sure how powerful kaith is now by the way) But these are just parts of the game, when someone takes advantage of their bonuses, they often will excel, but like everything they can all be negated by training your own skills to cancel it out.
Honestly I doubt they would downtweak backstab now, since I can only 1 hit kill things with it that normally take me about 2-3 hits in the open. So while the bonus is large, its in noway overpowered or unfair, it requires skill and considering your hitting a vital area, of course its going to kill quicker than a regular attack.
This has become a rather silly arguement. Being able to get a shield behind you in the time it takes for someone to thrust a blade from inches away from you into you, is just silly if ya didnt know they were there then it would be in you before you even thought about a shield. And now the 'armor doesnt make a difference' arguement is even sillier.
Ok you got one last post out of me.
What you fail to understand is that a successful backstab on an opponent that you overwhelm with stealth
will almost always one hit kill something regardless. I don't know what you mean but I have thief friends that can 90%+ of the time kill creatures with backstab that they can't kill at all at melee. All you have to do is overwhelm their perception with your stealth which is extremely easy for a thief to do being you guys are like the stealthiest guild or atleast tied up with rangers and Paladins are like almost the least perceptive guild. Given their training regimen. So a backstab on a pallie will almost always result in a lethal hit.
PS: I understand it's a hit that strikes a vital body part but with someone wearing Full Heavy Plate where the heck do you see or have the time to find a nitch to stick it it? little less a short sword which is pretty big or a sabre. You have no weak body part to strike it's a walking tin can. Knights are like completely covered with armor in that you can barely make out their eyes. That also as in your logic the reason why they don't excel in surviavls.
War Hawk Catullus
What you fail to understand is that a successful backstab on an opponent that you overwhelm with stealth
will almost always one hit kill something regardless. I don't know what you mean but I have thief friends that can 90%+ of the time kill creatures with backstab that they can't kill at all at melee. All you have to do is overwhelm their perception with your stealth which is extremely easy for a thief to do being you guys are like the stealthiest guild or atleast tied up with rangers and Paladins are like almost the least perceptive guild. Given their training regimen. So a backstab on a pallie will almost always result in a lethal hit.
PS: I understand it's a hit that strikes a vital body part but with someone wearing Full Heavy Plate where the heck do you see or have the time to find a nitch to stick it it? little less a short sword which is pretty big or a sabre. You have no weak body part to strike it's a walking tin can. Knights are like completely covered with armor in that you can barely make out their eyes. That also as in your logic the reason why they don't excel in surviavls.
War Hawk Catullus
You can block it. You must spot the attack first.
If you fail to make that check, you are left with the bare bones defense, your personal body (in this case, evasion). This is because a defense "must" be shown via the combat messaging to the player. Why this is evasion instead of shield? Because everyone can evade; it does nto require something in hand, like shield. Thus the default messaging is evasion, because its something anyone can inheritly due regardless of what they have in hand. If this offends you, then thats silly. A succesful backstab begins to alert the target "when the blade enters them"; not at a time period before that. This is why parrying and blocking are impossible. The blade has already made contact with you. At this point you can fall away from the blow (which is the 'flinch' people are talking about).
~~From Hell
"Then look for me by moonlight,
Watch for me by moonlight,
I'll come to thee by moonlight, though hell should bar the way."- Alfred Noyes
If you fail to make that check, you are left with the bare bones defense, your personal body (in this case, evasion). This is because a defense "must" be shown via the combat messaging to the player. Why this is evasion instead of shield? Because everyone can evade; it does nto require something in hand, like shield. Thus the default messaging is evasion, because its something anyone can inheritly due regardless of what they have in hand. If this offends you, then thats silly. A succesful backstab begins to alert the target "when the blade enters them"; not at a time period before that. This is why parrying and blocking are impossible. The blade has already made contact with you. At this point you can fall away from the blow (which is the 'flinch' people are talking about).
~~From Hell
"Then look for me by moonlight,
Watch for me by moonlight,
I'll come to thee by moonlight, though hell should bar the way."- Alfred Noyes
true. we should be able to sneak up on you while you sleep and you'd never know what hit you.
;-)
---
A scavenger troll arrives, scouring the area.
The scavenger troll exclaims, "I dinks I like da' Moongate!"
The scavenger troll bends over and picks up the Moongate. After appraising it, the troll places the Moongate in its frayed knapsack
;-)
---
A scavenger troll arrives, scouring the area.
The scavenger troll exclaims, "I dinks I like da' Moongate!"
The scavenger troll bends over and picks up the Moongate. After appraising it, the troll places the Moongate in its frayed knapsack
