I don't think it should train athletics. Tactics sounds natural.

If it trains athletics than everyone will train it in combat that can, including me. webs should not train athletics either.

Codiax.
Forged Weapons:
http://www.elanthipedia.org/wiki/User:Codiax#Codiax-Forged-Weapons

<<No, it is not constant retreating "in name". It is actually constant retreating.>>

<<If someone is running at you and you want to keep the same distance between you and them, the only way to achieve this (excluding teleportation) is by running at the same speed in the opposite direction. This is known as retreating.>>

Apu, we're arguing over semantics. I think you'd agree that there is a difference between intending to back out of a fight in order to disengage, and the physical movement of keeping a specific distance with a target.

Retreating in military terms involves an intent at disengagement, it is very different than maneuvers for maintaining optimal kill ranges (which may call for movement in any direction). The fact that DR has historically called everything retreating, is unique to our little world.

Combat heavy guilds should be the masters of maintaining combat ranges, because it's a natural function of combat. Rangers, while I have left them out are still very combat heavy (weapons/armor secondary) and would be included in that group. I think it does combat guilds a disservice to piecemeal out combat in attempt to make specific skills significant just because they have historically lacked significance.

Outstanding idea. The tactics-plays-a-role suggestion made sense... until I read Zubba's Mastery suggestion. I actually can see arguments for both. Tactics could mean skill with positioning, but Mastery could make you a master of getting into that position too. When I look at it objectively, I can't decide which honestly makes more sense to me. Combat guilds excelling at position seem right. But Rangers' mastery over archery (an thus, keeping at the proper range) seems a good counter to that. Meh.

Whatever check is decided on, it all sounds good to me.

---

~The Prydaen~

>>This is a PVE issue, not a PVP issue, so the GVG should just be ceased.

Best suggestion in this thread yet.

Can't believe how badly people can butcher a great idea because they want to be the best at it.

diggans idea is pretty good but it has to be within reason/some check, otherwise you could hang back in any non-ranged critter area with complete immunity. So as Apu said some check needs made to at least say, "hey this character has no business in this area so hang back doesn't work."

>>I have to wonder though, if Tactics isn't the obvious first choice in a skillcheck for out-maneuvering your opponent and maintaining your combat range, then what the hell is the point of the skill?

It's funny you mention that. Tactics to me is like decision making. Tactics is like the skill that allows your character to choose the appropriate skill to use in a given situation. Like it's a skill of skills. However I understand it's being broken out into other duties to be a trainable lore skill.

Codiax.
Forged Weapons:
http://www.elanthipedia.org/wiki/User:Codiax#Codiax-Forged-Weapons

Eeps.. 2x post sorry.

Or you could always make it circle based, scaling down to a 5% chance at a circle difference of 150 circles or something?

---

Player of Diggan, Ranger & Halfing of Aesry

Core combat should function the same for everyone, so I don't feel that guild perks are appropriate here. Once hangback itself is designed, suggest abilities/spells that interact with the system for your guild of choice, instead.

>What would you think about allowing hangback to work as follows?

Sounds interesting.

I want to test it out with my pole weapons!

Could you do a character wipe/copy first?

Also:

>- There is a skillcheck involved with each retreat to succeed.

Just curious if (and if so, why) this is a different check than RETREAT, in any way?

>>RETREAT has really easy checks and can succeed 100% of the time with enough skill/stats. I want hangback to occasionally fail so folks aren't guarenteed invulnerable if they turn hangback on and go finish off a six pack with their better half.

That sounds like a very good proposal overall to me, if the check is balanced more and more in favor of the advancer after every successful hangback.

<<Yeah because keeping range in a suit of huge plate armor and massive shield makes a lot of sense.

If there was one guild that I would have to say should be the BEST at keeping range it would be the Ranger guild. I can certainly understand barbarian but not sure where paladins coming into play.>>

Not a GvG thing but just to comment on this:

Paladins train to move around in that armor and shield as easily as other guilds move around in far lesser armors. The perception of a real world knight that can barely move around is not one accurate for a trained Paladin in DR. Paladins were long ago noted to be one of the two 'combat guilds' along with Barbarians, so I believe the idea we would in general have favorable considerations in combat is what lead to that post you responded to.

Now the counter argument is that Paladins are held to their stereotype, that they do not flee (soul hit) or engage in 'unfair' tactics (see: attacking from shadows(soul hit)), so I think it comes down to how Hangback is viewed, but if it was a 'combat mastery' then I think Paladins would be in there like Barbarians. Frankly I don't care if we are or not, more so as it only works in PvE, but I can agree that it seems that combat skills (and not just athletics) should have some weight here.

Lastly; I don't understand why you think a Ranger would be any better than a Thief at keeping range. Seems they would be just as good at it.

<Paladins train to move around in that armor and shield as easily as other guilds move around in far lesser armors. The perception of a real world knight that can barely move around is not one accurate for a trained Paladin in DR. Paladins were long ago noted to be one of the two 'combat guilds' along with Barbarians, so I believe the idea we would in general have favorable considerations in combat is what lead to that post you responded to.


Ok i'll bite since i'm bored. I have understood this was a PvE thing from the start and this was just to make peoples lives earlier, but what I said still stands in my opinion from a RP perspective. I also understand how the hinderance system in DR works for Paladins :P

In my perspective Barbarians are Paladins are both melee heavy guilds that employ a lot of in your face combat, I've seen stuff being thrown around about a paladin spell to pull somebody to melee and keep them there for a time, cool, this is what I think would be more in their realm. Barbarian on the other hand is a more evasion heavy character and lighter on their feet, free to dance and what not in their armor which is the only reason why I said that a barbarian would be more suited. In both cases though it should be more a point for these guilds to keep somebody from hanging back, not to hang back themselves.

<Lastly; I don't understand why you think a Ranger would be any better than a Thief at keeping range. Seems they would be just as good at it.

I see the Ranger as the quintessential archer of dragonrealms, and they have magic to make this easier even, webs, BB and other things that hinder an aggressor. A Thief on the other hand I see as the quintessential stealth character, which should be more inclined to find the easiest way to engage their opponent while sneaking up on them, which is why they have a lot of stealth khri and would more likely want to focus on getting to melee range undetected and staying there while delivering a vicious sneak attack and trying to quickly finish somebody off after that.

That's just what I thought for a RP perspective. Obviously this is being made to simply make peoples lives easier and should be a fair contest for all. I still think it should just contest defending. If the check was a decently reasonable check defending should work fine since you should have defending roughly on par with whatever your hunting in the first place, if you don't its probably a place you shouldn't be, and shouldn't gain the hangback effect anywhoo.

<<In my perspective Barbarians are Paladins are both melee heavy guilds that employ a lot of in your face combat, I've seen stuff being thrown around about a paladin spell to pull somebody to melee and keep them there for a time, cool, this is what I think would be more in their realm. Barbarian on the other hand is a more evasion heavy character and lighter on their feet, free to dance and what not in their armor which is the only reason why I said that a barbarian would be more suited. In both cases though it should be more a point for these guilds to keep somebody from hanging back, not to hang back themselves>>

This makes sense to me. I agree:)

<<I see the Ranger as the quintessential archer of dragonrealms, and they have magic to make this easier even, webs, BB and other things that hinder an aggressor. A Thief on the other hand I see as the quintessential stealth character, which should be more inclined to find the easiest way to engage their opponent while sneaking up on them, which is why they have a lot of stealth khri and would more likely want to focus on getting to melee range undetected and staying there while delivering a vicious sneak attack and trying to quickly finish somebody off after that.>>

I disagree here.

Barbarians are I believe by virtue of their skill set, the quintessential archers of Dragon Realms. Rangers are primarily survivalists, and while you can site webs and BB, barbarians have roars to do similar stuff. Barbarians are pure archers, raining down arrows while a ranger is mixing their martial skill with their survival skills. Thieves work very much the same way as a Ranger, using their guild tricks to maintain an advantage. Rangers are not purely ranged and neither are thieves purely melee (I suspect most modern thieves far prefer their SNIPE to their BACKSTAB). Logically and RP wise though I would agree with you that all things being equal, a thief would want to close range to deliver a devastating backstab.

TLDR:
Barbs=best archers
Rangers=great archers, good at battle field manipulation (spells)
Thieves=great archers, good at target denial (stealth)

I'm in favor of whatever it ends up using, totally not train any of its relevant skills or stats being checked.

Though for my vote, I'm going for Tactics and Athletics, but here is a deal that should be considered have it be hampered by your armor hindrance [vs opponents attack ability or whatever] (there Paladins have a nice BIT of help there, and Barbarians and Rangers who have a bit of armor help will be good as well).

---
"I think anything that forces you to do something no sane adventurer would do just in order to train is ridiculous."
DR-SOCHARIS

---
Victory Over Lyras, on the 397th year and 156 days since the Victory of Lanival the Redeemer.

>>Ahh, this seems to be combat related. Why would barbarians be bottom tier?

Because of tier placement. I prefer basing it on skillset placement, because it's a lot more hard-ruled and static than making it based on something arbitrary like "well Barbarians would be good at this because they are Barbarians"

As another example, if army combat is heavily tactics-driven, and we acknowledge that tactics is a lore, you're probably going to see lore primarmies who might have certain perks that lore terts (barbarians) wouldn't have, despite the fact that a Barbarian is probably seen as more "combat related" than a Bard.

---

The teeth lands a solid (5/23) hit that pokes the teeth into Turul's rear end (more embarrassing than painful!).

>>The tier list I provided WAS based on skillset placement. It's a combination of where the Athletics skill falls(Survival) and where the Tactics skill falls(Lore).

...I know. I said that's what I prefer, as opposed to "but Barbarians are good at combat"

Probably why I was responding to someone who was against the skillset placement, as opposed to you. :P

---

The teeth lands a solid (5/23) hit that pokes the teeth into Turul's rear end (more embarrassing than painful!).

<< I prefer basing it on skillset placement, because it's a lot more hard-ruled and static than making it based on something arbitrary like "well Barbarians would be good at this because they are Barbarians">>

That's great, but what are the justifications for making a non-combat skill the primary determinant of a purely combat function? There aren't any that are reasonable.

"Hangback" (which is kind of a poor name for what's being discussed) if installed is going to be a pretty significant piece of combat. I think it would be pretty convoluted to make something that will be so central to combat the expertise of skills or guilds that aren't deeply entrenched in combat.

That doesn't mean it has to be based off a weapon skill, but it should be based on COMBAT skills.

I think a combo of melee mastery/tactics/X survival for pole, and missile mastery/tactics/X survival for missile would be equitable for everyone.

Just to note, I frankly dont care if Paladins are good at this or not, but I would throw defending into the equation.

Average of your Athletics, Tactics and Defending makes the most sense to me.

<<1) It makes sense to involve tactics, especially given what role it is meant to have in large-scale combat. So that's why the lore tier placement should matter>>

I'm not as opposed to tactics being "involved" as I am athletics (as it's at least a combat skill), but tactics already accounts for direct non-damaging maneuvers, extending it's function beyond that encroaches on the value of other core combat skills like evasion.

<<2) I think evasion already does "enough" in combat, so I'm not against giving athletics more purpose. But, either way it's still a survival skill, so having survival tier placement will also still matter either way.>>

I don't think good game design involves handing out "value" in a piecemeal process just because one skill is valuable in combat and another is lacking overall significance.

<<3) Weapons wouldn't matter, because being able to move around isn't a "thing" that falls within the weapon skillset.>>

But it's something that falls within the overall theme of the lore skill set? Knowing how to use a weapon involves what exactly? Knowing how to swing it? I don't think it's a stretch to suggest that weapon skill also covers the knowledge of what range to use it at; melee/missile mastery would fall in nicely here.

> <<2) I think evasion already does "enough" in combat, so I'm not against giving athletics more purpose. But, either way it's still a survival skill, so having survival tier placement will also still matter either way.>>

> I don't think good game design involves handing out "value" in a piecemeal process just because one skill is valuable in combat and another is lacking overall significance.

It has been stated, that just lumping things together in a skill, will not happen again. Evasion isn't that great of a skill for this, its about moving yourself out of harms way, out of the way of danger, bending and twisting, seeing and reacting.

Hangingback, isn't much of a reactionary action, its one of continual movement over varying terrain to keep your enemy away so you don't need to worry about evasion.

> <<3) Weapons wouldn't matter, because being able to move around isn't a "thing" that falls within the weapon skillset.>>

> But it's something that falls within the overall theme of the lore skill set? Knowing how to use a weapon involves what exactly? Knowing how to swing it? I don't think it's a stretch to suggest that weapon skill also covers the knowledge of what range to use it at; melee/missile mastery would fall in nicely here.

So the best short bow user will also be the best hangback person. Sorry know, I can outrun and out hangback any person that justs stands in an archery range and fires off all day. Also don't start with some playability vs. realism concept.

Again I'd be fine with tactics and athletics combined skill check that was hindered off how much armor is hindering someone. I'd also LOVE if it didn't train people, you want to be good at hanging back. You need to do some workouts, extensive workouts outside of Hanging back. If not, well you can do it as effective as you can do it.

---
"I think anything that forces you to do something no sane adventurer would do just in order to train is ridiculous."
DR-SOCHARIS

---
Victory Over Lyras, on the 397th year and 156 days since the Victory of Lanival the Redeemer.

<<What does using a weapon have to do with your ability to stay away or near someone? If anything, it's a defensive skill. And, even in the scope of armor, I don't think your ability to move in armor or block with a shield indicates your capability to out-maneuver someone coming after you.>>

Advancing on an opponent attempting to retreat from pole range is a defensive action? My understanding of how this will work is you'll attempt to "maintain" a specific range, it'l involve defensive and offensive measures. Using a weapon translates into knowing what range is optimal; I don't think it's a very far stretch to involve weapon masteries using that logic.