If Eric is implying that somone was punched over an argument about a "square ofthe shoulder" rule, and that the way to prevent a repeat is to allow backstab wrapping or to not institute a rule that will make backstab work the WAY IT WAS INTENDED IN SPITE OF POWERGAMING WORDSMITHING...I would like to offer another way to prevent such an incedent:
Ban the player that threw the punch from ever playing again, and notify the police that a crime has been committed! Such a reaction to a game rule conflist is a glowing example of the EXACT person not wanted or needed at a LARP. If somone is so WRAPPED UP in a gamethat they punch another player over such a disagreement, they need help from a proffessional!
As to the "square of the shoulder", its not at all subjective, you either are or are not behind the plane of the targets shoulders.
Under the parry definitiion is states it works against frontal melee damage, if your attack starts from the front...ITS FRONTAL! Even if you wrapped it to the back, frontal is about where it originates not where it lands. Now if you were behind the target and hit the person with THE SAME ATTACK, but from the back..then its NOT frontal. If you initiate an attack from the back and hit the target in the chest by wrapping it it is again not frontal. Its a real easy distinction to any player that isnt about bending the rules for maximum advantage.
...and oh...by the way, just because a method of fixing a rules issue is the EASIEST in no way means its the BEST FOR THE GAME. Sometimes the hard path IS the best path.
Wrapping backstab and shield size commentary
Moderator: Admin
Sorry but we've always played it's where the attack lands, not originates. It has been this way since before you were here. Otherwise parry and defensive matrix are too powerful.
And simplest is the point of this system. If it takes more than a few words to understand it's not worth it. Mainly, due to the wordsmithing abilities. Ie, see combining rules in previous discussions. A shining examplpe is then do you have to start the attack behind the plane of the shoulders or does it have to land behind the plane? And if it has to start, what constitutes starting an attack? Is it the swing, the body movement, the foot movement? There's a lot involved in swinging a sword beyond waving one's arm. What if I were to feint and then strike? Does the feint count as part of the attack? Like I said, it's too vague to work.
As for people getting punched, no one has thus far as far as I know. However, words have been thrown in anger over crap and it wasn't far off. The only thing stopping it was the six to eight people htat jump in when things get heated.
And simplest is the point of this system. If it takes more than a few words to understand it's not worth it. Mainly, due to the wordsmithing abilities. Ie, see combining rules in previous discussions. A shining examplpe is then do you have to start the attack behind the plane of the shoulders or does it have to land behind the plane? And if it has to start, what constitutes starting an attack? Is it the swing, the body movement, the foot movement? There's a lot involved in swinging a sword beyond waving one's arm. What if I were to feint and then strike? Does the feint count as part of the attack? Like I said, it's too vague to work.
As for people getting punched, no one has thus far as far as I know. However, words have been thrown in anger over crap and it wasn't far off. The only thing stopping it was the six to eight people htat jump in when things get heated.
Stupid
Hold, and wait a minute.
The wrapping backstab does not exist. Please tell me when this has occured since the charged is lost if I'm touch rule has occured. I think we all are going pretty crazy of a mute issue.
It seems we are ok with with wrapping around a shield with normal damage, but not ok with backstab. I believe the main problem Chirs has with the run by attack backstab.
As for the rule of hitting a person when one is square behind a should would not stop the run by back stab. I cross that line and deliever at the same time whe running behind the person. It is all about angles of attack. To stop the run by backstab, hit me. It is simple. The run by is not charging because I'm leading with a weapon, I do not hit the person with my shield or body, and go behind them when I past. I'm usually 2 1/2 feet away as I pass (to avoid being hit). So it is not dangerous and leaves plenty of safety distance between me and the target.
When I hit a person with a run by backstab, I'm behind them, as per the rules.
So what is the problem here.
The wrapping backstab does not exist. Please tell me when this has occured since the charged is lost if I'm touch rule has occured. I think we all are going pretty crazy of a mute issue.
It seems we are ok with with wrapping around a shield with normal damage, but not ok with backstab. I believe the main problem Chirs has with the run by attack backstab.
As for the rule of hitting a person when one is square behind a should would not stop the run by back stab. I cross that line and deliever at the same time whe running behind the person. It is all about angles of attack. To stop the run by backstab, hit me. It is simple. The run by is not charging because I'm leading with a weapon, I do not hit the person with my shield or body, and go behind them when I past. I'm usually 2 1/2 feet away as I pass (to avoid being hit). So it is not dangerous and leaves plenty of safety distance between me and the target.
When I hit a person with a run by backstab, I'm behind them, as per the rules.
So what is the problem here.
My Thoughts
Aaron
Aaron
If the "run by backstab" is really what Chris has a problem with then he needs to make up his mind, because that is exactly what a "rogue" should be doing in combat, staying away from one-on-one frontal melee combat and striking where he can. You can't say that a rogue shouldn't be a combat person and then expect them to stand and fight like a fighter, it says right in the rules that a rogue is an opportunist, the "run by" is exactly that, taking an opening and getting out.
Frontal melee:
Ried is right, it's always been where the blow lands that determines whether it's frontal or not, specifically to cut down on the type of confusion that occurs otherwise.
Whenever you have to "extend a plane" it automatically becomes subjective because there is no concrete measurement only what those involved perceive. There is no question of whether you get hit in the back, if you do you know it. Now can there still be an argument? sure but someone is probably wrong and they know it. Here's the scenario that will probably happen many times with that rule.
A "Did you take that 12"
B "No of course not"
A "Why not? I hit you in the back and I started the attack from behind your shoulders.
B "No you didn't, you were in front of my shoulders, I turned my shoulders to you just as you started your attack"
A "No you didn't, you turned towards me after I hit you, otherwise how could I hit you in the back?"
B "Well I was trying to avoid the hit so I turned again"
A "Ok, then I wasn't in front of you when I hit you"
B "But you were in front of me when you started the attack"
A "No way, I was staring at the back of your shoulder, yeah the one that I hit"
B "Well, I say you were in front of me"
A "Lets go get a GM and figure this out, cause you should be in negatives and since noone helped you you should be dead"
B "No Way! I could have taken a potion"
A "Not with me standing over you ready to deliver a death blow"
Onset of another argument.
Why complicate things unneccesarily? As Aaron stated I think the wrap backstab is a moot point, I haven't seen it done since the charge loss rules have been instituted. I did it once to Chris after his NPC was dead as a joke but other than that I haven't even seen it attempted.
Frontal melee:
Ried is right, it's always been where the blow lands that determines whether it's frontal or not, specifically to cut down on the type of confusion that occurs otherwise.
Whenever you have to "extend a plane" it automatically becomes subjective because there is no concrete measurement only what those involved perceive. There is no question of whether you get hit in the back, if you do you know it. Now can there still be an argument? sure but someone is probably wrong and they know it. Here's the scenario that will probably happen many times with that rule.
A "Did you take that 12"
B "No of course not"
A "Why not? I hit you in the back and I started the attack from behind your shoulders.
B "No you didn't, you were in front of my shoulders, I turned my shoulders to you just as you started your attack"
A "No you didn't, you turned towards me after I hit you, otherwise how could I hit you in the back?"
B "Well I was trying to avoid the hit so I turned again"
A "Ok, then I wasn't in front of you when I hit you"
B "But you were in front of me when you started the attack"
A "No way, I was staring at the back of your shoulder, yeah the one that I hit"
B "Well, I say you were in front of me"
A "Lets go get a GM and figure this out, cause you should be in negatives and since noone helped you you should be dead"
B "No Way! I could have taken a potion"
A "Not with me standing over you ready to deliver a death blow"
Onset of another argument.
Why complicate things unneccesarily? As Aaron stated I think the wrap backstab is a moot point, I haven't seen it done since the charge loss rules have been instituted. I did it once to Chris after his NPC was dead as a joke but other than that I haven't even seen it attempted.
Death=Adder
One of these days...I'm going to cut you into little pieces...
~Pink Floyd~
One of these days...I'm going to cut you into little pieces...
~Pink Floyd~
When you're right you're right.
fighting
I just got done rereading all the post on this subject and I'm unnerved. Where did stating an attack and where it lands come from? To me it does not matter where is starts from, becasue I personally shift my angle of attack, feint, doge, side step,,etc to find an opening and hit an enemy with out them hitting me. I might start high, go low, switch to the side and than strike. So where did the attack come from, the side, front, back? It does not matter, it should only matter where you get, not how I swing a sword. As for Parry, if you get hit on the front/side of your body and it is a melle attack, you can parry it. Simple and to the point.
I curious, where did the back stab problem come from. This has not been a problem in the past, why now? I know a change occured when backstab wrapping was possible, but since the rule change, it has not occured.
Are people afraid of getting backstabed in battle? Do people feel the skill is unfair? Who has tried to backstab people in combat before? It is not easy? Backstab has been play tested to death. We had 3 thiefs take on a warrior, and it was pretty even in the current rule system. The warrior keep hitting all the thiefs, which lost them their backstab. It came down to 1 damage thief atttack to a 3 damage warrior attack.
I personaly do not believe in limiting a persons combat skill with rules. The rules for combat are there make sure combat is safe, nothing more.
By the way what does it mean by the spirt of the rules. A rule is a rule. It should not be open to intrepation. The backstab rules state you must pick a target, count to 5, than hit them in the back. Nothing more , nothig less. If I get hit trying to hit you in your back, tahn I lose the charge. HOW MUCH SIMPLER CAN IT GET. Why does it matter if I run behind and hit you in your back, or if I can some how wrap around you and get a backstab off. If I'm not breaking any of the safety rules, than it should not matter. Are we going to police how people are suppose to roleplay skills. I thought this game was to be simple mechanics and leave it up to the players to roleplay out their skills.
Yes, Backstab means hitting a person in the back. That whats done. Straight foward. It says nowhere in the rules that I must sneak up on a person, count, than hit them in the back. If that is how it is suppose to work, than write it up that way. Don't assume anything, becasuse that make an ass out of you and me.
The simpler the rules, the better the game, and the more roleplaying that can be done. The golden rule, KEEP IT SIMPLE, don't bring complication if it is not required. I have not read a single arugment that justifies adding complication to backstab. If the powers that be feel it is to powerful, lower the damage call, increase the charge time, but don't make add complication to the rules, becasue it will just take away form the game we all enjoy to play.
That is my rant for today.
I curious, where did the back stab problem come from. This has not been a problem in the past, why now? I know a change occured when backstab wrapping was possible, but since the rule change, it has not occured.
Are people afraid of getting backstabed in battle? Do people feel the skill is unfair? Who has tried to backstab people in combat before? It is not easy? Backstab has been play tested to death. We had 3 thiefs take on a warrior, and it was pretty even in the current rule system. The warrior keep hitting all the thiefs, which lost them their backstab. It came down to 1 damage thief atttack to a 3 damage warrior attack.
I personaly do not believe in limiting a persons combat skill with rules. The rules for combat are there make sure combat is safe, nothing more.
By the way what does it mean by the spirt of the rules. A rule is a rule. It should not be open to intrepation. The backstab rules state you must pick a target, count to 5, than hit them in the back. Nothing more , nothig less. If I get hit trying to hit you in your back, tahn I lose the charge. HOW MUCH SIMPLER CAN IT GET. Why does it matter if I run behind and hit you in your back, or if I can some how wrap around you and get a backstab off. If I'm not breaking any of the safety rules, than it should not matter. Are we going to police how people are suppose to roleplay skills. I thought this game was to be simple mechanics and leave it up to the players to roleplay out their skills.
Yes, Backstab means hitting a person in the back. That whats done. Straight foward. It says nowhere in the rules that I must sneak up on a person, count, than hit them in the back. If that is how it is suppose to work, than write it up that way. Don't assume anything, becasuse that make an ass out of you and me.
The simpler the rules, the better the game, and the more roleplaying that can be done. The golden rule, KEEP IT SIMPLE, don't bring complication if it is not required. I have not read a single arugment that justifies adding complication to backstab. If the powers that be feel it is to powerful, lower the damage call, increase the charge time, but don't make add complication to the rules, becasue it will just take away form the game we all enjoy to play.
That is my rant for today.
My Thoughts
Aaron
Aaron
RE
I just have issues with a theif running past me from the front to tip my back with the edge of their blade.
I can demonstrate this..it is obviously cheez when ever I see it done. Then again I will admit that maybe I have a hangup and should allow it.
I also tend to feel that maybe backstab times should increase as a general rule, or maybe do like the empath and have 3 different times.
I dont know but it doesnt feel right and I like what my feelings tell me because I am usually right,
Chris
I can demonstrate this..it is obviously cheez when ever I see it done. Then again I will admit that maybe I have a hangup and should allow it.
I also tend to feel that maybe backstab times should increase as a general rule, or maybe do like the empath and have 3 different times.
I dont know but it doesnt feel right and I like what my feelings tell me because I am usually right,
Chris
Chris
I be one of the gamemasters so e-mail me questions if you have them
I be one of the gamemasters so e-mail me questions if you have them
See, since this is a fantasy game, I envision that as a thief leaping past driving the dagger into the warrior's back, tumbling away then running off. Either that or them leaping over the warrior's attack climbing over his head and hitting him then. More acrobatics than we as players can do or are allowed to do since there is no contact.
Honestly, the 5 crush attack in Druid is far more powerful than backstab. Course considering the 5 damage call for warrior was shot down, how this made it through is beyond me.
Ultimately, if you see a thief running at you, HIT THEM! No more backstab.
Honestly, the 5 crush attack in Druid is far more powerful than backstab. Course considering the 5 damage call for warrior was shot down, how this made it through is beyond me.
Ultimately, if you see a thief running at you, HIT THEM! No more backstab.
re
Well the druid charge up time may increase to a 10 count as well or look to make sure it has an armor restrciton.
The warrior thang was shot down because warriors dont need anything they are hugely powerful.
Chris
The warrior thang was shot down because warriors dont need anything they are hugely powerful.
Chris
Chris
I be one of the gamemasters so e-mail me questions if you have them
I be one of the gamemasters so e-mail me questions if you have them
re
Eric I am starting to not understand what you are saying anymore..I think you are running out of things.
Chris
Chris
Chris
I be one of the gamemasters so e-mail me questions if you have them
I be one of the gamemasters so e-mail me questions if you have them