[.11] Riposte is Weird and Probably Breaks Intentions

[Tantarus]

@Draven

They are more likely to have it, imo. As a long time templar, mettle is much more appealing then intercept and to be bought repeatedly. Adepts are likely to get evades as well.

Also Evade and Mettle have the same prereq cost and build costs. Not to mention similar in functionality. So they are a far better pairing.

 

[norman b]

Can you explain how the complexity it would add is somehow greater than the other changes that have already been done?

Actually, I’m going to posit that in actual application, it’s simpler. Removing skills that “crossover” will allow players to more neatly plan their character development. It will remove unexpected errors and weirdness, such as

1) A newer rogue player who picks up Riposte and factors the XP into his build planning, only to find out it doesn’t qualify

2) A newer Scout player who buys 20 XP in stealth and 10 XP in martial and assumes he qualifies

3) A Rogue player who pseudohybridizes by buying multiple Ripostes for Stealth skills and picks up Eviscerate because why not pick up top end fighter skills that you shouldn’t actually qualify for, because you’re actually a Rogue.

#3 doesn’t sound like a big deal, but consider the implication from a thematic perspective: Riposte, in a sense, gives Rogues a discount on Fighter skills by counting as Martial XP while remaining relatively cheap. That’s a weird shortcut that simply shouldn’t exist. It encourages pseudohybridization without actually having to pay a real versatility tax that is paid by hybrid classes.

Splitting it into two similar yet different skills wouldn’t be complicated at all.

Simple, it's all handled by the new database and won't allow those mistakes to happen

Also, spending 60 build in ripostes to get one eviscerate would take 15 riposting strikes. That would take a whopping 450 build, just to get access to one Eviscerate as a Rogue. They then need to spend 14 build on said skill. On top of weapon skills, the rogue is already level 46 minimum. Not a problem if you ask me.

 

[MondayMcGee]

Exactly what I was going to say. If there has to be complexity somewhere, I’d much prefer it off the field than on.

 

[Draven]

Exactly what I was going to say. If there has to be complexity somewhere, I’d much prefer it off the field than on.

What on the field complexity would my proposition make?

Here’s what a Rogue player would do:

Enemy: <attack>
Rogue: Evade! <Probably some rogue attack>!

Fighter player
Enemy: <attack>
Fighter: Parry! <Insert Fighter attack. Probably Eviscerate>

Scout’s the only one that might have some complexity, but only for the Scout themselves. Assuming they’re tracking their skills l can’t see it being much.

Guys, I’m all about feedback, but I’m literally not seeing any of this complexity you’re talking about. Examples?

 

[norman b]

Another part of 2.0 was to try and reduce redundancy, like having two spells do essentially the same thing (web/confine) so NOT including a rogue version of the same fighter skill would stick to that paradigm.

That's more where I see a problem from an ideals standpoint.

 

[mikestrauss]

What on the field complexity would my proposition make?

As a Scout player, I think this would be horribly complex on the field. Unless I missed something, it would be the only case in the entire rules where I needed to know whether a skill was Stealth or Martial during game play. Currently, those distinctions only matter outside of play, when spending XP. This would require that I keep those distinctions firmly in mind during play, in order to properly use the skills as you proposed them. That is meaningful complexity that would interfere my ability to use these skills.

-MS

Clarification -> My PC is an archer. As such, I honestly don't pay much attention to whether attacks are "From Behind" or not, because it has no effect on my play style.

 

[Draven]

As a Scout player, I think this would be horribly complex on the field. Unless I missed something, it would be the only case in the entire rules where I needed to know whether a skill was Stealth or Martial during game play. Currently, those distinctions only matter outside of play, when spending XP. This would require that I keep those distinctions firmly in mind during play, in order to properly use the skills as you proposed them. That is meaningful complexity that would interfere my ability to use these skills.

-MS

Clarification -> My PC is an archer. As such, I honestly don't pay much attention to whether attacks are "From Behind" or not, because it has no effect on my play style.

I just re-read @MaxIrons writeup and saw that attack was Martial/Stealth specific. I missed that, my bad. I would agree that this would be unnecessarily complicated on the field (though on paper it lines up more neatly).

I don’t have an issue with it just being a per-day ability. I’d want the triggering mechanism to be category-dependent, but I wouldn’t care if the attack skill itself was.

Example: A Templar with Riposte uses Purifying Strike, which is a scholar skill.

I’d be cool with that.

 

[Shen [he/him]]

It seems as if a large portion of this could be adjusted if Riposte was simply removed from martial skills and instead placed in weapon skills. Florentine and Weapon Master are already there and represent cross class -ness. Riposte could keep its requirements and a fair cost based on class, but not actually count toward any XP total. While sitting along side other weapon skill styles.