Bind <Legs> Safety Issue

Pin was a 2nd level spell that locked down exactly 1 foot. Bind is a 3rd level spell. It locks down 2 feet so that it offers value in relation to the level of the spell. Furthermore, the symmetry of two feet (compared to two arms) makes it easier for new players to remember the effect.

That is the answer to the original question in terms of pure mechanics.

Also, because I have seen at least one person incorrectly refer to the mechanics of the new bind spell, the new mechanics do NOT say that your feet are brought together / legs are bound together. That mechanic only exists for the arms part (arms locked to sides). It just says that you can't move your feet.

Based on both the spirit of the rules and the good sportsmanship rule, I'd say that the target can adjust slightly, if necessary, to get into a natural, comfortable standing position (especially if they are hit mid stride, as was also a potential problem that was solved the same way with pin).

As for the final question, I will defer to playtesting for how dangerous this is, but in my experience with feet locking effects (web, confine), I have rarely found it dangerous. And before making any judgment based on feedback, I would definitely want to confirm that people testing this rule understand the actual rule (since at least a few people here seem to think it is more strict than it is) and that those same people also test with the slightly relaxed idea of adjusting slightly (as necessary) for comfort when first bound. Testing only the most strict interpretation of a rule does not provide good feedback any more than testing only the loosest interpretation.

However, assuming that feedback still comes back with a determination that this rule is very dangerous, then I would agree that the new rule needs to be changed despite the fact that it is mechanically sound.

-MS
 
In our playtesting, there was no "feet together" that I saw (not to say it didn't happen, but I never saw an incident). All feedback about it being unsafe was despite wide stances.
 
I don't get how this was unsafe.

If you're in combat, lets say melee, you get hit with the spell, you stop moving. Just stand there. If you are unsafe just standing there, then your original combat positioning was unsafe to begin with.
You're not in combat, you're running towards something, you get hit with the spell. Stop in a safe spot and stand there. Problem solved.
 
mikestrauss said:
Pin was a 2nd level spell that locked down exactly 1 foot. Bind is a 3rd level spell. It locks down 2 feet so that it offers value in relation to the level of the spell. Furthermore, the symmetry of two feet (compared to two arms) makes it easier for new players to remember the effect.
Click to expand...

That's a good summary of the rationale behind the change.
 
Just for clarity here is the text of the spell.

"Bind: This spell snares either the arms or the legs of its victim. When the effect is used, the target (either "arms" or "legs") must be called; if no target is called the victim may choose whether their arms or legs are bound.

If a victim's arms are the target, they are bound straight to its sides. The victim may talk freely, but may not use any Game Abilities requiring the use of arms, including using a weapon or shield, casting a spell, or activating a gas globe. The victim may walk, run or leave the combat area as desired.

If a victim's legs are the target, their feet are stuck to the floor and may not be moved. The victim may move their body and arms freely but may not move the bottoms of their feet. It will not stop them from engaging in combat or spellcasting.

This spell does not prevent the victim from being searched or being given a Killing Blow, although a moving victim is unlikely to allow either action."
 
Once again, the problem is not with the default standing position. No one is saying that standing in a fixed position is dangerous. The thread seems to have been incredibly clear to this end.

The problem is that requiring both feet to remain planted, while continuing to actively participate in combat, both offensively and defensively, creates a situation in which players are more likely to fall over, or onto other players.
 
mythic said:
If a victim's legs are the target, their feet are stuck to the floor and may not be moved.
Click to expand...

Which is great for your storm casters :D
 
I'm confused about the assumption that this was ever a safety-based rule to begin with. There's never been anything in the wording to suggest it was anything other than a design decision.

For what it's worth, though, it shouldn't matter if you have one foot pinned or two; if something unsafe is about to occur then you have every right to act appropriately to prevent harm to yourself or others. Everything else is just semantics.
 
No. It's not semantics.

There is no other spell in the game that forces you to fight with both feet planted. Even with Storm spells, the caster is free to end the spell whenever they want.

Pin, as is, allows you to pivot while being combatively engaged.

Web/Confine/Paralysis/Prison all fully remove your ability to move while simultaneously taking away your ability to be engaged in combat. This allows the other combatant to gently murder you to death.

While your legs are under a Bind, you are forced to engage in combat without being able to support your body safely.

There has been zero evidence given that this change is necessary or provides enough of an advantage to the attacker to warrant fixing both legs in place.
 
Stand with both feet in place in any position that is comfortable/combat friendly (for the record, when I'm hit with a confine or other, I get myself into a comfortable position before the spell takes full effect).

Have an attacker begin to attack from the front and then have them move clockwise around the target. Once they reach 3 o'clock, have a second attacker come in at 10 o'clock. See how much a person has to twist, move, bend and so on in order to continue fighting. Over extension, loss of control in swings, balance issues and so on arise from not being able to move at least one foot. Although you do have the right to do whatever you feel is necessary to keep yourself safe, you can be considered cheating if you break a spell effect but continue to fight, even if you change the 'bind legs' to a 'pin' effect.

I do not see the benefit of the spell outweighing the danger of it simply to fill a third level binding spell slot. My personal thought would be to turn Bind into "Bind Arms". It takes the person out of combat but allows them to flee, find/use up a Release and then return to the battle.
 
Last edited:
There's also the question of clarity of wording and clarity of rules -- As one's arms have to be bound to your sides when effected by Bind, the implication would that your legs are equally bound, not rooted.

mythic said:
"Bind: This spell snares either the arms or the legs of its victim. When the effect is used, the target (either "arms" or "legs") must be called; if no target is called the victim may choose whether their arms or legs are bound.
Click to expand...

If the goal is clarity and simplicity while keeping safety in mind, this revision of Bind isn't satisfying that goal.
 
Having taken one at our last play test, I can definitely say I felt way less safe under the effects of bind legs. I'm all for people being allowed to push themselves to their own limits and such, but I really do have to side with the "this is a bad change" crew.

Rolling it all into one spell at third level is still fine, but it could easily be explained that one leg is generally the same size as two arms, so you can only bind one leg. I strongly feel making it both legs was bad design choices.
 
Draven said:
While your legs are under a Bind, you are forced to engage in combat without being able to support your body safely.
Click to expand...

No you're not. No one is "forcing" anything. If you are bound and you just want to take hits and effect, so be it. If you want to fight, you can. That is a personal choice. If you want to just be hit/effected like in a Prison or Confine/Paralysis, you can do that too (meaning players with those effects cannot fight back, yet they are planted in those positions as well). If you want to try to twist like a top, again, you can. It's personal choice.

Saying that someone "must engage" or "must swing back" or "must twist around" is not true. You can. You have the option. You can also call out to your friends for help.
 
Draven said:
There has been zero evidence given that this change is necessary or provides enough of an advantage to the attacker to warrant fixing both legs in place.
Click to expand...

The version as written in 0.9 is the default state for 2.0, it's those arguing against it that need to provide evidence to make their case. Those of us in favor of the current (2.0) version just have to say so. :D
 
If dozens of players telling us that one new rule is unsafe, both on here (where we've been asked to provide feedback), and live at playtests, and that isn't going to convince ARC, I seriously have to question the entire point of having these playtests at all.
 
mythic said:
No you're not. No one is "forcing" anything. If you are bound and you just want to take hits and effect, so be it. If you want to fight, you can. That is a personal choice. If you want to just be hit/effected like in a Prison or Confine/Paralysis, you can do that too (meaning players with those effects cannot fight back, yet they are planted in those positions as well). If you want to try to twist like a top, again, you can. It's personal choice.

Saying that someone "must engage" or "must swing back" or "must twist around" is not true. You can. You have the option. You can also call out to your friends for help.
Click to expand...

"Just take it as a Confine if you don't like it" is a poor way to address this both as a safety concern and from a mechanical game balance standpoint.
 
My point in the above is that you do not have to wildly swing around you. Defend or attack from the front or the side. If you cannot bend around backwards, don't. If I have my legs bound and someone attacks me from behind, I won't swing around and twist myself like a corkscrew. But again, that is my choice to do so.

IMoriarty said:
If dozens of players telling us that one new rule is unsafe, both on here (where we've been asked to provide feedback), and live at playtests, and that isn't going to convince ARC, I seriously have to question the entire point of having these playtests at all.
Click to expand...

No where has anyone stated that. Please remember, there are lots of playtests going on. ARC will review all the feedback forms (when they are posted for playtesters to fill out) and bring it to the Owners (with suggestions). At that point the Owners and ARC will make a decision on any and all things brought up in those forms.
 
I know that the new rules spark a lot of conflicting opinions, but this is getting silly, folks.

Actual honest question: Is there a real reason people are defending the two-legs-rooted side of this argument after people have voiced their safety concerns, or is it just people playing devil's advocate for the sake of bitter online discussion? Do you sit at current Alliance events bummed out that your Pin spells only anchor one foot instead of two and are just so excited that you finally get to stick both of someone's feet to the ground under the new rules? Does having Bind root both feet really make that much of a positive difference for you that you feel the need to keep this going rather than just saying "You know what, if y'all think it's not safe, I suppose that's fine, we can keep it as is. I can deal with folks just having one leg stuck like current Pin, and now I'm going to go have an ice cream sandwich and not bother to think about this kinda ludicrous, inconsequential argument on the internet about foot-related LARP game mechanics ever again"?

In a general sense, if there's some contention on a point where folks are saying there's a safety risk and you have no real strong reason to take the opposite stance, why not just let it be? There are a lot of things in the new rules that probably deserve in-depth discussion of the pros/cons, but really, is how many feet your Bind spell roots to the ground really one of them?
 
Gandian Ravenscroft said:
Actual honest question: Is there a real reason people are defending the two-legs-rooted side of this argument after people have voiced their safety concerns, or is it just people playing devil's advocate for the sake of bitter online discussion?
Click to expand...

I know (boy do I know) that some of these threads seem like they'd be capable of sucking all the fun out of a clown party. However, telling people on one side of the discussion to go pound sand while everyone on the other side rails against it is profoundly unhelpful and unproductive, and you're doing neither yourself nor anyone else here a service by doing so.

That said, the good faith answer on my part is that personally I'm defending it because I like the change and I think the safety concerns are being overblown to the point of absurdity.

Storm spells have had the foot plant requirement since always, and we haven't exactly had a crisis of celestial casters with blown ACLs. The argument that you don't *have* to keep your foot planted isn't compelling; if anything a storming caster is going to fight *harder* to stay planted while they throw than someone who is merely under a bind/confine/etc.

The argument that it makes fighting unsafe isn't compelling either because, as was pointed out, continuing to try to fight is an option, but not the only option; furthermore, the rules already prohibit taking unsafe actions in combat. If you flail around and smack someone in the head because you tried to twist around and perform some crazy backswing antics the marshals aren't going to be particularly impressed when you lament that the Bind spell made you do it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top