Bind <Legs> Safety Issue

[Saephis]

@Draven , @Tulbor , look at your tone, please.

 

[Draven]

It's cool from my end. It's pretty obvious there's zero argument to be made as to why it's necessary for this spell to immobilize both legs, outside of to justify moving it to 3rd, which doesn't appear to make the game better at all.

I'm out of this discussion, because there doesn't appear to be a reason to continue it.

 

[Cipher]

Having read about half the pages I'll just leave this opinion of mine as a dilettante in a range of martial disciplines with a decade and a half of fighting experience and a 2 years Alliance player: fighting requires more range of motion than 2 planted legs allow. If the spell doesn't allow any fighting - say so in the spell. If it allows fighting - return it back to pin. There's no half-ground there of "fight as much as you can safely".
In view of the above - I do not see much value in doing to the bind what is being done to bind and upgrading pin to what it doesn't need to be.
Currently pin prevents an opponent from moving in or away, allowing you to engage them in melee on your terms, but not necessarily making it safer. Bind prevents him from fighting, but allows him means to leave the engagement. Reasonable alternatives in the field.
New version double pin screws over the target, hampering his fighting ability AND preventing him from leaving, not to mention what it can potentially do to the player's back, when a rogue sweeps in for the freebies.

So, long story short - I'm categorically against such a spell.

 

[Jim]

Since ARC made this change, perhaps the questions should be put to them in their thread area.

• Why are we now requiring both feet to be planted, as opposed to just one?

• What benefit, if any, does this add to the game?

• Do these benefits outweigh the drawbacks and safety concerns that would arise regarding the changes that require both feet to remain planted, while a target continues to actively participate in combat, both offensively and defensively.

I personally think the concern is silly, but I'm not overly committed to it over pin. I've shifted, slipped, and fallen in all sorts of situations at Alliance (or NERO back in the day). Combat comes with risks. I'd much rather see the first hand responses from those playing with the new bind (legs) effect (Like the mention of the Seattle Playtest above) rather than a bunch of supposition from the vocal minority, which is to say those of us who actually come here and post.

 

[Polare]

Since ARC made this change, perhaps the questions should be put to them in their thread area.

Respectfully, please don't That forum is not intended for Playtest questions.

Technically the Owners made the change (ARC doesn't have the power to unilaterally make changes, even to the upcoming 2.0 rules), but ARC did make the original recommendation. The intent was to eliminate some perhaps-not-necessary effects (Web and Confine were similar, but with Web the choice was simply to eliminate it entirely for several reasons, not least of which is significantly lessening takeout effects as the first takeout for a PC is now spell level 6 instead of 5).

Like other issues, the feedback on this issue in the Feedback Form will be looked at closely by ARC and the Owners to see if things need to be swizzled around or rearranged.

-Bryan

 

[Sage of Legaia]

I participated in Calgay's playtest on the 11th; it was stated quite clearly at the beginning that a primary goal was to test Bind Legs for safety concerns, and it was also state quite clearly that any safety concern you had as a player should be voiced.

I had my legs bound, obviously. So did nearly every other PC on the mod that was set up to test Bind Legs. Even as a player who rarely enters combat, I didn't feel unsafe to have my feet planted. I was given about a second or so to get stable with my feet where they were (my fighting stance can use a great deal of work, but my feet were a comfortable distance apart when I was affected and this consisted of a slight shift of my left foot to be angled slightly more forward than it was), and then continued to fight. It didn't end well for my little Artisan swinging for 2 and my backup busy with their own fighting, but I didn't feel unstable or otherwuse in danger of falling down.

I will note that I was engaged 1-on-1, and the NPC didn't circle behind me to attack, but I will also note that that also no point would I have considered attempting to twist my torso to defend from such an attack. I don't consider that to be a safety issue with Bind Legs itself, as I feel a huge draw of the spell is allowing attacks from behind to land consistently in the absence of a more direct threat to hold the target's attention.

 

[Muir]

That's an interesting take. I've rarely encountered anything like paralysis, prison, bind, or pin that was marshalled as 'get comfortable then stand still'.

 

[Jim]

That's an interesting take. I've rarely encountered anything like paralysis, prison, bind, or pin that was marshalled as 'get comfortable then stand still'.

I always try and shift my footing a bit to make sure I'm more stable under these conditions. Primarly plotting the times I've gotten prisoned running away with only one foot on the ground I could not even count. I always get to stable position and then freeze. Yes, our rules should be safe, but more importantly we should be promoting a culture of safe combat.

 

[mikestrauss]

That's an interesting take. I've rarely encountered anything like paralysis, prison, bind, or pin that was marshalled as 'get comfortable then stand still'.

You have apparently never been hit with binding, paralysis, or a prison while running full tilt.

-MS

 

[Muir]

Not that sticks. Dodge is good, and I'm rarely a priority target for a followup given that I'm usually well below the APL.

I take your point, though.

 

[Avaran]

I've rarely encountered anything like paralysis, prison, bind, or pin that was marshalled as 'get comfortable then stand still'.

This happens quite a bit out here, in particular with Prison and Paralysis (we call it "bendy posy"). It's often quite funny.