Report 796

Report #796
Skillset: Knighthood Skill: New
 Org: Ebonguard Status: Completed Mar 2012
Furies' Decision:
Solution 1 and 3. We liked these solutions very much: thematically appropriate,
interesting, and unique.
Problem: Knights in general are designed to be the 'tanks'-- the large, daunting
presence to draw attention away from other ('weaker') members of the party. As
far as PvE goes, there is currently not a straightforward way to protect other
members of a hunting group (and PvP should be unchanged).
[A: 0 R: 0] Solution #1: New skill in Knighthood, called 'StandardBearer'.
 This makes it so that a naturally aggressive NPC
 will, when it *automatically* targets a member of a
 squad containing a StandardBearer, will instead
 attack the Knight using this skill. Mobs will still
 change target as normal when attacked.
[A: 0 R: 0] Solution #2: Solution 1, with the slight added bonus of +5% H/M/E
 to the squad as a morale boost from having such a
 presence. This bonus would -not- stack.
[A: 0 R: 0] Solution #3: An active skill in Knighthood, a shout that redirects
 all -currently- aggressive NPCs to attack the Knight
 instead. Do not allow this skill to redirect NPCs
 loyal to a player.
Player Comments:
---[Rivius on 3/4 @ 15:08 writes]:
I like both solutions 1 and 3, though I do prefer solution 1 far more. The
general idea sounds like something that shouldn't have any effect in PvP, so I'm
not too sure if there's any justification for solution 2. Though, generally, I
do feel like RP-wise, solutions 1 and 3 are fitting for the knight class, and
would allow a warrior to better protect the less tanky members of his squad.
---[Janalon on 3/5 @ 11:30 writes]:
I'm also fine with the mechanics and RP overtones of solutions 1 and 3.
---[Enyalida on 3/5 @ 20:13 writes]:
Agreed, 1 and 3 sound fine.
---[Ushaara on 3/6 @ 13:35 writes]:
I like 1 and 3 too. Could maybe incorporate this as an addition to WARCRY for
warriors, a bit like how FLEX gives the +str buff?
---[Tacita on 3/7 @ 12:42 writes]:
I like solutions 1 and 3.
---[Draylor on 3/7 @ 15:11 writes]:
Love this report. 1 and 3 for me also.
---[Elana on 3/7 @ 16:22 writes]:
I do like it... though I have to point out that a warrior is not always tanky.
The way paradigmatics is set up at present, a faeling makes a pretty viable
warrior while being quite squishy even with surge. As a comparison, without
favours and any special buffs, my health would probably be somewhere around 50%
of that on an average warrior. To me an ability such as this is rather useless.
Still, I can see how it can be useful and the RP mechanic behind it... i.e. in
an army, the banner bearer is usually the person that is a highly sought-after
target due to the effect on morale such a death would bring, so it makes some
sense in that regard when it comes to sentient creatures, not so much in regards
to your average animal and such, though I doubt such a flexibility would be
incredibly easy to code. All for solution 1 and 3.
---[Enyalida on 3/9 @ 00:42 writes]:
I think it would be really cool to give a weaker version of this to everyone as
a common ability in combat, stacking with the more potent warrior version.
---[Inagin on 3/9 @ 08:15 writes]:
I think I would prefer this in Athletics. (It was also suggested as a dingbat
artifact before.)
---[Xynthin on 3/11 @ 05:39 writes]:
Would need a different style / concept to go in Athletics imo-- while it's
possible, I really like the imagery of the current suggestion.
---[Xena on 3/11 @ 17:19 writes]:
I like solution 3
---[Shuyin on 3/11 @ 21:20 writes]:
Solution 3 is fine here
---[Raeri on 3/12 @ 00:38 writes]:
Support. Solution 1+3 would be great, as long as it has no bearing on player
guild entourages.
---[Llandros on 3/13 @ 17:12 writes]:
Solution 3, in addition to npc's loyal to players might want to add in smobs and
guards
---[Neos on 3/15 @ 21:41 writes]:
Everything Raeri said.
---[Raeri on 3/21 @ 03:21 writes]:
Agree with Llandros's addenum about smobs and guards. Would prefer all org and
player loyals to be exempt from this effect, to be honest.
---[Viynain on 3/22 @ 18:33 writes]:
I like solution 3 with regards to the notes about guards and smobs.
---[Mirami on 3/29 @ 20:29 writes]:
Solutions 1 and 3 supported, with addendums about guards/smobs/other org-loyals
as noted above.