Shattered Kingdoms

The issue is not with the phalanx skill itself. Broadly speaking, it is a problem with the entire weapon sub type system, which really only has eight to twelve viable weapons. Focusing on the specific problem with phalanx, the issue is that pikes are a terrible sub type of polearm.

If Dulrik had chosen to allow phalanx to make use of all polearms rather than just pike or just a different sub type of polearm, like glaive or halberd, the skill would be on par with the abilities in the Fist and Hammer skill sets.

Unless tumble has been expanded lately? Which I would think was awesome.
Tumble only allows you to move out of harms way, tumbling behind a target. I used it all the time, as a merc/barb in the front rank was either too slow, berserk, or bashed.
Divert and tumble you already mentioned would act identical, except tumble can be used while prone.
Roll may be similar, but would act exact opposite, allowing you to move from a safe position back into the front ranks.
Not saying its a great idea, I am just throwing things out there.

Back to rogues, how about a sap skill, could be used as an alpha strike, work even if their pulse was going and would act as a temporary slow.
Maybe even stack with slow/songs of sleep/symbol of pain.

As far as phalanx, the idea was great thematically for the Empire, but it got restricted into uselessness.
But I think that is a discussion for a different location.

My marketing flaw was that I wasn't Thuban. Had I simply been Thuban I could've presented a turd of an idea and the staff would've loved it anyway. Is that what you meant?

First, I started out by basically saying that I didn't like 'where' as presented hecause it was too generic. Streetwise is an ability that I have been pondering for a few years now prior to hearing any variant from Thuban.

Second, even though I decided to go ahead and sketch out my idea, I have not committed to it. If I felt strongly, I would have more highly prioritized it. But since I saw a less fleshed out idea being presented, I decided to put it out there.

The fact that a few people are saying they like it is some points in its favor. I have not actually heard you say whether you like or dislike it. Just that you want to compare it to your proposal.

As I said before, I would not allow an ability like this for a faction. Not that it would be grossly overpowered, but it would definitely be unfair for only one faction to be able to psuedo-scry.

Yesterday morning, I was pondering the discussion earlier about being able to special attack anyone in the formation who was not surrounded. And I came up with an idea that has similar results but with a very different style.

At the risk of doubling down on a somewhat unpopular Harlequin idea, I was thinking about how rogues should really be the anti-formation class. Thematically speaking, a rogue is the class that least want to be regimented into a group. They currently have some abilities that let them attack the rear, but in a mostly nonsensical way (short of anime-style shadow stepping), because they do it all without ever leaving the formation.

Without taking away the existing rogue skills and how they work, we could add some new (and more powerful) skills and abilities that are balanced by the need to be used while not embedded in a formation.

And my first thought in this vein is not even really so much a skill as an innate advantage (similar to how flee is better for rogues because it has no XP loss for them). In a nutshell, a rogue (with a non-reaching weapon) can full attack anyone in an enemy formation, with the exception of a protected person in the M2 position. This would be due to their freedom of movement and constantly circling around the formation too fast for it to wheel to face him.

This would be relatively straightforward to implement if you consider that it's just a unique form of reach.

A corollary idea would be somewhat more difficult to code but also potentially necessary for a rogue's survival in this situation. Specifically that if a rogue is attacking a side or back of the formation, some/all of the front line would be unable to reach him even though he is not in a group at all.

These two would form the base of a new (and optional) fighting style for rogues. And of course, more abilities could be layered on top of it. (I would be interested in hearing skill ideas that make sense for this style.) The style would mostly only be relevant to PK, since NPCs that fight in groups are not the norm, but might occasionally be useful in top-tier PvE.

Anyway, just another thought.

I like that idea, with the caveat that the rogue would still be able to use a pet, abut not get the bonues when grouped with other PCs.

An entirely different idea I had was Shank, an attack similar to hamstring, but would target people's elbows. This would give them the ability to mangle/sever an NPC/PC's arms that would cause them to drop their weapon/shield or render them unable to attack. Think of it like a mid-rank disarm or a way to render a shield useless (aside from a certain cabal ability).

2 cents

I guess rogues would really like to be grouped for at least the communication aspects, so it would probably be necessary for the rogue to have a command that would force them to never be added to the group's formation.

That might be what you want with respect to having a pet, but it would not be able to protect you (other than by ordering it to rescue), because only the rogue would be able to attack from the side/rear.

That's precisely one of the functions divert could serve. A rogue could go on the front rank, because it could divert to other front rank party members who are better tanks. It would then get three attacks plus a circle stab every round instead of just a circle stab like they get now. I will leave it to you to decide if you agree with me that three attacks plus a circle stab from a well-built rogue represents more damage per round than a well-built heavy armor character using a two-handed massive can put out.



This is like saying the fly spell is useless in PvE because it doesn't increase the caster's damage output. In the actual process of engaging in a fight, obviously damage, defense, and healing are the most important factors (in general), but mobility and information are also relevant for PvE. I'm pretty sure almost every player in the game would like to be able to safely navigate the Wastelands (and other similar areas) at night or dark indoor areas when they can't see what's in neighboring rooms. A listen skill to determine what's there would surely cut down on the time investment of PvE by reducing the amount of wasted downtime. The amount of time PvE takes has been a perennial complaint here, and this would have the potential to reduce that.

I have a few questions about this. By saying a rogue is capable of full attacking anyone in the enemy formation, does that mean they could backstab anyone except a protected person in M2? Regarding your second point, let's go over some hypotheticals:

A rogue comes up against an enemy column consisting of F1, M1, B1. The rogue decides to backstab B1. Does this mean that only B1 engages the rogue after that, with M1 engaging if it is auto-assisting and B1 dies? If the rogue backstabs M1, does that mean F1, M1, and B1 will all engage the rogue? Could F1 rescue B1 or M1 in either of these scenarios? Would that move the rescued party to F2?

Let's say now the rogue comes up against a full formation. It opens with a backstab on M3. I presume this means F3, M3, and B3 engage? Could the rogue now switch to attacking B1, thereby now having B1, B2, and B3 being engaged with the rogue, with F3 and M3 dropping out of the fight? If F3 tried to rescue B1 after the rogue made the switch, how does that change the formation?

This all sounds interesting, potentially wildly confusing and buggy. You might just let rogues target anyone in a formation that isn't in the protected M2 spot and not change anything else, retaining the anime shadowstep factor. They could backstab or circle anyone in a formation that isn't in a fully protected M2 spot. It's not that much of a stretch if you consider that dirt kick already works that way, albeit with penalties when targeting people you aren't directly facing. That would put an end to the era of people putting a pet behind them to completely foil rogues.

Of course, none of this helps rogues with PvE.

In theory, those attacks would continue to follow the existing rules. For backstab that includes not being wary and not being under direct attack. So yes, you could backstab. The big question is whether the guy in the rear has the opportunity to full attack back at the rogue. If the answer is yes, that would make circle stabs tough. If the answer is no, then this is probably too powerful. As your examples bring up, there are a lot of conceptual issues of formation orientation here as you get deeper into it.