I mean, the whole argument of letting people do so is predicated on the fact that they RELIED on assurances that there would be a skill wipe when there were skill changes.
In a court of law, that would win (i know, some immort is going to say that this is NOT a court of law)...
Mystbane makes a good argument to back my contention. First of all, we were told there would be a wipe when "new skills" went in. this cold have meant skill trees, it could have meant new skills. in any case, a reasonable person can interpret this to mean either that :
1) there would only be one big skill addition period (skill trees)
2) we could have a wipe any time there were new skills.
also, mystbane points out that parry, is, in fact, a skill that has been taken away (as it wasn't a prac-requiring skill before). under that argument, we should also be able to use any skill to trade, as no reasonable person would have contemplated the removal of a pre-existing fight element and the subsequent transformation of it into a skill.
Baca's an attorney. He would vouch for me on this one (i hope).
But seriously, it's inherently unfair to take parry away and force us to give up some useful skill. Can you im agine if you took away the ability to wear shields, for instance? suddenly, let's say, shield-wearing requires a practice. it'd be ridiculous to force people to give up a useful prac for this if they would OBVIOSLY have gotten shield-wearing instead of a skill such as cooking or shipbuilding.
it's the same deal here with parry. parry was part of every character, and EVERY charcter here, i'm sure, would have chosen parry over a whole bunch of other skills.
i don't know what else i can say. i'm just trying to make a fair, lucid point.
The move to a step-by-step model of installing changes was, I believe, a change of plan.
I am not quite sure whether str actually does twice as much, but seeing that i can't hit damcap against a stunned mob with 34 damroll while wielding a black staff (and raging) yet i can hit damcap with rage, bash, 35 damroll and a claw, str does seem to do quite a bit more than others. But under normal circumstances, or pk-circumstances where raging is rare, it seems to me that even dex/perc fighters do as much damage as str fighters, or darn close to, getting demolish/ pulverize messages. Moreover, with parry being a dex only skill, a single parry can save them at least 20% of the damage that should have been inflicted on them, not counting the inherent ac bonus dex fighters get.
Bash/headbutt can be tumbled quite often, leaving the basher skill- lagged and relatively helpless, while the dex char can bs/flee or shoot/flee during that time...
Backstab, shoot, choke can not really be defended against by other type of chars, and neither can spells be really dodged, making sniper chars and mages more powerful than other fighter types.
I mean, I have a 100/100/96 char, and against con mages, it's my bash or choke against their stun, and it's not too hard to see which is more reliable, especially since stun has the added bonus of being a defensive skill as well. Against dex mages, that makes me rely on tumble-able bashes and headbutts, which, again, against a stun is rather fruitless. Against snipers, backstabbing and sniping is rather hard to defend against and when they can tumble bashes and headbutts with such regularity, all the while them dodging and parrying left and right, makes it rather hard to nail them. Elbow is nice, but its special rarely goes off, and suffering up to 11pts (so far) on a successful elbow makes it an interesting skill to use as it's more an eye-for-an-eye type a skill, rather than a damage skill.
I guess what I am asking for are skills that non mages and non snipers can learn that makes them slightly less susceptible to backstabs and spells. With all the ac i have, an immolate takes 72pts off me, and a backstab steals 60-80 points that are virtually unstopable.
Also, have parry calculate the weights of the weapons involved, and give it a chance to 'fail-for-worse' when somebody parries an attack.
Dex characters are supposed to hit more and be hit less if I'm not mistake Also, I believe that stunned mobs only take more damage indirectly because you have an increased chance to hit. Each hit does not do more damage. Mages must successfully chant their spell before you are effected by it. If their victim had some kind of skill to avoid spells, there would be two checks for the spell's success greatly reducing a mages ability. Of course, that's what tumble and parry are doing now... There is a way to defend against backstab and steal now. It's called high perception. If there were skills added to defend specifically against surprise attacks, guess what, I bet they'd require high perception. Doesn't sound it would worth adding skills like that, they would only help those who don't need it.
Oh yeah, before you dismiss my opinions as those of a clueless newbie, I have played several characters including the cause mage, create mage, str/con fighter, herbalist and this particular character who you might already know is a dex/per sniper made before there was even a teacher for sniper. :p But why do I need to do this anyways? It's not like new playe can't have good ideas or valid points.
PS This is neither a court of law, nor a democracy. ;)
Parry has always been in. It is perfectly valid to compare it to having a shield.