Flanking/Larcenous Strike suggestion

[Dantheman.3589]

> @"Curennos.9307" said:

> > @"reikken.4961" said:

> > > @"Curennos.9307" said:

> > > > @"reikken.4961" said:

> > > > Flanking strike needs to be unblockable because otherwise it can't chain into larcenous strike.

> > > >

> > > > You may as well straight up delete larcenous strike if you make flanking strike blockable.

> > > > Dunno why people want to delete one of the most well designed skills in the game. Yes, if you're playing a class with a lot of blocks, you have to play differently against S/D thief, but that doesn't make it OP.

> > > > And to the guy who said he has to spend his dodges on both parts of the skill... if you dodge the first part, there _is no_ second part. You can avoid larcenous strike by dodging either part of the skill.

> > >

> > > I'm not sure describing the function of a skill is sufficient.

> > >

> > > Which is what you've done. That's exactly how it works - without hitting flanking strike, it doesn't chain into larc strike. Without unblockable on flanking, you can't hit a blocking target and chain into larc strike. That's not a reason to keep it the way it is, that's literally a description of how it works and what the change would do.

> > >

> > > A skill that evades, does damage (not massive damage, true), and can serve as mobility probably shouldn't be unblockable as well. That's a lot to cram into one skill. Nobody is saying to remove the unblockable on larc strike, either. And I do think the lesser used/more niche skills on sword/dagger should get some help, but removing the unblockable on the first place most certainly will not 'delete' the skil in any capcity. It'll still be a decent evade with a small chunk of damage attached with a powerful follow up attack that either does decent damage or steals boons.

> > >

> > > What would this change? Not....much. Classes that don't really rely on blocks will be fought in the same way. Classes that do have blocks can always be Daredevil'd, Larc strike will still be unblockable, and/or you can just time your strike at the end of their block (or attack something else with flanking to proc Larc, then hit the blocker with larc).

> > >

> > > Thief just wouldn't have an all-in-one skill anymore. **And that's fine**. Seriously, it is an all in one skill. Evades, damage, movement, boonstrip, entrely unblockable. The skill will survive having unblockable removed from Flanking, especially if the dagger whatsit and stab -> stealth skill get some love.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > it would "delete" the skill because it would no longer be possible to use larcenous strike on a blocking target.

> >

> > When the way to avoid getting hit by an unblockable attack is to block, that's a problem.

>

> If by 'delete' you mean' change', then yes. That's exactly what would happen. You would no longer be able to use Flanking Strike on a blocking target to activate Larc Strike, even though Larc Strike would still be unblockable.

>

> Larc Strike being unblockable does not instantly require Flanking to also be unblockable for no other reason than that Larc is unblockable.

 

I think fundamentally to implement this change we’d have to make larcenous a non-dual wield attack like repeater shot. Which is possible, might hurt condition thief a lot. But hey if they do that give larcenous a giant buff on the level that it would bring power S/d back into the meta