>Out of curiosity, along what lines would yours be?

(Incidentally, that's not necessarily a bad thing.)

I think I've touched on a lot of the stuff I'd have had in... I think I also probably would have gone along the line of, here's some things that all warriors are good at... and here's some examples of kinds of warriors that would be good at specific things. I mean, you can build a warrior who's a really good tank or is hard to kill. You can build a warrior who just throws a lot of damage. You can build a warrior with a ton of maledictive power. You can build a warrior who's great at getting weapons out of people's hands one way or another. Etc., all depending on the choices you make. I'm not sure how to bring those kinds of tradeoffs and options into general enough terms that MUD newbies could understand them, but that's some of the idea.

>I considered that but chose to go the way I did because it
>seemed in other write-ups, including yours for invokers, you
>used a lot of actual skill names, which were click-able to go
>directly to the helpfile. So, I emulated that format and
>tried to use the actual names of warrior skills rather than
>characterize them. I understand why you might make the change
>you suggest, but query whether there is more benefit to the
>newbie by hearing and being able to look up the specific
>skill, rather than just hear a bit of what it does here. It's
>probably a 51/49 proposition either way.

This might be a do as I say not as I do thing. I can admit that possibility. :)

One thing I think we have to be conscious of is people reading this who don't know the basics of why certain things are good. In retrospect, I did this somewhat with the invoker writeup draft that's up... i.e., sure you can freeze your surroundings with conglaciation, but why do I care?

In the context of this, for example, do I care if I can break someone's bones or make them bleed? Why is that good? Or, why is it better than something else that sounds good? We all know this stuff and take it for granted.