TrashMan

@DarthTrethon You sure seem to like to talk a lot about the evils or religion... That said, you are right when you say that "evil" and motivation (what makes one person do X) is a complex issue. It is. Infinitely so. That's partially because of self-validation and the need to actually have a firm stance on some things. All of us MUST have some firm footing, some fundamentals that we can cling to. And this extends more than just the physical (like laws of physics).

I know I'm gonna sound conflicting by saing this - and that's because the concepts I want are conflicting and hard to put together - but something like gear being almsot irrelevant is something I definately do not want. Great matters. It is a simple truth of the world. And I personally think that if a player decides that he doesn't like how full plate looks and he rushes into combat in leather armor, he should get his ass whooped. Also, familiarisation was only a tiny part of weapon improvement. To keep a weapon competetive, I strongy prefer re-forging and enhancing, and mostly trough blacksmithing. A blade that is redicolously strong and sharp but completely un-magical is what I would love to see (in adition to all the standard magical fare). Actually, it might even be interesting if a weapon is so un-magical that it simply refuses to be enchanted.

That is kinda obvious isn't it. If sometime becomes lore because I decree it so, then its' lore. Mechanics and lore can go hand-in-hand. The creation process can go BOTH ways. Mechanics can serve the lore. Lore can serve the mechanics. They can feed off eachother. Personally feel that that various enchantments effects having various degrees of difficulty and limitations feels more real than a blanket limit that's the same for everything. If anything, that feels more artificial. What else? I really don't see why X is more "valid" or better than Y, when both are arbitrary.

HOW DARE YOU CALL ME A MAN YOU RACIST PIG!!!!!!! I demand to be called "human male"!

I still don't see why it would be arbitrary in the lore. If something makes sense I don't think it qualifies. Especially since "the exception proves the rule" is alive and well in Real Life too.

It's stupid things like these that make me ashamed I'm a member of the human race. Seriously? You call that racism?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA 106 vs 680...and you actually believe those results? I dunno if I should laugh or cry. A-10? Seriously? That's one of the best airplanes in the history of forever.

If someone said to me that they like to preserve their cultural traditions under democratic law, I'd say go for it. If someone said they like to live segregated and/or preserve racial purity under democratic law I'd just think they were very corny. On the other hand, if you start to mess with the law to treat different cultures or races differently, you've crossed the line to "evil deeds" - see above. Some people might want to perserve their culture..or language..or some species.. or a race... or the "nation" (as it ties to the culture) It is sad when something is irrevocably lost to the world..and yet time and change lead to errosion of all things. Unfortunately there are no perfect answers or methods. Perserving a culture is HARD and friggin impossible if you want to be "democratic". Ironicly, the only constant is change...which means that the democracy, freedom and equality that you fight so strongly for today is also doomed to fail some day.

And I postulate that it does make sense. It's not arbitrary...well, not any more than your method is. Both make sense, both have caps, and both serve the same purpose.

You're joking right? Tell me you're joking. Racial purity ideals have a rather sordid history. They are the cause of countless genocides across the planet. Not just in places where they were "in other people's territory" No, I ain't kidding. Every idea or desire can be a cause for evil deeds. There is nothing evil about wanting to preserve something - evil comes from what you do to achive it.

Here, some laughs for ya all:

I really don't see anything really wrong with a state based on a certain race. As long as they aren't putting up that state in others poeple territory, whocares. People have every right to want to perserve their race or stick with their own race/religion/whatever. It's not wrong. It's not right. It just...is.

Which is why I ask agian - how is that different than a soldier with a grenade? How is that different than a mage redying a sell? You know what items/spell X does and you use it when the moment is right. A scroll could be a fighters tool as much a sword is. A) Yes grenades. And example of an item that has nothing to do with your soldier...and is still used. B) You seriously want to be competetive when DELIBERATEVLY choosing not to use powerful lequipment? When next? Will you refuse to use magical swords? Because..you know...magic?I mena, WTF were you expecting? In a world where magic is the the most powerful lthing, OF COURSE magic items can change the course of the battle. It's like refusing to use high-tech gadegtry because you don't want technology to overshadow your soldier, and then demand that your soldier beats the asses of everyone using power armor and laser rifles. So the abiltiy to use a magic scroll means your fighter is now a mage? You got to be trolling me. Yes, warrior classes without good items/weapons and proper equipment and preparation SHOULDNT be equal to mages. If they were, I'd never bother playing a mage. I'm sorry but the profession of a warrior is BY DEFINITION tied to equipment.

Exactly, I find both potions and scrolls to be terribly non sequitur to the rest of combat, especially when their use can single-handedly turn the tide. As opposed to a mage throwing a fireball? Potent items and tatical use of them can turn the tide of battle? Say it isn't so!!!!! a) So I take it grandes are poor and uninspired product? I dont' see why. Scrolls are not easy to make and they aren't cheap either. b) What makes you think you wouldn't be competetive. Adn your desire is a bit silly. You wan't to be competetive soldier without using big guns? You're overreacting IMHO. I don't see why you would be unable to kill a mage without magic - a sword to the throat should do just fine. But baring that, it is silly to want to be equal to poeple who can alter the fabric of reality while not being able to. Either magic is potent or it is weak. If its potent, then deliberately NOT using any of it SHOULD bite you in the ass. It would be the same as using swords only in the era of machineguns. If it's not potent then mages and wizzards are reduced to insignificant con artists and magic loses a lot of it's appeal.

I love it how Isreal friggin breaks almost every treaty and convention the UN has, and nothing happens. They annex territory, take control of cities depite having explicity signed not to and generally do crap like that. Yeah, kinda make it hard for me to root for them.

I love all this talk about moral high grounds. Because enforcing your morals and values with all the subtelty of a 100 ton whale is perfectly fine...as long as it's you enforcing your values. Seriously, what's with all the moral crusaders and white kngihts?

Ehh... if the weapon steers itself, why does it need your input/aiming at all? Magic missile... You can cast it in the opposite direction, and it will make its way to the target. PLUS, it's not a physical thing. It's pure magical energy. You're basically just commanding it, and it's acting. So, that type of control does seem a bit weird in just slightly/sorta/kinda helping a sword find its mark. And it depends. If you know HOW to correct mid-swing, then the sword allowing you to swing it faster and harder will make you better. Otherwise, it will just make your attacks more frequent (however accurate they are), and give them more force when they strike. If you take a primitive rifle, and give it a larger powder charge with each bullet and a clip, it doesn't make it any more accurate. It just allows it to fire faster and hit harder. Also, yes, the kid with the enchanted lighter/balanced sword would be "better," just as a person WITH a sword would be "better" than a person without a sword. But, giving someone who doesn't have a sword a sword doesn't increase their ability with a sword. You have 2 factors: Your ability, and the tool's hindrance (weight, cutting edge, balance, etc.). Sharpening a sword makes the SWORD cut better with the same swing. It doesn't make you swing the sword any more skillfully, while simultaneously making your however-skillful swings more effective. Now we're entering the land of nitpickery here. But I have swung real swords a few times. Gimme a bad, unbalanced replica and give me a finely crafted blade - the difference is VERY noticable. I will not be more "skilled" with the second but I will be "better". A light, balanced blade is easier to guide and correct trajectory mid-swing. If I can swing a blade faster and with less effort, I WILL be harder to block - by virtue of speed alone. Striking a target is NOT only a function of skill. So technicly, it does make you better, but indirectly. To-hit does not equal only skill. I'd actually use another analogy here. A musket vs. a rifle with a laser sight. Will I be more accurate with a rifle? You bet. Even if I never used a rifle before - because the weapon itself makes it easier to be accurate. Uum...yeah, a point no one even argued against, so I don't know why you even bothered brining it up. How can there even be such a thing as negative weight? Erm...no

Umm...archer regularly ran out of ammo in combat. Not all arrows are recoverable - you wont' find some, you won't be able to get to some, adn some will break. Part of arrows spent being "replenished" makes sense. All of them? No way. I also find the idea of carrying 400 arrows just as silly as carrying 10 sets of full plate in your backpack. Yes, your archer shouldnt' be able to constantly use arrows. He should be forced to resort to melee occasionally.

Meh.. I lived in both systems. The westen culture is "better" only if you value it's pro's more then the pros of any other, and if you consider it's negatives less that that of others. But thing is that prefferences change. So better? Objectively? No. Worse? No. Different? Yes.

What's wrong with scrolls? Those things could be life-savers

Meh...the "West" and it's chest-thumping idea that it and it's ideals are the greatest things in the history of forever.. so delluded. The west is like the rest of the world. Full of s****. Only the s*** if of differnet color and it's your so it doesn't smell as bad to you. But it's still S***. Chavez burning in hell? Can't really say, but if he does, he will be accompanied by the governments of the "free, democratic world"

So don't do that. Simple. Why would you need 100 damage to be effective? What's wrong with 70? Or 80? You are fabricating a scenario with the express purpose or a mechanic not working. In other words, you already sabotaged it with those initial assumptions (that 100 is needed to be effective and that it's everything or nothing). While your fears are completely understandable and logical, it does seem like you're going with worst-case scenarios. But that is good in a way. Spoting possible problems early on is vital in the development of any set of mechanics. That entirely depends on how do you see a "+to hit bous" and what magic can do. Is +to hit a product of better weapon balance? Or does the weapon steer itself? Why would either of those be outside of the bounds of magic, if you already show magic doing that in other instance. Seeking and hitting? Magic missile. Increase strength and speed = increased accuracy as the sword is easier to swing and correct mid-swing, also harder to parry So making someone swing faster or harder actually WOULD increase his chance to hit. At least to me it makes sense that enchantment has to be on the items you want it to effect. If you want to improve the swords balance, the enchantment HAS to be on the sword...it can't be on the boots...unless the +hit is actually a skill increase afforded by magic to the wearer, thus any items can do. Actually, the kid would - by definition - be better with that sword than a normal one. Meh. I don't mind really. Especially if you go with soul-powers, then legendary weapons granting knowledge (skill) doesn't seem far-fetched. But if it's in, I would want it to be VERY rare. You're welcome :D

It's similar to what JA2 did. You can probably see it on you tube videos. Every time a mercenary talks (and itz's often..when they spot or kill an enemy or something important, when they get hit, or when they comment on something), their portrait is animated. Their lips and eyes move. It's one of hte things that made JA2 mercs so memorable. Steroid: "Stop! A large boob trap is present!"

You make a good point, but consider this: Why is ANYTHING capped? Why do swords only go to +5? Why not +10? Or +100? You are always going to have a cap. As to why a to-hit enchantment is capped lower? Maybe because such enchantments are more difficult? Magic is magic after all, following strange rules and having strange limitations. Basicly, for magic, lines are drawn wherever you want. Maybe boots of swordsmanship don't work becaue the enchantment HAS to be on the weapon itself. You can seriously invent any remotely sensible sounding reason. Yeah, you could completely forbid +to-hit enchantments altogether and leave that only for familiarity, but I don't see why. Unless you want huge familiarity bonuses (which I don't), in which case it does make balancing sense. As opposed to setting your sword on fire or allowing it to defelct magic or hit intangible creatures? But making a sword lighter/better balanced trough magic is a no-no? How is that cheating? IIRC; didn't you get a +1 to hit - since you were faster your attacked were more difficult to dodge/block. I personally don't have a problem with legendary magical weapons actually making you better - especially if it's a semi-sentiant weapon - but I do think such enchantments should be rare. You can easily explain it if you want. Parts of souls of previous owners reside in the weapon, and with them a part of their skill? I guess it kinda makes the user seem a bit less heroic, bu whatever.

No, that's not my general attitude. You are confusing realistic and logical consequences with artificial limitations. Wiat, I cna't take out a dragon with a spoon I found in the dumpster? WHY ARE YOU LIMITING ME? don't be silly. Familairty ALONE isn't there to make early game weapons equal to late game ones. Would they still be vialbe? Depends on the balance/scaling/stats. It wouldn't be optimal, but it could still be viable. If you want your early weapon to be equal to later magical ones, then you need to upgrade it and do more than just get accustomed to it. And please, don't bring in fun. Fun is subjective. What if I find all fo that you don't find fun, fun? I haven't said they are. I said that with carefull design they can be made to mesh well. And agian, some peopel find fun in immersion. Some people dont' take everything personally and don't think of logical consequences and downsides as "punishment". After all, if you are RP-ing a guy in a fictional world, then you have to accept the rules of that world - even those you may not like. So your crossbow/longbow example really doesnt' work. You say immersion is getting to play the character you want? What if I want to play a giant midget who kills people with the word "NI"..or failing that, uses a trout as a weapon. But trout isn't a viable weapon? WHY ARE YOU PUNISHING ME! I don't see where this line of reasoning come, that the game MUST allow you to do whatever you want, play any character you want and never face any disadvantages. So in your example, the player should accept that a longbow and crossbow are different weapons with different pros and cons. Because recoil doesn't change and increase to prevent you from getting accustomed to it? Recoil is something everyone can get accustomed to equally easily. There's no soul or will behind it. Just a physical reaction. Honestly, I just don't care much for your thematic explanation. I know PE is very much soul-centric, bu as with any theme, overuse is bad. you know how same games havea theme? Like a dragon? and then everyhing is dragon-X? Dragon sword, dragon armor, dragon ale, dragon in. Simply, overuse of a theme or concept can have the opposite effect of getting people to hate it. Thwre's soul powers in PE. Ok. Does that mean EVERYTHING has to do with souls? Not really. And another difference is that you want to give familiarity a far greater role and importance that I want.