cuteLittleRabbit

I just realized I posted this in the "wrong" thread Anyone care to give their thoughts on this system? Some terminology: ------------------------- CP = Combat proficiency: How well a character can react (attack/defend) in combat. ECP = Effective combat proficiency: How much of the proficiency a character can use effectively in combat, after modifiers are applied Dodge: How easily a character can avoid an attack DR = Damage resistance: How easily a character can mitigate damage; split this up in different damage types (slash/pierce/blunt/fire/cold/...) The armor system: ------------------------- ECP determines the speed at which a character can attack/defend in combat. Dodge chance is directly influenced by this, as is the number of times a character can attack per round. Armor increases DR. Some suggestions: * Leather: DR 15% Blunt/15% Slash/15% Pierce/10% Cold * Full Plate: DR 20% Blunt/50% Slash/50% Pierce/15% Fire * Chain shirt (with light leather undershirt): DR 15% Blunt/40% Slash/15% Pierce ... Armor also *decreases* ECP. Some suggestions: * Leather: -10 ECP * Full Plate: -80 ECP * Chain Shirt: -30 ECP ... The weapon type used also influences ECP (some weapons are more difficult to handle than others): * Dagger: -5 ECP (0 overlap with armor) * Two-handed axe: -50 ECP (30 overlap with armor) * Rapier: -20 ECP (15 overlap with armor) ... What do I mean with overlap: the penalties are not always cumulative. Some examples: * Leather (-10 ECP) and a Dagger (-5 ECP;0 overlap) = MINIMUM(-10+0;0) + (-5) = -15 ECP => No overlap means full penalty applied * Full Plate (-80 ECP) and Two-handed axe (-50;30 overlap) = MINIMUM(-80+30;0) + (-50) = -100 =>30 of the -80 penalty is not applied, because you're using a two-handed axe * Full Plate (-80 ECP) and Rapier (-20;15 overlap) = MINIMUM(-80+15;0) + (-20) = -95 =>15 of the -80 penalty is not applied, because you're using a rapier * Chain Shirt (-30 ECP) and Two-handed axe (-50;30 overlap) = MINIMUM(-30+30;0) + (-50) = -50 =>30 of the -30 penalty is not applied, because you're using a two-handed axe * Chain Shirt (-30 ECP) and Rapier (-20;15 overlap) = MINIMUM(-30+15;0) + (-20) = -35 =>15 of the -30 penalty is not applied, because you're using a rapier ==> It makes sense to go as lightly armored as possible to maximize your damage potential. ==> It also makes sense to go as heavily armored as possible to minimize incoming damage. Some additional remarks: ------------------------------------ 1. The magic system should also be influenced by ECP. Possible modifiers: * The speed at which magic is cast could be influenced: slower casting means less casts per combat round, or longer castng time. * The effectiveness of the magic is another option: duration/damage/... could be made x% less effective I prefer the first option though: easier to balance. 2. Choice of character class should have a big effect on Combat Proficiency. Some examples: * Warriors start at CP 150 and get +10 CP per level up * Mages start at CP 100 and get +5 per level up * Rogues start at CP 130 and get +5 CP per level up * Rangers start at CP 130 and get +10 CP per level up ... 3. At certain tresholds, the character receives an additional attack/round. In my examples, I'd suggest per 100 ECP. This means more attacks for lightly armored characters using light weapons. It also means more attacks for warriors than for mages, eventually, after some levels. 4. Ranged combat is also a valid alternative in this case: * Heavy armor+ranged attacks, is quite possible/efficient for a "first shoot then switch to melee" action (tank pulling) * Heavy armor+ranged is less efficient than light armor+ranged, damage wise, and defense wise (kiting) * While each shot might do less damage, you have more shots to shoot per round 5. Some suggestions for "perks" related to this system: * A perk that reduces armor penalties to CP, which requires a certain amount of Strength * A perk that increases CP for a certain type of weapon, which could be class-related * A perk that adds a bonus to CP based on the character's Agility or Strength, class-related * A perk for mages wanting to use armor, that reduces the effects of CP penalties, but only when applied to spellcasting ... 6. Armor enhancement (higher quality & enchanting): This can be done in many different ways, not necessarily limited to "dry" +1, +2, ... bonuses: * More DR for some damage types * Less CP penalty * Less CP penalty for a specific set of actions (magic, ranged combat, ...) * Increased Dodge value, but without the CP penalty reduction (footwork enhancement) * Increased stats * Critical hit chance reduction ...

How the hell does that make sense???? It makes sense to wear armor to reduce incoming damage. It makes sense that by doing so, you also reduce your damage potential. It makes sense to want to increase your damage potential. It makes sense that by doing so, you increase incoming damage. So you've got: * Lower incoming damage reduction, higher personal damage potential (light/no armor // some combo's of medium armor and heavy weapons) * Medium incoming damage reduction, medium personal damage potential (medium armor // some combo's of heavy armor and heavy weapons) * Higher incoming damage reduction, lower personal damage potential (heavy armor)

After reading the Kickstarter update this morning, I have been thinking about a system that might work in an "everyone can wear anything, but everything should be balanced" kind of game, which PE will be (AFAIK). Just dropping my notes here quickly (I'm @work atm). I'll probably be back later today to comment/read criticisms/... If the PE system is based on this, great , if not, I'll probably be using sth like it for my PnP games . Here goes: CP = Combat proficiency: How well a character can react (attack/defend) in combat. ECP = Effective combat proficiency: How much of the proficiency a character can use effectively in combat, after modifiers are applied Dodge: How easily a character can avoid an attack DR = Damage resistance: How easily a character can mitigate damage; split this up in different damage types (slash/pierce/blunt/fire/cold/...) The armor system: ----------------- ECP determines the speed at which a character can attack/defend in combat. Dodge chance is directly influenced by this, as is the number of times a character can attack per round. Armor increases DR. Some suggestions: * Leather: DR 15% Blunt/15% Slash/15% Pierce/10% Cold * Full Plate: DR 20% Blunt/50% Slash/50% Pierce/15% Fire * Chain shirt (with light leather undershirt): DR 15% Blunt/40% Slash/15% Pierce ... Armor also *decreases* ECP. Some suggestions: * Leather: -10 ECP * Full Plate: -80 ECP * Chain Shirt: -30 ECP ... The weapon type used also influences ECP (some weapons are more difficult to handle than others): * Dagger: -5 ECP (0 overlap with armor) * Two-handed axe: -50 ECP (30 overlap with armor) * Rapier: -20 ECP (15 overlap with armor) ... What do I mean with overlap: the penalties are not always cumulative. Some examples: * Leather (-10 ECP) and a Dagger (-5 ECP;0 overlap) = MINIMUM(-10+0;0) + (-5) = -15 ECP => No overlap means full penalty applied * Full Plate (-80 ECP) and Two-handed axe (-50;30 overlap) = MINIMUM(-80+30;0) + (-50) = -100 =>30 of the -80 penalty is not applied, because you're using a two-handed axe * Full Plate (-80 ECP) and Rapier (-20;15 overlap) = MINIMUM(-80+15;0) + (-20) = -95 =>15 of the -80 penalty is not applied, because you're using a rapier * Chain Shirt (-30 ECP) and Two-handed axe (-50;30 overlap) = MINIMUM(-30+30;0) + (-50) = -50 =>30 of the -30 penalty is not applied, because you're using a two-handed axe * Chain Shirt (-30 ECP) and Rapier (-20;15 overlap) = MINIMUM(-30+15;0) + (-20) = -35 =>15 of the -30 penalty is not applied, because you're using a rapier ==> It makes sense to go as lightly armored as possible to maximize your damage potential. ==> It also makes sense to go as heavily armored as possible to minimize incoming damage. Some additional remarks: ------------------------ 1. The magic system should also be influenced by ECP. Possible modifiers: * The speed at which magic is cast could be influenced: slower casting means less casts per combat round, or longer castng time. * The effectiveness of the magic is another option: duration/damage/... could be made x% less effective I prefer the first option though: easier to balance. 2. Choice of character class should have a big effect on Combat Proficiency. Some examples: * Warriors start at CP 150 and get +10 CP per level up * Mages start at CP 100 and get +5 per level up * Rogues start at CP 130 and get +5 CP per level up * Rangers start at CP 130 and get +10 CP per level up ... 3. At certain tresholds, the character receives an additional attack/round. In my examples, I'd suggest per 100 ECP. This means more attacks for lightly armored characters using light weapons. It also means more attacks for warriors than for mages, eventually, after some levels. 4. Ranged combat is also a valid alternative in this case: * Heavy armor+ranged attacks, is quite possible/efficient for a "first shoot then switch to melee" action (tank pulling) * Heavy armor+ranged is less efficient than light armor+ranged, damage wise, and defense wise (kiting) * While each shot might do less damage 5. Some suggestions for "perks" related to this system: * A perk that reduces armor penalties to CP, which requires a certain amount of Strength * A perk that increases CP for a certain type of weapon, which could be class-related * A perk that adds a bonus to CP based on the character's Agility or Strength, class-related * A perk for mages wanting to use armor, that reduces the effects of CP penalties, but only when applied to spellcasting ... 6. Armor enhancement (higher quality & enchanting): This can be done in many different ways, not necessarily limited to "dry" +1, +2, ... bonuses: * More DR for some damage types * Less CP penalty * Less CP penalty for a specific set of actions (magic, ranged combat, ...) * Increased Dodge value, but without the CP penalty reduction (footwork enhancement) * Increased stats * Critical hit chance reduction ...

I want a Luck stat Strength, Perception, Endurance, Charisma, Intelligence, Agility and Luck seems fine to me I actually prefer stat bonuses/perks to stat requirements for gear. For instance, for stats: * Carrying gear reduces a character's walking speed --> Strength is used to counter that reduction * Ranged attacks have a lower chance to hit, the farther away the target is --> Perception is used to counter that lower chance * A percentage of Stamina damage is applied as Hit Points damage --> Endurance lowers that percentage * NPC's are not friendly to your character if they don't know you --> Charisma can reduce the effects * A mage's spell effectiveness is reduced by a target's spell resistance --> Intelligence counters that reduction * ...and so on I find stat requirements for gear usually counterproductive, as they require you to build your character so they can equip that gear: let everyone wear any gear... and instead give the item bonuses & perks that only benefit a certain kind of character.

Exactly. I very often play(ed) Bards in D&D games, not because they were an awesome class, but because they were more unconventional. If class choice is relevant, I like to have many classes, and if possible all of them very different. I'm currently most excited about/interested in the Cipher class. I wouldn't really mind seeing Paladins, Bards, or other "pretty well known" class names, but for me personally, I prefer to have something ...different... (not going to go into details about possibilities here though, as this thread is about Paladins and Bards ).

Can the people derailing this topic to "men are stronger than women" please start their own thread? Thanks!

Just a suggestion peepz: let's stop talking about "differences between men and women in real life" and start talking again about "how societies in a computer game can show prejudice when dealing with different genders, in a way that might make those games even more interesting". Pretty please?

...Back to topic... Some possibilities: * A quest for a village mayor to help gather recruits for a road patrolling militia, at least 5 but no more than 8 (since it also costs to have them equipped, in addition to them not being able to fulfill their usual tasks all the time): option 1) The PC only tries to recruit men (because the PC's society thinks road patrolling is a man's job) option 2) The PC only tries to recruit women (because the PC's society thinks road patrolling is a woman's job) option 3) The PC does not limit the recruitment effort to a specific gender (because the PC's society wouldn't do that either) option 4) The PC only tries to recruit men (because the PC finds out what the village's society is like, and this society thinks road patrolling is a man's job) option 5) The PC only tries to recruit women (because the PC finds out what the village's society is like, and this society thinks road patrolling is a woman's job) option 6) The PC does not limit the recruitment effort to a specific gender (because the PC finds out what the village's society is like, and this society wouldn't do that either) option 7) The PC only tries to recruit men (because the village's society thinks road patrolling is a woman's job, and the PC strongly disagrees) option 8 )The PC only tries to recruit women (because the village's society thinks road patrolling is a man's job, and the PC strongly disagrees) option 9) The PC does not limit the recruitment effort to a specific gender (because the village's society thinks road patrolling is a man's job/woman's job, and the PC strongly disagrees it should be limited to a specific gender) ... Anything this complex is (probably) too much for a video game, but thinking about it might spark some ideas for building in some gender-related themes into the PE setting & games .

Why shouldn't they? Personally I'm not a very big proponent for stuff like this because I think the execution needs to be very delicate, and frankly find it more mature when such stereotypes (which I consider immature) aren't particularly rampant. JMO. Stereotypes are very common in the real world. If well done, a game could play out those stereotypes and have the player have an influence in showing that these stereotypes are ignorant/immature, but can be overcome. Which is why I like these kinds of deep mature themes in books/games/movies. But, in games, I prefer to *not* have them *at all* to being forced/coerced/coaxed/rewarded for not fighting against the stereotypes. Maybe that is exactly what I would call a good implementation for a mature subject like stereotyping in a game: let the players benefit from fighting against stereotypes, even if it means losing some other reward instead... Food for thought...

Easy. Let's think about unusual forest dwarves. Men are fishermen and woodworkers, while women are hunters and warriors. It just historically happened to be so. And now your male character meets them for the first time. Dwarven women laugh you off, since a man carrying a sword is stupid and a farce to them, they are sure that a man simply isn't capable of warfare. And dwarven males outright disrespect you for "lowering yourself to brutish fighting", instead of being a true craftmaster and devoting yourself to creation like all men in their opinion should. Isn't that just the real world stereotype with gender roles reversed? Many cultures have had gender "typical" roles over the millennia, from Vestal Virgins to male cannon fodder on the fields of battle. Since there are only two genders (in most cases), it sorts of limits the choice of assignment to a binary choice unlike say, races where if you have 10 races and maybe 30 subclasses, you can much better assign various stereotypical biases and prejudices. Personally, I'm in favour of the "Celtic model" where gender mattered way less than individual prowess when it came to roles. But that is just my particular taste/opinion, doesn't make it right or wrong I like Sanderson's take on it too. Maybe best to sum it up like this: * Roles are linked to genders, based on your culture/heritage * There is no bias against genders, but there is bias against going outside the roles the society links to your gender * The bias doesn't show itself in what you are allowed to do, but shows itself mostly in how people react to you doing it Think of a Drow going against "his nature" and going to the surface to do "good deeds"... Think of a woman getting judged by an amazon-like tribe because she doesn't carry weapons... Think of a man getting judged by dwarves because he uses magic, while such a thing should be done only by women... Think of an elven woman thrown in jail in a human town because she took an apple from a marketing stall, "and aren't women allowed to do exactly that here? They should have told me that I would be treated as a male, before I left my hometown!"... Think of the possibilities

Nah, that's just being PC. If you wanted to be realistic, it'd be something like: Males +2 strength. And nothing else. If you want to be PC, it's better to use the old "no difference" than to start fabricating stuff. It's obvious men are bigger and stronger, but with gameplay features that's about it. Completely unfair, but women are not more intelligent or dextrous, or anything, (unless by a tiny percentage) while men are significantly larger and stronger. One could argue women have higher charisma, but even that disregards lots of stuff, and is based on cultural bias. (the same bias that causes men to seem to have better leadership skills, ie charisma) See, this kind of bias is something I would really like to see in the game: then I could give the one saying it some "butt-kicking for goodness!" . Thanks for giving the example. I really hope for your sake you were just trolling .

I agree: after a day at work I want to be able to get even when a guy shoves gender bias in my face, without risking other types of biases "because I lost my cool" .

...followed by other certain actions if said threats are made (or even the actual actions were taken), and those actions are observed by a community that is appalled by this (or has been told about it happening by someone they trust), and that community will take measures to ensure it never will happen again? I personally think both of these things would be going too far. Social prejudice leading to (even more) interesting conversations, yes. Threatening with physical actions doesn't lead to more interesting conversations or game situations in my humble opinion.

I would love to see more George R.R. Martin's Brienne of Tarth and/or Samwell Tarly characters make their way into popular fantasy settings, including games. I'm in the process of doing another NWN2 playthrough, and I really like it when I hear my character yell "Get ready to be beaten by a girl!" . Can't say I have seen much of it in computer games yet, though.

This topic could have been a discussion of what we, as a community, think would be a good way to implement level scaling, and which implementation of level scaling would be a very bad idea. Sadly, it is a rant. I'm not a moderator (nor do I intend to be one), but I feel the personal attacks in this thread have derailed what could have been an interesting discussion into this rant. Can you peepz please tone it down a bit? Thanks, much appreciated .