Gavinfoxx

...That's what those parts are designed for? That's why they are often sharpened? The entire sword is an integrated weapons system...

I want to know... has anyone talked about swords on the back, and the drawing of them? Like, mentioned this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYiXEPHLeUY And, a way to get over this issue: Or possibly specialized gear, techniques, and animations that are more like the stuff seen in this video: So... if characters are going to have huge swords on their backs cause it looks cool, can some effort be put into the sheathe or how they draw it and ready the weapon, so it isn't just 'hollywood'? Has this been talked about? Has something like this been done?

If you could do the sorts of things in conversation that Apollo Robins does... that would be totally awesome. Just talk people up, and as you do, lift things from them or move items around or whatever... that would be fantastic! Hell, if you could flat out do one of those skits as an entertainment scene at some point in the game, it would be hilarious and awesome.

This, all this.

Exactly the same as a male breastplate, because it IS a male breastplate. The Peascod Cuirass is seriously the best shape for deflecting blows, so that's what it is. There isn't 'female' or 'male' breastplates... it's all the same.

You know there is a group doing fantastic motion capture for video game melee fighting already? Clang by Subutai. You could maybe try to license their motion capture animations? Eh, eh?

Here's my idea... anyone who is capable of 'fighting', if they get the drop or hide and then attack someone, can deal a whole crapload of damage! IE, everyone who does 'fighting' can do the actual stabby-stabby part of backstab equally well. The trick with the Rogue types? They can create the situations -- like with bombs and similar non 'fighting this person in front of me' methods, where the person is way less able to defend themselves for such a powerful attack far more often than other people!

FYI, about walking on Lava... you don't, um, sink in Lava. It's really, really, really dense. If you are protected from the poison gas and the heat, you'd be able to walk across it...

On modeling reailsm: I am not sure I can find an opportunity cost not to do so! For example, 'realistic' does not necessarily mean complex... I'm going to quote another passage from that guy I quoted earlier, it's so relevant: "For sake of arguments, lets say you can model a reality with say 100 relevant elements, and you can then in turn strip down those elements to either 50, 20, or 5 elements depending on what kind of game you want (detailed, simple, or very simple). The problem I would suggest that you see in many Role Playing Games, especially DnD, is that they are modeling the wrong elements and modeling elements inaccurately. Then they try to balance everything based on these false assumptions and make more problems.. in the end you have a system which is trying to be simple, but is in fact complex, and has fairly boring combat until you start to introduce the element of magic. Weapons are all basically the same, only damage really differentiates them, and people fighting have relatively few options. Certain very unrealistic fighting options (dual wield = more attacks, spiked chain is uber weapon) become dominant in the system. Conversely, imagine you model the correct actual historical / physics friendly elements of combat, then you can still pair down to 20 or 5 elements (because I agree the more magic you have the less detail you want in your fighting) but you can still have more options for the players, a more interesting interplay between fighting choices and weapons and so forth, and a system which is intuitively recognizable for the players, rather than something only 'neckbeards' can understand. My example would be in the war-game world, Squad Leader and Advanced Squad Leader. Squad Leader was simple, modeling few elements, (I think 3 or 4 for a squad, something like that) but still realistic. It modeled the real elements of combat, just simplified. Advanced Squad Leader was a much more detailed version of basically the same thing (probably 10 elements for a squad), still fun, but it took a lot longer to play. Both were realistic games, but the original simpler game was arguably closer to the sweet spot (and it was a lot more popular). The latter went on to become the underlying engine for a lot of successful computer games... But in both cases the fact that the fundamental system did correlate with reality pretty well in it's 'shape' if you will, meant that regardless of the level of detail, the game made sense and the various elements fit together pretty easily. I think you can do the same in RPG combat systems."

The thing is, lots of the existing advice is how things have been modeled in games... Chance to stun and speed and stuff. But that is really legacy of no one in the culture of modern society really understanding the factors of how variables in melee combat with a wide variety of weapons works. But there are people that know this stuff now, in the last few years. So why not make use of at least some of that knowledge?

The thing is, speed, if you are trying to be realistic, shouldn't be that big a deal. Reach is a wayyyy bigger deal in getting an effective attack...

Hi there -- I wanted to open a discussion on what sorts of statistics should be modelled in weapons, and why. What should the numbers inherent a weapon do? How realistic or simple should this be? Should this be simplified to fit gaming and fantasy tropes? Should it be informed by realism? What are the pros and cons of each? Here are some quotes, sans images, from a guy who knows what he is talking about on different forum on this topic: "Size (thus suitability for different types of fighting, as in indoors / outdoors, in a grapple or not) Reach (largely a function of size) as in, a 'To hit' bonus. Ways to hurt people (piercing, cutting, smashing... and how good they are at each). In DnD terms this is three things, attack type, basic damage, and critical hit threat range. Defensive value (as in, an 'Armor Class' bonus like a shield gets) as I said before, there is really no reason not to model this. Speed (trickier to handle - see below) Armor - Piercing ability (some weapons were made specifically for piercing armor) usually fairly simple though standard DnD rules combine evasion with armor so that makes it harder. Grappling ability (many weapons had hooks or spikes designed to help with grappling from a distance, the classic examples being the halberd or the bill) You can start with the actual features of the weapons, and then try to see what you could fit into a game. The European longsword 1300 - 1600 In real life a longsword is made to cut and stab with equal efficiency, as well as fend off enemy attacks. If you know what you are doing (i.e. a Feat) you can bash with the hilt and choke up (half-sword) to make it better for armor-piercing (stabs only). It's long and has pretty good hand protection making it good for defense, it has pretty good reach, and it's pretty fast partly due to being light (most real ones are about 3 lbs) and partly due to having an iron pommel, which helps a lot with balance. Hard to break. The late Medieval dagger 1200-1500 In real life, a dagger is very fast weapon. Most types (like the roundel depicted here) are made to stab primarily, though some others are for cutting too. It's got limited defensive ability, just a little reach (better than nothing though, since Medieval daggers were often a foot or more long). Unlike in almost all Role Playing Games, Daggers are extremely lethal! US Army stats on bayonett wounds and the FBI statistics on injuries from violent crimes show a knife with blade more than 8" long is one of the most lethal things you can get attacked with, statistically, and most Medieval Daggers were a lot longer than that (and more strongly made, less likely to snap). Daggers, unlike swords, tend to be good at armor-piercing (and / or getting around armor by finding gaps). Very hard to break. The Medieval Battle Axe In real life, an axe is good at cutting, mainly. Almost opposite to the cliche, battle axes tend to be made lighter (with thinner blades) and better balanced than axes made for cutting wood, but they are not as balanced as a sword. For a big (I'm thinking Danish / Viking style) axe, medium reach, fairly low speed (smaller axes would be much faster), some value for defense but limited hand protection makes that a little dicey. Due to their shape axes are also good for hooking shield rims and arms and so on, i.e. grappling from a distance. Some axes are made with special armor-piercing features (a back spike) but these are rare on older ones. The haft can be broken. Medieval Spear Very good reach, not as good speed, very good at thrusting, but the ones with larger blades can cut well too, pretty good for defense if used two-handed. Pretty good at armor-piercing. Not good at close range. Staff Blunt damage only, very good reach, very good defense, not as good at very close range. Mace Heavier (but not as much as you might think) than a sword or an axe, medium reach, medium defensive value (enhanced somewhat by the inertia of the thing) bludgeon damage only, good at destroying armor. Indestructible. So converting these into generic stats: Longsword Reach 4, Defense 3, Speed 3, cut / thrust, damage 1-10, crit threat 19-20, armor piercing and bludgeon damage ability by Feat. Normally too long to use at close (grapple) range except with special Feat. Hardness 6 Dagger Reach 1, Defense 1, Speed 5, thrust, damage 1-8, crit threat 18-20, armor-piercing. Hardness 8 Battle Axe Reach 3, Defense 2, Speed 2, cut, damage 1-12, crit threat 18-20, grapple +1 (from melee distance). Hardness 4. Flanged Mace Reach 2, Defense 3, Speed 1, bludgeon, damage 1-10, crit threat 18-20, armor-piercing +2. Hardness 12. Spear Reach 5, Defense 3, Speed 2, thrust, damage 1-8, crit threat 18-20, armor-piercing. Too long to use at close (grapple) range. Hardness 4 Staff Reach 5, Defense 4, Speed 3, bludgeon, damage 1-6, crit threat 20. Too long to use at close (grapple) range. Hardness 4. Now in DnD you might only be able to model a couple of these features, but it wouldn't necessarily add a lot more complexity to say, most weapons can be used for defense as well as offense, swords can stab as well as cut, short weapons can be used in grapple, and so on. Differentiating the weapons a little bit (in ways other than just damage) makes them a bit more interesting and more useful to flesh out the personality of different characters, monsters and NPC's, IMO." Back to me... now, that is a very realistic way of looking at these things, but it doesn't necessarily feel like fantasy, and being that realistic might make gameplay worse or better -- in a broad theoretical sense, what sorts of things SHOULD weapons be useful in doing, for the benefit of the game? There is also the question of, 'When pairing down what statistics weapons should have, should you start from a fantasy/cultural consciousness as your basic starting point for what attributes to have, or should you start from a realism/historic starting point? Assume that you end up with the same amount of relevant attributes at the end -- 2, 3, 4, 5, whatever. What is the better starting point, and why?'

How about a slider that lets you turn off the item repair and degredation thing in the options? IE, it's a player choice if they want that...

Allowing players to bash open containers without consequence or limitation does a great disservice to those who enjoy playing rogues. If you don't need someone to pick locks and disarm trapped containers, you've taken a huge bite out of the purpose of the class. Yes, having 'one guy which is only there to disarm traps and pick locks' is needless limitations on the Rogue class. You should be able to get along JUST FINE without a Rogue, and Rogues should NOT be the only one that can open chests! Seriously... Your box of what a 'thief' class is, is wayyyyy too small! Increase the size of your box. Look at 3.5e's Factotum for a solid Rogue class, for example.

The real life draw of a spear over a sword, one on one, is that even with a one handed weapon, you don't have to get too close to someone to kill them! Seriously, standoff is huge.