jamoecw

Different shoes do act differently. But it's an entirely passive, static effect. If you give a master Rogue cymbal shoes, and he's sneaking down a stone corridor, he's going to make more noise than if you gave him cloth slippers. No amount of time spent with the cymbal shoes is going to change that, because you don't actively USE the shoes to sneak. You use your feet, and the shoes happen to effect your steps. With a weapon, you're not just punching, but compensating for detrimental factors of the weapon. You're actually using the weapon, operating it in a different manner than you would an empty hand. Can you become more familiar with the static effects of things? Sure. But that type of thing would most likely be single-tiered, and would take the place of proficiency feats, at best. With a weapon familiarity bonus, it's not that you're simply overcoming static detriments provided by the weapon. It's that you're actually using them to your advantage -- using them to even greater effect -- because of your visceral experience in wielding them. Let me put it this way... if you're trying to sneak in plate boots, you're most likely just going to take them off, which would ALWAYS result in quieter steps. Whereas, you would never achieve a better effect with your sword by sheathing it, then attacking with your bare hand. The sword isn't simply affecting your abilities; it's PART of your abilities. That's all I was getting at. It wouldn't be impossible to have some form of passive-item familiarity, but, like I said, in the context of the type of system we've been discussing, I don't see it fitting in super well, or providing much benefit by being handled in such a way for that matter. I do like your multi-tiered familiarity system example, though. That's kind of along the lines of what I've been thinking. You know, you switch swords, and you're still more familiar with the general size/shape/effectiveness of swords than you are with axes, so you only lose a portion of your familiarity bonus with your previous weapon (only the difference between that weapon and your new one). I think handling it in a hierarchy like that organizes it pretty well, from a logistical standpoint. here are plenty of references of people sneaking in plate boots, what they do is wrap the boots in cloth, and pack string or cloth in areas to keep them from clinking. in boot camp and at A school i did a lot of marching in snow with boots that tend to squeak, so to get them to stop squeaking i shorten my stride and step differently. when sneaking in between the toe sandals i roll my foot outside to in and front to back. in sneakers i roll my foot inside and back to outside and front. barefoot i roll from one side to the other evenly. i am not sure if familiarity of non combat items would fit well in this game, but ya, knowing your equipment makes a big difference when trying to achieve an effect. as for the layers of familiarity i think that 2 layers, 3 tops would work well for this game.

An excellent post, Atreides. Your first question is one of the things we're trying to pinpoint the answer to. I think most of what has been mentioned would take care of the reloading-a-bunch-for-immediate-satisfactory-results thing. It's just a matter of making sure the familiarity progression isn't so long-term as to make it seem meaningless in the moment. You know, "I'd have to kill 500 things just to get a mild bonus? I'm not even sure I WANT to kill that many things! I don't even know how to weigh the benefits of that against the benefits of simply buying a new sword!" As to the spell thing, I DO think something of that nature would rock! Mages always get neglected, it seems, heh. "This guy is like 80 times better with his sword. But your Firebolt? Still the exact same Firebolt. But, hey, you gained Fireball, which you can replace Firebolt with, so that all your allies in the area die, unless you want to drop the difficulty to 'non-friendly-fire' easy mode. u_u" (Exaggeration for effect, ). And as for the Slippers of Sneaking? I think familiarity would only apply to something you actually wield. Passive bonuses to things you wear should probably be reserved for Talents (who until recently said "Ni!"... err, I mean, were called "feats.") That kinda gets me thinking, though (some little specific phrase or another that you said sparked this, and my brain makes no sense, so... *shrug*)... What if familiarity with weapons were spread out across weapon type? Maybe that would get rid of some of the intensity of getting a new/different weapon. So, you'd get better with longswords by continuing to use longswords, even if you keep getting new ones. MAYHAPS you even still get slight extra bonuses for keeping the exact same particular weapon (this includes all the potential mechanics we've brought up, such as soul-imbuement/"enchantment" of the weapon as you go, or support for that via price reduction or increased ceiling, etc.). Then, on top of that, you'd still have physical customizations (make the blade more balanced, or the grip slightly different for your wielding style, etc.), AND whatever you so choose to do with enchantments/magic on weapons. I definitely like the idea of some kind of familiarity/customization through use being implemented for magic (for any class whose main "weapon" will be their abilities/spells). Maybe for Mages, you could apply the familiarity thing to Grimoires? I'm not talking changing spell sets here (simply through use, however that spell-set thing is gonna work anyway...), but, just how you channel your energy through the tome in order to CAST the spells. Instead of attack speed and all that jazz, you could work with cast speed, projectile size, number of targets (weakening each "split" or separate projectile generated from a single spell that normally only produces one projectile for one target), after-effects, range, duration, etc. Maybe even spell behavior to a degree (such as "now bounces to nearby foes." This might fall under "after-effects.") actually different shoes act different, sneaking in boots is different than sneaking in slippers. adding familiarity for non combat items would be a slightly different animal than for combat items, but it could be done, just look at pretty much any game that gives experience to skills used rather than to a character pool. many years ago i came up with a system based on category layers, such as: swinging weapons -> longswords -> falchion -> cusped falchion -> a specific cusped falchion. that way changing weapons wasn't only as big of a penalty as the amount of categories changed. without getting into unrelated mechanics of the system it works fine as long as the computer keeps track of the changes, and each category builds at the same time. so picking up a sword would mean that you would be learning all 5 (or however many are in the game) categories at the same time, that way someone can start with a cheap sword and upgrade later without much penalty, or change to gameplay. at first i started with build up the more general category until it was maxed, but that meant that later down the road players would have certain habits which worked counter to building up familiarity, so i changed it to build them at 1/5 the speed, but in all 5 categories simultaneously, the numbers at high levels were the same, but having come to terms with weapon familiarity early they didn't have as much of a problem with it. as for spell casting, there was familiarity as well, and it meant that when you got a shiny new spell you would start with at least some knowledge on how to make use of it (assuming you had similar spells that you were familiar with), it also meant that you could focus on using a handful of spells and get really good at those, making your mage more or less specialized. it was far more fluid than a feat based system like D&D. the categories were overlapping ones, so magic missile would be: evocation, force, verbal, somatic, auto hit (if one target)/multi-target (if hitting multiple targets). if you got fireball then 3 out of 5 bonuses come into effect. granted what these bonuses would do don't translate well into D&D magic.

actually crossbows are better in most cases, longbows are more versatile. crossbow relative to longbow: same power easier to learn and train muscles easier to aim able to stay at the ready able to fire from a prone position, gaining better cover and accuracy cost based on prevalence of skilled craftsmen, more so than longbows, which require a long time and very specific wood (allows crossbows to be churned out faster and cheaper in a society that has had the technology a while). takes half again to double the time to load and fire compared to a longbow at full draw can't vary power on the fly in order to increase firing speed lacks stabilizing fins (fletchings) in order to boost accuracy at long ranges (reduced penetration at those ranges though) not able to use vastly longer ammunition so running around a dungeon in real life with a crossbow yields a faster first shot, allows you to train other weapons for after the first shot is fired, allows you afford better armor/weapons (unless crossbows are a new technology, then it might be opposite). out in the field it allows for better ambushes. if ambushed though a longbow would be better (but better than good armor and shield). if facing a peasant mob a longbow would be better, or if fighting unarmoured targets at long ranges. and finally halfling longbows can use orcish (or some other oversized creatures) arrows in a pinch. in europe crossbows were last used on the battlefield during WW1, and in asia during WW2. china's crossbow technology was superior and they lacked the infrastructure for mass production modern guns, which is why there is a discrepancy, but crossbows replaced longbows for a reason, and crossbows were replaced by guns for a reason. when they coexisted they were different tools, which both had their uses. reality generally has great balance, which is why it is usually a good starting point for balancing things, D&D had bows as being much better due to their romanticized nature, and pigeonholed them as vastly superior weapons, while slings, which is more specialized and has seen battlefield use past WW2, were greatly nerfed in order to fit the theme of romanticized middle ages. thinking about lephys' post one could use familiarity cap as their skill (base attack bonus in D&D) resulting a potential doubling of their chance to hit bonus with familiarity, then make it so that weapons instead of granting a simple bonus to hit reduced the effect of a stat in the formula, resulting in say a sword that was easier to use a higher familiarity bonus, without being able to go over the cap (as it doesn't impart experience, unless it was sentient of course). that way there is no simple +1 bonus, but one may get a +1 from a sword that was enchanted, possible more or less depending on their skill level and familiarity with the weapon. doing so would lend itself to some creative enchantments, and be self regulating.

sorry for the big time delay in response, i was on a ship last month and didn't have good internet (or the time if i did). diminishing returns are pretty cool, and useful in most situations. as for the weapon level thing i was thinking off of a D&D type system where you tend not to swap weapons as frequently at higher levels, as well as staying at higher levels longer. so at a higher level you would have been expected to have had your weapon longer, even with swapping out to newer and better ones along the way. you'll notice also that diminishing returns can be scaled so that gaining the first bonus point or 2 is easy, but the getting the third or fourth is harder and requires choosing to stick with the weapon. you'll also notice that as one levels the suffer from degradation, which results in one not being able to just cycle through weapons once and get the max bonus and keep it, over time it would go away, slowly at first, then faster (in exact the opposite rate of gaining it). in fact in the 3.0 dungeon master guide it said that it should take about 1 year of adventuring to gain a level, maybe more at higher levels. if one gained on average 2 points of familiarity a year then by the time you reach level 2 you'd have half of the familiarity bonus, if you then swapped out the weapon for a new shiny one you'd have an immediate negative impact, but by the time you reached level 3 you'd have 40% the total bonus. hold onto it another level and you're back at half. swapping weapons becomes a bigger issue at higher levels, and magic become a more attractive choice, just like in D&D. as you can't really enhance your weapon in the middle of an adventure (at least not permanently) making the choice to wait becomes more attractive as well at higher levels. all of this results in choices for the player, having efficient methods, and less efficient methods, but using that super duper sword when you first get it is pretty attractive if its bonus offsets the loss of familiarity. swapping at regular intervals with diminishing returns results in less penalty overall, and gives a small bonus to those that put effort into keeping their weapon. there are different ways of doing this, diminishing returns isn't exclusive.

I'm pretty sure that's a coding/world-building term, and not a marketing term. "Call of Duty: Black Ops 3! Now with 50% more dynamic objects! 8D" doesn't have much of a ring to it. Either you have no idea what marketing actually is (it can be used in more than one type of context) or you a fanboy flame troll. ^^ There are 2D and 3D dynamic objects in that scene. The 2D objects can't cast dynamic shadows, the 3D objects can. but i am not sure of the correct term (whether it is the same for 2D and 3D) but you can use various graphics layers to create shadows. a 3 layer approach would have the background, then covered with the shadow layer, then the object layer. this is pretty simple and results in objects being lit even when in shadow, but it is very simple and also easy on resources. the shadows are semi transparent images that are stretched and skewed the same way a shadow would be, depending on how many layers the engine can handle depends on how many objects can be covered in shadows, 4 layers would allow objects to be either covered in shadow or not, having a line of objects each partially covering each other in shadow means many layers to look right, which today's computers can handle, depending on behind the scenes computational work (2D graphics are heavily reliant on CPU power). as for dynamic being a marketing term, depends on who you are selling to, if you are selling to investors then: "Call of Duty: Black Ops 3! Now with 50% more dynamic objects! 8D" has a great ring to it, it has buzzwords and numerics, though the emote can go. one could make a game where you get points by making sentences that have buzzwords and numerics, sorta like a scrabble, and it would be a good training tool for how to sell stuff to businessmen in the current era. beaten to the punch. P.S. i also would like to say i like the background music, it (unlike so many games) stays in the background and lets me hear all the birds and such, it sounds nice as well.

shouldn't the description be deep or far instead of long? long has the connotations of horizontal distance, deep for vertical, and far is fairly generic. i too thought immediately of darklands, though i hope they don't just use the 'leader' skill into consideration for things the entire group has to do. this update has gotten me pretty excited for the game, even more so than i was already.

hopefully it means they are working on the game.

he was talking about his pnp game system, not your P:E suggestion, i think. as for a basis for them to be opposed, anything that creates a large hole in someone has a harder time penetrating armor, thus large wound channel weapons (aka high damage ones) would be harder to cause damage with, though once damage is dealt it would be greater. think of it like the difference between hunting ammo and military ammo. hunting ammo's job is to kill its target, while military ammo's job is to create a casualty. so if a round bounces off the deer you are stalking it runs off and you have to go find another one. if it bounces off a soldier you are fighting he will keep shooting at you. if you wound a deer it will run off, so you won't get the meat, pretty much the same result as bouncing off, except for there being less deer for you to hunt in the future, and thus the immediate situation is the same, while long term logistics are at a loss. if you wound a soldier you are fighting, he stops shooting at you and calls for a medic/help, and thus the immediate situation is better, while the long term logistics are equal or better (2-4 months to replace a dead soldier, 2-4 months for the soldier to heal, while being cared for by a doctor or left to die, demoralizing his side). @Jarrakul: as for weapon familiarity: F/(F+L) F = familiarity points L = level of character that equation should give you a fraction that scales with diminishing returns. if used to multiply against the familiarity cap for the weapon you can have it vary from weapon to weapon. also as you gain level your bonus would diminish unless you keep gaining familiarity points. trashman's +3 max: F = 10, L = 2; (10/(10+2))*3 = 2.5 or the full bonus with normal rounding F = 5, L = 2; (5/(5+2))*3 = ~2.14 or 2 with rounding F = 1, L = 2; (1/(1+2))*3 = 1 F = 1, L = 9; (1/(1+9))*3 = 0.3 or 0 with rounding +6 max: F = 10, L = 2; (10/(10+2))*6 = 5 F = 5, L = 2; (5/(5+2))*6 = ~4.29 or 4 with rounding F = 1, L = 2; (1/(1+2))*6 = 2 F = 1, L = 9; (1/(1+9))*6 = 0.6 or 1 with rounding X/(X+Y) is a simple diminishing returns equation used in many video games these days for armor and evasion and such.

so i have been thinking about a system that has static HP and also has the ~5% crit/miss and ~50% graze/full damage. the core of a system could be as simple as: S = [defender's skill value] - [attacker's skill value] A = [defender's armor] - [attacker's armor penetration value] miss threshold = (S+A/10)/20 graze threshold = (S+A/2)/20 full damage threshold = (S+A)/20 miss threshold<graze threshold<full damage threshold<critical hit roll at or below miss threshold and you miss, at or below graze and above miss and you graze, etc. so assuming every level approximate's 1 point of skill (values outside of 1-20 not attainable): lvl 10 @ 25 armor vs. lvl 10 @ 5 armor pen : 2<10<20 (3.15 dps at 1d8, no crit chance) lvl 1 @ 25 armor vs. lvl 10 @ 5 armor pen : -7<1<11 (6.3 dps at 1d8, no miss chance) lvl 10 @ 25 armor vs. lvl 1 @ 5 armor pen : 11<19<29 (1.125 dps at 1d8, no crit chance) lvl 1 @ 25 armor vs. lvl 1 @ 5 armor pen : 2<10<20 (3.15 dps at 1d8, no crit chance) so assuming same equipment (just for arguments sake), difference in level is all that matters, high level or low. low level against high levels on average take double damage and deal a third. 3 lvl 1 characters would lose 2 killing 1 lvl 10 if they fought all at once (not counting any flanking/mob bonuses). it would take 6 if they only came 1 at a time. as i vary the amount of static HP the numbers remain fairly constant. as magic and other things come into play they need to have their own defenses that closely mimic the armor/skill model or use the same values (maybe using different modifiers?). an increasing HP model could be derived by having a boost to armor pen each level to compensate for the extra HP, which could help in dealing with magic damage and such.

Are you arguing for a static HP or for a system where HP progression is not affected by class, but still by level? either one, class specific HP per level could work too, but is harder to balance and would require much less HP per level gain over all to keep things balanced. an earlier quote you gave demonstrated that an entire party could be killed with 2 lvl 10 fireball's given HP for 5 good sword hits, most classes in d&d already fall into this category. a fighter without CON bonuses has an average of 59.5 HP, just to give you an idea. balancing skills that decrease the damage dealt to you with skills that overcome the defensive skills would mean that equal level characters should kill each other just as quickly at any given level. if all classes had the same HP for their level (whether static or not) the effective HP would have to remain constant (if the ability to bypass defenses increase at higher levels relative to the increase in defenses then more HP is needed to keep things balanced). in short if you are spread thin on developing different types of defense i'd want HP to increase with level to compensate, otherwise it doesn't matter.

math time! d&d 3.5: sorc/wiz - 1d4 (2.5hp lvl) @ lvl 10 = 26.5 avg HP (66.5 HP if 18 CON) lvl 10 fireball - 10d6 (35 avg fire dmg) @ reflex DC 13 (17 if 18 INT/CHA) for 50% dmg sorc/wiz - +3 reflex save (7 if 18 DEX) = 39.71% chance of save vs. DC 17 (62.5% if 13 INT/CHA and 7 reflex save) avg fire dmg per lvl 10 fireball - ~28.05 at DC 17 and 3 reflex save (~24.06 at DC 14 and 7 reflex save) % of health per fireball - ~105.85% @ DC 17 and 10 CON, 10 DEX (~36.18% @ DC 14 and 18 CON, 18 DEX) barb - 1d12 (6.5 HP lvl) @ lvl 10 = 70.5 avg HP (110.5 HP if 18 CON) % of health per fireball - ~39.97% @ DC 17 and 10 CON, 10 DEX (~21.78% @ DC 14 and 18 CON, 18 DEX) so if we assume an ambush with fireballs: attacker(s) - sorc 18 CHA defenders - 1. sorc 16 DEX 14 CON; 2. sorc 16 CON 14 DEX; 3. barb 18 CON 14 DEX; 4. barb 14 CON 18 DEX 1. ~60.33% (0 DEX due to flat footed), 2 attackers to win in the surprise round 2. ~49.65% (0 DEX due to flat footed), 3 attackers to win in the surprise round 3. ~24.45% (+2 DEX due to uncanny dodge), 5 attackers to win in the surprise round 4. ~28.72% (+4 DEX due to uncanny dodge), 4 attackers to win in the surprise round so what we see is that HP is more important that other defensive stats, and is less specialized. a class with low base HP per lvl has more need of CON than any other stat, and yet it still is better to have CON over the other stats defense wise. if we apply RL tactics to d&d we get a small 4 man group able to cast clairaudience and then strike from concealment at 800 ft away, combine that with protection from arrows and you get nearly a prefect guerrilla tactic, similar to canon volleys that targeted enemy artillery, since once the enemy has no artillery victory is highly probable. classes that can survive surprise round against 4 lvl 10 fireballs: barbarian - min 18 CON, 12 DEX (max 4 fireballs) paladin- min 12 CON, 18 CHA (max 5 fireballs) monk - min 8 CON (max 10 fireballs) rogue - min 14 CON, 16 DEX (max 6 fireballs, 13 with special feat) the monk and rogue get hefty reflex save bonuses (evasion), and the rogue and barbarian can't be caught flat footed (uncanny dodge), the paladin can heal himself as a free action via lay on hands and thus effectively has 2 health bonus stats, in addition to his CHA also acting as a boost to his saving throws that stays even when flat footed. a more universal ambush spell would be magic missile, with appropriate meta magic. quickened magic missile - 5th level spell maximized magic missile - 4th level spell quickened mm - 17.5 average magic damage, no save max mm - 25 avg magic dmg, no save both in the surprise round (via wizard) - 42.5 avg magic dmg, no save 4 wizards - 170 avg magic dmg, no save so a group of 4 wizards can in effect strike during the surprise round with fireballs, killing most of the party at 800ft, then either fire another set of fireballs, after turn 2 the entire party will be dead (3 sets of fireballs) including the rogues, baring significant fire resistance of course. at this time if the defenders have been trying to close the distance, unleashing meta magic magic missiles should finish them off even through resistances. if everyone had the same base HP, then higher level spells would have to be adjusted, which would make the classes easier to balance, so long as the balance included non universal defenses (HP is a universal defense). this math also starts to point out the flaws in the magic scaling of d&d.

is anyone excited that they know what an estoc is, and that they have featured a highly specialized weapon this early in the development cycle as opposed to generic weapons? i wonder if they know about the brawling side of the estoc?

well the OP doesn't seem to have played BG1 or 2, or IWD 1 or 2, his concern is that archery is a gold sink, which was true for other ranged weapons, but not archery. i think that it would be nice if a wide variety of mundane weapons were available and just as relatively viable as archery (based on real life relativity). for the following examples - launchers generally give strength bonuses to damage and range. thrown generally give bonuses to damage, range and fire rate. all are 1 handed bonuses even if wielded 2 handed. slings(launcher): special lead sling bullets could fly just as far as arrows and do as much damage, but lack a rapid fire feat, though in exchange you can use free rocks as a poor man's substitute when out of ammo. you find 50% of arrows that you fire after battle, lead bullets yield misshapen lead balls that need to be reshaped just as often as you find arrows after battle, but as long as you find lead you can get bullets via a crafting feat unlike arrows which require tools and components to make. crossbows(launcher): no need for feats, just lots of money for the device, with plenty of variety abound, though with less feats and no strength bonuses a master archer is deadlier. light crossbow yields same damage and range as a short bow, though with better accuracy, and a slower fire rate. heavy crossbow has the same damage and range as a longbow, though with a slower fire rate and better accuracy. repeating crossbow for fire speed, though at low damage and range. hand crossbow for concealment, though low damage and range. arbalest has greater damage and range than all bows, much slower fire rate, but with the same accuracy bonus of the light and heavy crossbows. bolts are found just as often as arrows, and they are slightly cheaper too, though you have to worry about which device compatibility as each device requires its own type of bolt. darts(thrown): lead darts are short range and come in a variety of sizes, each with its own range, damage, and fire rate, all 3 modified by strength of course. all are short range, with fire speeds ranging from fast bow speed to arbalest slowness. damage ranges from slung rock to arbalest level damage. 50% recoverable after battle like arrows, the other half have to be reshaped like sling bullets. javelins (thrown/launcher/melee): these either impair those hit with them or not based on tips, and may be thrown with an atlatl for better range. light javelins have better range but lower damage than the rest. heavy javelins have shorter range and higher damage than the light ones. if either is stuck in an opponent due to a special tip the opponent is impaired by the giant stick sticking out of him, but it does less damage. the javelins can also be used as a melee weapon, equal to a short spear. 100% recoverable, if it has a special tip then it has to be reshaped before reuse. throwing ax(thrown/melee): short range, high damage, may be used like hand ax in melee. 100% recoverable. throwing knife(thrown/melee): a great variety, though all emphsize only one special aspect. some have longer range, some are able to be used on melee, some have higher accuracy, some can be thrown 2 or 3 at once, some do more damage. 100% recoverable. bola(thrown): short range less lethal weapon, may gain a feat to use it to kill, trips opponent. 100% recoverable. net(melee): thrown weapon used in melee in order to disable opponent. 90% recoverable, the other 10% requires simple repair.

why not use the whole myth thing about blood and a weapons soul? there is a myth that a weapon has to be quenched with blood when made in order to keep a weapon from getting bloodlust. if it gets bloodlust then it will desire violence, if it is quenched in blood it will not, if it is quenched in the blood of the warrior that uses it then it becomes a part of the warrior. so something like ordinary mass produced weapons will gain a +1 to damage after a certain amount of damage given with the weapon (not quenched in blood). masterwork weapons (which already have a +1 to hit but not damage) gain a +1 to defense after a certain number of fights (quenched in blood). and finally be able to make a sword just for you, which would level up with you, whether you fight or not, giving bonuses based on the feats/class level you take. i'd have a similar thing for each basic type of weapon, though different bonuses and such based on some sort of lore, the reason i chose sword for the example is that the myth is for a sword, and strangely it comes from both ancient celtic and japanese sword smithing (opposite sides of the world). it is also independent of special materials used (maybe mithril even lighter and faster if quenched in water instead of blood, but gets +1 to hit if quenched in blood). so weapons would have a 'non-magical' way to gain affinity with it, getting a small bonus from being in tune with the weapon's soul. special personal weapons (made just for you) can rival magic items even in late game (but not exceed), but as they mimic you to an extant, they wouldn't be able to balance you out (a sword of defense to compensate for your poor defenses), just make you better at what you already do. your personal weapon should be just a masterwork weapon to everyone else though.

fyi, inflation is a general increase, it doesn't mean increasing. if a currency gets inflated, it's value changes, but so does everything else so that only the amount of money being handled changes. for stats it would mean that the game figures on a certain inflation rate, so at level 10 enemies would do 10x the damage to compensate for the 10x HP you have. your stats have increased, but the increase is meaningless if you kept with the expected inflation rate. i can get into it mathematically, but in a nut shell the increase messes up balance quite a bit. if you are a barbarian and manage to have your HP higher than expected, then anything that does damage becomes less of a threat. if you are say a thief that specializes in non combat stuff like disarming traps and such, then everything other than traps become more of a threat than expected (and since thieves aren't supposed to be great at combat normally...). if you know all of the little hidden stashes or ways of getting easy bonuses, then you can grab them and the game becomes a cake walk, unless the game figures you would do such, and then in that case the game becomes very difficult if you don't grab such things.

sounds like dark souls has the same power level as fallout, even weak enemies are a threat at higher levels, though much less so due to the ability to kill them easy. i had figured this to be the 'realistic' power levels. as a side note that isn't too relevant to your point, dynasty warriors can't have hundreds of characters on screen, so the most you can kill is 20-30 with one hit depending on which game you have.

as far as stealth vs. combat, why not have stealth aid combat in some meaningful way. you could make it so that you don't lose stealth on attacking, you just are easier to spot and enemies have a location they need to check out. so if one was fighting a dragon, the dragon might breath fire at the spot, for a group of 10 orcs they might rush to the spot. so if you can kill an orc with one well placed shot, you will have to be far enough away from the location you fired from to remain hidden when they get to the location, for the dragon you'd have to have some sort of fire protection. if each shot increased the chances of being spotted it would restrict the rate at which you could fire and remain hidden, ensuring that you had to build stealthily as well as for damage. something like this would increase tactical options for players, allowing for a wider playstyle (without getting into the whole is one arbitrary method of gaining a metaphysical stat, better than another).

What? You lost me here. Waht does a monk have to do with luck? well the function of AC is a function of luck. a monk is a fighter that relies on AC over HP, unlike the other fighter classes. also equipment is a result of loot drops, which is based on luck in some games, which a monk does not rely on. therefore if a party of monks meet a party of fighters, the winner is all based on compound luck. at lvl 1 a monk's weapon is 1d6, at 100% gain rate (automatic) a lvl 1 fighter's (150 gp avg starting gold) weapon is: 1d3 fist (automatic/backup), 100% 1d4 dagger (2/150 resources) 1d6 short spear (1/150 resources) 1d8 morning star (8/150 resources) 1d8 spear (2/150 resoures) 1d6 short sword (10/150 resources) 1d8 long sword (15/150 resources) 1d12 great ax (20/150 resources) 2d6 great sword (50/150 resources) now if we take the resource ratio and operate as if you have found these items from random loot drops, then we can create odds of getting which item based on expected loot value: dagger -14.02% short spear - 14.15% morning star - 13.23% spear - 14.02% short sword - 12.96% long sword - 12.3% great ax - 11.64% great sword - 7.67% thus we now know that there is a 14.02% chance of a monk having an edge in damage. there is also a 27.12% chance of having the same damage, and a 58.86% chance of being out classed in damage. at lvl 1 a monk's AC is 2 (18 dex + 18 wis) lvl 1 fighter's AC is again determined by resources (150gp - base 6; 18 dex) -1 AC for padded (5gp) -2 AC for leather (10gp) -3 AC for studded leather (25gp) -4 AC for chain shirt (100gp) -3 AC for hide (15gp) -4 AC for scale mail (50gp) -5 AC for chainmail (150gp) same process for loot drops: padded - 16.43% leather - 16.2% studded leather - 15.49% chain shirt - 11.97% hide - 15.96% scale mail - 14.32% chainmail - 9.62% now this time the monk has a whopping 4 AC from his wisdom score, so 64.08% of drops would give the fighter a disadvantage against a monk in terms of AC. 26.29% of the time they will have the same AC, while only he chainmail yields better results at 9.62%. now defense is only half AC, the other half is HP, in which the fighter has 14 (base 10 + con 18), while the monk has 12 (base 8 + con 18), or always 85.71% of the HP. another constant is the attack bonus, fighter at +1, and the monk at -2/-2. so the fighter's thaco is 5 (base of 1 + str 18), while the monk's is 2/2 (-2/-2 + str 18). so the fighter with one attack has an easy to calculate 75% chance vs AC 10. a monk has 36% of hitting with both attacks, and a 16% chance at missing both attacks, which means that he does an average of 1.2 attacks per round vs AC 10 (as opposed to .75 of the fighter). now we have all the numbers needed to make a rough comparison at the monk's highest relative strength value vs a fighter throughout the levels (at least in a direct stand up fight). fighter weighted AC - ~3.04 AC (base {10} - dex 18 {4} - weighted armor AC by loot drop % {~2.68}) monk AC - 2 AC (base {10} - dex 18 {4} - wis 18 {4}) fighter weighted dps - ~2.68 a round vs AC 2 (~7.67 weighted average of dps of weapons, weighted by loot drop chance) monks weighted dps - ~1.76 a round vs AC ~3.04 AC (3.5 average dps) fighter kills monk after ~4.47 rounds of combat, while the monk kills the fighter after ~7.94 rounds. a monk's survivability stem's from AC, saving throws and spell resistance, all of which rely on dice rolls, with lower dps than a fighter he has to survive longer in a fight. a fighter's survivability stems from loot drops. a fighter can liquidate loot in order to curb randomness affecting his combat performance, while a monk has no such option. the monk's saving grace is his ability to deal with spell casters, though since he lacks the burst damage of a rogue, or spell casters, his anti mage utility is less useful to the team's survivability. in fact nearly all of the advantages of a monk over other classes yields poor results in helping the rest of the team. i could go on about why monks aren't good party members based on their skills, though a group of evil monks would be a great antagonist in an rpg, as they would need a small elite group to oppose them, and if not dealt with could cause much havoc on a nation, wiping out villages and such.

i totally agree about elves being written in every rpg as an elite race. i'm a bit sick of it, and no the 'but they're fragile' argument never holds up because they always have such exceptional agility as to be able to avoid damage altogether. logically they have no reason as to why they wouldn't be such a dominant super power as to be able to 'america' their ideals on all the other races, making any sort of 'evil' able to challenge the elves a major world war, in which there is no real chance a small group would be able to take it on all by themselves. especially since the group starts a few weeks prior to the showdown killing rats for a challenge. man i could go on and on as to why elves in a typical rpg totally ruins the balance of the world's structure and lore, but this isn't the place for it.

personally i'd like magic to be balanced with non magical means. say a mage could chuck a fireball and wipe 10 or so goblins, but due to the dedication to such arts he can't even fight off 1 goblin without his magic. now if the mage has limited spells at his command for a period of time, for what ever reason, and the goblins are spread thin so that a fireball can't kill all 10, then the mage will be overcome. a fighter doesn't have access to spells, so he can't kill 10 goblins with a fireball, so if they are clumped up they can overwhelm him, but spread out he can take them on one at a time and win where a mage could not. as for killing a dragon, a dragon is an epic creature, killing it should be difficult, but as a mage is concentrated firepower they would be the class to kill it. however if you are ambushed by archers a mage would be pretty useless, as they would be wasting what little fire power they have. preist/clerics should have protective magic, which would help keep the mage alive while the warriors deal with the archers. the thief/rogue i think should have high utility out of combat, and in combat be more of a support class, sort of like the ninja's black egg used to blind opponents, or bolas to trip opponents and such. if everyone used spells, magic would be sort of common and end up losing something. magic should be a force in your party, but not the only thing to distinguish you from non adventurers.

The point is, if you need to make 10,000 suits of chain you need to massively scale people capable of forging the links. If you need to make 10,000 breastplates, you mainly need to scale the amount of steel you're using, the facilities you need, and the hammerers - but that is capital and unskilled labor. The actual skilled labor scales much slower notice that with the plate that there are lots of little impressions where he hit the armor, now think about the times each chain was hit and how much area they take up, at the very least the time needed to rivet a shirt of chain would be the same needed to shape the same amount of area, which doesn't take into account riveting pieces together or attaching straps and such, not to mention that the pieces overlap. the reason i say that the plate requires skilled labor over the chain is that riveting chain together is the same for every link, while with plate each hit is slightly different from the last in order to get the right shape. i have heard the argument that wire was harder to make than sheets for making armor, but germany had made a machine for making wire, and that wire wasn't uncommon. http://www.dargonzine.org/dpww/docs/blacksmithy_whitepaper.pdf http://www.knightsandarmor.com/life.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tournament_(medieval) taking knights captive was a profitable thing to do, and as such was sought out during battle. such important tasks were not left up to the peasant forces in an early medieval army, as they wouldn't know a knight from a master at arms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landsknecht the swiss had determined the weapon not suitable for use with pike formations, as it needed too much room. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pier_Gerlofs_Donia medieval great swords are known to cleave through people when fighting, and thus were favored for when fighting multiple opponents, just like their celtic counterparts. alexander the great used pike formations just like later medieval armies. greeks and chinese were famous for their crossbows. roman, persian, and chinese cavalry used long swords to a large extent. these are iconic medieval weapons, which had counterparts in other eras/regions. these other eras and regions had a more defined use for small units, and weapons were developed for them. bows, crossbows, pole weapons, and short thrusting weapons are typically the choice weapons for tight formations throughout history.

Could I see a citation? Primary if possible, but secondary would also be fine. We're talking about the Late Medieval period, to be clear. As mass combat was the standard, I'd be surprised to see military weapons and tactics developed for small-unit tactics - excluding thing like dueling, of course. All of that I'd agree with - except the skilled labor part. My understanding is that plate armor is primarily capital intensive (ie. really big ovens, good steel) while mail is labor intensive (ie. getting someone well-trained to hammer all those little links). This is why you see an explosion in the use of plate armor that you never saw with chainmail - it's way easier to scale capital than to scale skilled labor. http://www.arador.com/construction/armourstart.html it doesn't directly state that plate is harder to make, but it does hint at it. if you think about it with mail, you are forging links, which are then assembled and riveted (most likely) into a shape, thus you don't need experienced armorers except to make the links. with plate, you need to make several form fitting sheets of metal, which is not as simple as just making the same link over and over (oversimplification of forging components for mail). well for just the medieval period, and europe itself does narrow it considerably, though any knight sought out and fought other knights, and did in fact operate in small units when needed. thus any weapon used by a knight was used in small unit tactics: archery stuff: pretty much weapons that needed room to use was mainly a small unit weapon. a formation of pikes was very different than a group of men with 2 handed swords. with pikes you could have men beside you and behind you helping out, but with great swords people to the side of you would limit your ability to swing and fight, and those behind you could really help out.

depends on how it was done. in all honesty strongholds in games generally don't feel like 'strongholds' just quest spots, or achievement place. ever played celtic tales? it was a whole game (back in 1995) about ruling a village and gathering a party of heroes and unifying the various tribes against a common enemy. considering how many npcs you got in bg1 i was kind of hoping i could make use of them in a similar fashion when they announced strongholds in bg2. i could go for something like that, sort of like a long drawn out side quest to actually rule a place. having a siege take place at some point, either by your forces against another, or another against you based on how you ruled would be nice, sort of like a dungeon, only that you have to deal with the consequences afterwards. it would be funny if you had the option to abdicate at any point and go and settle in a house somewhere so that you don't have to deal with ruling anymore, as long as the decision isn't forced on you.

well being a military history buff i can tell you that quite a few weapons have been used in small unit combats, in fact more so than that of which was used in large formations. being in the military i can tell you that, as far as small arms goes, there is far more diversity in the civilian market than the military. most crpgs try to recreate the 'romantic middle ages' and thus fail to accurately represent historical reality. modern example: in the military there are: assault rifles, handguns, shotguns, precision rifles (not sniper rifles), anti material rifles, rpgs, grenade launchers, saws, smgs, grenades. civilian: gallery target rifles, hunting rifles, survival rifles, high power target rifles, target handguns, hunting handguns, self defense handguns, sport shotguns, hunting shotguns, street sweepers, machine pistols, starter pistols, flare guns, and all of the military weapons in a modified form. large military requires uniformity for logistics, while civilians and small units do not. various weapons are not feasible in formations, while some weapons require special training to use when not in formation. plate armor is awesome at protecting someone, while it has drawbacks, such as poor repairability in field, slow donning and doffing (even with help), requires lots of metal (relatively) and skilled labor. chain mail on the other hand is much more friendly to people away from civilization. cloth armors (leather, linothorax, padded cloth) were comfortable and light. there are lots and lots of different things one could look at when making a realistic model, but when it is simplified, things don't always add up. i don't know if any of you played darklands at all, but from the developer video talking about how they wanted combat to go it sounded like they were going in the same direction. it sounds as if they found the issue that when it is done that way you would only have reason for say 2-4 weapons for your entire group: 1-armor piercing weapon, melee 2-high damage weapon, melee 3-ranged weapon 4-back up weapon you may only use 2 weapons depending on preference, but too simple of weapon structure ends up with very few weapons being used, which is actually quite realistic, though not very fun. in fact the only time period that jumps out at me that had a variety of weapons in use by small units was early helenistic.