Jump to content

J. Trudel

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by J. Trudel

  1. Running is best for immersion, think Conan the Barbarian ;-) He ran everywhere !
  2. I think time and failure in games should be really different from what we use to see. Most of the time, we see an artificial sense of urgency, or we have consequence we don't want to deal with. In the false sense of urgency, we usually have quest where stakes are high, but no matter how long we wait to finish the quest, nothing happen. When we trully have time to finish something, most of the time the consequences of failing means to re-load. IMHO, both are really boring approaches. I'm about to introduce a third way. Let's say you get a quest to get an object before an ennemy group get's his hands on. Somehow, you couldn't do it in time, most game would either have you fail the quest, or even worse, you can't fail it due to time. But, if instead of having you fail the quest and reload as most gamer will do, the game present you with two different but equally interesting situations ? If you get your hands on the object before the ennemy, be prepared for some retaliation when the ennemy try to get it back directly from you. But if you fail at beat their little time game, you have to plan and get it back from them. All there is to do to implement something like that is to stop thinking iin failure means you don't get a reward and rather think. Success and failure will only create different situation, each having their own reward.
  3. It doesn't. I only considered combat for the purposes of this simple demonstration. It was a long enough post as it is. I would add a few more stats and skills to handle that. I think they ought to be class-agnostic, i.e., equally useful for wizards, defenders, and archers. It does ressemble much to my proposition of : Power (Damage) Acuity (Accuracy) Tenacity (Resistance) Skills : Combat Marksmanship Arcana I guess I could live with that. We could also add speed to that. Giving us 4 Attributes so far. Power, Acuity, Speed, Tenacity I am yet unsure about adding other Attributes for non-combat skills. They could become dump stats, and thats exactly what the devs doesn't want.
  4. You can sort of. Put less points in Strength, more in Accuracy and Int, so that you can cast faster and hit more often. And make sure "Ignore Armor" skill is as high as possible. He would only be 90% (or even 80%) as good as a pure mage build (dependent how much Strength damage bonus adds to the base damage) and less efficient against high armour targets. On the other hand he would be better against unarmored targets and much better against targets hard to hit (ghosts,shadows, thiefs). And I see no reason that a weak mage i.e. a mage with a handicap should be as good as a fit mage. We accept that a dump fighter would have a disadvantage against an intelligent fighter, the same could or even should happen to a mage. How to reason out why Strength does damage bonus to both melee and spells is a different problem. If I had to, the first thing I would do is rename it Sorry, I don't understand the last sentence. In the system I proposed the mage can wield a sword. What makes you think he can't? You still can't be physically weak yet do massive damage with a single spell. You also said that spells have to be casted empty handed, which prevent mages who would use staffs, swords etc etc. How would your system handle social interaction or crafting ? If Attributes help skills like archery or hex. They should also provide bonuses to other skills like crafting or hiding. This is why systems who have attributes like Int or Cha exist. Truth is it's hard to have no dump stats, because in real life, beign charismatic for example shouldn't help you with combat. The thing is, to have no ''dump'' stats, you have to make sure the stats are usefull. Not the other way around. But the more I play with a concept like Body - Mind - Soul, the more I begin to like it. Of course it does means every class will not have the same damage stat. But each class could use the same 3 basic attributes to achieve differents things. A paladin soul could be the source of his charisma, while a rogue may use his mind to convince others. Fighters could use Body for damage while Monk may use Soul.
  5. The biggest problem is that you can't have a physically weak mage. As if suddently, every mages on the planet decided to add to their library all muscle mags or something. It also ruin the fact that many players would want their mage to wield sword. Flexibility remember ?
  6. No worries. I ONLY know English, so I'm hardly prepared to fault you for a few slip ups in an otherwise pretty excellent use of a language that isn't even your first. 1) That's fine. And it does make some amount of sense that improving a skill would actually affect your physical or mental power, just as solving a bunch of puzzles over and over again will hone your mind, or bench-pressing 250lbs over and over again will hone your body. I'm not trying to shoot down the idea of that skill at all. But, it's a matter of asking "what exactly is representing what, here?" I would say that systems that already just have an attribute, and then appropriate specific weapon/ability skills (swords, spellcasting, etc.) are already representing the effects of the skill aspect of strength/power. That's why your strength is merely a modifier to your overall damage, and it typically doesn't improve (unless your Strength improves via gained attribute points in a given game, which is slightly beside the immediate point I'm making). But, your damage DOES improve as you improve your abilities with a given weapon. The only real disconnect there is that having 100 Swords skill (for example) doesn't provide you with any effective power bonuses to, say, wielding a mace. So, *shrug*... You also tend to get feats and such, as you progress, that seem to signify an improvement in strength. I think that makes a lot more sense. Between that and RARE attribute point gains (which I think should be contextual, and not just "You gained a magical point that can improve anything you choose!"). I just... the more you can alter stats throughout the game, the more watered-down the purpose of stats gets. When you roll a character in DnD or whatever ruleset, and you have 18 Strength, it's assumed that that's factoring in whatever you do for a living or have done in the past (before the point at which your adult-or-close-to-adult character starts his or her adventures). It doesn't mean you just sit around on a couch eating potato chips all day, and have done that for the past 17 years (Human character example), and now, suddenly, you've got the ability to just go from there. And most of the ways in which you gain Strength are via magic/enchanted equipment, etc. Even the attribute point gains are pretty much a weird, magical abstraction of sort of innate heroicness boosting your abilities, partially just for the progression aspect of gaming that's fun to players, and not so much for some kind of believable lore consistency. Again, not trying to shoot down your idea. Just investigating its surroundings, is all. 2) That could work. It's still a bit convoluted, though. That's one of the reasons things get abstracted. Stats are what you are, so they affect other things. Like... Intelligence typically affects how you gain knowledge. You can still gain a boatload of knowledge with a lower Intelligence, but you have tougher skill checks and slower rates of gaining that knowledge. If you read every single book on a given library shelf, with 10 Intelligence, and someone with 18 Intelligence comes along and reads the same books, they're going to understand more than you did. You can read MORE than they read, and end up understanding more than they do, total. But, all other things the same, the stat/attribute rating represents your inherent capacity in some specific regard (mental processing power, physical strength, etc.). The reason being so that you don't ever have to look back and go "Hmm... well, I've read a bunch of books now. How is my Intelligence affected?" Well, it shouldn't be, really, since it's your inherent capacity to take in and comprehend information and knowledge. The only thing that still doesn't quite make sense in that abstraction, regarding physical strength, is that a fully grown adult with only 5-out-of-18 Strength would probably be able to work out a bit and pretty easily burn some fat and gain some muscle, etc., and improve their strength. But, then again, he's not limited to some piddly amount of effectiveness with a physical weapon, either. It's not like the strong guy can deal 100 damage with a weapon at his peak, and the most you can ever hope to deal as a weak guy is 10. But, the thing is... in the DnD system, your Strength directly calculates your chance to hit with a melee weapon. That's the type of thing Obsidian is trying to "fix" in P:E. The difference in one warrior's strength and another warrior's strength shouldn't DIRECTLY translate into a difference in accuracy, as well. Just for example. So, they want us to be able to have a weaker character who's still very accurate with a blade, and thus more frequently makes much more effective/well-aimed slices and thrusts to let the blade do all the work, rather than relying as much on force to MAKE less-precise attacks more effectively damaging. But, it being a game, it's all about balance. When you let a stat determine, say, a Wizard's potency at both non-physical capability AND physical capability, then all those spells-per-day limitations and such you've implemented to balance things out go out the window when he's 50% awesome with melee weapons just for having maxed out Resolve at character creation. "Oh, I'm out of spells? Well, it's a good thing there's not much of a trade-off for taking that stat that boosts my spell potency." That's the issue being evaluated here. Based on the speculation/possibility that one stat will determine essentially your Power in P:E, physical AND non-physical power... So, again, your proposal really only halfway handles that particular concern. It's got good ideas and makes sense in a lot of ways, but I'm still questioning potential problems that it may not actually tackle. Yeah I agree it solve only half the problem, in fact I thought of another problem with my proposal. If I still divide the damage down to skills, what's the point of having attributes at all . It's kind of hard to know what Obsidian will do make only one damage stat. Unless it's all down to classes ''talents'' to refine the system. Maybe there won't even have the conventional Str, Dex ... etc attributes. It's sure something I hope to have more details on really soon. Or it could also be that there is only one damage attribute that depends on class. Body : Damage for the fighter, resistance for the mage, resistance for the cipher, accuracy for the monk Mind : Accuracy for the fighter, damage for the mage, accuracy for the cipher, resistance for the monk Soul : Resistance for the fighter, accuracy for the mage, damage for the cipher, damage for the monk ... sorry just playing around some ideas. It could be a new and fresh way to look at attributes, it make ''some'' sense. It solve the problem of the weak but powerful mage, and on a larger scale, it fit well with talents and skills.
  7. I am not at all eager to prove you wrong. What are even the odds that literally the entirety of what you said is wrong? That's not very likely at all. I'm merely eager to constructively supplement the discussion, via analysis/evaluation. I think you misunderstood some of what I said, and took it as my misunderstanding of your post. I wasn't suggesting that you were suggesting "Strength" be the only stat. That wasn't an apparent problem with your example/suggestion/post. But there are 2 things: 1) Even if HALF of magical power and physical power are represented by the same stat, and the other half of each is represented by 2 different skills, you still have to, for no apparent reason, gain physical potency just to gain magical potency whenever you gain "resolve." Hence, my question about "Why wouldn't you just boost the crap out of Resolve?" 2) How does a physical strength skill factor into the big picture? If, in a typical game, you have Strength (the physical power stat), then weapon skill, then your total, effective damage with a given weapon/attack, then where does Athletics factor in? Now you've got a skill that's affecting another skill, both of which are affected by a stat. If part of Strength (and magical "Strength") is affected by a skill, why isn't part of Agility affected by a skill? Or part of Willpower (mental fortitude, etc.)? Charisma? Surely the more you practice speaking and such, the more effectively charismatic you can be? Just like a politician. I'm not just saying "Oh my crap, your proposal is terrible. How could you think it isn't?!". I'm merely trying to be constructive, here. Sure, it makes sense in certain ways, but we have to look at the bigger picture. Also, those questions are actually just questions, not "Haha, don't even answer because I'm using these questions to say YOU'RE WRONG! MUAHAHAHA!" bits of text. I'm not out to get anyone. If you can answer those questions, then awesome. I just can't, so instead of providing an answer I don't have, I'm merely asking about what seems to still be an issue. Stats represent inherent properties of our characters. It's abstract, but the game needs quantified math for the code to process it. If one stat fuels two dichotomous properties of our characters, then how do we represent them individually? If we don't, then why not, and what are the consequences of that? I still don't believe "Strength," the stat, is going to be THE power-determining stat for both physical AND non-physical potency. But, since we don't really know either way, there's certainly no harm in discussing the hypothetical truth of such a speculation. Maybe my use of the word eager wasn't appropriate ha ha I didn't thought it means what I thought it means. Anyhow, sorry like I said before, sometime my English screws up what I try to explain. Now for some answers to the points raised by the proposal. 1 ) Because you get points : Lets say you get one Attribute point and one class skill per level. You can boost any attribute you want, and also choose a skill that can grow. This is what will make your character unique. This would also prevent you from raising the crap out of ''resolve''. 2) This is where it can get fun ! Maybe yes, your skill WILL help also on other calculations. Strength as a skill may give you some bonus for intimidation for example. Same can be said for other skills. And yes I do believe that skills should be what defines the ''technicalities'' of Strength, Agility, Intelligence etc etc. Not because I think it's the best way, but that is the best I can think of to have singles ''damage'', ''accuracy'', ''resistance'' attributes. Otherwise it would be very strange to have ''strength'' for example as the only way to raise magical damage.
  8. I think you misunderstand me because you think about strength, while I think about a ''damage'' attribute. Didn't say the damage attribute should be strength. In fact we aren't sure yet what the damage attribute is. I do agree that it's silly to have physical strength and magical strength as the same attribute. This is why my proposition do something else. Yet it does as the Devs want : to have a single attribute that govern damage. Overall damage attribute : No fitting name yet, but it has to affect both Magical power and Physical strength. Magical power as a skill : Higher for wizard Strength as a skill : Higher for fighter You are too eager to prove me wrong when in fact it IS possible to create such a system. Where common pitfall are avoided, yet having an in depth variation to make a physically strong wizard or an intelligent fighter possible.
  9. The system makes game sense and is intuitive, your explanation does not. Wizard is no doubt intelligent and focused, in casting spells and reading books. A fighter spends his time being focused on hitting enemies with weapons. Now which one is more likely to know what parts of the enemy are good parts to perforate with sword strokes? That doesn't go anywhere towards explaining why, when both share a high attribute, the attribute means something completely different for the two classes, especially when the game itself would shows both classes getting the very same benefit by the shared attribute. And yes. A high STR fighter in PE is going to be better at melee than a high STR wizard. But that's just the same as in D&D, a high STR fighter is better than a high STR wizard, because of fighter feats and better attack progression. --- BTW. I'd love to see a system where magic power is detached from wisdom or whatever magic skill. Meaning you could have a simple stupid mage who can't cast high complexity spells, but can cast the simple spells with tremendous power. Or a highly trained wizard with maybe low magic aptitude, who could still compensate by weaving more elaborate magics. I didn't say that the fighter wasn't also good at that. Because attributes is not an end all thing. Skills are equally important, why wouldn't strength be part attribute, part skill ? Your class determine somewhat your skill in your ''Strength''. Why it has different meanings ? Because the classes doesn't focus on the same skills. If you find it weird that strength is also a skill, go ask some of the best sports coaches on the planet. You could find some quite interesting answer. Lets take the Mage : Damage attribute is (lets call it power) 5 and knowledge is 5 giving him what he needs to cast powerful magic. In my interpretation of power, I represent this stat as the resolve and neurological efficiency. How would you interpret that ? Now lets take the warrior : Power is 5 and athletics is 5. Wouldn't you say that the same attribute can't have different applications ? Neurological efficiency + Resolve + Knowledge = Magical power Neurological efficiency + Resolve + Athletics = Strength Doesn't mean either that the mage doesn't also have some skills in athletics, which would also give him a strength, it's just that this strength will probably not be as good as the fighter strength. @Lephys : It doesn't make Strength an exclusivity to the warriors, you may invest in athletics (the skill part of strength) also if you are a mage
  10. Hey guys, didn't you read my post about how a single attribute that governs damage bonus can make sense ? Let's say you are a Wizard, and you invest many points in the damage attribute. It may only means you are getting more intelligent and focused. How can it help you doing more damage with a melee weapon ? Simple, you know how to hit the vital structures of your target. However, this does not means that you will be able to equal the damage output of the Warrior who invested as much points in the damage attribute with the same melee weapon. As the P:E devs said : You will not be able to beat a class at his own strenght, a warrior will do more damage with a sword than a wizard. Even if you both have the same damage attribute. However, the Wizard will do more damage with spells than the Warrior. Simple really. The damage attribute may have you increasing damage output for everything, it does not means everything does equal damage output for all classes.
  11. Only that it would & wll. PE wizards can use axes and if they have high power or strenght or whatever it's called, they'll do high damage with the axe. The fact that the wizard will also hit harder with an axe when he grows in his power stat can mean many things. Big damage is relative, could it be the wizard is intelligent enough to hit where it hurts more ? I don't think it's that improbable. But it doesn't means he's stronger. At equal Power, I can garanty you that the Barbarian will hit harder with an axe than a wizard with the same axe.
  12. really it's retarded that strength can affect accuracy? the stronger you are the faster you can swing. The faster you swing the more likely you are to hit your opponent and to smash through their defense. While there is something to be said about the importance of hand eye coordination in combat but that doesn't mean a stronger(bigger) opponent holds a lot of advantage in combat. Why do you think most professional fighting organizations place so much importance into dividing people into weight class? Because a bigger guy hit a lot harder. It has nothing to do with accuracy. It's not even about strenght, even fat carry weight. And the more force in contact you have with the ground the most force you can transfer into your opponent. If you put a big force on a small weight it does more acceleration. More acceleration for your head means a lot more knock out power. As a matter of facts smaller guys in boxing are usually a lot faster than big guys. Just watch some lightweight matches then try a heavyweight one. You'll see.
  13. I agree the system as such, makes game sense and is probably going to work fine. My problem is that such an abstraction means, a wizard that's good at blasting things because of his humongous mental power, is also going to be awesome at lifting heavy objects and bashing people in their heads with big hammers because of his humongous physical power. Because they're both represented by the same attribute. Mage also gets the strenght/power bonus when using melee weapons. Likewise, a dumb brute barbarian is also going to be an excellent healer, because of the soothing effect of his bulging muscles. But like I said the last time this cropped up. It's not a huge deal. Not in the top 10 of things that can make or break the game. This is why I used Power as a word, and not strength, power can be many thing. But mostly : power at what your character is good at. If your character for example is a Barbarian with a huge Power and low Acuity, it does means he is not really clever, but he is strong as hell and he had to work for his strenght so he may know a thing or two about how his body function. The same high power and low acuity for a Wizard would have a different meaning. He would be highly inteligent (mind power), yet maybe a bit lunatic. But wizards aren't known for their strenght so a high power wouldn't means big damage with an axe for example. Let's take the same Barbarian, a Barbarian isn't known for his healing skills when we compare him to the Cleric. So at Equal Power, the Cleric healing would be far better yet the Barbarian would still be a superior damager with melee weapons. What does it means in role-play ? The cleric is probably more intelligent than the barbarian but he is also weaker. How much each can carry could also be class specific. To portray this differently, attributes only is not what defines your character. Attributes + Class = The strengths and weakness of that specific character. This would also get adjusted withs skills and talents. Think about it, You are a Big and dumb brute, but you begin to specialize in tracking skills and talent. You will not become a post doctorate phd. But you will not be that dumb when it comes to animal behavior. On the other hand, the same phd would be totally cluless about how to track something, it doesn't means he's stupid but this area of knowledge is poor at best for him.
  14. How about : Power is the damage stat. (could be mental or physical) Acuity is the accuracy and perception stat. Tenacity is the resistance stat. All could also be used for social situations : Power is when you intimidate or force by leverage, Acuity is when you get tricky or bribe, and Tenacity is when you just get annoying and wont let go You can't screw up a character with those.
  15. A good 40 yard dash is around 5 seconds, so its safe to say a 30 yard dash will be around 4 seconds. It makes a lot of arrows in 4 seconds, I know some masters archers may manage that with 30 pounds bows. But in 4 seconds I think that most good archers with a strong bow would manage only one good shot. It think it's safer to say that a ranged weapon work as good at range as a melee weapon work in close quarters. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o9RGnujlkI as for masters? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1KC1Os-_NE though if we assumed the same level of proficiency, we would have to really curb their ability to do other things in order to make it balanced with melee. Clearly bows at 90 pounds. Com on there no way you would do anything to an armored guy. And this is mostly a very close range bow, I'd say by the video below that it's utterly inefective beyond 30 yards. You may get one shot at 10 yard before the guy is one you and 2 shots if hes at 20 yards So I do think it may still be equal to a melee weapon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SycS4QSH9Ek If you look carefuly, the drop for 10 yards is really big.
  16. A good 40 yard dash is around 5 seconds, so its safe to say a 30 yard dash will be around 4 seconds. It makes a lot of arrows in 4 seconds, I know some masters archers may manage that with 30 pounds bows. But in 4 seconds I think that most good archers with a strong bow would manage only one good shot. It think it's safer to say that a ranged weapon work as good at range as a melee weapon work in close quarters.
  17. And we have gone full circle. Okay then a sword IN the torso is as much deadly as an arrow in the torso right ? Lol, no. That was rather the point. There are a bunch of different ways a sword can impact a human chest and not kill the person instantly. Go visit a local hospital ER on a Friday night, and see how many people have stab/slash wounds and are still ambulatory. So what's your point ? There are also countless people surviving gunshots (even some cases surviving gunshots in the head) that doesn't make a gunshot less dangerous. Just to make a closer comparison, I pierce you in the chest with a spear, what you tell me is that the spear is less deadly than your arrow in the chest right ? Or a sword cut from a trained guy ? Just because you love vids, I don't want to prove a point with this. The Arma (Association For Renaissance Martial Arts) method isn't that much scientific anyway, and has been much criticized https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3v4j3mvrDyQ
  18. Very true ! There is even some stranges facts about the Horo, a Japanese single sheet linen cloak used to deflect (catch) arrows. I have seen a good study on thids but can't remember who did the tests, It was impressive.
  19. And we have gone full circle. Okay then a sword IN the torso is as much deadly as an arrow in the torso right ? Just one more question, when I suggest that a sword is also a one-hit kill you make a strange remark saying that there is evidence showing that men in armor did survive many blows in a battle, but an arrow is a one shot kill... ho well, I don't think I'll understand you...
  20. At first, I wanted to write a long reply with more proof. But it seems you are immune to scientific proof and prefer your vids on youtube. I guess I'll wear this for protection : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8QqAd6vgD8 Proof of what? That arrows could be turned aside by armor? I already agree with that. Why would you need to prove it? Arguing that bow are one hit kills while a melee weapon is not, Decado wrote : If you're wearing armor, most sword strikes are not one-hit/one-kill. There is plenty of evidence in the historical record to show that men survived multiple weapon impacts over the course of a battle, whereas an arrow in any part of the torso was pretty much guaranteed to kill you. Your words, unless you compare swords on armor vs arrows on flesh... if that was your intention. I'm sorry, my mistake. But you don't make sense when you argue bow should be more one shot kill than melee weapons because of that.
  21. At first, I wanted to write a long reply with more proof. But it seems you are immune to scientific proof and prefer your vids on youtube. I guess I'll wear this for protection : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8QqAd6vgD8
  22. They are doing something similiar in PE with armor with high DT and low DT. see quote below: In P:E the Armor type has modifiers against some Damage types. for example Mail Armor has a slight weakness against Pierce and Shock damage and a larger against Crushing damage. For more information see here. I think the armor won't modify AoE spells or direct spells, but direct spells and AoE spells will target different defenses(Psyche and Reflexes). So there are some foes that are easier to kill with AoE spells as with Direct spells or direct melee damage. For example it's easier to kill a shield warrior with damage spells as with melee damage. see quote below. I think P:E will have a very fun system. Perhaps if armor reduce the Reflex defense we have almost exactly the system I was proposing
  23. You are right, this is a board to discuss about games but then you state historical evidences... And I am strongly against the fact that someone try to prove his point by uncorrects facts. This video is the perfect proof that ignorance shouldn't be spread by wanna be scientits who know close to nothing about armor. When you are wrong, accept it and learn from other who may be more knowledgeable on the subject than you are. The vast majority of experiments that have involved the testing of arrows against mail were done using mail that was not representative of that worn by contemporaries. Rivets were poorly set (or the links were merely "butted" together without riveting)3, inadequate padding was used (if employed at all), the links were generally too large, and the metallurgy was incorrect—all factors that may lead to a reduction in the armour's protective capability2. Recent experiments performed against more accurate mail reconstructions indicate that contemporary mail and padding provided excellent defense against all types of arrows under battlefield conditions. Nielson was one of the first to conclude this in 1991. An experiment conducted by the Royal Armouries concluded that a padded jack worn over a mail haubergeon (a common combination) was proof against Mary Rose longbows1. Ref : O. Nielson, "Skydeforsog med Jernalderensbuer," Eksperimentel Arkaeologi, (1991) 134-46 Examples include the tests conducted by Saxton Pope—"A Study in Bows and Arrows", Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology. (University of California, 1923) Butted mail is commonly used by modern re-enactors but historically it rarely had a place on the battlefield. It offered virtually no protection against the most common threats, i.e. arrows and spears. Even the earliest mail seems to have been made of riveted links
  24. I agree ! What would be nice is a system like this : Heavy weapons are at their best against Heavy Armors. Light weapons are at their best against Light Armors. Scaled type armor protect thier best vs Slashing damage. Banded type Armors protect thier best vs Concusion damage. Plate type Armors protect thier best vs Piercing damage. AoE spells do more damage vs armored. Direct spells do more damage vs lightly or unarmored. Cooper armor protect more vs spells. Other material protect better vs weaponry. This simple system can give birth to a very tactical gameplay.
  25. @Trahsman : I approve all you said ! My personnal choice against the angry bear : large caliber gun (because of the rate of fire and the sound may scare the bear), close second zweihander, then the Morningstar. Bow would be a last choice, if you miss or don't kill the angry bear, you are screwed. The Mongols actually marched (ride their horses) the continent because of superior mobility.
  • Create New...