Shevek

Rest should be an interesting set of systems that deeply affects gameplay. It should be more than a simple rest button. Here is a post I made on this topic some time ago.

Source (bottom of page eight): http://www.metmuseum...df.bannered.pdf

Medieval history was a passing passion for me, so I wouldn't remember the sources even if I tried to. Then again it was contemporary accounts, rather than videos from fine gentlemen, falling from a horse in plate armor, so I would give them more credit. Scholarly articles are the best, grated, but I am yet to encounter any of those titled "On the piercing of plate armor by English warbow at point blank range", so I can't present anything of that sort to support my case. So I suppose I'll have to conclude our argument with saying that your ignorance and trust in self-proclaimed experts, posting videos on YouTube, is so unashamed and appalling, that it must take the simple lack of knowledge to a whole new level. Now when this rather heated argument is done for, I'll get to the point I was trying to make in the first place. Realistically, plate armor is history once muskets come into play. Realistically, plate armor is only fit for battlefield situations, not for running around a town or forest or for doing any travelling in it. But we are talking about a fantasy game here, so we shouldn't put too much stock in realism. Some limitations should be implemented due to armor weight. If not, you have guys in full plate running around doing somesaults while dual wielding rapiers to double thrust an enemy through the eyes as they move to drop kick another for behind him. The heft of armor should come with signifcant consequences to a character's defensive and offensive capabilities.

Of course armor is limiting. If it wasn't, soldiers wouldn't have shed leg and arm armor once firearms came into common use. I recall reading a while back of soldiers willfully "losing" armor pieces rather than wear them in battle.

I want to see many different weapons that fall into subsets sorted by damage type and size.

I made a post regarding this in the Armor Class thread. Essentially, I believe all armor should be viable. This could be done in a number of ways. I suggested varying reduction/deflection values and weight/rigidity related armor penalties. This should not be like Fallout where everyone just tries to get Power Armor and calls it a day. As far as enchantment goes, I think it is a mistake to go with a system that says hide < leather vest < leather armor, etc. When you do this, you end up with just 3 or 4 viable armor types (the best light, the best medium and the best heavy etc). This ends up being just as bad as dnd where many armors were crappy. You might say, well, what about Dragon Hide or some such (ie, special versions of crappy armor types)? Well, who is to say they will not also include special versions of good armor types as well? I would hope they would shoot for a wider variety of options and look to maintain the viability of as many character concepts as possible. The BASE versions of all armors should be GOOD. A level ONE character should be able to function just as well in one armor type as another if built for it. I, for one, like the look of scale or a breastplate. I would like to see those be competitive options rather than see my mobile fighter resort to fighting in full plate with a close helm and mitten guants.

Well, if folks are content to speak in generalities, I guess I will too. Their armor system should allow for two types of mitigation -Deflection (Stiffer = More Deflection, %Based chance) -Reduction (%Based, not flat numbers) The effectivenss of two above should vary depending on the weapon Deflection should work... very well against piercing weapons (daggers, arrows, spears, etc), somewhat well against cut and thrust weapons (side swords, rapiers, short swords, etc), moderately against lighter slash weapons (scimitars, sabers, light longswords,etc) and pierce/bludgeon hybrids (spiked maces, etc), not so well against heavy slash/bludgeon hybrids (axes, bastard swords, broadswords, etc) poorly against pure bludgeons (maces, hammers, staves) Reduction should work... poorly against piercing weapons (daggers, arrows, spears, etc) not so well against cut and thrust weapons (side swords, rapiers, short swords, etc) moderately against lighter slash weapons (scimitars, sabers, light longswords, etc) and pierce/bludgeon hybrids (spiked maces, etc), somewhat well against heavy slash/bludgeon hybrids (axes, bastard swords, broadswords, etc) very well against pure bludgeons (maces, hammers, staves) Rationale: In other words, some weapons are good against the deflection of the armor, some weapons should be good at getting through the armor reduction. No weapon should be good at both. Basically, light weapons can be deflected easily but can also get through **** in armor well. Heavy weapons cannot be deflected easily but distribute their damage instead of focusing it to get through damage reduction. Next, Weight Penalties In the above system, lighter armors should still have somewhat less deflection (a hardened leather armor or a scale armor should deflect moderately well but not as well as a suit of plate). However, they will also reduce damage far less effectively. This means heavier armors will be just plain better under the above system. In order to add value to lighter armors, penalties should be attached to armor weight. Evasion Penalties (Heavy = Less Dodging), %Based penalties to dodge stats should be incurred as armor increases in weight. Since the devs have embraced complicated calculations, they can just add X% penalties that better balance things out. A warrior in light armor should have a somewhat larger chance to flat out avoid damage (when evasion and deflection chances are added) than one in heavier armor. As armor gets heavier, sum damage avoidance should decrease. Heavier armor will still reduce more damage. Movement Penalties (Heavy = Slower), %Based combat movement penalties for heavy armor. Skill Penalties (Dexterity) 3E did this well. Picking a lock with a large helm clouding your view and clunking arm/hand armor on should not be easy. Skills requiring free movement of the fingers or agile movement of the body as a whole should suffer %based penalties the heavier and stiffer the armor is.This is not just tied to weight. It is also tied to the flexibility of the armor. Combat Actions Limitation - Certain combat actions (such as dextrous lunges and the like) should either either suffer penalties or be flat out impossible to do as armor increases in weight. Some dude in 60lb Gothic Plate shouldnt be able to run around using a rapier like he's Zorro. Rationale: The idea here is that Heavy Armors have a moderate defensive advantage but lighter armors should allow for greater mobility, more utility and slightly more offensive options.

I love his answer to the romance question.

If the game doesn't give you enough rope to hang yourself with then it just isn't complex enough. Allowing respecs trivializes choices players make in a serious way UNLESS said respecs are very very limited. In a 3.5E system, I could understand allowing a player to switch out ONE feat (and only ONE) when they level. However, if they invest in 3 or 4 feats to became a dextrous TWF and then decide swap out everything and become a Sword and Board fighter... well, thats a bunch of crap. "Oh, I was a dainty swordsman but now I want to be a hulking badass." Bah... that is not what these games are about. You are supposed to progress not radically change your character on a whim.

This game isn't for the average player. The average player is playing Call of Duty or some other such game. The average player buys their game off a Walmart shelf not from the GoG catalogue.

I find alot of this armor stuff interesting but I am curious about the specifics. How exactly will armor work? Dr, Ac, etc.. What will item enchantment be like? If +1 is gone, what are we left with? As for the questions, I think it is supremely important to support many different character concepts. However, I would caution against the idea of designing a game around armor switching. That does not seem right. My Rogue should not be carrying a bunch of Plate in his pack just in case. You should be able to stick to an armor type from start to finish.

Non-trivial cost? That might be interesting. Like respec = perma crippled or perma/major stat loss. Xp or gold is fairly trivial though since you can get that back pretty quick.

No respec. Just RTFM and plan it out.

I want to see a survival skill done well. With plenty of gameplay (from setting up camp, to tracking, to travel) tied to it.

Romances.

Well, we had acid sprays and fireballs before and couldnt use those.

In addition to being terrible, this feature you folks are discussing is totally unneccessary. They will already have a hire cost for the Adventure Hall; Sawyer noted this as a money sink in the game. So, there are your money grubbing hirelings. Done. The prefab characters join for other reasons. If you played MotB, characters joined you for various reasons not related to all the phat loots scattered about the realms. In other words, maybe they don't give two hoots about the +5 Dagger of Pointiness you just found.

We have our method of picking locks for our kinds of locks. Perhaps advanced locks in PE could be a bit more intricate and thus picks in this world may be thinner and more susceptible to break. Who knows...

The monsters, items, stories and, yes, the classes of these games are an amalgam of influences. This is not something new. First edition DND had monks. The notion that anything that smacks of nonwestern culture is out of place in this game is just plain bunk. Edit. Here is a quote by Zeits (who folks insisted be involved in this) I doubt this guy or much of the rest of this team is gonna be cool making a game that just reflects western culture.

I actually like that lockpick example. Skill investment is rewarded and every single point is useful rather than having to hit certain plateaus. The design addresses flaws in previous implementations of skill checks in, I think, a pretty elegant way. I just hope they make do not have skills that fail to benefit from investment after a certain point.

Why does that have to go? I can make silly remarks about the characters too. "X looks like they have seen too much of corresponding pop culture reference Y." Wow, that's some rock solid argumentation right there.

Please... No quest markers. It's not just a matter of difficulty, it is immersiveness. As you walk about trying find out where to go, you are exploring. This gives exploration a tangible benefit that makes sense to the story. Think about it. If you have a quest marker telling you to go NW why would you go SE? You could argue well you explore to explore! Well... no. You are on a quest with an objective. You may stumble on smaller tasks along the way but if you know exactly where to go then there is no emergent reason to have the player's character go elsewhere. By including quest markers, you absolutely destroy a fundamental way to tie exploration to the story. Also, and maybe this is just me here, PE is suppose to be, I think, a little old-school. I would indeed hope for a little less hand holding.

I think the op just wants to complain. The system OE is describing sounds excellent.

1. Dude, my point is some guy is arguing over a single string of TEXT. 2. I am not going to get into another tired old argument over the values or pitfalls of eurocentric fantasy worlds. The bottom line is these games have a mix of influences and do not need a "Chi-japano-malaya-land" to make monks "authentic." 3. Whatever. Blame the nonsense of that line of convo on the dude that started it.

If they allow modding like how you can mod the IE games, just go and edit the term "Monk" and make it "Friar" in the dialog.tlk and there you go. Other than that, this thread is silliness. Friar and Flagellant are certainly more European. Are all asian influences then lacking in authenticity? Should we ensure scimitars, kamas, and the like are excluded to maintain European authenticity? I strongly disagree with the underlying premise of this thread. I am not even sure what you are trying too say there. The lack of grappling makes ALL martial combatants limited. Knights grappled too.