Weapon mechanics

[Karranthain]

Sure, but it'd just misfire. Maybe fire spells could cause it to backfire horribly, possibly even destroying the gun? Lightning too, I suppose.

 

That's another good idea.

[Karranthain]

A musket takes 10-15 seconds to reload in real life. If I recall correctly some spells in BG2 could take that long to cast. If you are able to keep your firearms character out of melee I think that justifies being able to reload and deliver a high-damage attack two or three times during the fight.

 

Absolutely. But 10-15 seconds is a long time in a fight, so the player would have to make a decision - is it worth it? To further complicate things, it could be interruptable...

[Pidesco]

I'd like to see multiple weapon modes. As in using a spear as a piercing weapon or as a blunt weapon, for example.

[1varangian]

I think I would be most happy if combat would take the following into account:

 

- separate "HP" into stamina and health or actual injuries

- injuries affect combat performance (no "still rocking at 1hp" and then suddenly die)

- attack accuracy vs. dodge

- attack power vs. armor

- damage types (slashing / piercing / bludgeoning / fire / lightning etc.) and corresponding protection types (chain is good against slashing but weaker against blunt etc.)

- attack modes (go slower and heavier, or slower and more accurate to bypass heavy armor)

- trip / disarm / knockdown / shield bash... with some weapons more suited to certain moves than others

- attack speed can be abstracted to 1 attack per round, but faster weapons can perform attacks of opportunity while slower ones can't

Edited September 19, 2012 by 1varangian

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Sure, but it'd just misfire. Maybe fire spells could cause it to backfire horribly, possibly even destroying the gun? Lightning too, I suppose.

 

You'd need to aim very carefully (unless it's a fireball, but in that case, you've got your explosion either way) to accomplish that... magic criticals, anybody?

[Karranthain]

I'd like to see multiple weapon modes. As in using a spear as a piercing weapon or as a blunt weapon, for example.

 

Yeah, or swords alternating between slashing and piercing damage.

[Pidesco]

Some weapons should also several characteristics simultaneously. Morningstars with blunt and piercing damage.

 

And, in my spear example, range difference between modes.

[Karranthain]

Some weapons should also several characteristics simultaneously. Morningstars with blunt and piercing damage.

 

And, in my spear example, range difference between modes.

 

Muskets could also be used as clubs in a pinch.

[Pidesco]

With a fair chance to break?

[Karranthain]

With a fair chance to break?

 

Yeah, a truly desperate measure

[Eleneithel]

For the combat mechanics, I think it would more interesting to take a look to the Dark Eye or the Warhammer rules because they are more flexible and realistic than Dungeons and Dragons rules. For example, I find more amusing to play a character with 20 HP than a character with 150 HP... IRL, you train yourself to be more resilient, more endurant, but, ultimately, you remain very vulnerable and you can die in a matter of seconds. I think the game should preserve that feeling: even if you are an elite fighter, if you can kill better and faster, you can be killed as fast if you are not cautious.

 

As for the weapons, they should have a particular playstyle, a particular use where they excel:

 

- Swords are good all-around weapons, they have maniability, they have a certain reach, but they cannot pierce a plate armor and are not as efficient against mail as an axe or a mace.

 

- Axes are brutal and agressive weapons, they can pierce mail, they can break or ruin a shield, they can do damage against plate armor, but they are rather unwieldy because of the weight and balance and they are not very suited to defensive moves as a parry.

 

- Maces and hammers are the bane of plate armor. They don't always pierce it or break it, but they always wound the man who wears it because of the shock, breaking bones or killing with internal wounds. They have a short reach, but they are very efficient in close quarters (Best used with a shield).

 

- Pole weapons (as the spear or the halberd) have a longer reach than other weapons, they are suited to contain the ennemy at a distance or to fight cavalry, but they are inefficient in closer combat.

 

 

As for armors, they would be balanced by their weight, I think. Heavy armor as the plate armor offer a good all-around protection, but they are heavy (about 30 kg, well distributed), they slow their wearer and tire them faster. Medium armor as the mail give decent protection without restreining or slowing you much, but they are tiring (about 10 to 20 kg, weighing essentialy on the shoulders). Light armor as the gambeson /leather armor gives a certain protection (but degraded fast) for a light weight (easier to sneak, dodge, climb, swim, ...) and don't tire much at all. Protection given by the armor should reduced damages (as in Warhammer) instead of increasing the difficulty to touch the wearer (like D&D).

 

Regarding early firearms, they are very slow to reload. A reloading time of 15 seconds is only for a well-trained soldier equiped with a percussion cap musket /rifle. A flintlock firearm with paper catridge would be a little slower to reload, but matchlock /wheelock firearm would take far more longer, even for a trained soldier. As for the missfire, they should be implemented (even today guns jamm or missfire) and be more or less frequent following the firearm technology. But, no ancient armor would be able to resist them.

 

Powerfull warbows can pierce a plate armor, but only at short range (10-20 meters) and require a very strong and trained archer. Lesser bow would be less efficient against armor, but would also require less strengh.

 

As for the crossbow, they are slower to reload, but they require far less skill to be used. Range and penetration would depend on the power of the crossbow, so the weaker ones should not be able to pierce an plate armor.

 

 

PS: Sorry for my English, I'm not used to write /speak it fluently.

Edited September 19, 2012 by Eleneithel

[Karranthain]

Yeah, the idea is to make every weapon behave differently. Spices up the combat and provides more options to the player.

 

As for the armour - I've played one mod in BG2 that slowed down heavy armour users and while it was fine in combat, it was pretty irritating out of it (you had to wait for all those slowpokes in plate). Perhaps some other penalty would be more feasible?

 

P.S. Your English's good.

[Eleneithel]

I think it would depend partialy of the game mechanics. If a stamina system is implemented, there would be no real need to slow down men in plate armor too much. From what I know this armor is heavy, but it is well conceved and well articulated: a man in plate can climb a horse by himself, ens. The weight is rather similar to the weight of a modern soldier in full kit, but better distributed on all the body.

 

So, a man equiped in plate would march slower than a man without armor, would run slower too, but the most important aspect is that he would need to catch his breath from time to time because it's very tiring to wear such armor. (I wore a mail haubergeon in larp, so I know a bit how the body reacts) What I would propose is this:

 

- A penalty reducing the stamina of a man wearing medium or heavy armor. The heavier the armor, the greater the penalty (even for a trained man used to wear such armor, a novice would have a greater penalty)

 

- Impossible to sneak in heavy armor (plate are very noisy), penalty to sneaking in medium armor (mail are noisy, but I think possible to reduce the noise to a certain extent while moving carefully)

 

- No special ability would be needed to wear armor (light /medium /heavy), but there would be special habilities to reduce to a certain extent the penalties of wearing armor (medium /heavy). The character would be then used to such armor and would have learned how to wear it more efficiently.

 

 

Shields should suffer the same penatlies regarding stamina (wearing and using a shield is also tiring) and be added to the armor penalties. IRL, a fighter in plate doesn't wear a shield because he has no use of it (too much weight to move in a fight). His armoured body is already his shield and he would rather use a two-handed weapon like a warsword (or bastard sword /longsword). I think it would be more fun to preserve a certain care for efficiency amongst the characters. You can protect yourself with armor, but you have to be carefull of the weight you have to move because you would be tired too fast and thus die or become inefficient in combat.

 

A interesting feature to add would be "breath catching" (or something like that) to force the player to realise rotations amongst his companions: when a fighter is too tired to fight efficiently, you take him to the rear, let him catch his breath, and send him again to the fight. Of course, he wouldn't recover completly his stamina (because of fatigue penalties), but he would recover enough to use again his abilities (disarm, mighty blow, ens.).

 

 

PS: I also think it would a good idea to distinguish armor locations (head, arms, torso, leggs) as the developpers did in Drakensang. It give the player the ability to customise more the characters they control on a pratical point of view as well on a aesthetical one.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Eleneithel

[Karranthain]

Stamina would probably the best way to go about it. If it isn't implemented in the game, the old-fashioned dexterity (and possibly perception) and to-hit penalties. Not being able to use a shield in full plate (as you've suggested) is another. In any case, full plate shouldn't be "the armour to end all armours". It should have its niche.

[KenThomas]

I'm a big dark souls fan and how they handle weapons and their different abilities is great. A rapier can be used to make a fast jab and hide behind your shield while your enemy bleeds and a claymore's sweeping attack (which can leave you exposed) takes out 3 guys but it can also be used in a lunge attack. I know it's a different game type but those things can be easily moved to abilities and effects rather than direct action. You can also upgrade to certain types like 'divine' which work from your 'faith' stat rather than strength. Which I also adore.

 

Yeah seeing their implementation in that game has really raised my expectations and opinion of what "good" weapon design is in a game. They were able to make it so that you could literally pick whatever weapon had the moveset you liked for your playstyle and it was a totally legitimate choice. Like you say it's a very different game type, but it would be nice to see some of those kinds of ideas about weapon playstyle applied in other games.

[Karranthain]

How about using some attacks require another attack feat to have successfully landed first? Then you could actually have a sequence like slash/parry/riposte? Would give fighters a lot more to do.

 

Attack chains are a pretty good idea, I like it. Fighters are usually fairly boring to play, so this would definitely spice things up. I'd avoid making them mechanics too "gamey" though - the chains, I feel, should feel like a natural progression - like in your example, riposte could only be used after a successful parry for an instance.

[Eleneithel]

That's interesting indeed, finding ideas in this way of thinking would only require to observe IRL fighting to help understand the logic of a fight. For exemple, disarming your opponent wouldn't be a move first initiated by the P.C. Most disarming techniques require the opponent to attack you first and, instead of parrying the incoming attack, you choose to attempt a disarming. It's a defensive reaction towards an agressive move, not really an agressive move in itself (even if you can return the ennemy's weapon against him once you desarmed him).

 

In the game, a character would need to be attacked and being able to see the attack coming to perform a disarming. So, the character must be attacked and not under a surprise effect. If he succeeds the disarming technique, the attack is blocked and the opponent disarmed and temporary exposed to a fatal counter-attack. if he fails, he dosen't parry the incoming attack and is temporarily more vulnerable (increasing the opponent's damages or causing a critical strike). Eventually, a man in full plate armor could be immuned to the critical strike to a certain extent depending on the opponent weapon as he is very well protected.

 

A very interesting idea this attack chains... but it would need a sufficiently good A.I., an A.I. able to automate and use such combat mechanics. (I don't know if it would be hard to implement, I know nothing of the programmation, the scripts, ens...^^)

[Karranthain]

Expanding on the idea, here's an example of a full weapon description (it's mainly abstract) :

 

Claymore of Eír Glanfath

Type : Greatsword.

Training required : Yes.

Damage type : Slashing and Crushing.

Damage dealt : 10 + 2d10.

Speed : Slow.

Reach : Moderate.

Critical Effect : 200% more damage on critical hits and a 5% chance to dismember the foe, resulting in an instant death.

Armour Boni : +5 against cloth, leather and chain armour.

Armour Mali : None.

Perks :

a) Harder to parry against.

b) Tiring to use.

Attack chains :

a) Parry - Disarm.

b) Pommel Strike - Eviscerate.

 

 

Just an example of different weapon statistics that could be used in PE.

[The Sharmat]

On the Claymore maybe throw in a stagger mechanic? Like a raw block instead of a parry can temporarily stun the foe from the sheer weight and force of the strike?

 

Another thing that's important to me: Bows require STRENGTH to use. The divide between light quick bowman and hulking swordsman is not only arbitrary, but unrealistic. An English longbow had a 110 pound drawstrength. Firing one over and over again is tremendously tiring, and English longbowman were notoriously tall and strong (their 'side arm' was a longsword). There's a reason a popular and effective line of exercise equipment works on the same principles as a bow. A smaller bow would of course require less stamina to reuse, but also have less range and penetration. Even a longbow with bodkin arrows needed to be fairly close up to penetrate plate. Really, light and dextrous fighting styles suit certain forms of melee combat far more than ranged.

 

Come to think of it, you could further balance guns vs. bows by taking strength and stamina into account. Firing a gun isn't particularly tiring at all.

[Karranthain]

On the Claymore maybe throw in a stagger mechanic? Like a raw block instead of a parry can temporarily stun the foe from the sheer weight and force of the strike?

 

Another thing that's important to me: Bows require STRENGTH to use. The divide between light quick bowman and hulking swordsman is not only arbitrary, but unrealistic. An English longbow had a 110 pound drawstrength. Firing one over and over again is tremendously tiring, and English longbowman were notoriously tall and strong (their 'side arm' was a longsword). There's a reason a popular and effective line of exercise equipment works on the same principles as a bow. A smaller bow would of course require less stamina to reuse, but also have less range and penetration. Even a longbow with bodkin arrows needed to be fairly close up to penetrate plate. Really, light and dextrous fighting styles suit certain forms of melee combat far more than ranged.

 

Come to think of it, you could further balance guns vs. bows by taking strength and stamina into account. Firing a gun isn't particularly tiring at all.

 

Aye, stagger would be a good idea. But that description is more of an example, with some the numbers chosen arbitrarily - just wanted to provide an example with various mechanics involved.

 

As for the longbows - definitely, that's the way bows worked in IE games.

 

I'll be adding some thoughts on shields tomorrow.

[The Sharmat]

Oh, another thing for balancing guns: Let us carry more than one if they're small. It wasn't uncommon to carry one or more back up pistols and to just discard the first one and draw the second after you fired it rather than reload.

[Karranthain]

Oh, another thing for balancing guns: Let us carry more than one if they're small. It wasn't uncommon to carry one or more back up pistols and to just discard the first one and draw the second after you fired it rather than reload.

 

IE games had "utility" slots for potions and the like - pistols could perhaps be put there (should PE have such funcionality, of course). That way the player would have to sacrifice easy access to healing potions, for an instance.

[Eleneithel]

Regarding the greatsword, the speed would rather be medium in fact, or a bit faster than slower. Such swords weight something like 3 to 4 kg and were well balanced compared to a two-handed axe. In recent movies, one of the best examples of greatsword fighting is the siege scene in the movie Ironclad. Greatswords are more tiring and require to use the force of all your body (not only your arms) to use it, but one can wield it with fluidity and with great efficiency (especialy with all the sword is used, not only the blade). Used in half-sword, a greatsword would also be a piercing weapon. In fact, the techniques of half-sword were certainly developped as a mean to fight more efficiently men in plate armor (but they existed maybe sooner than that). As for the damages, I quite liked the mechanic of Warhammer FRP 2. All hand-to-hand weapons had basicly the same amount of damages: 1D10+ Strengh Bonus + Bonus or malus of the weapon (-3 to +1). I think it's the best way to preserve a certain realism: damages come from the strengh of your bow, it's not only inherent to the weapon.

 

Regarding ranged weapons, I hope that this time archers would be able to fire from a longer distance. In IE games like Baldur's Gate, the range of archers (and spellcasters) was rather limited, they could not really escape easily to close combat as melee fighters were on them rather quickly. As you, I also think strengh matters to use a bow and that it would be interesting to distinguish civilians /hunting bows (less powerfull, less tiring to use, but with less penetration and inefficient against plate, maybe mail) that would be used rather with precision (the archer aims for unprotected part of the body) and warbows (very powerfull, more tiring, more penetration) that would be especialy designed to fight men in mail and even plate (at close range). That way, each companion archer would be able to have a distinct playstyle: a marksman that shoots fast and precisely to wound or distract or a marksman that only shoots to kill or seriously wound.

 

As for the wheelock pistols, there would be rather heavy. Early matchlock /wheelock firearms were rather heavy, encumbrant, and often used with a supporting stick to stabilize the weapon while aiming. Pistols didn't need such sticks, but they would remain heavy nonetheless, I think. So using two heavy weapons like that in each hand could be possible, but with an aiming penalty... early pistols were essentialy used in close quarters anyway as they weren't precise as an arquebus /musket at a distance. (Shorter smoothbore barrel, weight, ens...)

[smithereen]

I would be very happy if hits happened much less often than in DnD style games, and I'd be very sad if combat could be redused to "DPS." Battles should be tense and hits should hurt. You should be penalized for being uncarful as well; every big hit should cause semi-persistant injuries and mental wear.

 

(If we could get a mental fatigue stat, I'd name my firstborn Obsidian!)

 

I would also be disappointed if DnD-style, artificial armor balence was implimented, making full plate 3X as restrictive as heavy chain (ugh). It'd be realy cool if they put some fancy math into attack/parry/armor statistics - longsword badly outreaches dagger, axe doesn't parry longsword or claymore, armor deflects sword, warhammer crushes armor, etc.

[Karranthain]

Regarding the greatsword, the speed would rather be medium in fact, or a bit faster than slower. Such swords weight something like 3 to 4 kg and were well balanced compared to a two-handed axe. In recent movies, one of the best examples of greatsword fighting is the siege scene in the movie Ironclad. Greatswords are more tiring and require to use the force of all your body (not only your arms) to use it, but one can wield it with fluidity and with great efficiency (especialy with all the sword is used, not only the blade). Used in half-sword, a greatsword would also be a piercing weapon. In fact, the techniques of half-sword were certainly developped as a mean to fight more efficiently men in plate armor (but they existed maybe sooner than that). As for the damages, I quite liked the mechanic of Warhammer FRP 2. All hand-to-hand weapons had basicly the same amount of damages: 1D10+ Strengh Bonus + Bonus or malus of the weapon (-3 to +1). I think it's the best way to preserve a certain realism: damages come from the strengh of your bow, it's not only inherent to the weapon.

 

Regarding ranged weapons, I hope that this time archers would be able to fire from a longer distance. In IE games like Baldur's Gate, the range of archers (and spellcasters) was rather limited, they could not really escape easily to close combat as melee fighters were on them rather quickly. As you, I also think strengh matters to use a bow and that it would be interesting to distinguish civilians /hunting bows (less powerfull, less tiring to use, but with less penetration and inefficient against plate, maybe mail) that would be used rather with precision (the archer aims for unprotected part of the body) and warbows (very powerfull, more tiring, more penetration) that would be especialy designed to fight men in mail and even plate (at close range). That way, each companion archer would be able to have a distinct playstyle: a marksman that shoots fast and precisely to wound or distract or a marksman that only shoots to kill or seriously wound.

 

As for the wheelock pistols, there would be rather heavy. Early matchlock /wheelock firearms were rather heavy, encumbrant, and often used with a supporting stick to stabilize the weapon while aiming. Pistols didn't need such sticks, but they would remain heavy nonetheless, I think. So using two heavy weapons like that in each hand could be possible, but with an aiming penalty... early pistols were essentialy used in close quarters anyway as they weren't precise as an arquebus /musket at a distance. (Shorter smoothbore barrel, weight, ens...)

 

 

Good points, friend. Would love to see the half-sword technique in the game.

 

 

As for the damage - Warhammer also had an interesting mechanic for the great weapons, you'd roll the dice twice and select the best result.

 

I've always felt that archers had too small range in IE games - so definitely agreed here.

 

The nice thing about wheellock pistols was that you could keep them loaded and ready to fire; you could essentially keep a couple and pick a new one after you've fired.