Jump to content

Welcome to Obsidian Forum Community
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

My weapon does nothing!

weapons immunities damage reduction poll

  • Please log in to reply
141 replies to this topic

Poll: My weapon does nothing!!!! (527 member(s) have cast votes)

Do you want to need different weapons/damage types for different monsters?

  1. Yes! I LOVE needing to carry 15 different weapons on a single character! (145 votes [27.51%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 27.51%

  2. Maybe only for occasional special mobs they warn you about in advance. (145 votes [27.51%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 27.51%

  3. Voted Resistances are cool but no (or very few) flat-out immunities please. (212 votes [40.23%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 40.23%

  4. No. Just NO. (25 votes [4.74%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 4.74%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#41
Delterius

Delterius

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 308 posts
Thank you, but I very much enjoy inventory management and strategy. It adds to melee fighters, it adds to crafters and to the entire game.

Outright warning the player makes sense sometimes. If you're going up a mountain the presence of trolls is well known, there's no reason why the local populace wouldn't warn you about that. The local merchant would totally scream at you about dem trolls and how much of NEED his overpriced grenade of fire/acid.

However, I believe that other, more subtle ways should be there for the more obscure immunities.

Next time, try not to exaggerate things a bit. Carrying different weapons isn't a big deal, especially since many weapons can serve multiple functions. I don't even remember needing alignment weapons.

In fact, BG included a single sword with plus damage for all alignments except True Neutral.

Edited by Delterius, 18 September 2012 - 04:16 PM.


#42
Umberlin

Umberlin

    (5) Thaumaturgist

  • Members
  • 545 posts
I generally like the idea that your one weapon can't do everything, and any system that ensures there's no one best thing for all situations. One of the divides that you don't see in many Console and PC RPGs is that a melee character can often just find one weapon to suit them and hack away with it non-stop. In contrast many games that have caster have systems and limiters imposed on them while the melee characters continues to hack away non-stop without limit. I always felt the way to make a melee character more interesting was by ensuring that they had to prepare for battle as surely as any caster typed character (this applies to ranged and other playstyles too mind you). They need to have that arsenal and bag of tricks, the strategy needs to be there just the same. It can't just be a passive non-stop whack a whole fest.

I rarely play melee character in games because of this, not because I dislike melee, but because so very few games manage to make melee combat interesting or tactics. They forget that there are limiters on physical effort, just as surely as any fictional idea of a limiter on a non-physical effort like magic.

As someone that likes to have to think tactically and think before battle, as well as on their toes during battle, I crave any system that would bring that back to melee characters (and ranged for that matter). I've just played one too many games where as melee you could whack away non-stop, and, even if you had a resource to spend, your constant normal attack that cost nothing was still there and still very effective either through your stats or the weapon's stats leading to no real need for tactics. Tactics are important to me. Systems that ensure I have to think tactically are welcome. Having to manage weapons for different situations is as 'needed' in my mind as systems that force a wizard to sit down and prepare spells thoughtfully ahead of time.

Edited by Umberlin, 18 September 2012 - 04:26 PM.


#43
kenup

kenup

    Combat Illusionist of The Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 629 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

I, personally, find this conceit of some games to be kind of . . . annoying. Resistances? Okay. Armor that reduces damage from some sources? Okay. But needing to have:

The Bludgeon weapon
The Piercing weapon
The Slashing weapon
The Adamantine sword
The Silver sword
The Cold Iron sword
The Lawful sword
The Chaotic sword
The Good sword
The Evil sword
The Epic sword
The Wood sword
The Crystal sword
The Adamantine and Good sword
The Silver AND Good sword . . .

Just to do reasonable damage to most monsters is kind of . . . insane. Not to mention the fact that you can't REALLY build that Fire Specialist mage because, like, 1/3 of the mobs in the game are FLAT OUT IMMUNE to fire. And if you do a fire/acid specialist, there's still always gonna be some that are immune to both. And PLAYERS never get IMMUNITY gear.

Let's have resistances, sure. But I'd really prefer to ditch outright immunities unless they're extremely specific or only on unique boss mobs where it's pretty dang obvious. Let certain creatures be immune to Piercing weapons (and have weapons that do 2 or more damage types), maybe or have the Fire Dragon be immune to fire. But don't let's be crazy.

This happens a lot in games true. Elemental resistances make sense a lot of times though. A fire elemental shouldn't be damaged by fire for example, if not outright get healed. I understand the weapons argument, but I never *needed* to carry more than one. And even in the witcher the two swords are very well implemented.

Funny thing though, this reminded me of Guild Wars. Mesmers were hexers, but their regular attacks where the only ones that couldn't be resisted.

#44
Xantomas

Xantomas

    (1) Prestidigitator

  • Members
  • 41 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer
I like the idea that trolls must be killed with fire or acid, or lycans can only be hurt by silver or magic, or a very powerful lich has enchantments that make him immune to anything but higher level magic.

I think it can be done reasonably to add some tactical quality to monsters without needing a golf bag of swords. My fighter may only have his normal awesome +3 sword or whatever, but my Paladin's got a silver sword for undead killing, and my Ranger archer has fire and acid arrows for putting down trolls. It's a team effort.

#45
KateM

KateM

    (1) Prestidigitator

  • Members
  • 20 posts
The piercing/slashing/bludgeoning immunity thing is especially stupid because there's no real difference between the three. All are just force being applied over a wider or smaller area.

I can accept that there are some enemies who might need to be killed by lighting them on fire, and maybe you'll need a high-damage or armor piercing weapon to break through an enemy's armor. Those are fine.

Needing a +5 weapon when you only have a +4 is just dumb.

#46
Shevek

Shevek

    (8) Warlock

  • Members
  • 1164 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
This is a badly designed poll. You interject your opinion into the questioning and that taints the results. As for my opinion, I have never seen a game do this well. That doesn't mean it CAN'T be done well. I will say, it is pretty stupid to have a game say that you can kill a skeleton with a dagger. A hammer should be good at it. A dagger should suck at it.

Edited by Shevek, 18 September 2012 - 04:46 PM.


#47
Kevin Lynch

Kevin Lynch

    (3) Conjurer

  • Members
  • 103 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Lords of the Eastern Reach Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer
I prefer the middle ground of resistances to immunities. I'd hate to be forced to go off and find a selection of weapons for every occasion. However, a party-based game does lend itself to having the player balance the party and hence the combat abilities of its members well enough to manage most situations where resistances are heavily weighted.

#48
boobio

boobio

    (0) Nub

  • Members
  • 2 posts
This is a TROLL POLL.

#49
Umberlin

Umberlin

    (5) Thaumaturgist

  • Members
  • 545 posts

The piercing/slashing/bludgeoning immunity thing is especially stupid because there's no real difference between the three. All are just force being applied over a wider or smaller area.


So there being a distinction between poking a Skeleton with a Spear versus bludgeoning it with a Mace doesn't seem sensible in your mind?

#50
KateM

KateM

    (1) Prestidigitator

  • Members
  • 20 posts

This is a badly designed poll. You interject your opinion into the questioning and that taints the results. As for my opinion, I have never seen a game do this well. That doesn't mean it CAN'T be done well. I will say, it is pretty stupid to have a game say that you can kill a skeleton with a dagger. A hammer should be good at it. A dagger should suck at it.

Knives are quite capable of cutting through bone. They're not as hard as you think.

So there being a distinction between poking a Skeleton with a Spear versus bludgeoning it with a Mace doesn't seem sensible in your mind?

No. Bones are not made of steel. A spear point could cut through a ribcage (though that might not "kill" the skeleton, but that's not a discussion I feel is worth considering). You could also bash it with the shaft. There's also the silliness of confusing "blunt" with "heavy" when so few historical weapons are blunt. Look at a medieval mace and you'll see that it's covered in spikes and knobs. A three pound ax or sword would be just as suited to smashing a skeleton as a three pound hammer.

Edited by KateM, 18 September 2012 - 05:00 PM.


#51
Shevek

Shevek

    (8) Warlock

  • Members
  • 1164 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
I think taking a 10lb sledge to a skeleton would be more effective than sawing on it for a couple minutes with pointy knife.

Posted Image

#52
KateM

KateM

    (1) Prestidigitator

  • Members
  • 20 posts
But again, that's not because it's blunt/piercing/slashing, that's because it's heavy. A fireman's axe with a six-pound head would destroy it just as well. Are you going to take the weight of the character's weapons into account when determining damage against certain enemies? Seems pointless.

#53
Umberlin

Umberlin

    (5) Thaumaturgist

  • Members
  • 545 posts

No. Bones are not made of steel. A spear point could cut through a ribcage (though that might not "kill" the skeleton, but that's not a discussion I feel is worth considering). You could also bash it with the shaft. There's also the silliness of confusing "blunt" with "heavy" when so few historical weapons are blunt. Look at a medieval mace and you'll see that it's covered in spikes and knobs. A three pound ax or sword would be just as suited to smashing a skeleton as a three pound hammer.


I think it's an interesting thing to discuss certainly.

I do wonder about to point force of a spear versus the larger area coverage of a mace. I don't think of it as, 'the spear can't pierce bone' it probably can, provided the bone isn't reinforced somehow. I'm thinking of it as, 'your spear pierces the skeleton's skull' versus 'a blunt weapon caves the skull in.' One assumes whatever is animating the skeleton needs it in a certain level of structure in order to mainain itself. So my view of peircing spear versus blunt smashing on that subject has always been that the point was to smash it into as many pieces as possible to prevent it from just going and going.

The hole through the skull with the spear? I'm not entirely sure it did as much as shattering it into many little fragments.

This is a point brought up in rulesets about various creatures that certain weapons are more effective/less effective than others. It's an interesting thing to consider because you do tend to have magical and elemental resistances and weaknesses in RPGs. If those are there then you also need to encourage the melee player with his weapons to prepare different weapon sets (of different weapon types) on their character as readily as a Wizard might need to prepare their spell book ahead of time. This is to ensure tactical play. If the fighter can just go in there with any ol' weapon and be effective no matter what . . . what's the point of tactics? And why would the Wizard be needed at all, since they have limited numbers of casts in addition to resistances and immunities to consider.

Tactical play is brought upon by several things, and one of those things are the limiters. A player should have to think about what they can do, what they can use, and what they can even bright due to carrying limitations because these are the things that make them enter an area carefully, thinking and planning, rather than just rushing in and bulldozing everything with that one weapon everything else is useless in comparisson to.

Edited by Umberlin, 18 September 2012 - 05:19 PM.


#54
Shevek

Shevek

    (8) Warlock

  • Members
  • 1164 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer

But again, that's not because it's blunt/piercing/slashing, that's because it's heavy. A fireman's axe with a six-pound head would destroy it just as well. Are you going to take the weight of the character's weapons into account when determining damage against certain enemies? Seems pointless.


Ok, show me a 10lb dagger.

#55
KateM

KateM

    (1) Prestidigitator

  • Members
  • 20 posts
A 10lb dagger would be a particuarly heavy two-handed longsword, which would be just as capable of smashing a skeleton as a sledge- but for some reason it's less effective because it's a "slashing" weapon, and just as ineffective as the dagger. It's still a long, heavy piece of steel, but just having a sharp edge has somehow rendered it ineffective against skeletons. And even if you could accept that as realistic (I can't), why can't you just hit it with the flat of the sword?

It just seems like a lot of thought is going into making a system more realistic in a very unrealistic way. Just let the dagger kill the skeleton.

#56
KhaineGB

KhaineGB

    Demon Lord of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 78 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
I might be wrong in my assumption, but the OP seems to be pointing towards how BG and BG2 worked. You outright needed magic/silver/good weapons for some mobs or it did nothing.

These days, RPG systems tend to give their monsters Damage Reduction. By the time you're fighting the big, nasty demon, you'll probably be doing enough damage to flat out ignore it's DR. Ok, you might not do as much damage as if you had the holy weapon, wielded by a virgin or some rubbish like that, but you'll still bloody well hurt it! ;)

I'd definitely like to see less "Immunities" so you don't need x character at y point with z skill, and more "resistances" so you can still get the job done, even with a sub-standard party. Reward experimentation with characters and party make-up... don't stifle it. :)

#57
Stun

Stun

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 2857 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

::: Opening post ::::

You're grotesquely exagerating. And doing so serves no purpose beyond "hey, it feels good to vent!" Consequently, your poll is not worth taking seriously.

Lets look at the Infinity engine games, (oh, and lets forget the fact that in each and every one of them, you could have a party of 6 people, and therefore, use them to cover all the bases here.) It was never that bad. Even if you didn't use a party. In Icewind dale, a basic +3 weapon of any type worked on EVERYTHING. At the very worst, it would be less effective against some creatures than it is on others. But that just means that the system was dynamic and allowed you to work within it to optimize the damage you do. (common sense dictates that if you're a warrior and want to quickly destroy that Frost Salamander, then you should use a flaming weapon, instead of, say, your axe of frost +3. But again, that doesn't mean you had to. You can still kill that frost salamander with your frost axe + 3. It would just take a little longer because you chose to approach that fight without employing even an iota of strategy. (ie. Know thy enemy.)

In BG2, you had Clay golems, which were 100% Magic Resistant and comepletely immune to slashing weapons. So what? Are you going to argue that they made the game unecessarily cumbersome? Did you need to carry around 15 different weapons? Were you unable to advance past chapter 2 because you encountered a Clay golem and didn't have a way to kill it? No, No, and lol No. Clay Golems simply represented a unique (read: uncommon) situation that the player had to overcome. And of course, this is BG2 we're talking about here. The game that loads you with piles and piles of everything you can ever need to get past every single situation in the game with ease.

I shudder to think of the alternative.... a game where all enemies are essentually the same from a defensive standpoint and you don't ever need special tools to defeat them <gag> No thank you. I believe there's a term for what you're asking for: Dumbing down.

Edited by Stun, 18 September 2012 - 06:02 PM.

  • Umberlin likes this

#58
Stun

Stun

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 2857 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

I'll always remember preparing to fight Melissan and realizing that I only had one weapon out of the entire party that had any effect.

These are the memories of Baldur's Gate I will never relinquish. And will continue waking up screaming to in the middle of the night drenched in sweat.

I beat Mellisan (all 4 of the battles with her) without using any weapons or spells at all. In fact, aside from the first battle, I didn't even engage in combat.

Edited by Stun, 18 September 2012 - 06:16 PM.


#59
Shevek

Shevek

    (8) Warlock

  • Members
  • 1164 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
A sword should be less somewhat effective than a hammer against a skeleton since its weight is distributed along its edge instead of being focused at one point up top. Also, sword weigh 3ish lbs not 10. A dagger should be useless.

You're wrong but whatever. Go fight hordes of skeletons with a pointy knife. If that makes you feel ok, thats fine with me. I think it detracts from immersion but its a minor thing.

Edited by Shevek, 18 September 2012 - 06:10 PM.


#60
PsychoBlonde

PsychoBlonde

    Grand Rhetorist of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 525 posts
  • Location:Ohio
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Silver Backer
  • Fig Backer

I generally like the idea that your one weapon can't do everything, and any system that ensures there's no one best thing for all situations. One of the divides that you don't see in many Console and PC RPGs is that a melee character can often just find one weapon to suit them and hack away with it non-stop.


I'd rather have this kind of variability come from different weapons having different situational values rather than a bunch of cheap immunities. For instance, switching between ranged weapons and melee can have great strategic and tactical consequence. Or switching between a sword and a spear for the extra reach.





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: weapons, immunities, damage reduction, poll

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users