My weapon does nothing!

[PsychoBlonde]

You know, in a sneak attack, I could maybe see a rogue trying to snap off a skeleton's head with a dagger. But, sorry, taking a few thrusts a round in the middle of brawl, that ain't gonna happen. Please contextualize those examples.

 

All of those moves are 100% standard in knife fighting. Something like 95% of knife fighting is actually wrestling, you just do it with a sharp edge in play. The point is to force your opponent into a position where you can get your knife at something worthwhile AND they can't do likewise to you with whatever weapon they're wielding. The idea that you sit there 5' away with them and just poke away randomly until they fall down does not even begin to resemble actual knife combat. Oh, and the wrestling moves take less time yet do a lot more damage than the silly hypothetical poking.

 

The only weapon where the whole "a few thrusts" concept might actually be valid would be with a fencing foil/epee, which is, in fact, not an actual weapon. Oh, I grant you could kill someone with one if you got lucky (or they were unlucky), but you could do the same with a potted plant or a bag of nuts. A light enough rapier would have similar problems, because the blade is a.) too long and wrestling and leverage moves while simultaneously being too light and fragile to have an impact in any other way. But that would apply equally to nearly any type of enemy. The only "combat" where such weapons were used actually used was in formalized duels, and even then, actual immediate death or even incapacitation was pretty rare. It was not uncommon, however, for both participants to take a thrust that caused internal bleeding/infection and led to death for *both* participants hours or even days later.

 

"Piercing" weapons like rapiers and foils aren't even that useful against regular old humans with internal organs you could (theoretically) pierce. One, because it is AMAZINGLY easy to render your opponent's blade useless even with bare hands (the only POTENTIALLY deadly part is the point at the end, and the sword is so light that they have basically no leverage against you--they'll snap the blade before they'll get it away from you). That, and people can survive having the entire sword pass completely through their body with amazing regularity. There is almost nothing you can do to someone with a weapon of this type that will consistently produce rapid incapacitation and prevent them from executing violent retaliation. Granted, they might die in a couple of hours, but that doesn't do you much good if they've cracked your skull open in the meantime. This is why wrestling or laying your hands on your opponent was expressly forbidden in duels. When these gentlemen went to war, they changed their fencing weapons for firearms, sabers, greatswords, pikes, and halberds.

 

Now, there's no reason why there can't be duels in the game (this would be a neat mechanic), but you're not going to use or abide by the rules of a duel when you're fighting an animated skeleton.

[Odarbi]

I personally love things like immunities and needing to be prepared for them. I also want to have to carry elemental resistance potions for off chance we encounter a whole lot of enemies that do elemental damage. I like these things because it makes me have to think ahead, and play smart.

 

I don't want the whole entirety of the game to be that way... but it'd be nice to see situations like that pop up from time to time.

[PsychoBlonde]

Because it gives the player options. Or if you prefer, it lets the player roleplay the build he/she created - its the Developers' way of insuring that you can take any build and be viable with it without them having to dumb down their game and remove enemy resistances (or whatever you're proposing in your op.)

 

How does making certain weapons 100% non-viable against certain foes give you MORE options? It gives the player FEWER options. And it doesn't "dumb down" the game to remove this particular type of mechanic because the mechanic itself is pretty stupid to begin with. You can remove it from the game and nothing will really change--you can even keep your Hilarious Gag Monsters via different methodology, as I stated earlier. Having the acquisition and deployment of various different weapons that have *no* utility other than to break DR or immunity restrictions and fill up your inventory slots doesn't increase the depth of the game--complexity is not depth. If you want to do this, just give the mobs more hit points (or make defeating them an environmental puzzle), hand out fewer inventory slots, and the whole thing is a wash.

 

You know what does add tactical complexity? Enemies who retreat around corners and won't come out. Enemies who concentrate fire on a single foe. Enemies who go down the hall and around the corner to flank you. Enemies who stealth and appear in the middle of your party. Enemies who target the healer. Enemies who can bank attacks around corners. Dozens of enemies who imitate a Zerg Rush. All this sort of thing can be done without ever having to resort to "My weapon does nothing".

[Stun]

Because it gives the player options. Or if you prefer, it lets the player roleplay the build he/she created - its the Developers' way of insuring that you can take any build and be viable with it without them having to dumb down their game and remove enemy resistances (or whatever you're proposing in your op.)

 

How does making certain weapons 100% non-viable against certain foes give you MORE options?

Eh? The fact that in some specific instances, some specific weapons will be useless doesn't give you more options or less options. I have never played a CRPG where you build your character around a specific weapon. Instead, you build your character around a specific weapon type. That being the case, I'll answer the question now. It gives you more options because if you're specializing in longswords (for example) and you enter a werewolf den and you don't have a silver longsword, the Developers will usually let you find a silver longsword in that dungeon, thus allowing you to continue being effective with the build you created, instead of limiting your options and forcing you to specialize in Blunt weapons because the only silver in the game is a silver mace.

 

You know what does add tactical complexity? Enemies who retreat around corners and won't come out. Enemies who concentrate fire on a single foe. Enemies who go down the hall and around the corner to flank you. Enemies who stealth and appear in the middle of your party. Enemies who target the healer. Enemies who can bank attacks around corners. Dozens of enemies who imitate a Zerg Rush. All this sort of thing can be done without ever having to resort to "My weapon does nothing".

A subject change, is it? Sure, Tactical gameplay certainly isn't limited to just enemy resistances. (who claimed it was? lol) But to argue that every weapon should be able to work on every enemy so that Psychoblonde doesn't have to think, plan and prepare....well, that's precisely the sort of dumbing down that is infesting the industry today, and why I found myself eagerly donating to Project Eternity in the hopes that Obsidian will make us a game that isn't DUMBED DOWN.

Edited September 19, 2012 by Stun

[PsychoBlonde]

I like these things because it makes me have to think ahead, and play smart.

 

AKA "metagame", which some people conversely think is a dirty word.

 

Some of the worst metagaming necessity comes out of the Vancian spell system, I grant you. Oh, here's a mage who's cast Immunity to Normal Missiles AND Immunity to Magical Missiles AND Immunity to Normal Weapons AND Immunity to Magical Weapons and Spell Immunity! Hope you loaded 3 or 4 Break Enchantments, because you ain't hurting him otherwise!

 

The trouble with potions in the BG series, at least, was that they were rare enough that 95% of the time, when they'd actually be useful, I still wouldn't use them because I'd be worried about saving them for some hypothetical future fight where I'd NEED them. So the only time I used potions was when I wiped and had to re-load the game. That's not thinking ahead. That's remembering what happened and capitalizing on it. And even then, except in unusual situations like the Basilisk Area, I could still get through the fight without using potions if I was more careful about how much aggro I pulled or I was more thorough and aggressive with the CC.

 

Now, if you can actually buy the potions and have them on hand, that'd be different . . . but then they'll just re-scale the combats with the assumption that you'll have access to X amount of resistance.

 

If they really want to make you play smart and think ahead, they ought to put some serious SCOUTING into the game. I tried this with my rogues in BG, but there were serious problems with it, not least because the mobs could usually see you anyway. Or they can let you lay down traps, which gets interesting with friendly fire. Or hit enemies with some damage-over-time abilities and a slow and run the fook out of there. There's lots of stuff they can do that doesn't involve the whole haha, I'm immune rigamarole.

[Stun]

No, it's not metagaming if the devs do a good job dropping hints, which they usually do. For example, If you enter a cavern and notice that it's got a distinct snow theme, then common sense, not metagaming, dictates that you prepare your fire spells, and flaming weapons. Ditto with crypts. If you enter a crypt then it should be obvious that you're going to eventually encounter undead, thus you should ready your crushing weapons, and perhaps get your cleric to ready his various +extra damage to undead spells.

 

And this of course assumes total exploration randomness. More often than not, that isn't the type of situation you typically find yoruself in. Instead, you're told about the nature of your task from NPCs. Or you read about a specific dungeon ahead of time.

Edited September 19, 2012 by Stun

[Amentep]

However sometimes in the IE games, I'd face monsters that had immunities and had no way to be able to have anything in my inventory to overcome the immunity.

 

That's kinda the point? Read lore, ask around, keep magical weapons, use spells?... Tactics, you know.

 

I agree that BG had *some* problems with that, cause not every player read D&D Monster Manual, but that is easely solveable with a few design decisions like rumours/lore(mythology)/books ect.

 

You misunderstand, I'd been playing D&D for 14 years before I played an IE game. But there were in the IE games, as I recall, times where it was possible to face monsters with resistances and you might have one +1 weapon as a random drop and nowhere near enough money to buy a magic weapon on your own, meaning one person could actually do damage to the creature.

 

Others might find that fun, but I didn't.

Edited September 19, 2012 by Amentep

[molarBear]

i leave this decision to the dev team

[Luckmann]

Resistances, as long as there are also bonuses.

[MReed]

If monsters in an area have a consistant set of immunities, and if these immunities are justified by in game lore, and if it is fairly obvious to an observent player that these opponents are coming up, I don't have any problem with "specific" immunities of the sort being discussed here. As several people have pointe out, this adds to the strategy of the game. It also makes decisions about what equipment to sell / buy more difficult, as a sub-par weapon might actually be useful in certain circumstances, which helps with the chronic "gold problem" suffered by RPGs.

 

On the other hand, if the primary effect of this is to make an average player quit / reload / go buy some weapons of the correct type / fight the battle again, then... No, specific immunities are a terrible idea. Having a preferred and a backup weapon for normal, day-to-day adventuring use, with a third weapon being required in very specific, well defined, well warned circumstances is reasonable -- expecting the player to carry a dozen backup weapons is silly, and makes inventory management far more difficult than it deserves to be. While a minor point, it is also annoying to continiually switch from one set of weapons to another -- especially if switching needs to be done in the middle of combat, depending on what foe you are facing.

 

Generally speaking, I favor resistences over simple immunity as this allows for the party to overcome simple encounters with "oddball" monsters via brute-force, but still requires proper equipment to overcome more complex encounters.

[Ravinous]

This is a long standing D&D train of thought and I for one LOVE IT!

 

I mean really and farmer out there is going to be able to pick up a standard COMMON sword and slash to death the Copreal Ghost of Ravin Ous! I think not! It will take the +3 Magical Longsword of Fire to damage me.. I mean him!

 

But really guys, certain monsters SHOULD be above the laws of standard weapons! We see this all the time and just give it different names! I mean maybe a cool CO OP mode would also you to have Soul Damaging weapons to hurt the other player!

Yeah i know, far fetched, but you can make some really neat things this way.

 

Maybe there is a mob out there with super regen and there is a spell that can be enchanted on your weapon to block healing... no of this is possible without the use of resistances!

 

Bring it on! I will, for one, start my collection of weapons early!

[1varangian]

Poll options seem a bit biased.

 

Damage types are good since they add tactical depth to combat.

 

But 15 weapons, no. You can have talents like Precision Strike or Power Attack to penetrate heavy armor. And I don't want to see any alignment / race / material related stuff. Slash / Pierce / Blunt is enough for the most part and the fact that blunt and heavy weapons are generally better against heavy armor.

[Shaewaros]

I actually would like to see enemies having both resistances and immunities, but they should not be too strongly emphasized.

[Labadal]

Only on rare occasions for rare enemies or some tougher side quest bosses, but not for the main story (only if it makes sense).

[cyberarmy]

Having 15 weapons is ridiculous

 

But i like blunt/piercing/slahsing damage types and have no problem if some mobs are highly resistant or even immune to them. I really dont think we can damage a skeleton with an arrow or try to cut an ent/earth elemantal.

 

Oh and i want NPC lines such as "Blasted beggar's immune"

[dan107]

Absolute immunities to weapons (which can be switched out) are fine on occasion, but not absolute immunities to entire schools of magic or other similar abilities. For instance in DA2 I took a lightning specialized Anders into the Deep Roads with me, only to find out after the fact that most enemies and the final boss were completely immune to lightning. With no easy way to respec it was either reload and metagame it, or struggle through with a gimped party. Not good design.

[Bos_hybrid]

It's a hard one for me, I like some enemies having resistances but they have to make sense to me. A dev deciding the fight needs to be harder so they'll slap some resistances on the foes, is annoying.

[Stun]

You misunderstand, I'd been playing D&D for 14 years before I played an IE game. But there were in the IE games, as I recall, times where it was possible to face monsters with resistances and you might have one +1 weapon as a random drop and nowhere near enough money to buy a magic weapon on your own, meaning one person could actually do damage to the creature.

 

Others might find that fun, but I didn't.

D&D had Rust monsters, who were not only resistant to your +1 sword, but could destroy it on contact if you hit them with it.

D&D had Jellies and puddings, who were not only resistant to your +1 sword, but would split and become more powerful on contact if you hit them with it.

D&D had mages who put up Prismatic spheres that made them not only resistant to your +5 sword, but you risked DYING HORRIBLY if you hit them with it.

D&D had creatures who could telekinese your weapon right out of your hand, forcing you to try something else, even if you did your homework and came totally prepared for the fight!

 

But I guess it makes total sense that someone who's played D&D for 14 years would be annoyed at the 'unfun' nature of some enemies in the IE games being resistant to your weaponry. No wait. it doesn't.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Stun

[vattghern]

a sword MUST do less damage to a skeleton than a mace does. it is the law

[Halberd]

I don't mind enemies having resistances. Or the occasional enemy having an immunity that cautious players can find out about before encountering them.

[Amentep]

You misunderstand, I'd been playing D&D for 14 years before I played an IE game. But there were in the IE games, as I recall, times where it was possible to face monsters with resistances and you might have one +1 weapon as a random drop and nowhere near enough money to buy a magic weapon on your own, meaning one person could actually do damage to the creature.

 

Others might find that fun, but I didn't.

D&D had Rust monsters, who were not only resistant to your +1 sword, but could destroy it on contact if you hit them with it.

D&D had Jellies and puddings, who were not only resistant to your +1 sword, but would split and become more powerful on contact if you hit them with it.

D&D had mages who put up Prismatic spheres that made them not only resistant to your +5 sword, but you risked DYING HORRIBLY if you hit them with it.

D&D had creatures who could telekinese your weapon right out of your hand, forcing you to try something else, even if you did your homework and came totally prepared for the fight!

 

But I guess it makes total sense that someone who's played D&D for 14 years would be annoyed at the 'unfun' nature of some enemies in the IE games being resistant to your weaponry. No wait. it doesn't.

 

Er, but PnP games there's a lot more area to find an alternative resolution than in a computer game. And a DM running the game might be a bit more forgiving if the party stumbles onto a random encounter they aren't equipped to handle. I only mentioned having played D&D to say that I understood the system and understood that there was some creatures that couldn't be hit (or killed) without certain tactics - I wasn't walking into the game totally blind, as it were.

 

I'm not against resistances; I'm not against having to adjust your tactics. I'm not overly fond of total immunities and very often I found in BG 1 that lack of money made it impossible to get the items necessary to kill certain monsters and if you tried to run away you'd get a TPK forcing you to reload. This wasn't a problem in subsequent playthroughs since I'd "learned" where to avoid the monsters, but an issue when I first played the game.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Amentep

[working man hole]

I would certainly like immunities and resistances implemented, no dumbing down please.

Of course, there should be an ingame bestiary available, so you can get needed information. Even better if it's tied to skills, like ranger knowing weaknesses of wildlife or mages knowing weaknesses of constructs etc.

[Amentep]

Wasn't it IWD2 that did a limited version of that with the Wilderness Lore skill, IIRC, letting you use it to get an idea of what monsters might be in the area.

 

I really liked that because it allowed me to plan better when going into a new area.

[Bobby Null]

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.

 

I didn't play much DDO, but what you describe sounds like this is a symptom of MMO design and not necessarily the 3.5 D&D system. There are many creatures in D&D that have resistances/immunities to certain things, and even the core rules can create some imbalanced combat scenarios. Typically this can be easily offset with the presence of a live Dungeon Master to make certain weapon/damage types available for the players as needed. It's a little tougher to predict when creating a CRPG, but good level design can usually account for such things.

 

I think it's a safe bet to assume Project Eternity will have damage types of some kind. Once you include damage types, resistances and immunities become a powerful design tool. In my mind, a singular "damage is damage" approach is better served in pure action games. While PE will be real time (with pause), the goal is to make a tactical combat experience. The specifics of said systems are still a matter of discussion for the designers of the project, but rest assured, Project Eternity will not have a damage system that requires you to have 15 swords in your inventory at any given time.

[justaleaf]

Party based game => you have up to six characters to prepare for solving any possible situation.

 

^ That. The trend in gaming these days is steamrolling damage, instead of tactical party configurations of specialist characters. I personally would like to see immune and tactic-specific monsters in the game, but not so much that I have to pause every single battle.