Weapon vs Weapon

[teknoman2]

There is one thing that i enjoyed in the combat system of IE games: the fact that using bows or slings in melee resulted in a bonus for the guy who had the sword, axe etc.

However there are many more combinations of weapons that are weak confronted with other weapons that were not used.

A sword has finesse and is balanced, so it can move easily past the defenses of a guy who has a bulky axe or a hammer (Sw vs A +2 attack). However the sword has limited reach so the guy who uses a spear or poleaxe can keep himself at a safe distance while attacking (Sp vs Sw +2 defence). At the same time, having a wooden shaft, a spear is easy to break by the attacks of an axe so it must be handled carefully (Sp vs A -2 attack). A 2h sword has is bulky and slow but with long reach, so it gets no bonuses vs other weapons and they dont get a bonus against it (same for flail).

I think this would make us use more weapons than just what looks cool on the character and would give incentive to the devs to make a bigger variety of non sword weapons. Let's admit it... How many of you have chosen to have a fighter in BG that used other weapons than swords, since these were the most available and had the greatest variety?

[rjshae]

Yes, I'm all for a sophisticated combat system that gives situational value to each class of weapon, armor and shield. As long as it isn't cumbersome and doesn't drag down the game in details.

[Treantsin]

Better to have a weapon be better than another due to its' own technical abilities, (say speed of a dagger beats hammer swingspeed, but is weaker than such), rather than a mechanical bonus of plus 2 versus daggers to a given weapon.

Same as most other newfangled systems, I guess.

 

Swords are overused, I agree. Gimme whips and spears any old day.

 

Do like the idea of melee combat with a bow, by the by. Maybe a... prestige class. Or transorming weapons?

And maybe some bo-kata sort of deal.

[Tlantl]

Yes, that would add realism and variety to the combat.

 

No, i want my weapon of choice to be effective against all enemies the same

 

I don't care.

 

I have a different idea about this

 

So why does every poll have these annoying answers?

 

Isn't a simple yes no maybe or I don't care good enough?

 

No!

Edited September 30, 2012 by Tlantl

[TrashMan]

I cna say with 100% certanty that I definately hold the undisputed oppinion of Maybe.

[teknoman2]

Better to have a weapon be better than another due to its' own technical abilities, (say speed of a dagger beats hammer swingspeed, but is weaker than such), rather than a mechanical bonus of plus 2 versus daggers to a given weapon.

Same as most other newfangled systems, I guess.

 

Swords are overused, I agree. Gimme whips and spears any old day.

 

Do like the idea of melee combat with a bow, by the by. Maybe a... prestige class. Or transorming weapons?

And maybe some bo-kata sort of deal.

the bonus is just an example. the actual + and - are for the devs to decide and balance out. but the general idea is that some weapons give an advantage when used vs certain other weapons and it should be reflected in the combat mechanics.

[TrashMan]

Nope. I'm agaisnt such rock-paper-scissors balance. It feel fake.

 

No such "artificial" bonuses.

Only normal weapon stats.

[teknoman2]

Nope. I'm agaisnt such rock-paper-scissors balance. It feel fake.

 

No such "artificial" bonuses.

Only normal weapon stats.

well the proposition comes from my personal experience of martial arts with and without weapons. so it's anything but fake where realism is concerned.

[zlarm]

I'd rather they focused on weapons doing dmg to different armours/creatures then a weapon vs weapon system. Ex: crushing weapons better against plate armour and skeletons, swords better against leather armour and lfeshyy creatures etc...

[Darkpriest]

I think that this is one of these areas where things start to get too complex just for the sake of complexity...

 

More complexity does not equal a better game... If you will put too much complexity it will start to take away from the "game" aspect... We are talking about an RPG game, not a simulator of a medieval influenced fantasy world...

 

The best example of a great franchise that was killed by too much complexity is Master of Orion... 1st game was great, 2nd was awesome, but 3rd decided to go a few steps too far and by this date is evaluated as the worst of the MoO series...

Edited September 30, 2012 by Darkpriest

[teknoman2]

it doesn't seem that complicated. if we take DnD rules: the guy with the sword has +6 to his attack. if he attacks a guy with an axe he gets a +8, if he attacks a guy with a spear he gets a +4, to simulate the fact that in the first case he can bypass the slow defence of the axe and in the second that he cant get close easy to connect a hit. same goes with the rest

complicated would be to ask for the guy with the spear to continually step away from the guy with the sword to keep out of reach of his weapon

[Darkpriest]

Ask yourself. What's the value of such a solution to the gaming experience?

 

This system just adds nothing and only would encourage weapon swapping in mid fight... no thx.

[Infinitron]

The idea isn't bad, but there are probably better ways to integrate it into the game's systems.

[Andron]

I wouldn't say rock-paper-scissors, but it would make sense if they had specialty weapons like sword-breakers. However, that seems like a limited use item type, so they probably shouldn't be included in the first place.

[TrashMan]

Nope. I'm agaisnt such rock-paper-scissors balance. It feel fake.

 

No such "artificial" bonuses.

Only normal weapon stats.

well the proposition comes from my personal experience of martial arts with and without weapons. so it's anything but fake where realism is concerned.

 

 

It is fake, because it's not a natural product of hte weaposn stats, but a rahter artifical bonus added to it.

 

Its like having a rocket-launching APC in a strategy game that does 200% more damage to air targets (with the same missile it uses to shoot at ground targets!?). That's just lame. The damage should depend on the missile, not some blanket rule.

 

Same here. If the spear has a better reach then it will naturally enable you to strike first, without any artificial bonuses. If you fight defensively, the enemy will have trouble closing in. more problem wiht the spears longer treat range. All perfectly natural as the product of the weaposn base statistics, wihout any aditional modifiers.

[Silver6986]

Nice post OP, I like the idea.

 

If this was to be implemented though enough options for different weapons is a MUST, as some of the options in the BG series for example were quite weak in comparison to swords, you were spoiled for choice.

Edited September 30, 2012 by Liquid_Silver11

[teknoman2]

 

 

It is fake, because it's not a natural product of hte weaposn stats, but a rahter artifical bonus added to it.

 

Its like having a rocket-launching APC in a strategy game that does 200% more damage to air targets (with the same missile it uses to shoot at ground targets!?). That's just lame. The damage should depend on the missile, not some blanket rule.

 

Same here. If the spear has a better reach then it will naturally enable you to strike first, without any artificial bonuses. If you fight defensively, the enemy will have trouble closing in. more problem wiht the spears longer treat range. All perfectly natural as the product of the weaposn base statistics, wihout any aditional modifiers.

i think you missunderstood. im not talking about damage (attack usually means hit chance in rpgs not damage). im saying the same thing you say in different way.

the guy with the spear has longer reach than the guy with the sword.

the guy with the spear can attack before the guy with the sword gets close enough

the guy with the spear moves around to keep out of the sword's range as he keeps attacking

unless he messes up, he has the advantage and can win the fight without getting hit

that's the real life fight scenario.

in a game you would either have to recreate this, having the characters move around while fighting or have the characters move up to each other and simulate it with a bonus to their attack (or hit chance if you prefer)

also darkpriest, if you have a fighter who's a master of the sword, you have no points left to add to the other weapons. so he can use a spear if he likes but with penalties so he doesnt get anything by switching weapons, however if one of your team is good with a spear, you can send him forward against a sword wielding boss. this way, you have incentive to have your party members learn to use more weapons than just swords

[dlux]

Real time strategy games use a similar mechanic.

 

The enemies will (should) be very diversified, meaning they will have different types of weapons. So I either have the choice of constantly changing the weapons of half of my party to get the best effect, which would be tedious, or totally ignoring this mechanic, which means that I will cause less and receive more damage. This system alone can cause serious inventory clutter, and if you add enemy resistances and immunities, then you can again triple the amount of weapons you have to carry.

 

It is an interesting idea and I do like it, I am just not sure if this is a good mechanic for a party based game like Project Eternity.

 

I think this would make us use more weapons than just what looks cool on the character and would give incentive to the devs to make a bigger variety of non sword weapons. Let's admit it... How many of you have chosen to have a fighter in BG that used other weapons than swords, since these were the most available and had the greatest variety?

I think the devs can increase the amount and diversification of weapons in the game without using the mechanic that you recommend.

Edited October 1, 2012 by dlux

[The Sharmat]

Better to have a weapon be better than another due to its' own technical abilities,

This. I'm ok with abstract multipliers in weapon vs. armor contests, because it's not like the game can realistically simulate material strengths; but in weapon vs. weapon? I want soft counters, not hard counters.

[TrashMan]

i think you missunderstood. im not talking about damage (attack usually means hit chance in rpgs not damage). im saying the same thing you say in different way.

the guy with the spear has longer reach than the guy with the sword.

the guy with the spear can attack before the guy with the sword gets close enough

the guy with the spear moves around to keep out of the sword's range as he keeps attacking

unless he messes up, he has the advantage and can win the fight without getting hit

that's the real life fight scenario.

in a game you would either have to recreate this, having the characters move around while fighting or have the characters move up to each other and simulate it with a bonus to their attack (or hit chance if you prefer

 

No, we're not talking about the same thing.

 

you want to add special modifiers to weapons (like +2 vs swords to sa spear).

I want the weapon to just be weapons wihout modifiers and their basic stats and character actions determining how good they are.

 

No +2 vs, sword for the spear, but increased threat range. If you fight defensively, that threat range is more pronounced (meaning defensive fighting makes it more difficult for the enemy to close..by either making him slower when entering the threat range or some other mecahnic).

No flat bonuses vs. there.

 

You can for example have a combat stance or something ( like how you have commands like "Ready vs.", "charge attack", "Fight Defensively" "deal non-lethal damage", etc..) who's purpose is to keep an enemy at range. And this is the stance you would use with a spear.

As long as you roll a good skill check the enemy can't enter your threat range. Since a spear has a bigger threat range, he can't close to attack.

Of course, the enemy cound counter by trying to attack the weapon (another possible combat stance), which upon sucesfull roll damages the weapon (eahc weapon ahving it's own durabiltiy..OR you could simply have a results table or something)

 

See?

Far more flexible and natural than just the +2vs. bonus.

 

 

EDIT:

Now that I think about it, ToEE does have something similar - "Ready Vs. Approach" command. With it a guy with a spear will ALWAYS strike first and stop the enemy in its' tracks if the enemy has a shorter ranged weapon (and fails his tumble check).

 

So this would basicly hte same thing.

The enemy can't enter your threat range bubble untill he passes his check. This basicly simulates exactly what you have been talking about, while at the same time opening many more tactical options - like fighters actually being able to occupy space and prevent movement trought it.

Edited October 1, 2012 by TrashMan

[teknoman2]

i think you missunderstood. im not talking about damage (attack usually means hit chance in rpgs not damage). im saying the same thing you say in different way.

the guy with the spear has longer reach than the guy with the sword.

the guy with the spear can attack before the guy with the sword gets close enough

the guy with the spear moves around to keep out of the sword's range as he keeps attacking

unless he messes up, he has the advantage and can win the fight without getting hit

that's the real life fight scenario.

in a game you would either have to recreate this, having the characters move around while fighting or have the characters move up to each other and simulate it with a bonus to their attack (or hit chance if you prefer

 

No, we're not talking about the same thing.

 

you want to add special modifiers to weapons (like +2 vs swords to sa spear).

I want the weapon to just be weapons wihout modifiers and their basic stats and character actions determining how good they are.

 

No +2 vs, sword for the spear, but increased threat range. If you fight defensively, that threat range is more pronounced (meaning defensive fighting makes it more difficult for the enemy to close..by either making him slower when entering the threat range or some other mecahnic).

No flat bonuses vs. there.

 

You can for example have a combat stance or something ( like how you have commands like "Ready vs.", "charge attack", "Fight Defensively" "deal non-lethal damage", etc..) who's purpose is to keep an enemy at range. And this is the stance you would use with a spear.

As long as you roll a good skill check the enemy can't enter your threat range. Since a spear has a bigger threat range, he can't close to attack.

Of course, the enemy cound counter by trying to attack the weapon (another possible combat stance), which upon sucesfull roll damages the weapon (eahc weapon ahving it's own durabiltiy..OR you could simply have a results table or something)

 

See?

Far more flexible and natural than just the +2vs. bonus.

 

 

EDIT:

Now that I think about it, ToEE does have something similar - "Ready Vs. Approach" command. With it a guy with a spear will ALWAYS strike first and stop the enemy in its' tracks if the enemy has a shorter ranged weapon (and fails his tumble check).

 

So this would basicly hte same thing.

The enemy can't enter your threat range bubble untill he passes his check. This basicly simulates exactly what you have been talking about, while at the same time opening many more tactical options - like fighters actually being able to occupy space and prevent movement trought it.

well now that you explained it properly i tend to agree. as i said before the bonuses are just an example. the main point is to have some sort of mechanic that simulates the advantage of using one weapon compared to using another

[TrashMan]

No offense, but you opning post didn't sound (to me) like you were musing on the weapon simulation/balancei n general, but rather like you were offering a specifc weapon system.

 

 

If you just simluate a weapon properly, it would fall into it's natural role, without having to specificly simulate it's performance against other weapons.

 

I'm all for complexity and simulating real weapon fighting better, but there's always a better and worse way of doing it.

[SGray]

No, because those bonuses are too questionable. Clumsy ork with spear against smth nimble with 2 shortswords, able to dash in close? Taking minus to defense and more possible crit for wearing spear instead of longsword with low agi character vs high agi char? While human for example could take advantage of spear length an get bonus to defense, and dashing to him would only nail you?

Another example - long 2-handed mallet vs fencing rapier: IF one, holding mallet is strong enough to swing it fast without delays - he'll had no problems smashing one with rapier (rapier couldn't block such a thing and rapier is shorter). Otherwise - IF he is not enough strong and IF rapier-wielder is agile - mallet becomes burden (easy to trick, big time to react because of mallet length and light rapier could use that delay).

Either it had to be thoroughly developed and include conditional bonuses and checks for your and enemy stats, number of enemies, epic character feats, etc, etc... (which i'd like, but is overcomplicated if to be real) or rely on player stats and static weapon parameters to make a picture.

*Reconsidered: one more option - to have warrior perks to remove drawbacks of chosen weapon. That'd be nice.

 

Though i'd really like all weapon classes to be unique and useful, but cant invent smth much better than standard weapon range, attack speed, crit stats... Maybe with addition of parry chance and weapon vs armor bonuses. Ignoring some armor or armor class when hit by specific weapon? As spears are good at puncturing chainmails and mage's armor, swords are good vs cloth/leather and hitting agile enemies, maces good vs plate armor, axes vs shields... Not easy to balance, but better then nothing.

Edited October 1, 2012 by SGray