As someone who picked up the first Fallout games AFTER playing 3 and eventually New Vegas, i was impressed by how well implemented the design of armor mechanics were implented there, this while fantasy cprg's were still operating with a primitive first edition ad&d system that seemed clunky as hell. Then again Fallout as a game didn't have to face the same challenges a class-based RPG would face where you have a mulitude of types of armor that work with certain classes and you want to keep the selection relatively even in terms of effective power (advantages-disadvantages).
I think that having 4-5 types of physica damage, with all armor bringing an evasion (and a max dexterity bonus increase to that) and damage mitigation is fine, though perhaps some weapons should not be doing a single type of damage - for example while i can imagine a rapier doing only piercing damage, i can't imagine a 1m+ big chunk of metal yielded into what is a two handed sword doing only slashing damage where slashing damage is something a katana would also do (i.e. a 2h sword should prolly do blunt damage too, maybe piercing).
On the concept of armor and armor-damage interaction which Josh spoke of some time ago - the way i understood it was that something that does piercing damage would have more "armor penetration" as an innate thing while having the potential disadvantage of doing less normal damage to everything else which sounded like a simple, beautiful and great way to implement a weapon-armor interaction
What i'd like to ask is:
1. If blunt weapons or weapons that do blunt/crushing damage or if blunt/crushing damage as a whole goes through heavy armor/big DT easier (or has more "armor penetration" as i've put it before) are we to expect blunt-damage dealing weapons to have a harder time versus ligh armor - it would make SOME sense because they're heavier weapons that attack slower and you could give something like the "speed factor" stat from BG2/PS:T etc a bigger role in that bigger speed factor weapons do worse/get a roll penalty versus high AC's (for example). Basically are weapons with their respective damage types going to come with their advantage/disadvantage factor as well to complent those of the armor?
2. Are we to expect enchanted weapons to get an innate ammount of "armor penetration" - or to put it differently, i should be expected as a player, controling a party of 6, to mix and match weapons such as all damage types would be available to me (it wouldn't make sense to make everyone use longswords anyway since everyone would fight over the same pieces of loot and it would be horrible management on myaccount). BUT does that mean that if my front line of warriors have all slashing-damage-dealing weapons (or if i just want to solo the game) and i meet up with a heavy armor opponent i have to switch to a blunt weapon which my party is not proeficient with and can't hit for the life of them? I mean meeting clay golems in BG2 when the only blunt-weapon user of my party was my cleric who had horrible Thac0 was fairly frustrating but those encounters were few and far between and added some flavour, i can't imagine meeting that type of situation frequently to be fun however.
Edited by uaciaut, 17 January 2013 - 01:30 PM.