Update #29: Fulfillment and the Pros and Cons of Nostalgia and Realism

[sodaTwo]

If find it slightly worrisome that so much time and effort are put into fixing stuff that is not broken. The more I hear about revisiting and reinventing every single thing, the more I worry that this might slide into a gigantic fantasy heartbreaker.

I personally have thought for years and years that the D&D concept of Armor Class was antiquated and heavily flawed, so in this case I believe they are fixing something that is broken. That's just my personal view though, I'm sure some people think the D&D Armor Class system is perfectly fine, they're entitled to their opinion.

 

I am not claiming the old system was perfect. But I believe that I much rather see Obsidian focus their limited resources on creating stories and content with the old proven system then trying to dissect every piece of game mechanic and reinventing it. I would much rather see them operating under the old constraints trying to build the best (new 2014 version) IE game possible.

 

I would hate to look back at project eternity thinking that we didn't learn anything from Masters of Orion 3.

Edited October 31, 2012 by sodaTwo

[Monte Carlo]

We want any character to be able to wear any piece of armor, because you would be able to do that IRL. How you perform in that armor depends on other stuff.

 

This is a very good point and why armour proficiency needs to be more of a dynamic skill. That is to say, the more experience you have in doing stuff wearing armour (i.e. fighting) the better you are at it. Conversely, you might need even more practice in heavy armour to do stuff like fire a musket or shoot a bow.

 

I used to be a pretty good pistol and rifle shot in R/L. But I struggled when I had to wear body armour (wasn't mandatory back then). Some guys who wore armour all the time became just as good as shooting in it as they were before. Yadda yadda.

[Hertzila]

Nice to see an update that actually gives us a glimpse of the work done there.

 

Yes to a definite tier system and armor trees. I can understand somewhat with the want to keep everything viable but IMO that way lies a dead end. It makes everything just equally boring instead of equally exciting. Having actual tiers which are always definite improvements makes it a much more satisfying experience of getting ones hands on that next tier armor. Of course the armor could branch out in different ways, say a light armor tree branches into a "common" line with the best overall stats, while another branch would eschew that in favor of additional stealth benefits (say a cultural difference between subcultures). Similarly some unique variants or exotic versions could "jump tiers" into a much higher one, but be more specialized into something than the others of its tree (eg. a megabeast-of-whateverville-hide armor that would be like a tier 6 light armor but instead of being just equal to their protection, lack some of it but makes up for it with excellent protection from the elements). But the basics remain the same and a tier 6 armor of it's branch will always be better than tier 5 armor of the same branch.

 

Should something like hide armor be supplanted/made obsolete by leather as an "improved version" or does that effectively kill the visual concept of the rough-hewn rawhide-wearing ranger or barbarian?

 

Yes, it should be made obsolete. Maybe, if it's really felt necessary, some exotic armor branch could offer the same kind of visual look while keeping the armor's tier up-to-date but otherwise they'd have to go with the tier system too.

 

If armor types like hide (or scale, or mail) should remain viable on their own, how should that "upgrade" be expressed to the player? Functional descriptors like "fine scale", "superior hide", etc.? Cultural or material descriptors like "Vailian doublet", "iron feather scale"? Olde tyme numerical descriptors like "scale armor +1", "half-plate +2"?

 

Cultural descriptions, please. Those are the most interesting ones and could offer a lot of variance to explore and balance. If necessary, include material descriptions when, for example, differing the same culture's heavy armor that has simply switched the construction material. Leave the "masterwork" and "superior" type descriptions for custom-made and specially fitted armor.

And whatever you do, do not go with the +1 method of naming.

 

Is it okay for an upgrade from a visual type of armor to maintain its relative position to other armor types even if "realistically" that upgraded armor is now probably superior in protection to other armor types? E.g. an armored jack or brigandine armor is probably more protective than even nice suit of leather armor... but mechanically, we're presenting it as an upgrade of a padded (doublet) armor type.

 

Not of huge concern, but if the thematic naming is not felt necessary, I'd suggest going with the "realistic" approach: switch around the armors depending on their actual features rather than their origin and branch.

[Cantousent]

I would hate to look at at project eternity thinking that we didn't learn anything from Masters of Orion 3.

The only thing I would point out is that there's a difference between getting into the nitty gritty discussing game mechanics and using those mechanics during gameplay. If you boil down Saywer's tier system to its essentials, it's not hard to understand, tweaks the underlying mechanic to something that fits into the Project Eternity vision, will be easy to use in character building.

 

The thing is, when the devs post a story update, there will be folks who wish they'd spent that time trying to rework mechanics. It's all good. Every update won't be pleasing to every backer, but it's the end result that concerns us, right? Don't think that they're not spending as much or even more time on story just yet. Give it time, keep checking updates, keep advocating for what you want, and there's a good chance that what you want will be addressed sometime soon. Frankly, I'm more interested in the story and how the PC fits into it than I am in armor. Sure. I'm with you. ...But I know that dealing with these game mechanic issues is just as important as dealing with the story, so I'm happy to let the game mechanic folks have their day in the sun. Our day is coming too, you know.

 

EDIT:...

Edited October 31, 2012 by Cantousent

[Veeno]

I'm surprised no one had any thoughts to share (or holes to point out) on the idea I presented earlier in the thread.

 

I'll repost it in case someone has some input but missed it:

 

Well... this thread is advancing rapidly and I have no idea if this has been mentioned already, but I'd like to copy-paste something I saw in the comments for this update:

 

It would be great to see a system that rewarded the player for sticking to specific equipment. Over time, as the equipment is used, it could accrue stat bonuses. Nothing crazy, just enough to incentive the use of specific equipment suited to the players chosen role. Having well used equipment with a few bonuses might just make the choice between super protective heavy armor and something that is more suited to your role a bit tougher.

 

I like this idea. The more a character wears a piece of armour the more he or she will get used to it, and this "learning" over time can be simulated by giving the armour some bonuses over time (but only for that character). It could even get certain special bonuses based on something the character experienced with that armour, e.g. (I don't know) fighting an ogre for the first time and getting a strong knock on the head could give the helmet worn at that moment a certain special bonus.

 

The only problem with this is that it is very difficult to balance, because if it's overdone then the player will never be motivated to change the character's armour.

[Sacred_Path]

As much as I like variety in character building, I do hope they stick with the simple concept that the heavier the armor, the (objectively) better it is. Fighters in CRPGs traditionally don't have much to offer except using heavy armor and heavy weapons. With the Ranger, Barbarian and Paladin in the game, it's easy for the Fighter to end up getting shafted.

 

Moreover, I'd like to see heavy armor be as expensive, comparatively, as it really was - a lot more than it is say in DnD.

Edited October 31, 2012 by Sacred_Path

[Keyrock]

If find it slightly worrisome that so much time and effort are put into fixing stuff that is not broken. The more I hear about revisiting and reinventing every single thing, the more I worry that this might slide into a gigantic fantasy heartbreaker.

I personally have thought for years and years that the D&D concept of Armor Class was antiquated and heavily flawed, so in this case I believe they are fixing something that is broken. That's just my personal view though, I'm sure some people think the D&D Armor Class system is perfectly fine, they're entitled to their opinion.

 

I am not claiming the old system was perfect. But I believe that I much rather see Obsidian focus their limited resources on creating stories and content with the old proven system then trying to dissect every piece of game mechanic and reinventing it. I would much rather see them operating under the old constraints trying to build the best (new 2014 version) IE game possible.

 

I would hate to look at at project eternity thinking that we didn't learn anything from Masters of Orion 3.

Fair enough, but I've heard the folks at Obsidian state in the past that the D&D ruleset was in many ways a handicap on what they could do with games, hence why they are making their own rules and mechanics from the ground up. If you're going to make the mechanics and rules from the ground up, you might as well examine all the aspects of it so that you can make the best ruleset possible for the game you are creating. I understand the reasoning behind "don't change things just for the sake of changing things", and it is sound reasoning. "Don't keep things the same just for the sake of keeping things the same" is just as sound reasoning in my opinion.

Edited October 31, 2012 by Keyrock

[Living One]

• Should something like hide armor be supplanted/made obsolete by leather as an "improved version" or does that effectively kill the visual concept of the rough-hewn rawhide-wearing ranger or barbarian?
  

 
Well,you can make said leather armor look barbarian-ish.Though I don't see much of a problem if a barbarian wears something from a different culture sometimes.(EDIT:if there's a justification,like looting it in case of PC/companions or some story reason regarding other NPCs.Ofc it shouldn't be overused or the world gets inconsistent like Oblivion.Edited to point out this.I cannot into posting at late hours:/).
 

If armor types like hide (or scale, or mail) should remain viable on their own, how should that "upgrade" be expressed to the player? Functional descriptors like "fine scale", "superior hide", etc.? Cultural or material descriptors like "Vailian doublet", "iron feather scale"? Olde tyme numerical descriptors like "scale armor +1", "half-plate +2"?

I think it depends on wich kind of upgrade we're talking about.If it is a better armor from within the same type then go for the first two scenarios,if it's something that has been upgraded via blacksmithing( or enchanting,etc.)then go for +1(though 'fine/superior' are okay too here).

Is it okay for an upgrade from a visual type of armor to maintain its relative position to other armor types even if "realistically" that upgraded armor is now probably superior in protection to other armor types? E.g. an armored jack or brigandine armor is probably more protective than even nice suit of leather armor... but mechanically, we're presenting it as an upgrade of a padded (doublet) armor type.

Mmmh...I'd say no but it also depends on the specific system(what kind of protections it offers for example).

 

 

Anyway nice update.

Edited October 31, 2012 by Living One

[Hugo Rune]

Probably someone has already thrown that out, I'm not going to read the whole thread right now, but the stamina/health system that you guys are planning might give good opportunities for light/heavy armor tradeoff.

 

Heavy armor would impose a stamina penalty while significantly reducing health loss when hit. Light armor doesn't affect stamina but when you're hit, your health suffers more.

[Solviulnir the Soulbinder]

2. We want any character to be able to wear any piece of armor, because you would be able to do that IRL. How you perform in that armor depends on other stuff, but putting it on should be possible, even with the lowest of low INT.

 

 

Hmm, "We"?

May I ask what exactly is the point of having that possibility? Am I correct to think that what you are saying is "We" don't want any restrictions whatsoever, not even INT ones... *but* minimum STR would still be required to put on a specific piece of armour? Well, isn't that a restriction? 99yo wizard with high strength (brawny wizards, sexy) wearing full plate? Why would "we" want that? Technically speaking one can eat soup with a fork, that's certainly an option, but is it really useful? Another natural step after lifting all restrictions on armour/weapon use would be to make one - universal - character class, some kind of multiclass fighter/mage/assassin, who would be able to use any weapon or piece of armour.

 

Don't get me wrong, there are some good points in what you're saying. It's just I don't quite agree that me or any average "keyboard warrior" would know how to correctly put on (not to mention walk in or use in any other way) a typical combat full plate armour or any other piece of medieval armour more complicated than a chainmail. You'd need to know how to use it, you'd need to know all the ins and outs just to walk with all that iron/steel on your body. One would need to *specialise*. Those were slightly less ergonomic than your typical IIIA combat vest. Take a look at EOD protective suits... and imagine a wizard wearing it on a battlefield.

 

Restrictions, whether attribute or class related, are not always a bad thing. They help to maintain realism at a reasonable level at least. And prevent weird things from happening, like archers in full plates. While I'm not a huge fan of games which impose significant limitations on your character or have overcomplicated mechanics that take all the fun and balance away I'd still like PE to stay somewhat true to it's IE predecessors.

 

Heh, guess I'm complaining too much. Thanks for the update.

Edited October 31, 2012 by Solviulnir the Soulbinder

[Tale]

Barbarians perturb me. They wear hide armor for no reason other than because their primitive tribal society did not make any better. You can come up with all sorts of justifications with mechanical ties for how they can, in spite of that limitation, excel. But I can't think of a single justification with mechanical ties for why they would continue to do so outside the context of a society that simply can't create better armor.

 

And it's good for me to type that out, because usually after I type "I would never!" or "I don't see how..." is when ideas on the subject start coming to me.

 

Edit: Perhaps it could simply be a damage/defense tradeoff for barbarians. Heavy armor limits their damage output by some fashion. But still allows them to function in a different, but equal, role. I guess that means their archetypal presentation would be more of a damage dealer than a meatshield. Is that comfortable for fans of the class? Maybe.

[Alexjh]

I think converse to a lot of the responses here, I think while a level of quality system makes sense to some degree, I think going overboard on it would be a mistake - realistically, I don't think more than three tiers of quality of non-magical stuff are needed - equivalents of shoddy (the kind of stuff you start the game with), (adjectiveless) normal for when you scrape a little money together and masterwork to bridge between normal stuff and magical.

 

You could however of course have different makes/materials within each of those with tweaks to benefits, though I really don't like the Elder Scrolls model of a linear progression from material A through to material F of which is the best, as it doesn't give much room for creative choices of equipment on the players part. But if say there was a group of enemies ahead who were vulnerable to fire but very fast, stick your melee character in some salamander-hide armor to get their attention and drop a fireball on the lot of them while you walk out unscathed, though that same armor might make you more vulnerable to cold for example.

 

However, I really don't think its worth going too overboard on elaborate armor rankings when once you have the basic stuff down, the real juicy equipment is going to be the unique stuff anyway and I would rather we had an interesting range of those than 10 quality levels on 10 kinds of armor on ten kinds of material with ten levels of enchantment...

[Methuseleh]

Remember why different types of weapons evolved and armor then counter-evolved. Leather and padding is decent against slashing and can be relatively good against impact. Chain is poor against impact (without stiffening plate) but highly resistant to slashing.

 

In response to the advent of early, relatively low-velocity firearms, armorers deployed thick plate. This stopped big slow bullets, but eventually proved so unwieldy and fatiguing that it was abandoned as weaponry went a different route altogether into smallswords and rapiers.

[AdmThrawn]

As an aside, I really like the idea of allowing armor to have widely variant aesthetic choices to please different players. Things like ridiculously skimpy female armor, ludicrously huge pauldrons that go above the head, or everything-is-brown coloring may be what some people want, but I don't like them. Could we please have aesthetic choice without having to ditch great armor stats or even whole armor classes?

Edited October 31, 2012 by AdmThrawn

[mcmanusaur]

Barbarians perturb me. They wear hide armor for no reason other than because their primitive tribal society did not make any better. You can come up with all sorts of justifications with mechanical ties for how they can, in spite of that limitation, excel. But I can't think of a single justification with mechanical ties for why they would continue to do so outside the context of a society that simply can't create better armor.

Indeed. I really think the armor class of barbarians is the most illogical of the lot. Why would someone who wants to be a pure melee fighter consign themselves to poor armor outside of the reasons you mentioned? Maybe a Project Eternity incarnation of a barbarian would make more sense in medium armor than the ridiculous loincloth type things you often see (which are by the way as bad as boobplate).

[nikolokolus]

I think it might be cool to have the barbarian's nekkid berzerk rage mimic what it was all about in them olden days- it needs to inspire awe and fear. If the barbarian chooses to armor himself, his berzerk rage will no longer inspire the same awe and will fatigue him faster. Or some such mechanical reason to choose to eschew armor.

[Huinehtar]

Or it could just be semantic.

 

Not "Conan-like" Barbarians, but "Greek-Roman-like" Barbarians: from tribes or villages far from "civilized" cities (of course civilization idea was propaganda at this time).

[Elerond]

Or it could just be semantic.

 

Not "Conan-like" Barbarians, but "Greek-Roman-like" Barbarians: from tribes or villages far from "civilized" cities (of course civilization idea was propaganda at this time).

 

Maybe definition what Greeks used is bit too wide "whoever is not Greek is a Barbarian"

[Tarrasque Cult]

If i can make some humble suggestions here, we can first take the problem into two branches.

 

1. Armour - the equipment itself, dedicated to lessen the damage impact on you. It is based purely in equipment, skin (such as D&D barbarians) and magic that absorb damage.

 

2. Defense - the capacity of avoiding hits, based on dexterity, deflection (from weapon and shield), parry skill (a form of deflection).

 

Example:

 

An Iron Golem, a massive metal "automaton", has high Armour but low defense, as it is easy to hit it with your weapon but it is hard to make any damage.

A asian-like monk, a fast and agile human, has very low armour (since it wears no armour), but has a very high defense, as it is very hard to strike it with your weapon.

 

***

It is kinda confusing in D&D 3ed that added "deflection bonus", "magic bonus", "armor bonus", dexterity bonus. In Icewind Dale 2 for was very misleading the bonuses when you had rings of protection, bracers of defense and magic armour...

 

This way there are only two types of bonus "Defense Bonus" or "Armour Bonus".

 

****

 

Once we treat this as two completely different things, it would be very easy and game-friendly to make armours and items based on it.

 

This way, we enter in another breach much more cool and hystorical (IMHO) about armour:

 

1. Armour based on culture/region

 

Examples:

 

1. Leather Armour (description: a standard "insert hegemonic culture name here" leather armour).

2. Wildfolk Leather Armour (a common leather armour from the nothern Wildfolk).

3. Imperial Couraiss (a glatiatorial armour from the Empire "X")

 

2. Defense techniques based on culture/region.

 

1. Imperial Infantry Technique (a combat skill from Empire X dedicated to improve defense with Shield + Weapon)

2. Imperial Spear Technique (a combat skill from Empire X dedicated to improve attack with Spears)

 

And so on...

 

****

The point is to make hundreds of teachers around the world and according to role play you can learn techniques from different cultures and mix them freely, making very unique characters...

 

Dont know if it is viable, but this is the rule when i'm the DM in my group (with house rules).

[makryu]

I think a factor behind making different types of armor available, plausible and desirable at any point of the game is to add unique mechanics. In D&D, armor does not have many stats, so making different but equivalent ones was difficult. As has been stated by many, exploring damage reduction, armor class, dexterity and strength restrictions, different protections for different types of damage, fatigue modifiers, buy and repair costs, different materials, npc reaction to clothing, etc should provide for more than enough variety if done correctly. Maybe add "armor experience" or something like it, making familiarity with the armor play a factor during play.

 

One last thing I'm not sure someone may have posted is that maybe armor could have some distinct feature linked to souls, which is the main theme, after all. Maybe different materials or armor with different symbols or made during certain rituals/regions/occasions tie in with the user's soul and provide other less tangible/ non-physical effects. Maybe an "armored soul" is not something purely mental.

[mcmanusaur]

If i can make some humble suggestions here, we can first take the problem into two branches.

...

Once we treat this as two completely different things, it would be very easy and game-friendly to make armours and items based on it.

To me that's just rehashing the age-old binary distinction between a STR tank and a DEX tank. We have to go deeper than that to solve these issues in my opinion.

Maybe add "armor experience" or something like it, making familiarity with the armor play a factor during play.

Personally the last thing I want is to have to level up armor.

[Grand_Commander13]

I'm really hoping to avoid tiered versions of armor, at least "this is the actually good version of the armor you started the game with". If we must get better armor later in the game than we started with, then make it because we started with a cheap, poorly made version and ended up with an expensive, masterfully crafted version.

 

You can't do the armor like Fallout where you go from low tech armor to high tech armor unless that's part of the setting. If it was part of the setting though, I would withdraw my objection.

 

Speaking of Fallout's armor system, am I the only one who would usually stick with leather armor in Fallout 2 over metal armor? The DR wasn't as good but the AC was better and it was much lighter. I'd really like it if concerns like weight, cost to repair, fatigue while wearing, etc... all found their way into Project Eternity's armor system.

[makryu]

Personally the last thing I want is to have to level up armor.

 

I didn't really meant anything like that, I wouldn't want to level armor either (unless it was intelligent armor ).

[Continuum]

Key things I would like to see in armor:

 

EVASION - Chance to be hit should be based on character/class abilities, not on the armor. Armor should PENALIZE evasion in increasing levels with increasing weight.

 

MITIGATION - The function of armor is to mitigate some or all of the damage received when hit. This can be either a % reduction in damage received or a flat amount of damage mitigated (F:NV-style Damage Threshold). There are advantages and disadvantages to both types of mitigation.

 

DAMAGE TYPES - Different types of armor are more/less effective against different types of damage. This can create excessive complexity in games, but it's a feature that I would like to see in P:E. Here is a breakdown of the basic damage types that I would like to see in P:E and mitigated by armor types.

• Crushing / blunt force - e.g., hammers, fists, tails, rocks, etc.
  
• Slashing / edged - swords, axes, claws, spikes, etc.
  
• Piercing / stabbing - arrows, spears, teeth, etc.
  
• Elemental / temperature - fire/heat, cold/ice
  
• Electrical - IF there are non-magical electric attacks... I don't like lumping electricity in with fire/ice because it behaves dramatically differently
  
• Magical - can be further broken down in to types of magic if necessary
  
• Damage from poison, acids, etc. should not be mitigated by armor but rather should be secondary effects of attacks or ignore armor depending on the nature of the attack (e.g., poison gas ignores armor, acid damages armor, etc.)
  

MOVEMENT/FATIGUE - Real life provides plenty of reasons that heavy armor is only used in limited situations. Most notably, it restricts movement speed and causes fatigue. Implement movement restrictions and fatigue penalties by armor type/weight. Give partially offsetting movement/fatigue bonuses to classes intended to use heavier armor (warriors, knights, etc.).

 

NO CLASS RESTRICTIONS - Class restrictions are very artificial. The world of RPGs has evolved way beyond D&D. Put natural penalties to armor that determine it's effectiveness and appropriateness for a given character/class, such as:

• Weight/volume - the heavier the armor, the more inventory/weight it consumes. Warrior classes should be able to carry more and thief/mage classes should have more random crap to carry that creates tradeoffs with heavy armor/weapons.
  
• Rogue penalties- armor type dramatically impacts stealth, climbing, acrobatics, etc.. No human can effectively sneak, climb, jump, etc. in plate mail. This alone can make heavy armor useless to many thief/assassin builds.
  
• Casting penalty - rather than saying mages can't wear armor, just impose a casting time penalty or some such, as in Dragon Age. Make severe tradeoffs between more effective weapon/armor types and magic use. Make sure any "battle mage" or "arcane warrior" talents/builds reflect those tradeoffs so that they can't equal the magic output a "pure" mage in light armor with a staff or whatnot.
  

SITUATIONAL BENEFITS AND PENALTIES- Certain types of armor should convey bonuses for given situations that guide their use. An adventure in the realm of the evil winter monsters should mean that the insulated armor is worth the loss of mitigation to other damage types or the increase in weigh or other penalties. A short jaunt to the massive epic battle may be worth wearing the heaviest functional armor for a character, whereas a longer adventure is better served by a lighter, more multi-purpose armor. The inherent advantages/disadvantages of the armor should determine the usage, not artificial restrictions like class.

 

Just because it's a fantasy world doesn't mean that we should ignore "realistic" benefits and penalties guiding the use of things. The more logical the functions of armor and weapons, the more enjoyable I find them, and the easier they are to understand for people who don't care to dig in to the math.

[Gorth]

I think it might be cool to have the barbarian's nekkid berzerk rage mimic what it was all about in them olden days- it needs to inspire awe and fear. If the barbarian chooses to armor himself, his berzerk rage will no longer inspire the same awe and will fatigue him faster. Or some such mechanical reason to choose to eschew armor.

 

Having visited both rainforests and deserts, I *can* think of a few cultural reasons why barbarians might not want to wear too much body armour as a rule of thumb. Besides, it does indeed look more impressive when giving in to rage and you start tearing your flimsy deer skin toga apart Hulk Hogan style

 

Besides, vikings were sort of archetypical barbarians. Wouldn't want too much armour pulling you down if you are a sea faring people.

 

Personally the last thing I want is to have to level up armor.

 

I didn't really meant anything like that, I wouldn't want to level armor either (unless it was intelligent armor ).

 

A bit like the stealth suit in Old World Blues