Power of classes (Realism vs. Filling unlimited power)

[Iucounu]

um, well then, I don't want to push this discussion any more than necessary. It's just my opinion that it's possible to make a good high-power fantasy RPG without or at least with limited HP inflation. 

 

So a system where characters gain about 6 HP(modified by CON) per level and start at 10 HP(+CON Modifier)sounds good to you? Because that would be my ideal system.

Not terribly. I mean that would be just the same as in the IE games. But I could live with it. 

[Lephys]

No he said SPECIFICALLY. Which means explicitly, free of ambiguity, distinctive, etc. If he meant something else, he should have been more clear, because when using "specifically stated" it has to be stated without a doubt that X is true.

 

He didn't just say "stated", he said "specifically stated". Which greatly narrows the scope of "stated".

I really don't know what to tell you. No one's arguing the meaning of "specifically," yet you think that's what this is about.

 

The ruleset "specifically states" that you gain levels with experience, and you gain HP when you gain levels, and how much, and when, etc. That stuff isn't ambiguously stated. It is "stated" in the rulebook. Therefore, that's how that world works. A character in the DnD world gains levels and HP. However, the terminology and concepts of "HP" and "levels" don't actually inhabit the fantasy world. They exist outside of it, as a liaison between the player and the game world. Why? Because the only way we know how to govern interactions with something as dynamic as an entire fantasy world is through math.

 

So, yes, it is specifically stated. In the ruleset. The ruleset governs the game world. The game world exists without knowledge of this governance, because it has no need of such knowledge.

 

If Trashman could've worded it better to prevent confusion, then so be it. But now we're clarifying (and have been for like 5 posts). Words mean what they mean, and he meant what he meant. You're not even arguing semantics anymore, because I've already clarified, and you're saying that my clarification is false and doesn't exist, and that your suggested meaning is the only possible meaning, whatsoever. You're just being silly at this point.

 

I've nothing more to say. I was just trying to help clarify so you didn't have to waste your breath arguing that obviously-misunderstood point of his. It is what it is. *shrug*

[jamoecw]

math time!

 

d&d 3.5:

sorc/wiz - 1d4 (2.5hp lvl) @ lvl 10 = 26.5 avg HP (66.5 HP if 18 CON)

 

lvl 10 fireball - 10d6 (35 avg fire dmg) @ reflex DC 13 (17 if 18 INT/CHA) for 50% dmg

 

sorc/wiz - +3 reflex save (7 if 18 DEX) = 39.71% chance of save vs. DC 17 (62.5% if 13 INT/CHA and 7 reflex save)

 

avg fire dmg per lvl 10 fireball - ~28.05 at DC 17 and 3 reflex save (~24.06 at DC 14 and 7 reflex save)

 

% of health per fireball - ~105.85% @ DC 17 and 10 CON, 10 DEX (~36.18% @ DC 14 and 18 CON, 18 DEX)

 

 

 

barb - 1d12 (6.5 HP lvl) @ lvl 10 = 70.5 avg HP (110.5 HP if 18 CON)

 

% of health per fireball - ~39.97% @ DC 17 and 10 CON, 10 DEX (~21.78% @ DC 14 and 18 CON, 18 DEX)

 

 

so if we assume an ambush with fireballs:

attacker(s) - sorc 18 CHA

defenders - 1. sorc 16 DEX 14 CON; 2. sorc 16 CON 14 DEX; 3. barb 18 CON 14 DEX; 4. barb 14 CON 18 DEX

 

1. ~60.33% (0 DEX due to flat footed), 2 attackers to win in the surprise round

2. ~49.65% (0 DEX due to flat footed), 3 attackers to win in the surprise round

3. ~24.45% (+2 DEX due to uncanny dodge), 5 attackers to win in the surprise round

4. ~28.72% (+4 DEX due to uncanny dodge), 4 attackers to win in the surprise round

 

 

so what we see is that HP is more important that other defensive stats, and is less specialized. a class with low base HP per lvl has more need of CON than any other stat, and yet it still is better to have CON over the other stats defense wise. if we apply RL tactics to d&d we get a small 4 man group able to cast clairaudience and then strike from concealment at 800 ft away, combine that with protection from arrows and you get nearly a prefect guerrilla tactic, similar to canon volleys that targeted enemy artillery, since once the enemy has no artillery victory is highly probable.

 

 

classes that can survive surprise round against 4 lvl 10 fireballs:

barbarian - min 18 CON, 12 DEX (max 4 fireballs)

paladin- min 12 CON, 18 CHA (max 5 fireballs)

monk - min 8 CON (max 10 fireballs)

rogue - min 14 CON, 16 DEX (max 6 fireballs, 13 with special feat)

 

the monk and rogue get hefty reflex save bonuses (evasion), and the rogue and barbarian can't be caught flat footed (uncanny dodge), the paladin can heal himself as a free action via lay on hands and thus effectively has 2 health bonus stats, in addition to his CHA also acting as a boost to his saving throws that stays even when flat footed.

 

a more universal ambush spell would be magic missile, with appropriate meta magic.

 

quickened magic missile - 5th level spell

maximized magic missile - 4th level spell

quickened mm - 17.5 average magic damage, no save

max mm - 25 avg magic dmg, no save

both in the surprise round (via wizard) - 42.5 avg magic dmg, no save

4 wizards - 170 avg magic dmg, no save

 

so a group of 4 wizards can in effect strike during the surprise round with fireballs, killing most of the party at 800ft, then either fire another set of fireballs, after turn 2 the entire party will be dead (3 sets of fireballs) including the rogues, baring significant fire resistance of course. at this time if the defenders have been trying to close the distance, unleashing meta magic magic missiles should finish them off even through resistances.

 

if everyone had the same base HP, then higher level spells would have to be adjusted, which would make the classes easier to balance, so long as the balance included non universal defenses (HP is a universal defense). this math also starts to point out the flaws in the magic scaling of d&d.

Edited February 25, 2013 by jamoecw

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

No he said SPECIFICALLY. Which means explicitly, free of ambiguity, distinctive, etc. If he meant something else, he should have been more clear, because when using "specifically stated" it has to be stated without a doubt that X is true.

 

He didn't just say "stated", he said "specifically stated". Which greatly narrows the scope of "stated".

I really don't know what to tell you. No one's arguing the meaning of "specifically," yet you think that's what this is about.

 

The ruleset "specifically states" that you gain levels with experience, and you gain HP when you gain levels, and how much, and when, etc. That stuff isn't ambiguously stated. It is "stated" in the rulebook. Therefore, that's how that world works. A character in the DnD world gains levels and HP. However, the terminology and concepts of "HP" and "levels" don't actually inhabit the fantasy world. They exist outside of it, as a liaison between the player and the game world. Why? Because the only way we know how to govern interactions with something as dynamic as an entire fantasy world is through math.

 

So, yes, it is specifically stated. In the ruleset. The ruleset governs the game world. The game world exists without knowledge of this governance, because it has no need of such knowledge.

 

If Trashman could've worded it better to prevent confusion, then so be it. But now we're clarifying (and have been for like 5 posts). Words mean what they mean, and he meant what he meant. You're not even arguing semantics anymore, because I've already clarified, and you're saying that my clarification is false and doesn't exist, and that your suggested meaning is the only possible meaning, whatsoever. You're just being silly at this point.

 

I've nothing more to say. I was just trying to help clarify so you didn't have to waste your breath arguing that obviously-misunderstood point of his. It is what it is. *shrug*

 

 

I don't think you understand the full context of the argument.

 

 

Then why do you assume that something is not logical in PE if you can not know if it is logical in PE? Haven't the majority of your arguments been based on what real world physics? Real world laws that may not be true in PE?

 

Because reality is always the starting point. Unless specificly stated that X works differently, you look to the real world.

 

 

Trashman's entire thing on this thread has been railing against HP increasing with level because it does not fit the laws of the real world(and because he personally doesn't like fantasy that is too fantastical). He is talking about lore in that statement.

[Lephys]

I don't think you understand the full context of the argument.

 

 

Trashman's entire thing on this thread has been railing against HP increasing with level because it does not fit the laws of the real world(and because he personally doesn't like fantasy that is too fantastical). He is talking about lore in that statement.

If this entire thread didn't even exist, it wouldn't change the fact that reality is the foundation for all things fiction. If you make a world with magic in it, then it's a realistic world + non-realistic magic.

 

Whether or not he's correct about HP is irrelevant to that specific fact. So, if you want to continue telling him he's wrong about HP, that's fine. But you're wasting your time trying to tell him that reality isn't always the starting point for a fictional world, and/or trying to say that that can't possibly be what he meant by that.

 

As I said, I noticed what I believed to be a misunderstanding, and thought I'd save you the time and trouble of arguing against a meaning for something that wasn't even being used.

 

As for the HP issue, I don't feel I'd be able to contribute much to the discussion in my current frame of mind (I'm sick, and a bit out of it right now), so I'll think on it for a bit before I say anything.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

if everyone had the same base HP, then higher level spells would have to be adjusted, which would make the classes easier to balance, so long as the balance included non universal defenses (HP is a universal defense).  this math also starts to point out the flaws in the magic scaling of d&d.

Are you arguing for a static HP or for a system where HP progression is not affected by class, but still by level? I could get behind the latter, but I have some issues with the former(namely balancing low-level combat without making it tedious).

I do agree that balance should take in to account more universal defenses(like saving throws) and non-universal defenses(like class abilities).

Also D&D scaling was not very good. Saving throws grew at a much slower rate than spells, so succeeding against a spell was pretty difficult.

 

Anyway my proposed HP/Defense system: HP= 10+Con modifier at level one, with 5-6+CON modifier gained at each level. Stamina is (20+CON modifier)Level. Specific defense values(saving throws) vary by class, but increase at a faster rate than they did in D&D to avoid large discrepancies between the saving throw bonus and the bonus put towards DC. More classes have unique defenses against damage, which vary in effectiveness towards type of damage(a Monk's wound's may not be as effective against magic as an arcane veil).

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

If this entire thread didn't even exist, it wouldn't change the fact that reality is the foundation for all things fiction. If you make a world with magic in it, then it's a realistic world + non-realistic magic.

 

Whether or not he's correct about HP is irrelevant to that specific fact. So, if you want to continue telling him he's wrong about HP, that's fine. But you're wasting your time trying to tell him that reality isn't always the starting point for a fictional world, and/or trying to say that that can't possibly be what he meant by that.

 

As I said, I noticed what I believed to be a misunderstanding, and thought I'd save you the time and trouble of arguing against a meaning for something that wasn't even being used.

 

As for the HP issue, I don't feel I'd be able to contribute much to the discussion in my current frame of mind (I'm sick, and a bit out of it right now), so I'll think on it for a bit before I say anything.

sigh......I'm not arguing that a fantasy world has no realistic elements in it or has no basis in reality. I'm arguing that assuming X must be exactly as it is in the Real World is not always true, because there are implied facts as well as explicitly stated ones. I used D&D as an example, because while it is true that someone gets harder to kill as they grow more powerful(HP goes up with level in mechanics terms) it is never explicitly stated in the lore that someone gets harder to kill as they grow stronger. It is an implied fact, it is not explicitly stated but it happens to be true.

 

Trashman has asserted that HP growing as you level up is not logical in PE because it is not logical in the real world. When I asked why he assumed that PE logic must equal real world logic, he stated that unless X was clearly specified you look to the real world. Judging by his posts on this thread Trashman requires that the lore determine without a shadow of a doubt if a non-real world mechanic makes sense in order for it to be acceptable and logical.

 

As for him clarifying his point, I doubt he will. He still hasn't explained how a static HP system would work in a setting like PE, or what RPG had HP combined with armor, dodge, parry, etc.

[jamoecw]

 

if everyone had the same base HP, then higher level spells would have to be adjusted, which would make the classes easier to balance, so long as the balance included non universal defenses (HP is a universal defense).  this math also starts to point out the flaws in the magic scaling of d&d.

Are you arguing for a static HP or for a system where HP progression is not affected by class, but still by level?

either one, class specific HP per level could work too, but is harder to balance and would require much less HP per level gain over all to keep things balanced.

 

an earlier quote you gave demonstrated that an entire party could be killed with 2 lvl 10 fireball's given HP for 5 good sword hits, most classes in d&d already fall into this category.  a fighter without CON bonuses has an average of 59.5 HP, just to give you an idea.  balancing skills that decrease the damage dealt to you with skills that overcome the defensive skills would mean that equal level characters should kill each other just as quickly at any given level.  if all classes had the same HP for their level (whether static or not) the effective HP would have to remain constant (if the ability to bypass defenses increase at higher levels relative to the increase in defenses then more HP is needed to keep things balanced).

 

in short if you are spread thin on developing different types of defense i'd want HP to increase with level to compensate, otherwise it doesn't matter.

[Lephys]

I never suggested you were arguing that a fantasy world has no basis in reality.

 

A) The lore doesn't have to do anything. The lore is only part of a GAME world. In a book, or any other non-interactive fantasy world, you don't have HP and other mathematical abstractions of the world. In a game, you do. It doesn't matter if the ruleset states it, or the lore states it. It's still stated. The D&D ruleset doesn't imply that you'll gain XP, and levels, and HP. It specifically states it.

 

So, yes, when you pointed out that he keeps using reality as a basis for the ways in which he wants to handle the design of the fantasy world (such as HP-handling), he said "this is the reason I do that."

 

Let me put it this way... a fantasy world doesn't even EXIST unless specifically stated. Anything that's placed into a fantasy world is intentionally altered from reality. People are in? If all that's said is "There are people there, too," then I have to assume they're just like people in reality. They have skin, and eyeballs, and vital organs, and health, etc. Now, if you say "Oh, but they gain health durability as they progress through adventures," then NOW it's different.

 

So, yes, the basis for health is real-life human health. Well, that doesn't quite make sense, really, since no one stated other differences. For example, how much blood does a D&D person have? A level 17 person can bleed for 10 years before they die, but a level 1 person can only bleed for about 7 rounds? See, discrepancies. That one's pretty minor, but it was just to make the point.

 

So, yes, I understand his argument. But, you're trying to suggest that somehow he's wrong in what he said simply regarding the basis of fantasy things being reality, purely because "the lore doesn't say it." Well, even the lore says it, because the lore includes tales of things that actually happened. Some legendary guy that fought a dragon, and took 5 dragon claw swipes to the face before finally collapsing and dying. So, yes, the lore literally tells us that that guy innately had more "health" than those hundred peasants whom the dragon slew with merely the wind from his wings.

 

The only thing the lore implies is the terminology/quantifications, such as "hit points," because they simply don't exist within the lore. They exist only for the purposes of the interface with the game world, and thus exist outside of it.

 

D&D's world (as per your example) states that people gain health as they become more skilled and experienced. It is specifically stated. So, Trashman isn't even arguing that it isn't. He just doesn't think it should be, for other reasons.

 

And yes, HP does basically inflate values, in modern RPGs. You've already got changing values (like damage) that illustrate the effectiveness of an attack versus ANY amount of HP (as damage values can be lowered, by things such as armor or resistance, AND raised, by a lack of armor or a critical hit or an extra-effective attack versus a specifically weak defense, etc.). So, I do see why he's advocating a lack of HP-gain. I see a point to that. Do I know for a fact that there's absolutely no reason modern RPGs use HP gain now? No. No I don't. So thank goodness for discussion with other people who know things I don't.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

SNIP

Ok, let me explain this to you again.

 

Trashman thinks that certain mechanics should not be included because they make no sense using real world logic. He states that real world logic applies to PE unless explicitly stated otherwise. Essentially, he is stating that the lore of the setting should inform the mechanics.

 

I'm arguing that just because X isn't explicitly stated to work differently from the real world, doesn't mean that X has to work as it does in the real world. The mechanics can prove that X is true, even if there is no lore reason given in the setting. If X functions differently in the setting than it does in the real world, it is an implied truth.

 

I used D&D as an example, which using Trashman's logic that all mechanics should be informed by the lore of the setting and that unless stated otherwise the laws will be the same as they are in the real world, would have a mechanic in it that makes no logical sense. I then claimed that the fact that people get harder to kill as they grow more powerful was an implied truth, not an explicitly stated one, and was just as valid.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

either one, class specific HP per level could work too, but is harder to balance and would require much less HP per level gain over all to keep things balanced.

 

an earlier quote you gave demonstrated that an entire party could be killed with 2 lvl 10 fireball's given HP for 5 good sword hits, most classes in d&d already fall into this category.  a fighter without CON bonuses has an average of 59.5 HP, just to give you an idea.  balancing skills that decrease the damage dealt to you with skills that overcome the defensive skills would mean that equal level characters should kill each other just as quickly at any given level.  if all classes had the same HP for their level (whether static or not) the effective HP would have to remain constant (if the ability to bypass defenses increase at higher levels relative to the increase in defenses then more HP is needed to keep things balanced).

 

in short if you are spread thin on developing different types of defense i'd want HP to increase with level to compensate, otherwise it doesn't matter.

Ahh, I think I understand your position. Thank you for clarifying.

 

I think that HP does stay around similar values(when damage output is taken in to account) as characters level as well. I'm personally fine with it, because the problems I see with a static HP system are that damage output will be too low at lower levels and result in tedious low-level combat or that HP inflation will be replaced by resist damage inflation, which just adds another stat and unneeded complication.

 

I think that by having an attack roll for spells that can result in grazes and misses(the proposed system PE will be using) is much better than the saving throw system D&D used because it allows most classes to have a better chance of surviving a fire ball assault. I also think that having stamina as a buffer for damage might also help improve survivability in what would be fatal encounters using D&D rules.

[TrashMan]

 

You haven't shown any evidence to support that claim. You haven't pointed to one system(with the equivalent of 5-th level D&D spells) where it has worked. You haven't explained how your system would accommodate increasing powers of spells and soul powers and still keep level 1 foes a legitimate threat.

 

With the flatening of the power curve and HP inflation, balancing encoutners is easy. Because its' far harder to make any encouter too hard or too easy when the pwoer disparity is never too big.

So how does that NOT make balancing easier?

 

Again, your view of what power is and how it must be represented is not a universal law. Your idea of power is constantly increasing bigger numbers.

 

 

 

 

Yes I can.

 

No you can't.

I can make up any numbers I want too.

You are again trapped in the "power = bigger numbers" way of thinking. You try to keep applying the standard MMO mechanics and balancing to a non-standard mechanical model. Of course it won't make sense to you. So why do you insist of using it?
 

 

 

At level 10, casters would be throwing around fireballs that deal 10-60 damage. On average, the party would be killed by just two castings of the spell, or enemy attacks after the spell has been cast

 

As opposed to D&D?

I seem to recall things like power word kill, disintegrate, death spell, dragons breath, etc....

 

 

 

Unbalanced High-Level combat and reliance on resist X damage equipment/talents:

Good sword hit= 6-8 damage, HP= 30-40.

Tedious low-level combat:

HP starts at higher values to avoid characters dying quickly at later levels.
Lets say about 100 HP.

 

So is it 40 or 100? How does a higher level character end up with less hP than a low-level one?

How about you make up your mind instead of putting in whatever number you think proves your point?

 

What makes you think a sword hit would do 8 damage? What makes you think a high-level character would have.

 

You have constructed some fixed system in your head and you keep using it as a holy grail of balance and game design.

 

So no..your example is completely flawed.

For one, if 1 CON point = 10 HP, an average starting character would have between 100-150HP (with end game characters having up to 200...that is all assuming attribute ranges like in D&D of course)

 

So no..I don't see any "tedium" here other then the one you want. I really don't look forward to having 4-8 HP at game start and fighting only rats, because everything else kills me in 1 hit (as it was in most IE games), so early combat was all luck (or fighting utterly pathetic enemeis that could only do 1 HP of damage)

 

 

 

Because you don't get to assume what I want or put words in my mouth.

 

Buddy, that is all that you have been doing. Making wild assumptions.

[TrashMan]

I just really don't think that's what he's saying, in that one particular regard. I dunno, maybe he could come in and clarify. I think you're confused by the specifics of the word "stated," and you're thinking that nowhere does someone necessarily tell you that such things happen. However, in D&D, the ruleset "tells" you how everything works. Basically, health represents your well-being, exactly like in the real world. Only, in D&D, you gain the ability to take a greater number of sword strikes to the torso without dying, unlike in the real world.

 

So... health - based directly on reality (bleeding, unconsciousness, death, poison, abstracted forms of physiological damage, etc.).

 

Increasing amounts of health - completely fictitious amendment to reality's health "system."

 

I really believe that's all he's getting at (again, on that one particular note), and I agree with that, specifically.

 

 

You got it.

Increasing HP is part of mechanics, not world lore. Games are subject to mechanics/balance and gameplay.

 

If you are to read novels set in D&D, powerfull peopel in them are "harder to kill" because they are more skilled and generally harder to get a hit on in the first place - they are not literally harder to kill in a toughness sense.

Not because they can take 20 swords to the gut and keep fighting.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

With the flatening of the power curve and HP inflation, balancing encoutners is easy. Because its' far harder to make any encouter too hard or too easy when the pwoer disparity is never too big.

So how does that NOT make balancing easier?

 

Well, if you flatten the power curve, then yes it is.

 

However, we were not talking about a system with a flat power curve. We are talking about a system that has around the same power level of 10-12th D&D characters, and charcters will start off the rough equivalent of level 1 charcters.

Again, your view of what power is and how it must be represented is not a universal law. Your idea of power is constantly increasing bigger numbers.

 

I didn't say it was.

 

 

No you can't.

I can make up any numbers I want too.

 

Please do. If your system is easy to balance in PE(with 5-th and 6-th level spell equivalents) do show the rest of us your math. Don't forget that low-level combat will often contain characters that whose high-end damage is 10.

 

As opposed to D&D?

I seem to recall things like power word kill, disintegrate, death spell, dragons breath, etc....

Those are higher than 5-th and 6-th level spells. At the D&D level that PE will be close to, 10d6 fireballs are the norm, not meteor swarms and wails of banshees.

 

So is it 40 or 100? How does a higher level character end up with less hP than a low-level one?

40 would be the amount if you were looking to make low-level combat balanced(using your statement that a character could take about 5 good sword hits in your mod). 100 would be the amount if you were looking to make high-level combat balanced.

How about you make up your mind instead of putting in whatever number you think proves your point?

I have. I don't like the idea of static HP. Because you would end up with either unbalanced high or low level combat or a reliance on resist X damage stat/talent which would add a new stat that inflates with level.

 

1.What makes you think a sword hit would do 8 damage? 2.What makes you think a high-level character would have.

1. In D&D a longsword deals 1d8 damage. You said your mod allowed about 5 good sword hits. I figured a "good" sword hit would deal in the upper range, so I took a range and used it to calculate HP.

2. Can you clarify this? "would have" is pretty ambiguous.

 

So no..your example is completely flawed.

For one, if 1 CON point = 10 HP, an average starting character would have between 100-150HP (with end game characters having up to 200...that is all assuming attribute ranges like in D&D of course)

Wait, you think about 5 good sword hits should kill a character but start them off with 100-150 HP? How much did you inflate sword damage?

 

So no..I don't see any "tedium" here other then the one you want. I really don't look forward to having 4-8 HP at game start and fighting only rats, because everything else kills me in 1 hit (as it was in most IE games), so early combat was all luck (or fighting utterly pathetic enemeis that could only do 1 HP of damage)

You don't consider low-level combat tedious if the average character hits on average for 4.5 damage(not counting damage reduction) and has over 100 HP?

 

Buddy, that is all that you have been doing. Making wild assumptions.

Say the guy who assumes that reality is what will determine the laws of PE, without any proof. Then goes on and makes several arguments on the basis of what works in the real world and calls out anything else as illogical. LOL.

Edited February 25, 2013 by KaineParker

[TrashMan]

1. You are taking the D&D comparison to literally when you are using the spells and damage numbers directly. Similar in feel does not mean equal in mechanics (numbers)

 

2. I am talking about a mechanical system I would prefer. So how game X did it is not relevant. characters starting off as euqal of lvl 1 in D&D and endign lvl12 is not what I'm talking about.

 

3. I am not talking about my mod - the mod was an earlier implementation of the mechanics and is more of a hybrid.

 

4. You keep assuming again. Every single number you use is your assumption. I wonder if I'm even necessar in this discussion at all. aparently you know my system better than I do.

[Ulquiorra]

4. You keep assuming again. Every single number you use is your assumption. I wonder if I'm even necessar in this discussion at all. aparently you know my system better than I do.

 

Then show us how you see this system. The best way to do this is by shwoing numbers. For example if i whoud like to create a game and it whoud be a game not only for myself then if i want to explain someone else mechanics of the game the best way is to show it by numbers.

 

For example how much doese wizard change per level, or how much demage swords or axes make. In reality we have force if phisics lets say 100KG/meter or Newtons and secondary what damage those newtons make when hitting a character for example hitting non vital part of body makes less demage then hitting brain.

 

And let's clear this it's only a game you will never have fully realistic mechanics (unless you are expert of anathomy, mechanics, phisics etc).

 

I whoud also like to see some numbers from your side bicouse mayby i misunderstand your post and your point of view of mechanics.

 

I'm still thinking that you have no idea about what are you talking about. I allready sad that surviveing 1000 encouners to dangerous enemys is at least 1/1000 for "surviving" the game (with realistic mechanics) so basiacly i must misunderstand you or you want PE to becoma reload spawning game when you must save game before single fight and then reload the save at least 10 times before you win a encounter.

 

I already show my piont of view, me numbers and even putt some logical assumptions. From your side none only assumptions like "normal human can kill dragon" or "if you hit elephant if spinal core you can kill him".

 

Please can you at least show some realistic, logical and metematical part of you mechanic and stop dreaming that ant can distroy sun and making wishes like i have 1/5 chance to survive a encouter but still i never lose ?

 

Becouse i simply think your mechanics are more handicap then fun and playable system ....

Edited February 25, 2013 by Ulquiorra

[jamoecw]

so i have been thinking about a system that has static HP and also has the ~5% crit/miss and ~50% graze/full damage.

 

the core of a system could be as simple as:

S = [defender's skill value] - [attacker's skill value]

A = [defender's armor] - [attacker's armor penetration value]

 

miss threshold = (S+A/10)/20

graze threshold = (S+A/2)/20

full damage threshold = (S+A)/20

 

miss threshold<graze threshold<full damage threshold<critical hit

 

roll at or below miss threshold and you miss, at or below graze and above miss and you graze, etc.

 

so assuming every level approximate's 1 point of skill (values outside of 1-20 not attainable):

lvl 10 @ 25 armor vs. lvl 10 @ 5 armor pen : 2<10<20 (3.15 dps at 1d8, no crit chance)

lvl 1 @ 25 armor vs. lvl 10 @ 5 armor pen : -7<1<11 (6.3 dps at 1d8, no miss chance)

lvl 10 @ 25 armor vs. lvl 1 @ 5 armor pen : 11<19<29 (1.125 dps at 1d8, no crit chance)

lvl 1 @ 25 armor vs. lvl 1 @ 5 armor pen : 2<10<20 (3.15 dps at 1d8, no crit chance)

 

so assuming same equipment (just for arguments sake), difference in level is all that matters, high level or low.  low level against high levels on average take double damage and deal a third.  3 lvl 1 characters would lose 2 killing 1 lvl 10 if they fought all at once (not counting any flanking/mob bonuses).  it would take 6 if they only came 1 at a time.  as i vary the amount of static HP the numbers remain fairly constant.  as magic and other things come into play they need to have their own defenses that closely mimic the armor/skill model or use the same values (maybe using different modifiers?).  an increasing HP model could be derived by having a boost to armor pen each level to compensate for the extra HP, which could help in dealing with magic damage and such.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

1. You are taking the D&D comparison to literally when you are using the spells and damage numbers directly. Similar in feel does not mean equal in mechanics (numbers)

They said that the game would end up being around D&D level 10-12 in power. So yes, referencing what the power level in D&D at that level is relevant to PE.

 

2. I am talking about a mechanical system I would prefer. So how game X did it is not relevant. characters starting off as euqal of lvl 1 in D&D and endign lvl12 is not what I'm talking about.

A system that you have not clearly defined. You have not shown how it would work, or given examples of games that have done similar things.

 

3. I am not talking about my mod - the mod was an earlier implementation of the mechanics and is more of a hybrid.

Then why bring it up at all?

 

4. You keep assuming again. Every single number you use is your assumption. I wonder if I'm even necessar in this discussion at all. aparently you know my system better than I do.

Then post some hard data to show how your system works. You have said your system works well several times but have not shown how it would work or shown a system that did something similarly. Also every single number I used was based around how you said your mod worked or high-end HP at D&D level 12. If you want me to stop using numbers or making assumptions about your system based on things you have said, then actually show us how this system works. Edited February 26, 2013 by KaineParker

[TrashMan]

For example how much doese wizard change per level, or how much demage swords or axes make. In reality we have force if phisics lets say 100KG/meter or Newtons and secondary what damage those newtons make when hitting a character for example hitting non vital part of body makes less demage then hitting brain.

 

 

That level of simulation is a bit too much. Things like damage and change per level is a matter of balancing. No system is perfect on creation - and rarely even efter multiple iterations. That is what things like Alpha and Beta stages of the game are for. To tweak numbers.

 

I can give you some rough numbers off the top of my head (based on the test systems and mods I made before). But those would hardly be ideal and prone to change.

 

In fact, I recall I already did give some numbers regarding HP and level scaling.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm still thinking that you have no idea about what are you talking about. I allready sad that surviveing 1000 encouners to dangerous enemys is at least 1/1000 for "surviving" the game (with realistic mechanics) so basiacly i must misunderstand you or you want PE to becoma reload spawning game when you must save game before single fight and then reload the save at least 10 times before you win a encounter.

 

No.

It's funny that you imply that I don't know anything about *I* system I created.

There would be reloading - as there would be in any difficult game - but not as much as you think. While it would be easy for a character to get injured, death itself would be rare.

 

 

 

I already show my piont of view, me numbers and even putt some logical assumptions. From your side none only assumptions like "normal human can kill dragon" or "if you hit elephant if spinal core you can kill him".

 

Again, what is illogical about the idea that well-prepared team of humans can kill a creature that is large and dangerous?

 

 

 

Please can you at least show some realistic, logical and metematical part of you mechanic and stop dreaming that ant can distroy sun and making wishes like i have 1/5 chance to survive a encouter but still i never lose ?

 

Becouse i simply think your mechanics are more handicap then fun and playable system ....

 

WTF is it with you are your obsession with encounter victory chance? I don't get it.

Chance is meaningless in a game due to save/load.

Unless you play on IronMan that is.

You are asking for the out-of-character game mechanics to be real. That isn't really posible...or advised.

There are some liberties a game MUST take in order to be playable... and even that is debatable.

[TrashMan]

 

They said that the game would end up being around D&D level 10-12 in power. So yes, referencing what the power level in D&D at that
level is relevant to PE.

 

Funny, that doesn't sound like "swords will do 1d8, spalles will do 10d6 damage".

You use D&D numbers because they said it will be "something like that", but that in itself is vauge. Comparable in feel? In scale? In atmosphere?

 

Numbers by themselves are MEANINGLESS without context.

Context is everything. No mechanic of variable exist in vacuum - so natural everything is adusted.

 

How can you possibly claim that the HP of a human PC/NPC/oppoenent ranging from 100 to 200 is more unbalanced that HP going from 4 to 160 (or whatever)?

How is THAT balanced? That you die from a sneeze in the begining? Heck, I recall ID and BG1 ... a single lucky hit by an enemy and the character is dead. You call that fun?

And in you go back that that area late game, you can go and make yourself a sammich while the goblins pound on your immobile without worrying that you might die.

 

Assuming the sword damage is in the 20-30 range, you always have a buffer, even early game. And what is wrong with armor being vital for survival? That is what it's for after all. You scoff at the use of damage reduction items - but what is inflating HP other than basicly that? Reducing damage recieved isn't much different from increasing the damage you can take. Instead of reducing one number (damage) you are increasing the other (HP), but the end effect is pretty much the same.

 

 

So don't go telling me that the system can't work and it's crap, when your own ideas of what works and isn't are crap.

You got no leg to stand on - furthermore you are not an authority and I don't have to justify anything to you.

 

 

 

Then why bring it up at all?

 

Because it was an example of an hybrid system. And because people asked me about it.

The confusion happened because I stopped talking about the mod and talked about the system, yet you continued to talk about the mod.

[Ulquiorra]

 

 

No.

It's funny that you imply that I don't know anything about *I* system I created.

There would be reloading - as there would be in any difficult game - but not as much as you think. While it would be easy for a character to get injured, death itself would be rare.

 

Of cousre there will be, i i don't be suprised if a dragon fight whoud be something that at least sometime it nessesery to reload. But in reality exen single wolf (not telling even of bear) can easly kill you (even if you are fully armored).

 

So for example a farmer with his fists has 0% for killing a wolf. A fighter that is well trained but also no armor or weapon has 5%, fully armored warrior with sword will have 40-60% for killing single wolf.

 

So even a party of wariors (let's say 6) will have 95% for killing wolf. but if 6 party members are atacked bu 12 wolfs they have only 20-30% to survive (numbers are only as a example) so basiacly if my party encounter 12 wolf i must at least reload a game for 2-3 times (sometimes even 5) .

 

What's so fun about straggeling ?

 

ok i can uderstand a dragon fights or lich but simple wolfs ?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

hissyfit

You don't even have an example of your system do you? LOL. Who would of thought that Trashman was full of ****. Have fun with your totally balanced system that works perfectly but you can't show one example of how it works! Edited February 26, 2013 by KaineParker

[TrashMan]

 

 

 

Of cousre there will be, i i don't be suprised if a dragon fight whoud be something that at least sometime it nessesery to reload. But in reality exen single wolf (not telling even of bear) can easly kill you (even if you are fully armored).

 

 

Wut?

Wolf killing a guy in armor easily? Yeah, I don't see that happening. Maybe if it was leather and the guy was incompetent.

 

What's the fun in a struggle? The struggle, the satisfaction of overcaming the odds I guess.

Well, what's the fun in no challenge? The feeling of power.

 

Neither is more "valid"

 

[TrashMan]

 

hissyfit

You don't even have an example of your system do you? LOL. Who would of thought that Trashman was full of ****. Have fun with your totally balanced system that works perfectly but you can't show one example of how it works!

 

 

I already have given you simple examples on some aspects of it, it's not my fault you lack the mental acuty to put 2 and 2 together.

 

But game systems are by definition complex things. Mechanics can take hunders of pages alone. You want me to write essays?

 

Screw that, I don't have time to entertain morons like you on the internet.

[Ulquiorra]

 

 

 

Of cousre there will be, i i don't be suprised if a dragon fight whoud be something that at least sometime it nessesery to reload. But in reality exen single wolf (not telling even of bear) can easly kill you (even if you are fully armored).

 

 

Wut?

Wolf killing a guy in armor easily? Yeah, I don't see that happening. Maybe if it was leather and the guy was incompetent.

 

What's the fun in a struggle? The struggle, the satisfaction of overcaming the odds I guess.

Well, what's the fun in no challenge? The feeling of power.

 

Neither is more "valid"

 

 

 

The point is not about protectivness of armor. In reality fullplate is very havy, wolfs atack to strack you down and then ripp your vital parts apart. Even if their atacks don't do you much demage "IF" you gonna be putt down in fullplate it will be almost imposible for you to stand again (becouse of weight of armor and consistant atack from wolf). But that's not a point.

 

The point is simple feeling ultimate power. Dificulty is only a simple cosequence of that.

 

If :

 

YOU are overpowerd + Enemys are owerpowerd = Medium Difficulty.

 

You are overpowerd + Enemys sre not = Easy dificulty (maiby even pointless)

 

You are not overpowerd + Enemys are overpowerd = Hard dificulty.

 

With that pogic we can assume that

 

If you are not overpowerd + Enemys are not overpowerd = Medoium Difficulty.

 

But it's not becouse if you putt on humas fully real limitations (hunger, limitet strengh inteligence, luck, and other parts of human limitations) and then you putt an predator animal (like lion with his limitations) you can easy see that human with medieval ivnentory (only few people of whole socacieties had fullplate and fullplate cost the same as medium villidge) then you can see that dificulty is even bigger.

 

If you want bigger difficulty i will make for you special MOD for NWN. You starting location is fighting 1000 dragons and you always must die ... what's fun in that ?

 

Difficulty that gives you some chalange (and fun) is something diffrent then ridiculus dificulty ...

 

In realyti even a goat can kill you ( but it's hard for her) and strenght, stamina and others has little to do with that, becouse if he hitt you in a right place you always can die ... (if you had badluck)

 

imputing mechanics that even on max level everyting at the size of a goat or bigger has chance to kill you i ridiculus in my opinion .. i don't level up, i don't learn new things etc. only for that i always can be killed by the same low level creatures.

 

And the last one ....

 

 

HOW do you wan't to input that system to mythical/ non-existingcreatures ?  or magical cretures ? How do you want to inmupt a system where luck is bigger factor then skills and stategy ?