Josh Sawyer on Miss and Hit

[Ieo]

 

 

 

I want to put the mathematics aside, put the roll of the dice aside and look at the RPG side of things...

Then you're not talking about an rpg anymore.

role playing game. Where you role play a game. The game itself doesn't have to be based on mathematics and dice rolls. Admittedly it's a successful and established way of playing the game. You're there originally to role play - to imagine your that guy/elf/demon/space marine etc... taking on the evil doers etc.. etc.. Mathematics and dice rolls are not everything. Without the story, the immersion... It's just another spreadsheet. (dare I sat football manager?)

 

The idea of never missing to me - takes away a lot of the role play for the examples that I just give.

Dice are a method to force creativity and help with balanced decision-making and outcomes and the like for many games. But people who think math/dice are required for "RPG" are very narrow-minded and don't know how big the entire industry/genre/thing really is.*

 

Granted, I've only played three tabletop games: a classic 3ed D&D game (a long, long time ago), Zorceror of Zo, and Annalise.

The latter two were far better at supporting player creativity in storytelling and actual role playing, and there were only abstracted numbers involved.

 

 

*I also have to wonder, with the general popularity of CRPGs, if people are interpreting "role" away from "play in-character" to "play a class." Obviously more mathy in the latter.

 

 

Anyway, carry on.

Edited January 21, 2013 by Ieo

[Hormalakh]

Monks as "tanks!" LOL that's new! I love it.

[Sacred_Path]

Just wondering, what was the rationale behind including full misses now? 'Realism'? Does it make a significant difference if you escape that fractional damage every now and then, rather than the full damage like in DnD?

Still, will "dodge tanks" have a hard time (except monks)? God I hope so

[J.E. Sawyer]

People proposed various character concepts ("dodgy" ones) that didn't seem as mechanically sensible in the system without a full miss state.  I think supporting character concepts is important, and with miss at the bottom end of graze, the underlying math doesn't change dramatically unless the Accuracy and target defense are way out of line (i.e. Accuracy is much lower than the target defense).  In such cases, the attacker is extremely outclassed anyway.  It's not like D&D where a 50% chance to hit also means a 50% chance to completely miss.

 

Dodgy characters will increase the chance that attackers miss them, but in most cases they're still going to be grazed a lot.

[Hormalakh]

Hi Josh,

 

I wanted to know if you had any thoughts about the concerns that allowing several weapon slots and knowing your enemies armor type degenerating into a boring exercise of changing up weapon-types to "match up" with the armor type. Some suggested some sort of draw-back or challenge, slightly complexity involved in this equation to help make the answer so non-trivial. Something like using an attack or two to change weapons (player cannot attack during this time) so as to make it an actual decision.

 

Some of these ideas came up over the weekend, so I'm not sure if they passed your notice.

 

Thoughts?

Edited January 21, 2013 by Hormalakh

[TRX850]

Might there be talents or skills like "Acrobat" that can reduce miss chance that scales with character level, or even just a fixed amount?

[rjshae]

 

On a slightly side note - if monks preffer to use no/light armor to make the best of their fighting abilities how are they going to survive in the front rows of the fights where they have tobe to do damage with their unarmed attacks or weapons? Will they get natural DT as a class specific bonus? Will they get AC bonus from wisdo to a degree that they have enough AC to become "evasion tanks"?

 

Monks convert a portion of Stamina damage, pre-subtraction from their own Stamina total, into Wounds (their resource).  Their actual Stamina and Health are not higher than normal, but this class ability effectively makes them more durable -- until they have maxed out the number of Wounds they are able to absorb.

 

If I read this correctly, then having a monk companion will require more returns to camp than normal (for health recovery). That's exactly the reason I don't like playing monk characters: they always seem to require proportionately more party healing resources. Guess you can call that gaming the system, but that's been my experience.

[Hormalakh]

If I read this correctly, then having a monk companion will require more returns to camp than normal (for health recovery). That's exactly the reason I don't like playing monk characters: they always seem to require proportionately more party healing resources. Guess you can call that gaming the system, but that's been my experience.

I think you're mistaken. They pre-spend stamina, to be able to take hits (mortification of the flesh). That way, when they get hit in combat, it doesn't reduce stamina/health, it reduces another resource, called "Wounds." They will regain stamina at the end of combat. They will most likely need less rest than other classes because their health will not drop as fast.

Edited January 21, 2013 by Hormalakh

[TRX850]

I am soooooo looking forward to a WALL OF NUMBERS to understand combat.

 

*cough* then switch it off *cough* maybe. Not sure.

[J.E. Sawyer]

If I read this correctly, then having a monk companion will require more returns to camp than normal (for health recovery).

You're not reading it correctly. Here's an example: Bad Guy hits Cool Monk with a sword for 21 damage. Cool Monk has 5 DT, so 16 damage gets through. Of that, let's say (arbitrarily, this is not based on any formula we've devised) 5 points are converted to Wounds. Cool Monk takes 11 points of Stamina damage and 2.75 points of Health damage. The 5 points converted to Wounds have no influence on Cool Monk's current Stamina or Health.

[IndiraLightfoot]

Monks as "tanks!" LOL that's new! I love it.

 

Well, it's not. I'm almost ashamed of admitting this, but I played Diablo 3 quite a bit last summer, and in act 3 and 4 online (when people still were playing online), I often stood in the midst of battle on me own as a monk and taking abuse in spades minutes on end, alone, in parties of 4. Monks were better than barbarians the first two patches as far as tanking went (with the right gear, of course - the entire game was built on chasing gear, lol!) The concept of monks lend themselves well to the tank concept. They have meditated themselves into bodies that are beyond hardened. Body and mind is one, and in PE body and soul is one.

[Osvir]

 

On a slightly side note - if monks preffer to use no/light armor to make the best of their fighting abilities how are they going to survive in the front rows of the fights where they have tobe to do damage with their unarmed attacks or weapons? Will they get natural DT as a class specific bonus? Will they get AC bonus from wisdo to a degree that they have enough AC to become "evasion tanks"?

 

Monks convert a portion of Stamina damage, pre-subtraction from their own Stamina total, into Wounds (their resource).  Their actual Stamina and Health are not higher than normal, but this class ability effectively makes them more durable -- until they have maxed out the number of Wounds they are able to absorb.

 

Does that translate to them getting a penalty or a boost? If so: There was an idea floating about, about a Monk being able to drink 1/2 of an enhancing drug and getting standard effects without penalties, but drinking the whole drug would make the Monk stronger for a duration, but would get major side-effects.

 

Basically the idea: Max Absorb Wounds -> Gain Temporary [Player Chosen] Boost -> Side-Effects

[J.E. Sawyer]

Hi Josh,

 

I wanted to know if you had any thoughts about the concerns that allowing several weapon slots and knowing your enemies armor type degenerating into a boring exercise of changing up weapon-types to "match up" with the armor type. Some suggested some sort of draw-back or challenge, slightly complexity involved in this equation to help make the answer so non-trivial. Something like using an attack or two to change weapons (player cannot attack during this time) so as to make it an actual decision.

 

What weapons you ready and use at any given moment is one choice among many.  If combats consisted of one PC fighting one enemy, yes, the choice would be pretty minor.  There are many additional factors to consider.  Among them:

 

* Switching weapons plays a weapon switching animation.  It's not instantaneous.

* There is an efficiency gulf "under the curve" even among weapons that are good against an armor type.  Within a given armor type, DTs can still cover a large range.  Against a target in mid/high-DT light armor, using two hatchets can result in a 30% damage loss vs. using a greatsword.  Against a low DT target, the relationship is reversed: the faster weapons doing less damage per hit do damage much faster.  Ultimately, avoiding the "bad" damage type is only one part of the efficacy equation.

* Not every character is ideal for facing every type of enemy.  Tough Fighter might have a maul, but Tough Fighter may not be the right character to stand in front of a cipher in plate armor making short-range Willpower attacks.

* You can't control every element of positioning.  Characters often wind up in circumstances they are not ideally suited for and enemies are often placed (or enter an environment) in ways that foil good plans.  Adapting to circumstances may involve having a nearby character switch weapons, but it may be better/more efficient for a more distant character, who is already well-equipped and a better counter to the attack, to cross the battlefield.

 

If fights consisted of characters with identical armor types, that would devolve pretty quickly -- much as it can in standard D&D when you get attacked by creatures with matched DR types.  In yesterday's Pathfinder game, the party fought against two skeletons (DR 5/Bludgeoning).  Pretty simple fight.  Replacing a skeleton with a zombie in the fight (DR 5/Slashing) would have immediately changed how the party chose weapons, targets, and moved on the battlefield.  It's not exactly the Battle of the Bulge, but complex scenarios are often the accumulated questions posed by simple problems.  TL;DR: What weapon type to avoid against a given enemy is just one consideration among many.

[rjshae]

 

If I read this correctly, then having a monk companion will require more returns to camp than normal (for health recovery).

You're not reading it correctly. Here's an example: Bad Guy hits Cool Monk with a sword for 21 damage. Cool Monk has 5 DT, so 16 damage gets through. Of that, let's say (arbitrarily, this is not based on any formula we've devised) 5 points are converted to Wounds. Cool Monk takes 11 points of Stamina damage and 2.75 points of Health damage. The 5 points converted to Wounds have no influence on Cool Monk's current Stamina or Health.

 

Thank you. I wasn't aware that you were going to have a separate wounds system. But then I turn around and become concerned about the increased medical resources needed to patch the wounds on the Monk. Ah well.

 

A wounds system is cool though; it's good to hear that could be implemented.

Edited January 21, 2013 by rjshae

[J.E. Sawyer]

Wounds are unique to the monk class.  They're a resource used to power their special abilities.  This sounds like pure benefit, so more damage received = better than -- but that's not really the case.  Wounds have to be "spent" within a certain amount of time or they will be applied as damage.  If Wounds are spent, that stack of damage is gone for good.  If Wounds are acquired faster than the monk can spend them, It Is Bad.  If a monk absorbs their maximum amount of Wounds, damage above that amount is applied normally.  So it's not always the best idea to just strip every monk naked and flip off demon lords at point-blank range.

[Nonek]

So it's kind of like the Monk turning the agressors own strength against him?

[rjshae]

I guess almost a chi-like concept then that functions somewhat like ablative armor. Interesting. Thank you for the clarification.

[C2B]

 

 

 

 

I want to put the mathematics aside, put the roll of the dice aside and look at the RPG side of things...

Then you're not talking about an rpg anymore.

role playing game. Where you role play a game. The game itself doesn't have to be based on mathematics and dice rolls. Admittedly it's a successful and established way of playing the game. You're there originally to role play - to imagine your that guy/elf/demon/space marine etc... taking on the evil doers etc.. etc.. Mathematics and dice rolls are not everything. Without the story, the immersion... It's just another spreadsheet. (dare I sat football manager?)

 

The idea of never missing to me - takes away a lot of the role play for the examples that I just give.

Dice are a method to force creativity and help with balanced decision-making and outcomes and the like for many games. But people who think math/dice are required for "RPG" are very narrow-minded and don't know how big the entire industry/genre/thing really is.*

 

Granted, I've only played three tabletop games: a classic 3ed D&D game (a long, long time ago), Zorceror of Zo, and Annalise.

The latter two were far better at supporting player creativity in storytelling and actual role playing, and there were only abstracted numbers involved.

 

Those are still abstractions though. And you can't just think them away or not include in your thought process. On a crpg especially.

 

Though, I'm confused what sort of role-playing we're now talking about.

Edited January 21, 2013 by C2B

[Adhin]

I love that monk concept! And yeah sounds like using the enemies strength against them, but with soul powah to pack it up more (which is already a very chi/ki concept). Looks like I'll be making a monk too.. =D

[Inertia]

Wounds is part of the whole self flagellation thing i guess?

[Adhin]

...no thats hurting your self for no good reason. It's a mechanic for the whole using your enemies strength against them... just in a more powery oriented thing.

[Lephys]

Indeed. It's very similar to the increased adrenaline/attack-effectiveness upon damage taken that's often used for berzerker-type classes and mechanics.

Edited January 22, 2013 by Lephys

[Adhin]

Yeah, actually makes me wonder what other kind of mechanics they may use that're unique to a class like the Barbarian... specifically the Barb actually.

[Hormalakh]

Yeah, actually makes me wonder what other kind of mechanics they may use that're unique to a class like the Barbarian... specifically the Barb actually.

Me too. What they've done with the Monk bodes well for the Barbarian. Waiting to see what crazy crazy things Josh&co come up with.

Edited January 22, 2013 by Hormalakh

[Lephys]

Maybe the Barbarian gains attack speed/damage, or some other form of combat effectiveness, the more health he has missing? (Not Stamina, but Health). That way, you don't WANT him to lose health (because he's closer to death), but you'll sometimes want to send him into the fray, within reason, rather than make sure you just take on 1 foe at a time and maximize Health-retention. *shrug*.

 

They could, just to go along with that possibility, have a larger health pool than other classes, and still have the same Stamina-to-Health (4:1) ratio of damage-reception. 120 Health, 25 stamina when everyone else has 100 health, 25 stamina. *shrug*.

 

On that note, I'm still curious as to whether or not the 4:1 applies to pool total relations AS WELL AS damage reception, or the pool totals are unrestricted by that ratio. For example, do we have 100 health for 25 stamina, or can we have 200 health and 25 stamina? And/or, will some characters have 90 health and 25 stamina, and some have 130 health and 25 stamina?