Josh Sawyer on Miss and Hit

[Sensuki]

Well, I know I'm stretching your patience, Josh, but.. (you really don't have to answer)..

We know spells, based on the new update, will be or per encounter or per rest (seems cooldowns are out), but what about other abilities? Will they also be per encounter / per rest. For example fighter's Surge.

 

What new update?

[Somna]

 

 

Well, I know I'm stretching your patience, Josh, but.. (you really don't have to answer)..

We know spells, based on the new update, will be or per encounter or per rest (seems cooldowns are out), but what about other abilities? Will they also be per encounter / per rest. For example fighter's Surge.

 

 

What new update?

There's another one expected next week.

[Hormalakh]

 

 

Well, I know I'm stretching your patience, Josh, but.. (you really don't have to answer)..

We know spells, based on the new update, will be or per encounter or per rest (seems cooldowns are out), but what about other abilities? Will they also be per encounter / per rest. For example fighter's Surge.

What new update?

 

 

He said it like a couple of posts before.

 

Cooldowns in the sense that most people use them were never really in. Per-encounter and per-rest will likely be the two common types of use limitations. A fighter's Surge would likely be (and is currently) per-encounter.

Edited January 19, 2013 by Hormalakh

[Sensuki]

Right, missed that one. But yeah we kind of knew that.

[Adhin]

@Luridis: The way touch attacks worked in 3E, they generally speaking, had a higher chance of effecting the vast majority of enemies out there. This is because DnD total AC number was a culmination of multiple AC types (of which only 2 where armor related, go figure). Basically you have base AC 10 (base value), Deflection AC (Armor/Shields), Enchantment (magic rings/cloaks, not to be confused with +enhancement), Natural AC (thick hides, chitin, thick fur), and Dodge AC (dodging...).

 

Only Base AC and Dodge AC effected touch or ranged touch attacks. All others where ignored as they where deflection or absorption based. So unless you where trying to touch or range touch a monk or rogue with high dex and some magical dodging boots, you had a rather high chance to actually land your touch attacks even with a crap BAB. Often better chance to land then plenty of the SV would allow. Little dex could help bolster your ranged touch, finesse feat + dex could also help with the touch.

 

Biggest issue is surviving the close range touch stuff but they also had spells (like ghost touch) that let you use your touch spells at range. Add some defensive casting and a high concentration check in, and as long as an enemy wasn't already whaling on you... well they've proven useful before.

 

-edit-

As an example say a Warrior with no dodge equipment, full plate +5, Shield +5 was your target, say hes going full imp. expertise. that's around 42 AC. Touch Attack only has to beat an 11 cause the 'vast' majority of his bonus is deflection based. Which, at that type of equipment, your mage has that in BAB, you'd have to roll a 1 to miss the spell.

Edited January 19, 2013 by Adhin

[J.E. Sawyer]

Hey Josh, one more question: Is the game is going to have magic or special attacks that use touch AC or something similar? The idea here is to allow a character concept for a wizened old wizard who can't hit hard enough to damage but can get his hands on his enemies for touch attacks. Any thoughts?

 

PE wizards don't have a large inherent Accuracy gulf when it comes to melee attacks.  In 3E/3.5, one of the reasons why AC becomes so inflated is because high BAB characters are making multiple attacks with -25% (typically) chance to hit per additional attack.  In PE, some classes will have inherent (or purchased) Accuracy bonuses with certain attack/weapon types, but those bonuses will typically be static as levels increase.  If a fighter and a wizard's melee accuracy are separated by N points at first level, they will likely be separated by something close to N points at higher levels (not accounting for optional specialization from Talents, better gear, etc.).

 

A separate touch AC isn't used in PE because armor doesn't directly contribute to standard melee/ranged defense (though shields do).

[Hormalakh]

So would a shield reduce the chances of a touch attack? How would glances and hits work in such a system? Would it be the same reduced/normal damage?

 

Sorry, there's so many questions. It's not really possible to say much without all this information to help illustrate. Can't wait for the update to clear some of these things up.

 

Will we have the similar "multiple attacks with high BAB"? I imagine we wouldn't since it's Real-time and we don't have to do rounds.

Edited January 19, 2013 by Hormalakh

[J.E. Sawyer]

A shield would increase defense against a touch attack.  Glances and hits would work the same way.  Ultimately, all attacks, regardless of the source, feed into the same mechanical system.  You always have a derived Accuracy for individual attacks and the targets always have four derived defenses: one for blocking and dodging direct melee/ranged attacks, one for body shock/resistance, one for evading AoEs, and one for mental attacks (essentially AC, Fort, Reflex, and Will).  A given attack always has one opposed defense and the results always break down in the same way: crit = 150% max damage/duration, hit = normal damage/duration, graze = 50% minimum damage/duration, miss = no effect.

 

Your Accuracy doesn't inherently drop down per-attack as with 3E BAB.  While attack speed can increase, it will not increase in the large leaps and bounds that it did over the course of the IE games, going from 1/round to potentially 5+/round.

[Hormalakh]

BTW, this design choice stems from your thoughts on not having certain mechanics outputting to more than one input right? Basically, don't let a single mechanic affect multiple numbers (leveling automatically increases your BAB). Anything that should increase I guess builds from a singular "skill point" currency. If you want to build certain aspects, then you purchase those skills with points.

 

Am I reading this right?

[Hassat Hunter]

I much rather had that touch attacks always hit.

You are making your Wizard a prey getting that close after all, while he should be in the back being safe.

 

Of course with plate armor wizards in PE, that might not be so true they are really so much at risk then... it could still be used for unarmored or wizard robes touch spells (and armor prvents casting of said spells).

 

(still not that much a fan of high-armored wizzies though to be honest)

[Hormalakh]

A shield would increase defense against a touch attack.  Glances and hits would work the same way.  Ultimately, all attacks, regardless of the source, feed into the same mechanical system.  You always have a derived Accuracy for individual attacks and the targets always have four derived defenses: one for blocking and dodging direct melee/ranged attacks, one for body shock/resistance, one for evading AoEs, and one for mental attacks (essentially AC, Fort, Reflex, and Will).  A given attack always has one opposed defense and the results always break down in the same way: crit = 150% max damage/duration, hit = normal damage/duration, graze = 50% minimum damage/duration, miss = no effect.

 

Your Accuracy doesn't inherently drop down per-attack as with 3E BAB.  While attack speed can increase, it will not increase in the large leaps and bounds that it did over the course of the IE games, going from 1/round to potentially 5+/round.

Beauty in simplicity (a singular attack mechanic) with intact complexity (defense). Nice.

[Hormalakh]

I much rather had that touch attacks always hit.

You are making your Wizard a prey getting that close after all, while he should be in the back being safe.

 

Of course with plate armor wizards in PE, that might not be so true they are really so much at risk then... it could still be used for unarmored or wizard robes touch spells (and armor prvents casting of said spells).

 

(still not that much a fan of high-armored wizzies though to be honest)

I'm assuming that's what the arcane veil is for.

[Hormalakh]

How will you notify players of enemies defenses? Will this be meta-gaming knowledge that we can find in the manual or will it be UI-accessible in-game (like a right-click shows you their defenses)?

 

It would be nice to have the option of either a numerical display and a "color-coded"/abstracted (high/medium/low) display. Although, this is considering that this information will be available in-game.

[Lephys]

I really don't think we can show enough appreciation for so many casual, direct responses to questions regarding the blueprints of mechanics thus far.

 

You guys should have a Paypal Tip Jar or something.

 

And may this maelstrom of rapid-fire criticisms and suggestions that we maintain on a daily basis hopefully provide its useful tidbits of raw, precious design ore, to help forge giant mechanical space lions that can ultimately consolidate into the Voltron of valuable design conclusion.

[Hormalakh]

Heh, yeah I'm appreciative alright. It's not very often you get to talk to a game developer about a game they're currently making. It's pretty awesome. I'm heading out, but I did want to thank Mr. Sawyer for his time. Have a great weekend Josh, and everyone else too.

[Hassat Hunter]

And may this maelstrom of rapid-fire criticisms and suggestions that we maintain on a daily basis hopefully provide its useful tidbits of raw, precious design ore, to help forge giant mechanical space lions that can ultimately consolidate into the Voltron of valuable design conclusion.

 

 

As for Hormalakh's question, can't speak for OE, but I'd rather we had to distinguish it ourselves from ingame clues (plate armor, shells on beetles) than having it provided as is ingame, even if it may be low, medium, heavy, very heavy.

And no ingame HP display either. Fine with BG's "almost dead, full-health" on using tab on them though, but there's no need to, like modern RPG's, give their exact numerical HP possessed and left.

 

My 2 cents.

[J.E. Sawyer]

How will you notify players of enemies defenses? Will this be meta-gaming knowledge that we can find in the manual or will it be UI-accessible in-game (like a right-click shows you their defenses)?

 

It would be nice to have the option of either a numerical display and a "color-coded"/abstracted (high/medium/low) display. Although, this is considering that this information will be available in-game.

 

You probably won't know their numerical defense ratings by looking at them in normal circumstances, but you will get the IE-style broad health ratings as well as the armor type of the target.  Some of these will be learned through interaction and then not require the tool-tip.  E.g. you learn early on that brigandine is classified as heavy armor and every time you hover over a character in brigandine, their tool-tip says "Heavy Armor".  Eventually, when you see a guy in brigandine, you can safely assume that he's in heavy armor and deal with him accordingly.  If you encounter a weird rock monster you might not necessarily know what type of armor it "counts" as until you use the tool-tip, but that's not too time-consuming.

[Adhin]

Also its a rock monster so one would... probably assume heavy heh. I kinda hope you guys go with little AB or AR or whatever with level progression (which it sounds like your considering atm). Something I was experimenting with in a mod for the past ehh 6-7 years now? Keeping the attacker stat base relatively static in relation to level and just give out a bonus based off class type. For instance Base 100, mages have it, warriors have a 150 or something. Rest of the bonuses stem from skills or magic items (of which is relatively small bonus over all).

 

Then again I also started using higher base HP values with growth entirely attribute/talent driven instead of by level. Keeps the awkward lvl 1 vs 20 from being such an extreme, but the general difference in damage and available skills to use (passive or otherwise) tends to make more then enough difference as far as 'experience' goes. I mean you keep all that stuff generally the same, a lvl 1 mage vs a 20 mage... that 20 mage has a hell of a lot more going for him, even if his HP and other general states haven't changed from lvl 1. Warrior types ultimately have more passives which bump up a lot of that stuff, few more use abilities, stuff that makes it easier to handle groups of enemies that kinda thing.

[Hormalakh]

As for Hormalakh's question, can't speak for OE, but I'd rather we had to distinguish it ourselves from ingame clues (plate armor, shells on beetles) than having it provided as is ingame, even if it may be low, medium, heavy, very heavy.

And no ingame HP display either. Fine with BG's "almost dead, full-health" on using tab on them though, but there's no need to, like modern RPG's, give their exact numerical HP possessed and left.

 

My 2 cents.

I am in agreement with you in regards to qualitative descriptions as opposed to quantitative "nummerical" descriptions.

 

I also find your idea on "creature knowledge" interesting! It would be a great non-combat skill for players to invest some points in when it comes to "gathering information." Although, when I think about it, the problem is that this only works for the first play through. Really after that, there's not much reason to invest in the skill since you already know that information...so now that I think about it, it wouldn't be easy/interesting to do unless creature stats changed systematically with each new game.

 

Also, newer players would not be privy to that information while veterans would know that "duh rock elementals always have heavy armor." After a while, it doesn't much matter, and the tool-tip becomes useful (even for vets) when you're trying to remember/find that cheat-sheet with all the monster info that the rock elemental was a heavy armor enemy.

[Adhin]

Diablo had that, to some extent. Was actually a pretty interesting system when you look at it. I mean, bosses completely ignored the system and showed you what was what up front but normal critters you'd find would just show there name. Kill enough of em and it would release some kind of resistance to whatever they have, or if they regenerated faster then normal or whatever. Was always disappointed that was thrown out the window on later games.

 

Personally don't think it would fit into a mouse over to well in an infinity style game, armor type as a base makes a good bit of sense since the vast majority of that would be visual anyway (full plate, rock monster). Now a bestiary... that right there, that's something they could have that update info side (maybe not direct numbers or anything) from kills yeah? Kill a monster, get an entry, kill a few of em get some basic details like 'resistant to fire' or 'immune to fire', or regenerates quickly. Personally I'd prefer that over bonus mouse over info.

 

More atmosphere that way too, could pull a little witcher and have some monsters show up in read books that pre-emptively fill out a bit of the bestiary. But armor type... that kinda an obvious one as far as im concerned, unless your missin' a buncha your marbles anyways. I mean it takes a rare, rare person to look at a rock wall and assume they can cut it with a sword. And I bet that same person would continue thinking they can even after they've dulled the blade from attempts...

 

-edit-

Hell I'd go one step further and instead of having it entirely kill based... I mean say some mutant dog monster is heavily resistant to fire. Kill a few, maybe get some details but not that one. Toss a fireball at once, get the entry 'seems resistant to fire'. Basically have it keep track, to some degree, in relative simple terms, if its resistant to attack types you've used before. Kinda thing players could easily notice by looking at the combat log but like I said earlier, atmosphere.

Edited January 19, 2013 by Adhin

[Hormalakh]

-snip-

Makes combat more worthwhile too You'll get the "safari hunter types" who go out to fill out their bestiaries as much as they can. The equivalent of a Project Eternity Pokedex, except it's about the things you've killed. Of course, as soon as I say Pokedex, the whole idea becomes trash...

Edited January 19, 2013 by Hormalakh

[Adhin]

LOL, it's only trash if we start magically hiding the monsters in balls and use are beast slaves to fight each other and learn how to be friends over are horrid murderous slavery.

 

...I love you Japan. <3

[PrimeJunta]

I am really, really liking the sound of the combat system here. The arithmetic seems simple enough to translate easily to a turn-based PnP game as well, while retaining the essentials of the "feel." If one of those is in the works at one point, I'm buying.

[Sensuki]

I also think that Josh is using the most familiar terms to describe stuff so that people understand

 

Accuracy vs Defense seems ARPG inspired, a lot of the other mechanics seem to (as described) borrow heavily from 3E/4E.

Everything seems pretty sound so far, it just depends how well it translates and how combat 'feels' in game, which has less to do with mechanics and more to do with coding and animation.

Edited January 19, 2013 by Sensuki

[Valorian]

Maybe that Expert mode which disables dialogue tool-tips could disable armor tool-tips as well?