Josh Sawyer on Miss and Hit

[Hassat Hunter]

I'd be fine if the "encyclopedia on rock monsters" would mention their armor being high, or a journal noting such after a few kills. Just, don't think it's good for pop-over.

But according to Josh, that's already in.

 

Maybe to accomidate some strange combinations (heavily armored yellow's?)... or it was too hard to note on appearance after all.

[Hormalakh]

You know what would be really cool? Getting enemy information in your journal under a "flora and fauna" tab. As you kill more and more of them, you get more information about them. Along with some concept sketches that the artists did as if they were sketches you'd find in a journal.

[C2B]

You know what would be really cool? Getting enemy information in your journal under a "flora and fauna" tab. As you kill more and more of them, you get more information about them. Along with some concept sketches that the artists did as if they were sketches you'd find in a journal.

 

Maybe as a supplementary, but popping out your journal everytime you need the info does seem to be a bit annoying.

Edited January 19, 2013 by C2B

[Hormalakh]

It wasn't really a serious proposition just because I doubt it's feasible and worthwhile, but one of those "wouldn't it be cool things." It's just basically more eye candy and might serve only marginal gameplay elements.

[Valorian]

The thing is, selecting the appropriate damage type vs armor is more of a reflex choice than tactical

consideration.

 

If you hit an enemy for 1-2 damage? Switch to crushing weapons. It's quite simple and doesn't involve lots of brain power.

Is there any penalty for switching weapons in combat, at all?

 

 

My concern is this: is it worth sacrificing character concepts for the sake of a reflex choice?

 

Since they'll bridge weapons that deal different types of damage in specialisation groups, there is no reason not to switch between different types of weapons even if you do specialise in a group.

If someone wants to play a druid who fights with clubs, it'd be really silly not to switch to hatchets when fighting against a lightly armored opponent.

 

Now, IF they included specialisations that encompass weapons which deal the same type of damage, that would alleviate the issue. Because if you choose to specialise in weapons of the same damage type you'd have a reason not to switch to another.

[PrimeJunta]

You can't access your pack in combat. You can only switch between equipped weapon sets (presumably two).

 

So if you're set up with a sword and shield + bow and arrows, there's no way to dig out your mace or estoc if a heavily armored guy shows up.

[Adhin]

<p>You can't access your 'stash' mid dungeon or adventure to use any items, at all from it. But its your stash, its there to drop items to for sell or keep later on, its a choice to say you wont be using said items till later. Top of the bag stuff are things your carrying you have direct access to at anytime anywhere. Pretty sure you'd be able to keep a mace in that for use if need be, even mid combat if you absolutely had to.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>-edit-</p>

<p>Or at least that's what they've said, don't remember them stating the main inventory (bag/top of backpack) was restricted when in a fight. Only the stash being restricted as a one way street in the field.</p>

Edited January 19, 2013 by Adhin

[Valorian]

PJ, we don't know how many sets, although only 2 sets would be good.

 

Your example makes sense if the character specialises in ranged weapons (and if only 2 quick switch sets are available).

Edited January 19, 2013 by Valorian

[PrimeJunta]

@Adhin: Sorry, but you're mistaken. You can't access your inventory in combat; you can only swap between weapon sets. From Update #36:

 

 

Functionally, we're using Icewind Dale II as our starting point. We've been looking at inventory recently. Tim and I have designed a system that uses three types of gear storage: equipment, top of pack (this name may change!), and stash. Equipment is what your characters are currently using and have ready to use. This includes weapon sets that you can swap between during combat. "Top of pack" is a finite amount of gear that you can access outside of combat for a variety of purposes: replenishing consumables, checking out a shiny new sword you picked up a while back, etc. The top of pack cannot be accessed during combat, but is present as a strategic pool of items that you can access while exploring. The stash is where all of the "other stuff" goes: things you aren't using, items you want to sell, and various doo-dads you'll be looking at later.

 

@Valorian, true, we don't. I'm just assuming two sets because I don't think I've ever played a cRPG with more than that.

[Valorian]

 

 

@Valorian, true, we don't. I'm just assuming two sets because I don't think I've ever played a cRPG with more than that.

IE games. Up to 4.

[Adhin]

Ahh yeah, must of misread it last time. Well I kind of like that to be honest... does make me wonder how many weapon sets will be available and hope a 'set' can consist of dual wielding. Pretty sure it will, but Infinity engine games where absolutely horrible at that. Couldn't use a shield as a part of set and a bow or 2h sword... was really bizar. BG1-2 had 3-4 sets for fighter types. But the shield was a separate slot so if you where using a shield it wasn't so much 3-4 'sets' as main hand weapons you could swap between. If you wanted to use a bow you kept it in your inventory, removed the shield then swapped to a bow mid fight.

 

I forget how many IWD2 had but I remember them not failing as hard with it and maybe upwards to 6 of them or... something. But besides the infinity engine games... yeah. Vast majority either don't have weapon sets or have 2 and a hotkey to do a quick swap.

 

...think PST may of had 5.

 

-edit-

IWD2 had 4, sorry, and it did allow for multiple 2 weapon per set (allowing shield as part of the 'set') - http://lparchive.org/Icewind-Dale-2/Update%209/27-22.jpg

Edited January 19, 2013 by Adhin

[PrimeJunta]

Hey, you're right. The IE games did have more than two sets. I had forgotten about that. Maybe P:E will too. We'll see I guess. I kinda hope not because as Val said it sort of makes the tactical planning aspect moot if you can have one of each equipped.

[Adhin]

I plan to follow same as my Barb/Psion for my first char (Barb, Cipher if I can dual class). Dual wield swords with a backup 2h Maul. Probably a 2H sword if I have more then 2 slots.

[Arkeus]

The thing is, you would still need to equip at least three different weapons to each characters that fight in melee at all times. It's quite obvious all of those won't be top-notch, so there will be choices like that.

 

Furthermore, there probably won't be enemies of all the same armor type in one encounter, which means you may need to switch a few times.

 

@Josh: Have you thought about characters needing time to switch weapon (and maybe have them be "flat footed" equivalent during that time)?

[uaciaut]

So my level 20 monk won't be able to search for low level mobs like goblins and just run around them laughing with his hands in the air because he's immune to normal weapons now? Kind of a downer :<

Normalization of damage sounds like a good idea, though i will kind of miss that 5% chance to miss (hell even New Vegas VATS had it). I'll also miss the idea of making an evasion-tank simply because it made me feel like an old age Neo, though what Josh said about hit rolls, rogues and such potentially getting a bonus to "hit roll needed to be hit" and more mobility from lighter armor makes a lot of sense. I just would like people who opt for going full dexterity simply for the heck of it or wanting to feel like the fastest people alive get something out of it - in pretty much all the past games, from BG2 to NWN2, strength has never been a "dump" stat for fighter types for example, it never had something like a diminishing return - you always got a visible result out of it. Introducing "finesse" (iirc) in NWN2 to add dex bonus as attack bonus instead of strength made dex more attractive for some classes but with it taking a bit of a hit with regards to how it affects AC it seems to be a not-so-great stat.

[Adhin]

Finesse was a 3E thing and was in NWN from day 1. Was good for your Neo-dexer 'tanks'. I always found heavy armor, high AC tanks kinda amusing in DnD as it was the same in the end. Both high armor ac vs dex based AC in cRPG both constituded a 'miss' on you. When the armor AC was meant to be a deflection. That being, you got hit, but because your in angled armor and your positioning your self right it 'deflected' away from anything vital and just didn't count as damage.

 

Way I see it, there system is the same its just deciding said deflections are glancing blows, inflicting very little damage in comparison to a proper connect of which DT can heavily impact beyond that. Personally i hope they have a finesse like setup for PE as well as I enjoy making rogues, fighters and monks into finessers and go mad dex or agility or whatever to up my hit and avoidance chances. Definitely be viable in PE, hell you'll be able to completely nullify critical hits on your character going that route, minimize vast majority of dmg on you and have a small but more sizable chance to avoid all damage all together.

 

It's like having Evasion for AC.

[Hassat Hunter]

The thing is, you would still need to equip at least three different weapons to each characters that fight in melee at all times. It's quite obvious all of those won't be top-notch, so there will be choices like that.

 

Not really... that's what you have multiple fighters for.

Send the 2 hander after the heavy armor guys, while your sword-melee hunts lighter targets.

No need to switch 4 times in one battle...

[Sensuki]

Or just have your whole party equipped with firearms only, lataz

[TRX850]

Has anyone suggested the idea of a "Super-Crit" ? Meaning two critical hits in a row, and on the second one, the damage range is increased? I'm fine with the way it is, but just floating the idea.

 

I remember in NWN2 I had a Rapier Weapon Master with a load of feats that dropped my critical range down to something like 13-20 or something ridiculous, so I was crit'ing all the time.

 

The thing is though, anything you can dish out to your enemies, they should be able to dish out to you.

[Hormalakh]

I do think that Valorian has hit on an important point about weapon-switching no longer being tactical and becoming more "reflexive" when armor type is known.

 

I am interested in hearing how this will be remedied.

[Adhin]

Well, outside of reach and shields, that's why Halberds exist. They're 'reflexive', axe on a long pole, hammer and a spike. They literally exist to fulfill multiple roles depending on whats required or what best suits the situation. Like a big ol' swiss army knife. Since the spear stuff came up folks keep mentioning ancient time greece, romans, even throwing out some stuff like vast majority of vikings only had a spear...which is kinda incorrect.

 

Rome had trained and equipped armies. Shield, Spear, Sword. Sword acted as a backup. Vikings often had spears and had at least 1 backup, often an axe cause there cheap and extremely effective. Also makes a good tool. Anyway point is, outside of war and moving massive numbers like its a chess game, weapon IS reactive. That's how it should be. ****, tactics are reactive. Tactics are what you pull off, what you come up with amidst a confrontation. Some are extremely simple, some are a bit more complex.

 

Strategy is the larger picture, tactics is the smaller picture, the detail by detail thing. It's your reactions to whats going on, the quick plan, or the often times heavily rehearsed myriad of plans and picking said one to fit your situation. More simply Tactic - "a plan, procedure, or expedient for promoting a desired end or result." See a guy in heavy armor? Drop the sword, grab the maul. It's a tactic.

 

Tactics are almost always reactionary to what you see before you and your picking the option that'll give you the best results for your desired outcome of winning said confrontation. Keeping the sword would be poor tactics in that situation and I have no doubt I'll end up picking that option if I don't think I absolutely need to swap to a maul to win out. But to say its reactionary, reflexive or whatever other term you want to use and then turn around and say that means its not tactical? That's just kinda silly.

 

Sticking to just your sword

Edited January 20, 2013 by Adhin

[Valorian]

I do think that Valorian has hit on an important point about weapon-switching no longer being tactical and becoming more "reflexive" when armor type is known.

 

I am interested in hearing how this will be remedied.

Even if armor type isn't shown in a tool-tip, as soon as you deal damage, the damage dealt will tell you everything you need to know.

[IndiraLightfoot]

TRX850: Yea, see my post further up, about chain-critting... 

[PrimeJunta]

 

I do think that Valorian has hit on an important point about weapon-switching no longer being tactical and becoming more "reflexive" when armor type is known.

 

I am interested in hearing how this will be remedied.

Even if armor type isn't shown in a tool-tip, as soon as you deal damage, the damage dealt will tell you everything you need to know.

 

Are we going to see damage dealt per hit in the UI?

[TRX850]

TRX850: Yea, see my post further up, about chain-critting... 

 

Aha. I see your suggestion was on page 17. Good stuff. These threads tend to take off quickly once Josh makes an update. Don't always notice new suggestions among the general chit-chat.