Overkills and loot destruction

[Hormalakh]

In a lot of previous IE games, if you overkilled an enemy, they would display an interesting death animation, and sometimes loot would be destroyed. This was done with BG2 (I can't remember if other games did it) with "frozen enemies" and enemies turned to stone. But not with burned enemies and many other status effect spells (acid). BG1 had broken armor/weapons due to the Iron shortage. However, if you killed your enemies with lightning bolts, fireballs, or other "status effecting" spells, there was no effect on the items they were carrying.

 

What if certain deaths caused loot destruction as well. I'm not talking about special loot (like magic weapons +5), but rather basic armor and weapons, consumables (scrolls, wands, potions, gems). Imagine killing a whole bunch of goblins all at once with one singular fireball. They burn to a crisp. It would be interesting for a random number of their loot to either be destroyed (paper scrolls burn) or "broken".

 

Different deaths cause different damages.

 

Overkills with weapons break armor.

Overkills with fire (fireballs) burn up scrolls, damage armor, etc.

Overkills with ice break armor, weapons.

Overkills with acid burn through armor, consumables.

etc etc.

 

 

Discuss!

Edited January 17, 2013 by Hormalakh

[maggotheart]

I hope not, I don't want to have to hold back all the time in fear that I'll miss out on loot.

[Tsuga C]

This was implemented in NWN2 and it worked quite well. Things seldom broke unless you unleashed an Ice Storm or Call Lightning on an area that contained a chest. I favor a similar implementation in P:E.

[Jarmo]

I hated it, also hated when forcing a chest you'd get broken items (was that kotor only).

[Tsuga C]

I hated it, also hated when forcing a chest you'd get broken items (was that kotor only).

 

That's all the more reason to include Neeshka in your party or to play a rogue yourself if you didn't care for her. Alternately, you could always use the console to give yourself a Chime of Opening or buy one in the markets.

[rjshae]

That (loot damage) would be okay for random loot drops; less so for pre-positioned treasure and quest items.

[Tsuga C]

That (loot damage) would be okay for random loot drops; less so for pre-positioned treasure and quest items.

 

Quest items can always be placed inside chests well away from combat or in heavy-duty chests unlikely to succum to stray spell damage.

[Fearabbit]

I don't think this adds much to the game, honestly. Either it annoys you because you needed that loot, or you don't care. But if it's implemented, I guess I can live with it.

 

But tell me, what positive effect do you think it has?

[JFSOCC]

If it works on them... sure, if it works on me... do you know how much I spent on that armour!?

[jivex5k]

I'd like to be able to try and blast chests open at the expense of possible damage.

[Hormalakh]

I don't think this adds much to the game, honestly. Either it annoys you because you needed that loot, or you don't care. But if it's implemented, I guess I can live with it.

 

But tell me, what positive effect do you think it has?

 

There is some risk in using powerful spell-like abilities. With enemies that drop little to no loot a spell can make short work of them. Loot-heavy enemies usually need a "gentler" beating.

 

My proposition is not to make quest-items or super rare items destructible. Only consumables and non-magical weapons/armor. If repairing is implemented in the game, I wouldn't mind broken weapons/armor.

[Tsuga C]

But tell me, what positive effect do you think it has?

 

Allowing players to bash open containers without consequence or limitation does a great disservice to those who enjoy playing rogues. If you don't need someone to pick locks and disarm trapped containers, you've taken a huge bite out of the purpose of the class.

[SunBroSolaire]

I wouldn't mind this, as long as there isn't the risk of missing out on super rare valuable loot. If there was that risk, I think I would just try to avoid using any of the overkill abilities. This would especially be negative on bosses, since they tend to drop the best loot. If I have to be careful not to break their gear, it kind of changes the whole encounter. Burning up wolves and missing that wolf pelt is not such a big deal, losing the Sword of Magical Asskicking because I used a good spell in a boss fight is lame.

 

Overall, I wouldn't want them to do this if it takes much development time to balance/animate/implement, and I wouldn't want them to do it unless it was very well balanced and implemented. I'm totally fine with the old "search ash pile" if they want to include special death animations without getting into loot destruction mechanics.

[Malekith]

I don't think this adds much to the game, honestly. Either it annoys you because you needed that loot, or you don't care. But if it's implemented, I guess I can live with it.

 

But tell me, what positive effect do you think it has?

 

There is some risk in using powerful spell-like abilities. With enemies that drop little to no loot a spell can make short work of them. Loot-heavy enemies usually need a "gentler" beating.

 

My proposition is not to make quest-items or super rare items destructible. Only consumables and non-magical weapons/armor. If repairing is implemented in the game, I wouldn't mind broken weapons/armor.

In paper sounds good. In practise? Not so much. Take for examble Imprisonment. 9 lvl spell,no save etc... It was the most useless spel in the game.If the opponent was hard enough to merrit 9lvl spells to defeat him he would carry good loot. What then? You use Imprisonment in bears,goblins or something? it has long casting time so its quicker to hit the goblin with a single sword strike or a magic misile. Same with Disintergrate. i have never played a game where such abilities worked well

Edited January 17, 2013 by Malekith

[Hormalakh]

I don't think this adds much to the game, honestly. Either it annoys you because you needed that loot, or you don't care. But if it's implemented, I guess I can live with it.

 

But tell me, what positive effect do you think it has?

 

There is some risk in using powerful spell-like abilities. With enemies that drop little to no loot a spell can make short work of them. Loot-heavy enemies usually need a "gentler" beating.

 

My proposition is not to make quest-items or super rare items destructible. Only consumables and non-magical weapons/armor. If repairing is implemented in the game, I wouldn't mind broken weapons/armor.

In paper sounds good. In practise? Not so much. Take for examble Imprisonment. 9 lvl spell,no save etc... It was the most useless spel in the game.If the opponent was hard enough to merrit 9lvl spells to defeat him he would carry good loot. What then? You use Imprisonment in bears,goblins or something? it has long casting time so its quicker to hit the goblin with a single sword strike or a magic misile. Same with Disintergrate. i have never played a game where such abilities worked well

 

Points taken. I used imprisonment to hold off bigger enemies or to split them. I'd imprison the big dude, kill off the little dudes then cast freedom and kill the big dude.

 

Still, your point stands.

Edited January 17, 2013 by Hormalakh

[Malekith]

Also i would prefer no destractable chests and doors. It make the thief class obsolete. The way it was in IE games worked fine. In NWNs not.

[Hormalakh]

Also i would prefer no destractable chests and doors. It make the thief class obsolete. The way it was in IE games worked fine. In NWNs not.

How about having destructible chests and doors, but they have negative consequences (losing out loot and enemies hearing you)? Then the theif class isn't obsolete.

[Karkarov]

Nope, I am opposed. Losing loot from forcing a lock is beyond dumb to begin with. I broke the lock on the chest, I didn't cleave the whole thing in half with a giant two handed axe. So what about Rogue's? Easy. Forcing locks has always been harder and less likely to succeed than just picking them. Even when I had a character good at forcing the locks I still tried to pick it first and always kept some kind of rogue around or a mage with spells like "knock" to do so.

 

As for combat, this is dumb. It only encourages me to not use my big guns. If I am never going to use my best skills for fear of causing a good item to be destroyed then the game may as well have never given me those skills to begin with. You want more options in combat and more ways to win, not fewer and or people worrying about if they just destroyed their loot.

Edited January 17, 2013 by Karkarov

[Gavinfoxx]

But tell me, what positive effect do you think it has?

 

Allowing players to bash open containers without consequence or limitation does a great disservice to those who enjoy playing rogues. If you don't need someone to pick locks and disarm trapped containers, you've taken a huge bite out of the purpose of the class.

 

Yes, having 'one guy which is only there to disarm traps and pick locks' is needless limitations on the Rogue class. You should be able to get along JUST FINE without a Rogue, and Rogues should NOT be the only one that can open chests! Seriously... Your box of what a 'thief' class is, is wayyyyy too small! Increase the size of your box. Look at 3.5e's Factotum for a solid Rogue class, for example.

Edited January 18, 2013 by Gavinfoxx

[Alexjh]

I'd be inclined against this, if nothing else because the net result is basically penalising wizards and other offensive spellcasters for loot. I don't mind a few things like disintegrate like spells doing it, but when you use such a thing its very much a particular tactical choice, not gambling with every attack.

 

Gavinfoxx:

While being the 'one guy which is only there to disarm traps and pick locks' is a bit of a stereotype of the class, its also an important part of the archetype, and classes are fundementally broad stroke archetypes. That isn't to say that other classes shouldn't be able to do it or that you shouldn't be able to create a rogue who isn't good at it, but having the class rigged so they can learn plenty of skills is one of the core features of the class. If you boil wizards, rogues and fighters in 3e down to their very very most basic form, fighters are the class about feats, wizards the class about spells and rogues the class about skills

 

If anything I would do more to make lockpick the optimal way to open a lock - have some locks be unbreakable, have smashing a lock risking drawing in unwanted attention, keep some form of gamble of item damage etc, automatic setting off and traps in said lock. Let people smash things open all they want to, but the difference between the two is basically bodging something together yourself or having a professional doing it. You might not want to pay the cost of the professional (be it money or party slots), but he'd certainly do a better job. Similarly if they were to include unlocking spells at all I'd either have a single high level spell, or, have about 20 different low level ones, each of which only works for specific locks, so you'd basically have to try several spells before you find the right one.

[Malekith]

But tell me, what positive effect do you think it has?

 

Allowing players to bash open containers without consequence or limitation does a great disservice to those who enjoy playing rogues. If you don't need someone to pick locks and disarm trapped containers, you've taken a huge bite out of the purpose of the class.

 

Yes, having 'one guy which is only there to disarm traps and pick locks' is needless limitations on the Rogue class. You should be able to get along JUST FINE without a Rogue, and Rogues should NOT be the only one that can open chests! Seriously... Your box of what a 'thief' class is, is wayyyyy too small! Increase the size of your box. Look at 3.5e's Factotum for a solid Rogue class, for example.

You should not be able to get along JUST FINE without a rogue. You should be able to PROGRESS without a rogue, but not without penalty.It's a party game.In IE games if you didn't had a rogue you were at a disadvantage. Same with cleric,same with mage. If all characters are "well rounded", party composition becomes obsolete. It's not a MMORPG or a single character rpg where every class should be able to manage every circumstance

[Hormalakh]

It doesn't have to affect spellcasters solely. I mentioned the broken armor/weapon for an overkill with a melee weapon as well, didn't I? If I didn't, I'm mentioning it now. If a melee fighter overkills an enemy, they either get broken armor/weapons or lose a few "fragile consumables" (thinking potions here, not scrolls).

 

Really, these are just ideas. I'm sure if Obsidian doesn't deem this worthwhile for the initial release, there will be mods that will likely do these things in the future. Just as long as OEI sets it up in a way for it to be done easily (easily moddable, that is).

[TRX850]

All good responses here. It's one of those prickly subjects that requires a certain amount of abstraction, a little bit of realism, and a large dose of common sense.

 

No one would expect a warrior type to smash a chest with an axe and assume the contents to remain intact, therefore they would (almost) never do that. But they could try "breaking the lock", which is controlling your strength very carefully, some might say there's an element of dexterity and/or intelligence to this. But breaking a lock is different to picking a lock. If there was a system designed that allowed non-rogue types (or indeed, all character types) to attempt this option, and as long as the calculations used did not fly in the face of an equivalent level rogue, then there's still the chance of success or failure, regardless of how many HP the lock/chest has. Because if you can't break a lock by being careful, then we're back into rage-smashing territory.

 

Realistically, a fireball or acid storm would probably destroy or severely damage a chest. But chest-loot in RPGs represents a reward for overcoming the owner of that loot. It's an abstract concept. So if you destroy it via normal encounter/combat means, you're only going to aggro players who now feel they've been duped, and they may just reload until they win the battle and keep their loot intact.

 

Maybe a solution is to take the spell focus-point into consideration. A fireball centered on an enemy will cause damage to that enemy and all enemies in range. But because it was not centered on the chest, even though the chest may also in range, it is immune to those spell effects.

 

This leaves open the last resort option of smashing the chest full on. If you can't or don't want to break the lock, you can take a risk. Whack it with your axe or hammer, or choose a spell and aim it directly at the chest. Either way, there's a risk of destroying the contents.

 

And with regards to the "Knock" spell, perhaps it needs to be changed from auto-success to a success-or-failure outcome depending on the spellcaster's level, again using values that don't undermine the usefulness of rogues, while giving non-rogue classes a sensible option.

 

(The "Find Traps" spell should use the same success-or-failure logic. I beleive it already does).

[HansKrSG]

 

But tell me, what positive effect do you think it has?

Allowing players to bash open containers without consequence or limitation does a great disservice to those who enjoy playing rogues. If you don't need someone to pick locks and disarm trapped containers, you've taken a huge bite out of the purpose of the class.

Give XP for picking locks and disarming traps as in B2, and nothing for bashing it open, voila, a good reason to have a rogue do it instead. I love playing rogues, but I usually don't bash open stuff, even when I can, because it just doesn't feel right. That it is possible, doesn't really stop me from using my rogue.

[Jobby]

I like the idea of different death animations for overkill, but not destructible loot, unless were talking about forcing locks in which case i think it is imperative that "force lock"  is either not implemented or there is a pre-chosen, useful item of loot destroyed on every chest, otherwise people will re-load and lockpicking will be useless.