Overkills and loot destruction

[Hormalakh]

Thanks all for the thoughts. It's clear that this isn't favored by most people. Undoubtedly there will be a mod (as there was in BG2) that will work this in for those interested.

Edited January 23, 2013 by Hormalakh

[TRX850]

I'm ok either way with the idea of repairing armour or weapons that have been damaged, if there's a sensible system that allows it, so that early in the game for example, if you had the requisite skills you could make extra money from improving the resale value. But once the party is equipped with magical gear and acquires more gold, the issue fades away.

[rjshae]

If magical gear never requires repair, should it be looked at as self-healing? Does if draw upon the soul of the wearer to patch over those dents and puncture marks? Maybe magical gear should have its own rest system?

[TRX850]

I've never been sure about the option to repair magical items, because you get the "Ship of Theseus" Paradox. A common example is something like "Grandfather's axe has been in the family for years. We've replaced the handle three times and the head twice, but it's still Grandfather's axe."

 

This is especially problematic for high level items that become damaged, then repaired by mundane means. Where is the threshold between mundane and magic?

[Lephys]

I've never been sure about the option to repair magical items, because you get the "Ship of Theseus" Paradox. A common example is something like "Grandfather's axe has been in the family for years. We've replaced the handle three times and the head twice, but it's still Grandfather's axe."

 

I will say that, in the context of the soul system, that could potentially make more sense. If Grandfather's departed soul is the thing enchanting the axe, then it wouldn't matter how many times you physically change the axe, as long as you always used at least one component from the existing form of the axe. Or, to go along with modern ghost lore, maybe you could holy water the axe, then chop it up into pieces and bury it on consecrated ground, and the magic (aka Grandfather) would be gone.

 

But really, I see what you're saying.

[TRX850]

The axe analogy aside, the real question is what happens to a magic weapon with a string of bonus properties when it gets damaged? Would the game engine randomly reduce/remove/disable item properties or damage output until you repaired it? And could it be repaired by mundane blacksmithing skills, or would it require magical blacksmithery?

[rjshae]

^^^^ I guess it boils down to a resource management issue. What hoops do the developers want to make us jump through to repair the collateral damage of battle? I suspect not a lot, since it is one of those mundane, uninteresting management issues like obtaining enough food or preparing a camp.

 

But if they did want to, they could give every magic item an extra effect as a benefit for keeping it in good repair. The item would still work after taking damage and losing the effect, but not quite as well. Repairing the item might require a high skill level, which could possibly be offset by means of a special expenditure (like an expendable magic doohickey). In some respects this is comparable to the charged weapon approach in Oblivion.

[Lephys]

Well, if I HAD to try and figure up the logic behind the workings of an enchanted weapon, I'd say that, an enchantment is an enchantment, regardless of whether or not it's on a weapon or an apple. I mean, an apple with the same +10-Fire-Damage enchantment on it, when thrown, should still do 10 fire damage, even though the apple itself does 0 damage. So, even if an axe is worn down to complete bluntness, and only deals 1 damage now (I'd assume not-0, since you're still swinging a substantially-heavy lever), the fire damage should be the same. It's a completely separate effect.

 

Now, if the axe completely fell apart, I don't think a small piece of the handle should still do 10 fire damage, when chunked at someone, because a small piece of an axe handle isn't the same thing as a whole axe (whether in crappy condition or good condition.) But, at the same time, if you go too literal with it (i.e. "A small shaving is missing from the wooden handle now, so THIS IS NO LONGER THE WHOLE AXE AND THE ENCHANTMENT IS VOID!"), enchantments would pretty much be useless. Hell, after the first stroke shaved off some tiny bits of metal in combat, the enchantment would be gone.

 

So, regardless of how magic WOULD literally work, if it existed, which we'll never know... the only useful think to determine is how it even COULD work. Like I said, you wouldn't have enchanted weapons and such if it was gone with a shaving. So, either you've got to make your enchanted weapons never take any damage (satisfying the "this is always the exact same item and we don't even have to worry about a degradation threshold" bit), OR you have to assume that, unless the weapon is completely destroyed, it still holds the enchantment. Maybe if it's in 10 pieces, it just won't work (until repaired) because the enchantment works off of using the axe like one uses an axe in combat. Otherwise, everything the axe ever came in contact with would burst into flames.

 

*shrug*

 

It makes more sense if you think of a quiver. Maybe a quiver enchants arrows drawn from it, so when you're out of arrows (an integral component of the usefulness of the quiver), it doesn't really do anything (just like the broken axe). BUT, if you fill the quiver with arrows again, it becomes usable again. So, it's not that enchantment died... it just only functions under certain conditions (if you hit an enemy with the quiver, it probably won't do anything but piss off that enemy, and maybe break your quiver.)

Edited January 24, 2013 by Lephys

[TRX850]

Maybe then, instead of damage in the traditional sense, a mundane weapon that was used enough was downgraded from normal (sharp) to blunt, and that's as far as it can be damaged. So you then need a whetstone or honing stone to return it to normal status. Blunt could be simply a -1 damage penalty, which would incentivize players to keep their weapons maintained.

 

You could have masterwork variations too, so if blunted it effectively operates as a normal weapon. And would this still apply to magic weapons? Adjusting damage output only. Not magic property output.

 

I'm not sure if you can "blunt" or "dull" armour though. This is where it gets fiddly.

[Lephys]

I'm not sure if you can "blunt" or "dull" armour though. This is where it gets fiddly.

 

 

True, but you don't actively use armor. You just wear it. Any armor benefits would be passive. So, unless you can't keep the armor fitted about your person any longer because it's so mangled and destroyed, I would think any and all enchantments would still stand.

 

For example, some magical chainmail (3 armor) with a +3 armor-bonus enchantment on it, when the physical armor had holes in it and was no longer providing any protection, would still provide the +3 armor bonus. 0 + 3. So you'd still have 3 armor value from that, so long as you are actually wearing that armor. Or, if it was fire resistance, you'd still have fire resistance, but no armor bonus against physical forces/weapons. This makes sense because you could have a cloak of fire resistance (that doesn't provide any armor), and armor of fire resistance. So the enchanted effect should, in no way, be affected by the current physical state of the item, EXCEPT when it prevents the item from being used (again, a Ring of Protection only protects you when you're wearing it... it doesn't protect the bag it's stored in, or a floor board when it's on the floor.)

 

I think fictitious magic works a lot like programming. "IF (ring_center) = Humanoid Phalange, THEN (AC) +1;"

 

[JFSOCC]

no damage on magic items

there, problem solved.

It kind of makes items feel less special if they can be damaged, so beyond a certain level of magic, I don't expect wear.