Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I think we would have to take the skill of the opponent into account as well.

 

If that skill reduces the deflection (which I think is the simplest option), you're probably pretty good protected against simple foes, but bosses and such will hit hard. Let's say that each skill level reduces 5% of the reflection (additive, not multiplicative), that fighters get 1 skill each level and that 20 is the level cap (to keep it simple).

 

Let's try some examples:

 

1. A high level wizard, wearing a robe, enchanted with 3 * 50% deflection against melee attacks. That's 150% deflection (the very max).

- He gets attacked by a lowly, level 1 kobold. That kobold reduces the reflection to 145%, so he has no chance to hit that wizard at all.

- He gets attacked by a level 10 fighter, who reduces the deflection by 50%. Still no go.

- He gets attacked by a level 20 fighter, who reduces the deflection by 100%, so he will hit 50% on average. That wizard is toast in a few hits.

- He gets attacked by a level 1 archer that is fairly close, who hits almost all the time and probably makes it hard for that wizard to get a spell off. (Only range penalty for the archer.)

- He gets attacked by a mid level wizard that uses magic missiles (always hits), which do considerable damage. (EDIT: I treat MM's like regular arrows that always hit, so no magic damage.)

 

That wizard either has to hit hard with AoE spells, take out all ranged opponents ASAP, and/or use a spell that fools opponents into hitting empty air. Or use enchantments that protect against ranged attacks and magic instead, and keep far away from melee enemies.

 

2. A high level fighter, wearing the best quality full plate available. It has 75% deflection and 75% damage reduction (the very max).

- The lvl 1 kobold has 30% chance to hit, but he will do very little, if any, damage.

- The lvl 10 fighter has 75% chance to hit, and will slowly whittle him down (if he would let him).

- The lvl 20 fighter will hit every time, and do moderate damage.

- The lvl 1 archer won't do any noticeable damage.

- The wizard hits every time, but won't do any noticeable damage, either.

 

That fighter can take a lot of punishment when occasionally healed. His main threats are enemies that gang up on him, and enemy wizards.

 

3. A high level rogue, wearing scale mail, enchanted with +25% stealth. It has 25% damage reduction. That rogue has 100% + 25% stealth, giving him an effective deflection of 125% in combat.

- The lvl 1 kobold is unable to hit him.

- The lvl 10 fighter has 25% chance to hit him, and will do serious damage when he does (25% reduction).

- The lvl 20 fighter has 75% chance to hit him, and finish him off pretty fast.

- The lvl 1 archer won't be able to hit him.

- The wizard will hit every time and do moderate damage.

 

That rogue is probably best for hiding when possible, and taking out all the squishy archers and wizards.

 

 

Does that sound about right?

Edited by SymbolicFrank
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I you expect your opponents to wear plate, you take a poleaxe and a mace. ;-) And of course, a sword as a backup sidearm.

 

 

After thinking it over, I think I would prefer a multi-headed flail (spiked balls and chains) on a pole for the reach weapon, and a morningstar for the primary weapon.

 

But I agree with your reasoning ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does that sound about right?

That it does, :). As always, your breakdowns are very nicely done.


Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[snip]you're fighting an enemy that attacks once every .5 seconds [snip]

 

 

For once this is a genuine question rather than one of leaping in with a sword of pedantry +4.

 

Do we have conformation on how weapon speed is going to work in P:E? To be honest, I never really gave weapon speed any great consideration in my years of playing crpgs. To take Baldur's Gate as an example, a dagger was far quicker than a Greatsword, but I assumed that the number of attacks you got per round was dependant only upon your number of attacks per round, not your weapon (unless it gave seperate bonuses). So the dagger's damage would register before the Greatsword, meaning if you killed the sword-user with the first strike they wouldn't get their strike off - but if you didn't the Greatsword would inflict far more damage in a round.

 

I recall a certain dart-thrower having peculiar mechanics, but I always took that as being part of the npc rather than the system working as it normally did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For once this is a genuine question rather than one of leaping in with a sword of pedantry +4.

 

Do we have conformation on how weapon speed is going to work in P:E?

Ehh, there's some informative tidbits from Josh Sawyer, somewhere around here, regarding weapon speed. Then there was the so-far-designed affects of heavier armor upon... action speed? I can't remember the specifics. I think he said it wouldn't affect move speed, because that's lame, but it would affect spell-casting time and/or attack speed, etc? Maybe just ability use. I really should find it... -_-

 

Yeah, all I could find was that armor's "speed penalty" will affect the speed of actions, rather than movement. And that weapon speed will not differ drastically like in D&D rules (where you end up going from 1 attack per round to like 5+ attacks per round). Not sure about any other details yet. I could've missed something, though.

Edited by Lephys

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ehh, there's some informative tidbits from Josh Sawyer, somewhere around here, regarding weapon speed. Then there was the so-far-designed affects of heavier armor upon... action speed? I can't remember the specifics. I think he said it wouldn't affect move speed, because that's lame, but it would affect spell-casting time and/or attack speed, etc? Maybe just ability use. I really should find it... -_-

 

Ah, so there has been evidence to suggest that combat will work out on a true pausible realtime rather than the round-based system of BG/ID?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, so there has been evidence to suggest that combat will work out on a true pausible realtime rather than the round-based system of BG/ID?

Oh, yes. Sorry. I'm fairly certain it was most recently confirmed in the one of the last updates that it will, indeed, be real-time-with-pause (and slow-mo... "half-pause," I'll call it).


Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think armour takes skill to wear.

 

There's a certain art to putting it on correctly, to have the weight on your hips, rather than on the shoulders, but aside from that it is not difficult as such.

 

It's heavy, though, and hot. It is also clumsy and, often neglected in RPGs, it impairs vision and manoeuverability.

 

I would say that stamina should be the most important factor, possibly also strength, but it is not needed to be super-human to wear even plate.

 

Regarding shields, the point is to deflect and pummel, not to have the opponents weapons to get stuck in them. The Roman pilum (throwing spear) is a good example, especially designed to penetrate a shield and then bend. With a five-foot spear stuck in it, the shield is rendered useless.

Edited by TMZuk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It takes some skill to know how to take hits right when you are wearing armour, as you don't want to get any direct hits as those can hurt even if hit don't penetrate armour, so you want to position yourself so that hits only bevel your armour instead and that needs some skill to do right. Of course this could be part of fighting skill, but as usually style of fighting quite different when you wear armour and when you don't wear one, which gives some reason for armour wearing to be its own skill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It takes some skill to know how to take hits right when you are wearing armour, as you don't want to get any direct hits as those can hurt even if hit don't penetrate armour, so you want to position yourself so that hits only bevel your armour instead and that needs some skill to do right. Of course this could be part of fighting skill, but as usually style of fighting quite different when you wear armour and when you don't wear one, which gives some reason for armour wearing to be its own skill.

You have a point there, at least when considering plate. Wearing chain isn't that different from fighting without armour, and leather makes no difference at all.

 

If that level of... uhhh... "realism", is what is needed, then perhaps there should be armoured and un-armoured fighting.

 

I'm not certain that is a good idea, though. If "realism" is what is aimed for, then one-handed swords are useless against plate armour. Longswords or 1½-handers aren't much better. Only pole-axes, halberds and over-sized 2-handers are really efficient. But that would limit the weapons available. In fantasy RPGs, I like there to be a large varity of weapons available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Realism & fantasy don't really fit well together.

 

Example:

When you try to rest & your rest is interrupted your party are still wearing their armour. Understandable perhaps with the cloth & chain shirts, perhaps even the toughened leather which could be donned very quickly but above those you'd expect people to be removing them to sleep and wouldn't have time to put them on in a hurry.

 

I'd prefer that armour had simple properties such as;

Full Plate Armour

Slashing resistance - 50%

Piercing - 10%

Bludgeoning - 25%

Slows spell casting by 2*

 

*Entirely arbitrary number that I plucked from my... head.

Magical armour could have improved or additional properties.

 

When I play a CRPG I'm not looking for much realism (a little bit is fine). From the developer's point of view, realism is to be avoided if possible because of the criticism it opens you up to if/when you fall short. There are numerous websites by WW2 officionados detailing how the lapels on X character's jacket in HBO's Band of Brothers had a logo on that didn't appear until 1947 or such & such things.

 

Besides, when I see a bad guy in full plate armour, I'm not worrying about what weapons to use... I have all the weapons I need, they're spells called dominate, hold person, charm person etc... Full-plate-wearing warriors have low will saves!


Crit happens

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Realism & fantasy don't really fit well together.

I like what Josh Sawyer said about it.

 

We're not making a realistic simulation.  "Is this realistic?" is a question I try to answer after I have answered, "Why would anyone want to use this?"  If I haven't answered the latter question, the answer to the former is pretty irrelevant.

Obviously, the goal isn't always specifically to make things as true to life as possible. So, the only question left is really how best to evaluate whether or not realism, in some specific aspect, provides enough use or not for the game's needs and goals. This is almost always going to step on people's preference-toes. It's not that a game developer ever WANTS something to specifically be unrealistic, I don't think, so much as it is "Crap... I kinda need to make this less realistic, lest something circumstantially more important than realism/verisimilitude suffer in this case."

 

The whole "Shouldn't this be realistic?" question is always going to need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, since there is no absolute answer unless your game is a simulator.

  • Like 1

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd prefer that armour had simple properties such as;

Full Plate Armour

Slashing resistance - 50%

Piercing - 10%

Bludgeoning - 25%

Slows spell casting by 2*

This is essentially what they are doing. Armor will have a base DT as well as extra/weaker percentage vs damage types, and an action speed penalty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do we have conformation on how weapon speed is going to work in P:E? To be honest, I never really gave weapon speed any great consideration in my years of playing crpgs. To take Baldur's Gate as an example, a dagger was far quicker than a Greatsword, but I assumed that the number of attacks you got per round was dependant only upon your number of attacks per round, not your weapon (unless it gave seperate bonuses). So the dagger's damage would register before the Greatsword, meaning if you killed the sword-user with the first strike they wouldn't get their strike off - but if you didn't the Greatsword would inflict far more damage in a round.

 

Another take on weapon speed could be, that a fast weapon (like a dagger) allows you to target weak spots without giving your opponent time to move out of the way. Less damage, but a much better chance to hit.

 

While a heavy and slow weapon like a maul would be much easier to dodge, but would do massive damage if it connects.

 

I don't think armour takes skill to wear.

 

There's a certain art to putting it on correctly, to have the weight on your hips, rather than on the shoulders, but aside from that it is not difficult as such.

 

It's heavy, though, and hot. It is also clumsy and, often neglected in RPGs, it impairs vision and manoeuverability.

 

I would say that stamina should be the most important factor, possibly also strength, but it is not needed to be super-human to wear even plate.

 

A well-made suit of full plate mail weights less than the backpack of a modern soldier, and is distributed all over your body. And ring mail is about as heavy and doesn't stretch, so it should be loosely strapped around you.

 

But I agree that armor is hot, helmets reduce visibility and gauntlets reduce dexterity.

 

The stat requirement would be mostly for balance reasons and to make the other armor viable, as otherwise everyone would simply wear plate mail. A specialized wizard or stealth user might wear something light and/or dark, but the sheer survivability and the minor penalties at higher levels would make full plate very attractive for everyone.

 

It takes some skill to know how to take hits right when you are wearing armour, as you don't want to get any direct hits as those can hurt even if hit don't penetrate armour, so you want to position yourself so that hits only bevel your armour instead and that needs some skill to do right. Of course this could be part of fighting skill, but as usually style of fighting quite different when you wear armour and when you don't wear one, which gives some reason for armour wearing to be its own skill.

 

I totally agree that positioning and/or dodging makes a big difference. But that goes for everyone. So, we should first make a distinction between dodging out of the way, deflecting with your weapon, or with your shield/armor. And from what I've seen and read about it, dodging in full plate would be easier in RL than in ring mail or leather armor. And deflecting as well, as the surface is smooth and hard.

 

And I think that a strong fighter wearing full plate should have far more experience with dodging attacks than someone who tries to hide and sneak, or a weak, bookish wizard. So it probably makes the most sense to simply use a generic "deflection". And then weapon speed can simply reduce and/or increase that deflection.

 

 

If you don't want everyone playing something like a fighter/mage/thief or fighter/mage/cleric while wearing full plate, you either have to make it hard for them to be "good enough" in everything, and/or give advantages to wearing no/light armor. Strength seems a good stat, but that depends on the number of stats available, and how much points you can spend on them.

 

If you allow arcane casting in full armor, the only stats that matter to a wizard are those that allow casting and those that allow wearing that armor. I would totally put all my points in INT and STR and use that full plate.

 

To prevent that, D&D 3.x came up with feats for wearing that armor and to be able to cast spells while using it, and severely limited the amount of feats for wizards.

 

You could also make it desirable for wizards and stealthy characters to wear no or light armor, by offering them advantages. Like, being able to enchant those robes and spell casting or stealth bonuses (+INT, +DEX etc.).

 

 

As the devs said that they want everyone to be able to wear everything and at least dabble in all skills, the main question becomes: are they going to use the carrot or the stick to prevent everyone gravitating to full-plate wearing fighter/mage/xxx-es?

Edited by SymbolicFrank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Btw, while I'm of the "less is more" school of thinking, I really dislike just giving everything some pluses or minuses. A Vorpal Sword is much more interesting than a "sword +5". Lots of unique stuff, with strange and interesting properties is far nicer.

 

But on the other hand, it has to be understandable. I don't want to keep a spreadsheet open to see what the "Reaper of Sublime Darkness" actually does, and if it's an improvement over my "Draxx staff". So the effects should be kept as straightforward as possible. Like "Blinds target, which reduces deflection by 50%" or "Increases elemental damage done by 50%".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another take on weapon speed could be, that a fast weapon (like a dagger) allows you to target weak spots without giving your opponent time to move out of the way. Less damage, but a much better chance to hit.

 

While a heavy and slow weapon like a maul would be much easier to dodge, but would do massive damage if it connects.

I really like this idea. Within reason, of course. No "a maul has a 50% chance of missing, while a dagger has only a 3% chance" or anything, heh. But, yeah, the speed of attacks and frequency with which a weapon strikes are quite similar factors, as far as the results are concerned. Also, a lighter weapon (like you said) is easier to swing more quickly (the actual attack stroke, itself, is quicker, and not just the frequency of attacks) than a maul, so you'd think Dodging versus a maul would be easier, in general, than Dodging versus a dagger.


Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...