Update #44: The Rules of (Melee) Engagement

[nikolokolus]

I like the notion of making warriors master of the battlefield by giving them some ability to control space, but the devil's in the details as they say -- looking forward to seeing how it works out.

 

But the grimoire slam thing ... I don't like this much at all.  If you want to give wizards a "push" cantrip or some other low level spell that can buffet an opponent to break engagement, then that's fine, but the idea of slamming an unwieldy tome of magic around the battlefield -- a rare and precious item in a world without a printing press -- just seems kind of "derpy" to me.

[Theobeau]

Late to this update and forum thread but both were very informative.

 

Range of opinions about the value of engagement zones and slamming books.

 

Personally, I find the latter quite novel (did someone do that already?!);

 

The idea of b***h slapping enemies with a really, really heavy book is so amusing that I'm thinking hard about a mage for the first playthrough.

 

One idea: perhaps damage could be scaled by the number and level of spells in the book?  After all it hurts much, much more to be hit with a phone book than with a copy of Miffy goes to School and trust me, I speak from experience!

[some guy]

Got a quick, crazy question for Josh: 

 

Will armour-type be a factor in how engagement-zone will play out?

[IndiraLightfoot]

Another quick one for Josh:

Wouldn't throwing nets be great "engagement zone"-grabbers?

 

I'm not saying it should be like the Roman retiarius (net fighter)...

 

 

...but something similar has been sorely missed in RPGs. Why should magic-users have monopoly on web spells and other crowd-control spells. This could be one of several fighter CC stuff, no?

[Monte Carlo]

There should be a 'Self-Sacrifice' feat where, in return for threatening heroic quantities of the enemy, you open yourself up to massive injuries and almost certain death in order to save your friends.

Edited February 28, 2013 by Monte Carlo

[Karkarov]

Another quick one for Josh:

Wouldn't throwing nets be great "engagement zone"-grabbers?

...but something similar has been sorely missed in RPGs. Why should magic-users have monopoly on web spells and other crowd-control spells. This could be one of several fighter CC stuff, no?

Well for one thing nets don't work well outside of one on one fights.  They are very... cumbersome and unwieldy.  You can't have a real weapon ready at the same time as the net, or a shield for that matter.  Also in a party environment you net a guy sure, but you still have to draw your weapon/shield and there are still 4 (or who knows how many) other dudes standing there, not to mention you can always miss.  It just isn't a very good weapon outside of an arena, hence why you never see it getting used in anything in the real world other than ambushes and .... the arena.

 

Where as a mage can cast a web that covers a whole area, no need to worry about accuracy, doesn't need to put down any of their accoutrements to do it, and can even get more than one person at a time.  Hence for mages it works, dudes with nets not so much.

 

That said fighters should have skills like hamstringing, stunning, "melee engagement", disarms, and other such moves that can hamper a enemies ability to move or attack.  Of course fighters also get the most reliable, most time honored, and absolutely best CC to ever exist.  It is called "Stab it until it dies".  It has infinite duration and the target doesn't get a saving throw.

[Sannom]

Another quick one for Josh:

Wouldn't throwing nets be great "engagement zone"-grabbers?

I don't think so, it would be a great trick to have one or multiple enemies tangled up and immobilized, but I don't think you need to use the Engagement mechanic to make it work.

[Lephys]

What about bolas and such for tripping? Or Rogue's braided wire or something. Stun an enemy, tether it to his leg, then zip 20 feet away to a tree with some slack, and pull it taught to trip incoming reinforcements (AND the person who's leg is an anchor).

 

Also... sword-breakers and such! You could totally have "hold weapon" abilities that reduced an enemy's melee engagement target limit to a single target for 10-or-so seconds, allowing people to move freely past them on the battlefield. u_u

[J.E. Sawyer]

1) I also find rather... inadequate the Book Slam Technique of the wizards. I do not find logical or realistic for a wizard to wield (and read) a book in combat, even if he fights away from the melee, because of his need to remain aware of his surroundings and of his ennemies in an chaotic situation. An adventurer wizard would more likely hold a staff or a melee weapon (like a sword) when casting at a range and use it in close quarters to defend himself. 

 

Wizards in PE always have their grimoires out and in-hand when they cast spells.  They draw in soul energy through the grimoire before releasing it.

[Tsuga C]

Grimoires are not only books, but also serve as a spell focus, too. Sounds good. I sure hope they're tough and readily endure the rough and tumble of combat.

[J.E. Sawyer]

They have to be durable, which is why they're all inherently enchanted items.  Grimoires are not ordinary books.  If grimoires were not extremely durable, wizards simply wouldn't be able to cast spells in combat.

[Lephys]

Also, I believe an escaping-magical-charge shockwave was mentioned in the Grimoire Slam description, so I'm fairly certain it's more like a touch spell and less like a STR-based physical book-to-the-head. It's more important that the book touch you than it is that it touch you with force. The only purpose of the actual swing is probably speed.

 

They're not trying to implement book-chucks or anything. Although... sword-chucks are still entirely possible, u_u...

[Wombat]

Aldo, from Formspring

 

Q:  I had a debate about the Grimoier Slam. I've been told that "The idea that a wizard would use his most prized possession he/she/it is helpless without to slam big, ugly and green ****ers in the face is self-evidently ridiculous." Do you agree with this?

A:  If grimoires were fragile objects, sure. They are not fragile objects. Grimoires are all enchanted capacitors of soul energy that happen to be made in the shape of a large book. Every time a wizard casts a spell, he or she gathers and channels soul energy through the grimoire before releasing it. Even without the wizard using it, a grimoire is a magic item.

If a wizard uses Grimoire Slam, he or she is not just swatting the target with the weight of a large book, but hitting the enemy with a magical capacitor. It happens faster than most spells are cast and, if it hits, can knock the enemy back. In a melee situation, that's why a wizard would use it.

It's also an optional class-restricted Talent, not a core class Ability. If you don't like the flavor of Grimoire Slam, don't buy it. You'll have spells you can cast with more traditional magic effects that could accomplish similar things, but they will require you to cast a spell to do so.

[Wombat]

Also, I believe an escaping-magical-charge shockwave was mentioned in the Grimoire Slam description, so I'm fairly certain it's more like a touch spell and less like a STR-based physical book-to-the-head. It's more important that the book touch you than it is that it touch you with force. The only purpose of the actual swing is probably speed.

 

They're not trying to implement book-chucks or anything. Although... sword-chucks are still entirely possible, u_u...

 

From SA forum

In the case of something like Grimoire Slam or any other attack that causes a state change in the target, the loss of Engagement is a consequence of the Engage-er going into that state. So if, for example, huge creatures were exceedingly difficult to knock down (or stun, or paralyze, or whatever the specific effect is), that particular tactic would be less likely to make them drop Engagement. Additionally, all attacks still need to hit. Grimoire Slam will likely target Deflection (like most melee attacks). A wizard attacking a fighter or a paladin with a shield will probably have less of a chance of hitting than if he or she were attacking a cleric or a barbarian with a two-handed weapon. A wizard trying to Grimoire Slam a dragon of significance, giant, or another creature with predictably high Deflection would pose a similar problem. You can't get the effect you're going for unless you can land the attack.

 

Creatures may have their own special rules for Engagement when it fits the creature concept, so if we wanted to make a hydra who could engage eight dudes at once, we'd try to do that.

 

So, GS sounds like it is bit "ouchi"er than touch-type attacks.

Edited March 1, 2013 by Wombat

[Lephys]

From SA forum

In the case of something like Grimoire Slam or any other attack that causes a state change in the target, the loss of Engagement is a consequence of the Engage-er going into that state. So if, for example, huge creatures were exceedingly difficult to knock down (or stun, or paralyze, or whatever the specific effect is), that particular tactic would be less likely to make them drop Engagement. Additionally, all attacks still need to hit. Grimoire Slam will likely target Deflection (like most melee attacks). A wizard attacking a fighter or a paladin with a shield will probably have less of a chance of hitting than if he or she were attacking a cleric or a barbarian with a two-handed weapon. A wizard trying to Grimoire Slam a dragon of significance, giant, or another creature with predictably high Deflection would pose a similar problem. You can't get the effect you're going for unless you can land the attack.

 

Creatures may have their own special rules for Engagement when it fits the creature concept, so if we wanted to make a hydra who could engage eight dudes at once, we'd try to do that.

 

So, GS sounds like it is bit "ouchi"er than touch-type attacks.

 

 

Fair enough, but my point isn't that they're literally light touches, but merely that they're not about physically battling someone with the weight/mass of a book, but, instead, about landing a magical shockwave effect from a magical book's magical soul-energy charge. Many were complaining as though Wizards would be going around crushing skulls with books or something. It's not even about an attack. It's about a defense. An effect to break engagement in a pleasant manner. Edited March 1, 2013 by Lephys

[Wombat]

I think you are right about the purpose of the ability but it seems like the damage is a factor which decides if the victim is knocked back.  So, even in a limited way, the damage seems to be important to disengage successfully.  Then again, despite following the same rule as other melee attacks, it's not about offense at all as you pointed out.

[JFSOCC]

If grimoires are the spell focus for wizards, will it be possible for rogues to attempt to steal a grimoire and thusly gank opposing casters?

[ddillon]

J.E. Sawyer, on 28 Feb 2013 - 19:31, said:

 

 

Eleneithel, on 27 Feb 2013 - 20:22, said:

1) I also find rather... inadequate the Book Slam Technique of the wizards. I do not find logical or realistic for a wizard to wield (and read) a book in combat, even if he fights away from the melee, because of his need to remain aware of his surroundings and of his ennemies in an chaotic situation. An adventurer wizard would more likely hold a staff or a melee weapon (like a sword) when casting at a range and use it in close quarters to defend himself.

Wizards in PE always have their grimoires out and in-hand when they cast spells. They draw in soul energy through the grimoire before releasing it.

 

 

That sounds terrible. Aside from the concept itself being awful, consider: What happens when a fighter bats the grimoire out of the mage's grasp? What happens when a rogue outright swipes the grimoire from the mage? Or are these maneuvers conveniently not possible? Going from bad to worse if so...

 

Edit: Haha, JFSOCC ninja'd me asking about rogues stealing grimoires whilst I was typing & juggling some other tasks.

 

---

 

About Engagement:

 

This needs to be an active ability that prevents the fighter from making normal attacks or at least halves the number of normal attacks that the fighter can attempt (rounded up, so 1 becomes 1, 2 becomes 1, 3 becomes 2, 4 becomes 2, 5 becomes 3, etc). Or something.

 

If not, zones of engagement should be *very* small, perhaps about one character width (or one 'square'). Just enough to prevent kiting exploits and block narrow passages.

 

Also, I don't like the assumption inherent in the system: That mobility and defense are mutually exclusive. Iirc, in DA:O, moving around or backing a short distance away from a targeted enemy could be performed *without* turning away from that enemy and thus without exposing the character to backstab/flanking attacks from that enemy. I liked that a lot.

 

---

 

Apologies if the post seems negative. Just looking to provide honest feedback on these particular aspects. Overall, I like much of what y'all have revealed.

Edited March 1, 2013 by ddillon

[Acre]

Can rogues steal the arrows off a ranger's back? Can a warrior beat a sword out of the opponent's hand? Can ciphers psychically turn their enemies upside down and shake them until all the cash falls out their pockets? I need to know this.

[Eleneithel]

 

J.E. Sawyer, on 28 Feb 2013 - 19:31, said:

 

Eleneithel, on 27 Feb 2013 - 20:22, said:

1) I also find rather... inadequate the Book Slam Technique of the wizards. I do not find logical or realistic for a wizard to wield (and read) a book in combat, even if he fights away from the melee, because of his need to remain aware of his surroundings and of his ennemies in an chaotic situation. An adventurer wizard would more likely hold a staff or a melee weapon (like a sword) when casting at a range and use it in close quarters to defend himself.

Wizards in PE always have their grimoires out and in-hand when they cast spells. They draw in soul energy through the grimoire before releasing it.

 

That sounds terrible. Aside from the concept itself being awful, consider: What happens when a fighter bats the grimoire out of the mage's grasp? What happens when a rogue outright swipes the grimoire from the mage? Or are these maneuvers conveniently not possible? Going from bad to worse if so...

 

Edit: Haha, JFSOCC ninja'd me asking about rogues stealing grimoires whilst I was typing & juggling some other tasks.

 

Firstly, thanks to J.E. Sawyer for correcting me. Secondly, I must say this concept is rather original, even if I find it rather odd and strange for differents reasons. But my own vision of magic isn't the concern here.

 

Gameplay-wise, I think this concept of Grimoire may be very interesting for the players, but only if it serves also as a mean of bringing balance to the classes. Such magical grimoire would make the wizard a formidable ranged opponent and support character if he has the ability to cast spells at will, even only minor spells. In return, fighters with their disarming abilities and thiefs with their their pickpocket abilities should be able to weaken, if not completely paralyse, the wizard's  abilist to cast magic. It would be an interesting way to prevent powerful casters to become immune to classes like the fighter, like it was the case in Baldur's Gate II where Minsc and others warriors were often powerless against high level wizards as the Cowled Mages or Liches and where the player was left with the hope of having too a high level caster or waiting for the spells to disapear and the foe running out of spells... wich meant often the death of several companions before having the opportuny to strike back at last.

 

In fact, the problems with the D&D wizard /sorcerer were that he was rather ineffective in low levels as his number of spells were very limited and that he becomes very difficult to kill once he is able to use powerfull offensive and defensive spells wich immune him to melee weapons while casting Fireball and Finger of Death... So, I think Project Eternity should look at others systems than D&D to conceive the wizard class, like Warhammer FRP II who was interesting in this regard.

Edited March 1, 2013 by Eleneithel

[Gumbercules]

Can rogues steal the arrows off a ranger's back? Can a warrior beat a sword out of the opponent's hand? Can ciphers psychically turn their enemies upside down and shake them until all the cash falls out their pockets? I need to know this.

 

I agree with the sarcasm in this post. If people are going to nitpick grimoires, there's a host of other, already existing things in crpgs that can be nitpicked as well, not to mention the fact that a traditional wizard's staff or wand would have the same problem of getting knocked away or destroyed or stolen.

 

As for Grimoire Slam, it sounds like the kind of ability that would be used in a life-or-death situation. "OMG, why is that wizard using that valuable book to help him escape that ravenous horde?! He should just get killed instead, doesn't he understand how priceless it is, unlike his worthless life?"

[Elerond]

picture from http://www.reggie.net/photography_blog/2007/07/18/book-with-ball-and-chain/

 

In my opinion grimoires have enchanted with theft preventing system which will stop rogues or anyone else to stealing them. And what comes to fighter to hit grimoire down, I would say that this is probably same as wizard failing in his/her grimoire slam.

[redneckdevil]

I would like to second the disarm/pickpocket of the grimoires, BUT only if its temporary. Like if a warrior or rogue disarms the grimoire its only for 1 turn before the grimoire magically goes back to its owner. And maybe a cd on how often the grimoire can be taken away as well.

[maggotheart]

I like Grimoires, and I like the idea of the Grimoire Slam attack.

 

If Grimoires are conduits of energy that can send out a shockwave on contact, how could anyone disarm or steal them? As soon as they touched it wouldn't it slam them back? Following that, could a mage use the Grimoire as some sort of shield to block a sword blow lets say, sending the attacker tumbling back if he successfully blocked with it? What would happen if someone tried to pick up a Grimoire that was on a wizards table, would that set off the shockwave or does it have to be physically touching the mage to do that?

[J.E. Sawyer]

 

J.E. Sawyer, on 28 Feb 2013 - 19:31, said:

 

Eleneithel, on 27 Feb 2013 - 20:22, said:

1) I also find rather... inadequate the Book Slam Technique of the wizards. I do not find logical or realistic for a wizard to wield (and read) a book in combat, even if he fights away from the melee, because of his need to remain aware of his surroundings and of his ennemies in an chaotic situation. An adventurer wizard would more likely hold a staff or a melee weapon (like a sword) when casting at a range and use it in close quarters to defend himself.

Wizards in PE always have their grimoires out and in-hand when they cast spells. They draw in soul energy through the grimoire before releasing it.

 

That sounds terrible. Aside from the concept itself being awful, consider: What happens when a fighter bats the grimoire out of the mage's grasp? What happens when a rogue outright swipes the grimoire from the mage? Or are these maneuvers conveniently not possible? Going from bad to worse if so...

 

Edit: Haha, JFSOCC ninja'd me asking about rogues stealing grimoires whilst I was typing & juggling some other tasks.

 

---

 

About Engagement:

 

This needs to be an active ability that prevents the fighter from making normal attacks or at least halves the number of normal attacks that the fighter can attempt (rounded up, so 1 becomes 1, 2 becomes 1, 3 becomes 2, 4 becomes 2, 5 becomes 3, etc). Or something.

 

If not, zones of engagement should be *very* small, perhaps about one character width (or one 'square'). Just enough to prevent kiting exploits and block narrow passages.

 

Also, I don't like the assumption inherent in the system: That mobility and defense are mutually exclusive. Iirc, in DA:O, moving around or backing a short distance away from a targeted enemy could be performed *without* turning away from that enemy and thus without exposing the character to backstab/flanking attacks from that enemy. I liked that a lot.

 

---

 

Apologies if the post seems negative. Just looking to provide honest feedback on these particular aspects. Overall, I like much of what y'all have revealed.

 

Batting away grimoires isn't something we're implementing just as batting away swords, bows, etc. are also not being implemented.  Wizards aren't unique in this regard.

 

Engagement range is only a little more than a character width (barring special circumstances).  When a fighter activates his or her Defensive mode, his or her attack speed goes down.  Pretty much all modal abilities that characters get will have an inherent trade-off, though the tactical application of the mode logically will grant an advantage in the appropriate circumstance.