Jump to content

Recommended Posts

 

I believe he is referring to the fact that PE combat is going to be a series of rock/paper/scissors. All party members will have two or more "weapon sets" that will allow each character to rapidly change their weapons.

You mean just like Baldur's Gate? Where every character had additional slot for alternative weapon and fighters had four of them?

 

Dunno. I think I vaguely remember crushing weapons being better against skeletons but I may be making that up in my head. Are you saying the BG series also played rock/paper/scissors wrt certain weapon types being optimized against certain armor types?

Link to post
Share on other sites

A reason I can see to dislike degradation (as it was proposed) is that it doesn't lead to interesting tactical or strategic decisions. You can only save some money in exchange for xp if you give your party a level or two of the craft skill (making it a substitute of the haggle skill). You could save money with delaying repairs on weapons you want to sell shortly IF sale price was independent of degradation. If not, the only way to save money would be to fight with some weapons or armour at durability 0% (which would prolong fights thereby wasting money again on the weapons and armour not at 0%). It would be *very* difficult for this to have a noticable effect on your purse even if money is scarce. Not in any sensible relation to the effort you would have to put into it.

 

Now for all this to work comfortably you would need to have a special (and not usable for anything else) interface where you would see all degraded weapons on your party. Alternatively buttons in the sale-interface, but that would be an additional burden as you would have to flip through every party member for maintenance. Also 25%-degradation-icons for every single weapon and armour piece (alternatively it might be possible to use a single overlay-texture for all pieces). And some programming to make it all work.

 

Now is it worth it? For tactical or strategic decisions alone? I have my doubts. The other two reasons for it are to make the craft skill have a use for everyone and as a money sink. The first reason is ok in my opinion, the second not that compelling. Mathematically the durability effect could be substituted one to one with a lowering of the price items are bought by vendors.

 

I don't mind if degradation is in or not, but I have my doubts whether it could have achieved anything it set out to do, and my greatest doubts were about the necessity as a money sink which was (for me) the most important feature.

 

Well you're really only bringing that same old argument we've been bouncing around for a few pages now. I don't believe anyone here is saying that the suggested system was perfect but the crux of the issue I have is that now, that system is gone entirely. And the reasoning for doing so hasn't in my opinion been sufficiently justified. 

Mostly I've read how it's been a minor inconvenience for some while others feel it doesn't add anything to the game. But it seems this was enough for the community to rally a big enough of an outcry that Sawyer saw it fit to remove the entire system. 

 

You know, I doubt there's ever been a system that no one has had differing opinions on, so all we're left with is reasoning, especially when the community is so evenly split. So in this case you have to decide is it alright to remove a system some people really liked for what they perceived as added depth and preparation before combat, because you think it's tedious to repair your gear while having no idea how frequent or big of a time investment it will actually turn out to be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Tis a shame. I guess we'll never know the joy of repairing 2-3 weapon sets x 6 people, per rest. YOU DAMN DIRTY APES! :lol:

You won't have 6 people to care about until 2/3 (?) into the game.

 

Hav fun beautifying your dollhouse stronghold instead

 

 

Actually, the devs have mentioned there will be many places to recruit companions, and one of the stretch goals was to have a travelers hall to build your whole party from scratch. So it's quite possible you start the game with a full party like you did in the IWD games, and that could lead to tedium.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Tis a shame. I guess we'll never know the joy of repairing 2-3 weapon sets x 6 people, per rest. YOU DAMN DIRTY APES! :lol:

You won't have 6 people to care about until 2/3 (?) into the game.

 

Hav fun beautifying your dollhouse stronghold instead

 

 

Actually, the devs have mentioned there will be many places to recruit companions, and one of the stretch goals was to have a travelers hall to build your whole party from scratch. So it's quite possible you start the game with a full party like you did in the IWD games, and that could lead to tedium.

 

I'm afraid I can't point you to the quote but no, IIRC you don't get a full party from the start.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@TrashMan: I like the semi-repair at campfire thing on resting. Would help alleviate a lot of peoples issues with durability ware that I've seen over my years of gaming.. generally being folks suck at paying attention to it unless its constantly slapped in there face. Look at Dark Souls as a good example, most people it's not that big of an issue, you buy the repair kit,  you repair everything (gods I wish they had a repair all button) every few bonfire visits it becomes a non-issue but its just another source of removing a few souls from your total. And then you got people who constantly forget and find there **** breaking mid fights, which I personally find hilarious.

 

Anyway I think that would help the useability of the whole system for some of the more forgetful of players. 1 hit = 1 durability lost with out a skill to kill the % I can tell you right now would require hundreds of thousands of durability points to make any real sense just strickly from a playability standpoint. D2 tends to have durability around 80-100 base (not counting higher end weapons) and they work off a very small % chance, and your hitting a looot of stuff. Wont hit nearly as much in an IE game but 100 durability being 100 hits and your weapons crappy (not broken) would still happen quite a lot, the partial repair at resting would help a lot there, % chance to remove a durability or not).

 

Ultimately 'needing' to take it to a blacksmith is the extremely minor immersion breaker for me. You 'can' repair a chipped blade, you can re-heat and put a broken blade back together. These are possible things but the weapon in question is no longer suitable for battle in either situation. A simple quick-fix like that simply wont make the blade effective again and it'll just be that much more likely to break on you. More so with the types of forging available back in those days.

 

Like I've said before, for believability sake, the weapon breaking and you trading in the broken steel to buy a new one makes far more sense. Course, that's coming from a mind of are newer age, the idea of discarding the broken thing for a new thing makes more sense to me. In a lot of places in old times the weapons where a tad more treasured then that and would often get berried with people, broken or otherwise (and often would be broken if it wasn't already to be berried with).

 

I don't care either way, there original system would need some tweaking on %, your idea for an always minor repair on resting to a limit would be kind of nice to help extend equipments life. But none of it really makes any sense and its just a game-mechanic to be a game-mechanic in the end. So.. I dun cur one way or another.

 

(as a side note, apparently i've been typing sync not sink this whole time or partially and I kinda feel like an idiot, oops heh)

 

-edit-

As a side note on the repairing chipped/broken blades, back in the day forges couldn't actually get hot enough to make most the metals not suck. Damascus steel, and some high end viking broadswords (of which I forget the name to, sadly) got 'close' to creating the kind of heat required to remove a lot of the impurities. But keep in mind the kind of temperatures required to fuse 2 pieces of metal together literally require the metal be practically melting which isn't exactly a great way to keep the blade in its current form.

 

What I've been trying to get across for awhile now, a smith 'repairing' your weapons is a crazy idea. repairing literally is 'replacing'.

Edited by Adhin

Def Con: kills owls dead

Link to post
Share on other sites

A reason I can see to dislike degradation (as it was proposed) is that it doesn't lead to interesting tactical or strategic decisions. You can only save some money in exchange for xp if you give your party a level or two of the craft skill (making it a substitute of the haggle skill). You could save money with delaying repairs on weapons you want to sell shortly IF sale price was independent of degradation. If not, the only way to save money would be to fight with some weapons or armour at durability 0% (which would prolong fights thereby wasting money again on the weapons and armour not at 0%). It would be *very* difficult for this to have a noticable effect on your purse even if money is scarce. Not in any sensible relation to the effort you would have to put into it.

 

This is a more reasonable objection than many I've read. Thank you.

  • Like 1

"It has just been discovered that research causes cancer in rats."

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well you're really only bringing that same old argument we've been bouncing around for a few pages now. I don't believe anyone here is saying that the suggested system was perfect but the crux of the issue I have is that now, that system is gone entirely. And the reasoning for doing so hasn't in my opinion been sufficiently justified. 
 
... So in this case you have to decide is it alright to remove a system some people really liked for what they perceived as added depth and preparation before combat, because you think it's tedious to repair your gear while having no idea how frequent or big of a time investment it will actually turn out to be.

 

 

I just gave my reasoning why I'm not sorry it is gone because there was the accusation no one was bringing reasons or bringing only strawman reasons. I tried to be as accurate as possible in as few words as possible, without inventing circumstances and looking only at worst cases. Without talking about tediousness at all!

 

There were reasons to keep it, reasons to change it and reasons to remove it. It wasn't a clear cut case, but a decision had to be made. Someone made the decision and this thread is now growing endlessly because a few people can't accept that decisions can be made even after some feature was described in an update. And god beware that decisions can be made after hearing us out!! Read your post again, it wasn't much about degradation, it was about the fact that a decision was made, not on a poll (obviously) but on arguments that you don't accept (and possibly hidden facts that only the developers know)

Edited by jethro
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I like more sudden and arbitrary degradation of equipment, such as in Arcanum. :) (In addition to realistic degradation where your weapon is destroyed if you hit a rock with it)

 

You never know when you wil critically miss and destroy your entire set of clothes!

 

Oh, and critical misses should totally be in as well.

 

If you don't think those mechanics sound like fun, YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT FUN MEANS. Go back and play vanilla Arcanum. I'll talk to you again in a 100 years.

  • Like 3

"Well, overkill is my middle name. And my last name. And all of my other names as well!"

Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^ Yes, degradation only while in combat, combined with the possibility of catastrophic failure, would make implementation much more worthwhile in terms of presenting a challenge to the player. But I'm not sure it would be that popular. Perhaps as an expert or hardcore mode option?

"It has just been discovered that research causes cancer in rats."

Link to post
Share on other sites

I kind of like the idea of a weapon being able to break, but when you start getting into fantasy metals that don't lose there edge by normal means and adamantite can't break on anything other then something much harder then it (which in fantasy settings is practically impossible to find unless its rock-based adamantite pulled out of a gods ass) for the vast majority of situations it would... only really effect the starter base items.

 

That or require some kinda story related stuff...

 

Not saying that's a bad thing though mind you. If I was going to put in some kind of durability/breaking system into a game like this and 'only' have it in for a hardcore 'me want realsies' mode that changes things. As your design choices change quit a bit, its less about whats fun and putting in stupid things to make it more interesting (which is fun to a lot of us weirdos). So with that in mind I'd say a basic system like TrashMan mentioned except theres no way to actually 'repair' it at a smith or whatever. When you rest you do general 'upkeep' which restores some, but not all, of the durability (the cap could easily just get lower or it could be represented as a percentage). Once its below 30% its in critical condition, does less dmg (by a small bit, nothing drastic) and each durability loss (%based) has a secondary chance to just straight up break the weapon.

 

This would make starter items be more of a long-term consumeable, you wouldn't need 3 swords with you cause omg one might break, you'd just need one, and when it gets crappy you trade it in. Now this is just for starter stuff or base material things. Mid/Late game your getting better material weapons which no longer have this break point such ad mithril or adamantite equivelents. High enough enchantments could make it so basic maintenance always returns the blade to its perfect form blah blah blah.

 

Actually... I could see that just being part of the basic progression of items with breakage vs non-breaking stuff later game. You go through the junk early game (not to quickly like BG1, that was crazy). But late game, when your actually finding or getting the good stuff made its fantasy metal/magic and the worries of normal men and there foolish toy weapons are no longer a concern. That being a mid/end game scenario would make it so the mechanic doesn't draw its self out to long.

 

I think that's a bit much for just a toggle mode though personally, there old durability idea minus the craft skill just being an on/off switch would be far more realistic. Though I think a system like that, that slowly fades out as the game progresses might make more sense as a base feature that's not just a toggle. **** you could also just explain away item repair with magic smithing dust, damn fantasy worlds.

Def Con: kills owls dead

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like more sudden and arbitrary degradation of equipment, such as in Arcanum. :) (In addition to realistic degradation where your weapon is destroyed if you hit a rock with it)

 

You never know when you wil critically miss and destroy your entire set of clothes!

 

Oh, and critical misses should totally be in as well.

 

If you don't think those mechanics sound like fun, YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT FUN MEANS. Go back and play vanilla Arcanum. I'll talk to you again in a 100 years.

I'm not against misses or critical misses, in fact I want those in PE. Item degradation is just unfun. Like it was in Arcanum.
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I believe he is referring to the fact that PE combat is going to be a series of rock/paper/scissors. All party members will have two or more "weapon sets" that will allow each character to rapidly change their weapons.

You mean just like Baldur's Gate? Where every character had additional slot for alternative weapon and fighters had four of them?

 

Dunno. I think I vaguely remember crushing weapons being better against skeletons but I may be making that up in my head. Are you saying the BG series also played rock/paper/scissors wrt certain weapon types being optimized against certain armor types?

 

if I remember correctly in D&D rules used in BG & BG2, were hidden addictional -AC against damage types in every armor.  for ex.: armor AC 0, -2AC against crushing, -0AC against slice damage, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh, I did not know that.

 

I also didn't remember multiple weapons slots in the BG series. I never once used them and didn't notice any difference, so hopefully I can completely ignore it in PE. Switching weapons sets for every character for every fight is not something Im looking forward to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

if I remember correctly in D&D rules used in BG & BG2, were hidden addictional -AC against damage types in every armor.  for ex.: armor AC 0, -2AC against crushing, -0AC against slice damage, etc.

 

I believe that AC modifier came from the old AD&D rules. It didn't exist in D&D v3; good riddance.

 

Huh, I did not know that.

 

I also didn't remember multiple weapons slots in the BG series. I never once used them and didn't notice any difference, so hopefully I can completely ignore it in PE. Switching weapons sets for every character for every fight is not something Im looking forward to.

 

About the only use I found for multiple weapon slots in BG2 was for characters that switched between melee/ranged weapons, or the occasional need for a blunt weapon when an enemy was immune to slash/pierce.

"It has just been discovered that research causes cancer in rats."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some enemies literally required you to change your weapons or elemental type in BG2. And others required you to lower their immunity (I think some elite mindflayers in the underdark, for example). And all this stuff...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ideally, what I think I'd like to have for each of my characters is two weapon slots for each of the three possible armor types, for a total of six slots. For example:

 

  • Light armor: [left] [right]
  • Medium armor: [left] [right]
  • Heavy armor: [left] [armor]

 

I can then fill each of those slot pairs prior to combat, with the possibility that the same weapon and shield can appear in two or three of the weapon slot pairs. Whenever I send a character to attack a particular opponent, he'll automatically switch to the appropriate weapon/shield type for the enemy armor. That way I don't need to micromanage the weapon types unless I choose to do so. :)

"It has just been discovered that research causes cancer in rats."

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really think Trashman's proposal for durability is hitting on something really good.

 

Did weapons actually get damaged "beyond repair"? Yes, but it's a rare enough thing that, especially in an abstracted system, it doesn't really need to be incredibly prevalent. But it could still be there. Almost like Health and Stamina, carried over into equipment. After a battle, you might need to sharpen and/or re-oil your blade (or maybe after a few battles, etc.), or hammer out some dents and/or repair some fastenings on your armor. Maybe after a good while, you'd have to actually hand something off to a blacksmith to fix a crack or a large chip in a sword, (or a bent blade, etc.).

 

Anywho, I think it's actually a VERY good change that the "damage" to your equipment's durability be a chance and not a definite. Then, certain things could increase or decrease the chance. And on that note, this would tie in pretty well to the as-yet-still-kind-of-vague weapon-vs-armor system. If you use a dagger against PLATE, for example, it would have a higher chance of suffering durability damage. And if you used it against an unarmored/lightly-armored foe, it would have a much higher chance of suffering no durability damage. Etc.

 

Combine that with, at the very least, a positive-effect range for durability (so that attention to maintenance actually makes things go beyond normal effectiveness, rather than simply returning them to normal effectiveness), and you're onto something.

 

I understand why they removed the system as it was proposed, but I truly hope they at least still consider possibilities of durability, rather than just giving up on it. As always, if it comes down to development resource limitations, then I obviously won't fault them for not spending more time and resources trying to get durability into a good implementable form.

  • Like 1

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

A few points of clarification:

 

* Other than reaching the edge of a map to access the world map, there is no fast-travel in PE.

This bums me out most of all.

 

Why? It's how it worked in IE games.

 

For what it's worth, they did mention (if only while citing the mega-dungeon as an example) that they're not going to make extensive, "five floor" (for example) dungeons without any kind of shortcuts back to the surface/"exit."

 

So... I'd bet on areas not being like... "OMG I've gotta walk around for 20 minutes just to get to the world map!" large or anything.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

A few points of clarification:

 

* Other than reaching the edge of a map to access the world map, there is no fast-travel in PE.

This bums me out most of all.

 

Why? It's how it worked in IE games.

 

I know, I think Ive just become spoiled by D3. :lol:

 

Isnt there something else like the party travels at the speed of its slowest member?

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Gfted: That's for non-combat movement for towns and dungeon crawling so 1 of your members isn't always flailing about ahead of everyone like a crazed, sugar fueled toddler. Hitting a map edge brings up the map and lets you fast travel to anywhere you've been, it's how it was in BG1-2 and just about every other IE game to date. It 'is' fast travel but it requires you physically exit the map its self first.

 

@Lephys: I agree again but allow my to flail my arms at you in irritation as to fixing chips, cracks and bent stuff (on a sword, not armor)... thats all horribly irreversible damage to turn a blade back into combat ready... so.. *flails* aaaahh! They would bend blades in old times before berrying them with there original owners to make them forever unusable. Fixing that means melting it down and making a new thing out of it. blarge, blar, blarble! (this is all in jest)

 

Think in some cultures they'd make smaller weapons out of a blade that was chipped or broken, depending on the thing. Course magical fantasy smithing dust and all my points become moot. But still... >.>

 

-edit-

Oh hey Obsidian, if you do end up going back with a durability/repair thing, definitely come up with some kind of silly magical smithing dust, not joking on this. Make it regulated or something and be created via soul magic to allow them to repair literally broken weapons and armor so you have an actual reason to take it to the smith only to fully fix stuff. It's silly, and dumb, but it's the kinda thing that stops a foolish nitpicker like me from being all uppity about something so minor and easily looked over.

Edited by Adhin

Def Con: kills owls dead

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Lephys: I agree again but allow my to flail my arms at you in irritation as to fixing chips, cracks and bent stuff (on a sword, not armor)... thats all horribly irreversible damage to turn a blade back into combat ready... so.. *flails* aaaahh! They would bend blades in old times before berrying them with there original owners to make them forever unusable. Fixing that means melting it down and making a new thing out of it. blarge, blar, blarble! (this is all in jest)

 

Think in some cultures they'd make smaller weapons out of a blade that was chipped or broken, depending on the thing. Course magical fantasy smithing dust and all my points become moot. But still... >.>

I'm not 100% as to the specifics, but I'm QUITE certain reforging was a thing. The difference between that (at it's greatest extent) and getting an all-new weapon/item is that you've already got the whole shape/length/balance/design template right there in front of you, and you've already got like 90% of the materials there. Sure, the smith would probably have to "melt it back down" to remake it, but the blade's already made from refined, "smithed" metal. And it's already in the shape of a blade, which is a state somewhere in the middle of the smithing process (pour the metal into a basic blade mold, hammer it out properly into the exact blade shape, etc.). Plus, you get your hilt back (if it's not broken), maybe newly attached, etc.

 

The difference would still be a significant cost difference, plus a time difference, as he doesn't have to make an all new weapon from ingots and components, etc. Is it extensive? Sure. I'm not suggesting he just hits it with a hammer a few times and it's good to go, or puts some glue on it and glues some pieces of blade back in place.

 

That doesn't mean that reforging a "broken" sword equals making an entirely new sword.

 

Why would it be any different for weapons than for armor, by the way? They're BOTH just shaped pieces of metal, when it comes down to it. If you can mend a broken/cracked breastplate without starting from scratch, then you can do the same thing to a sword. The only difference is that you don't have to reproduce a sharp edge on a breastplate. *shrug*

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't actually just fix a chip or a crack in a sword, repairing a 'broken sword' means replacing the part thats broken. Binding on the handle, new cross guard, pummel. If the blade its self is broken via any real method and there isn't much you can do but 'start over' again, which having the existing blade is helpful as it'll give you all the steel you need to work with (all be it a tiny smaller sword).

 

Armor it depends but most 'breaks' are at joints, bindings, leather straps, individual rings on mail. Those you, again, 'replace'. If you have a dent in the armor you can bang it out, it wont be 'as' structurally sound as it was originally but for armor its good enough (and a hell of a lot cheaper then replacing that whole section). Ultimately it comes down to how the metals shaped, the kind of place and how its messed up. It maybe an odd thing to compare it to but think of a car. If you get a dent in the side sheeting you can just bang it out, paint will fix the rest visually but its not structurally gonna be 'as good' as it was, not that that matters much. Anything else though has to get replaced.

 

Now as for the why? Metal has shape memory. In the process of making a sword you have to keep it at high temperatures to deform it, once it cools it basically locks in its shape memory. If it gets bent, and stays bent... well grats that it's new memory. You can heat it up and try to re-straighten but it wont be as good as it was before, it'll always have a penchant for wanting to re-bend that way and will be more likely to bend that direction and stay bent. Only way to truly fix that is melt the whole damn blade down again.

 

Chips or cracks are worse, there structural issues, you can't just heat it up and 'fix' it. You can try to fix a piece of metal in there and kinda weld it in place but that will 'never' be as structurally sound as the blade was originally and wont really be combat ready. Metals not the only material that does this, almost all material has these same properties in different degrees. Go get a piece of paper, fold it, now try to get that crease out. you can re-work it till it doesn't try to stay folded but that crease will always be there. tare/cut a little bit out, you can fix it with tape (something you can't do with metal mind you) but your not going to really fill it.

 

I mean other then clays which are constantly in malable states till you heat it or freeze it this is just how materials work. Chips a chip, tracks a track, bent blades kinda screwed. Your only viable option is turning it into a smaller blade (like a dagger) or reforging it, which is totally a thing but that literally means melting it down, and pounding out a new blade all together. Which is probably cheaper then a new sword as your giving the smith the material to make said sword over again.

 

Part I have issue with in relation to reforging is magical weapons, how the hell is it keeping its enchantments once you melt it down (aka, destroy it) to reforge it, that parts just kinda weird. But hey magical smithing dust, problem solved. No need to reforge or anything just sprinkle it on, heat it up, presto. Magical Smithing Soul Powers at its finest.

 

-edit-

As a side note, when I mentioned ritual bending of a sword to berry along with its owner so no one could ever use it again (viking thing, amongst others im sure) they heated and looped it. It was literally not useable with out melting down and reforging. Small bends you can fix-ish but it still wont be as good as new, but good enough till it goes completely FUBAR on ya. Heat treating can help in that process and would be another reason going to a smith to 'repair' would make sense. Chips, cracks or otherwise snapped in 2 is a recyclin' job.

Edited by Adhin

Def Con: kills owls dead

Link to post
Share on other sites

^ No one's arguing that the process for fixing a sword isn't extensive. Doesn't change the fact that it's still fixing a sword, and it's still distinct from making an entirely new sword.

 

As for the magical stuff, I don't really see a problem. If you actually reforge the sword blade or whatever, then you're not actually "replacing" the sword blade. Melting metal doesn't "destroy" that metal. It simply alters its current physical state. The metal is still metal.

 

Now, looking at pure realism for a point of reference, yeah, you'd have to work some new metal into the mix to reforge the same size/shape blade, since the chipped/broken blade you started with is obviously missing some amount of mass (and the fact that the forging process probably doesn't retain exactly 100% of all molten metal mass you started with, etc.). So, it wouldn't be crazy to have the enchantment weaken, since you literally have less of the initially enchanted substance. However, it's also not out of the question for some abstraction to simply say "Meh, it's close enough to the same amount, so there's really no need to bother the mechanics to change by some small-but-super-accurately-deduced percentage just for realism's sake in the midst of a field of minor abstraction."

 

Also, there could be some lore reason. Like... maybe, as long as you've got the majority of the original enchanted material, the enchantment "heals," kind of like living tissue regeneration. Only, the ENCHANTMENT would kind of fill back out throughout the object, rather than somehow physically mending the object, itself.

 

*shrug*

 

So, anywho, I agree with you that fixing a damaged sword, for example, is a bit similar to forging a new one, but the two are still distinct processes. Also, it wouldn't be necessary super often, in the proposed mechanic upgrades. It's not as if it's going to be a super prevalent thing through a playthrough (unless, maybe, you go around thwacking stone walls with your blades? *Shrug*) :)

  • Like 2

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

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...