Ranged combat mechanics

[Mico Selva]

For starters, sorry if this topic was already discussed (please close this thread then and point me the right way then), but I couldn't find it anywhere.

 

I was wondering how ranged combat is going to work in PE. I like the four-grade hit classification (miss/graze/hit/critical) for melee combat, but I don't think it would make much sense regarding ranged combat.

 

In melee, a 'graze' result can be interpreted as defending character having to make some effort to deflect the blow or dodge. Damage taken this way can be seen as strained muscles, bruises, twisted ankles or even just plain getting tired.

 

In ranged combat, you don't usually even have time to react to a missile heading towards you and the hit result is much more dependant on the attacker's skill than the defender's. What would a graze mean in this context? An arrow scratching a shoulder? A bullet chipping an ear? How probable is it for projectiles to keep barely missing a character (not very)?

 

Does anyone know if the rules for hitting ranged combat are supposed to be any different than for melee? Was this even already mentioned somewhere? I feel like misses should be much more prevalent when shooting someone than when trying to smash your target with an axe.

 

One idea to do this using the current system is increasing the total miss chance along with increasing range to the target, at the cost of graze results. You'd have the normal (let's say 5%) chance to completely miss in melee or while shooting at point blank range, then double (10%) at 5 feet range, triple (15%) at 10 feet, etc.

 

The above numbers are completely arbitrary, of course.

 

EDIT: fixed typos

Edited July 4, 2013 by Mico Selva

[Prometheus]

All attacks in Project Eternity have the same hit Mechanic. Spells, Melee Attacks, Ranged Attacks and Effects all have the four grade hit mechanic. Ranged attacks compare against deflection. If the deflection of the target is higher than your accuracy the windows for each result will shift.

 

One idea to do this using the current system is increasing the total miss chance along with increasing range to the target, ath the cost of graze results. You'd have the normal (let's say 5%) chance to completely miss in melee or while shooting at point blank range, then double (10%) at 5 feet range, triple (15%) at 10 feet, etc.

This is a good idea. Maybe they could increase the deflection for this attack if you increase the range to the target.

Edited July 4, 2013 by Prometheus

[Sensuki]

All attacks in Project Eternity compare the attacker's Accuracy value to one of four defenses: Deflection (direct melee and ranged attacks), Fortitude (body system attacks like poison and disease), Reflexes (area of effect damage attacks), and Psyche (mental attacks).

 

A number between 1 and 100 is generated to determine the attack rules. If the Accuracy and target defense are the same value, these are how the results break down:

• 01-05 = Miss

• 06-50 = Graze

• 51-95 = Hit

• 96-100 = Critical Hit

 

A Hit is the standard damage and duration effects, a Graze is 50% minimum damage or duration, a Critical Hit is 150% maximum damage or duration, and a Miss has no effect. In a balanced Attack and defense scenario, the majority of attacks wind up being Hits or Grazes. If the Accuracy and defense values are out of balance, the windows for each result shift accordingly, while always allowing for the possibility of a Graze or a Hit at the extreme ends of the spectrum.

 

Accuracy (x) will have separate Melee (y) and Ranged (z) bonuses (likely derived from class abilities, talents, items, buffs and attributes).

 

Melee Accuracy +xy (or +9; where a character with +5 accuracy also has +4 melee accuracy)

Ranged Accuracy +xz (or +7; where a character with +5 accuracy also has +2 ranged accuracy)

 

Defenses will be presented in the same way, starting from zero (rather than 10 like D&D, Pathfinder). A separate touch AC isn't used in PE because armor doesn't directly contribute to deflection (though shields do).

 

A character with a Deflection of +9 being attacked by an opponent with +7 melee accuracy is slightly more likely to suffer a graze than a hit.

[Mico Selva]

• 01-05 = Miss

• 06-50 = Graze

• 51-95 = Hit

• 96-100 = Critical Hit

This is exactly the distribution I feel does not work at all for ranged attacks at all, and the game would benefit from increasing the miss chance with range, while reducing graze chance at the same time.

[Sensuki]

Why? The game will have a hard in-game distance limit that you can fire from. It is the cleanest solution overall. Unsure whether Crossbows or Bows will have longer ranges than Firearms etc - we'll see.

[Mico Selva]

Why?

Because it doesn't make any sense.

 

 

The game will have a hard in-game distance limit that you can fire from. It is the cleanest solution overall. Unsure whether Crossbows or Bows will have longer ranges than Firearms etc - we'll see.

 

I don't see how this has anything to do with what I wrote above.

Edited July 4, 2013 by Mico Selva

[Sensuki]

Have you played Expeditions: Conquistador by any chance ?

[Orogun01]

Have you played Expeditions: Conquistador by any chance ?

You mean that game where you shoot and miss the guy standing just a cell away from you but hit the one that's a 10 cells away? Why yes I have.

[Diagoras]

How does it not make sense? A graze seems pretty similar to being struck by a projectile but your armor saving in some form.

[Mico Selva]

How does it not make sense? A graze seems pretty similar to being struck by a projectile but your armor saving in some form.

There are two aspects to being hit in PE.

 

1. Checking whether the target is hit successfully.

2. Dealing with the cosequences of being hit.

 

Armor in PE affects 2. (unlike D&D armor, which affected 1.), we are talking about 1. in this thread.

Have you played Expeditions: Conquistador by any chance ?

 

I have. I don't see the connection, though.

Edited July 5, 2013 by Mico Selva

[Sensuki]

 

How does it not make sense? A graze seems pretty similar to being struck by a projectile but your armor saving in some form.

There are two aspects to being hit in PE.

 

1. Checking whether the target is hit successfully.

2. Dealing with the cosequences of being hit.

 

Armor in PE affects 2. (unlike D&D armor, which affected 1.), we are talking about 1. in this thread.

 

Have you played Expeditions: Conquistador by any chance ?

I have. I don't see the connection, though.

 

Point is that random chance vs 100% chance to hit (or at least different values) diminishes the efficiency of ranged combat. They were the same in the IE games so I expect them to be the same here.

[Mico Selva]

Point is that random chance vs 100% chance to hit (or at least different values) diminishes the efficiency of ranged combat. They were the same in the IE games so I expect them to be the same here.

I don't believe your argument is valid, and I will try to list the reasons why.

 

1. Melee and ranged combat was never equal in IE games. For starters, ranged combat was usually more accurate, but dealt less damage per hit. Bows (but not crossbows) had also quite a bit faster attack rate than other weapons (except in IWD2).

2. Grazes in melee combat make sense, in ranged combat, they don't (I explained why in the opening post).

3. Range should be taken into account in ranged combat. (I hope I don't have to argue in favour of this?) And yes, I know it was not taken into account in IE games, but PE is supposed to fix some of the flaws of those games.

4. The solution I suggested still allows grazes, but their chance is smaller with increasing range to the target, because the chance of barely hitting something far away is much much less than barely hitting something close to you.

[teknoman2]

apparently you never tested the effects of an arrow to an armor... neither did i for that matter but i did watch a show about medieval warfare on tv. the design of most metal armors, is such that most arrows will just slide to the side if they do not connect at a 85-90 degree angle, and will rarely cause more that a few scratches to the wearer if they do not hit a weak point, especialy from longer ranges. also the quality of the arrow is important, as low quality arrows will never pierce an armor. now for non metal armors, like leather, it was usualy made with a pading of tightly woven linen underneath, that acted like today's kevlar. so it is safe to asume that ranged attacks made with any but the highest quality bows and arrows, would cause far more graze hits than normal ones

[Sensuki]

Melee and ranged were the same, my melee fighter always had the lowest thac0 in IWD and BG games, but that's because I gave him the thac0 boosting items and not my archer.

 

I don't necessarily think that different mechanics for ranged and melee combat are a bad idea, I am just saying that no matter what we do - we will be getting the already proposed unified attack resolution mechanics.

[Mico Selva]

I am just saying that no matter what we do - we will be getting the already proposed unified attack resolution mechanics.

Ah, so here is where we differ. I hope otherwise.

Edited July 5, 2013 by Mico Selva

[Diagoras]

Ah, got it. Thanks for the clarification, Mico.

[Lephys]

There are two aspects to being hit in PE.

 

1. Checking whether the target is hit successfully.

2. Dealing with the cosequences of being hit.

 

Armor in PE affects 2. (unlike D&D armor, which affected 1.), we are talking about 1. in this thread.

Ehh... I could be mistaken, but doesn't armor affect your Deflection rating (defense -- as in #1 in your list above -- rating)? I just honestly thought there was something in the official thus-far stuff that talked about armor affecting Deflection (out of the 4 different defense ratings).

 

I mean, it's all already abstracted. Instead of actually calculating all the given factors associated with any given attack and determining whether or not it strikes and why, it's simply represented by the range of likelihood/frequency.

 

So, I would think a Graze, with an arrow, would be like... you were aiming for the back of his knee, and you hit a few inches away from that, so the arrow didn't really connect well, but it still cut the back of his knee (but didn't pierce directly into the intended weak spot).

 

Or... anywho...

 

You don't really need entirely different mechanics. Obviously, distance is going to have to have an affect on that miss-graze-hit-crit field, so why couldn't ranged weapons just have different sub-ranges than melee ones?

 

For instance: A sword gets (a base of) 1-5 for Miss, 6-50 for Graze, 51-95 for Hit, and 96-100 for Crit. But then, a Longbow gets (again, a base of) 1-10 for Miss, 11-40 for Graze, 41-90 for Hit, and 91-100 for Crit. (Purely example numbers, just to show the kind of difference I'm referring to).

 

Kinda like how some weapons in D&D have the 18-20 crit range, while others just have 20. Same principle. Same mechanic, different interaction with it.

[Mico Selva]

 

You don't really need entirely different mechanics. Obviously, distance is going to have to have an affect on that miss-graze-hit-crit field, so why couldn't ranged weapons just have different sub-ranges than melee ones?

 

For instance: A sword gets (a base of) 1-5 for Miss, 6-50 for Graze, 51-95 for Hit, and 96-100 for Crit. But then, a Longbow gets (again, a base of) 1-10 for Miss, 11-40 for Graze, 41-90 for Hit, and 91-100 for Crit. (Purely example numbers, just to show the kind of difference I'm referring to).

 

Kinda like how some weapons in D&D have the 18-20 crit range, while others just have 20. Same principle. Same mechanic, different interaction with it.

Since, this is almost exactly the same solution I have suggested, I like it

Although I would love to see the Miss chance grow (and the Graze chance get smaller) with increasing range.

Edited July 6, 2013 by Mico Selva

[Klice]

Read teknoman2's post, if what he wrote is legit, then this is not a problem any more ! :D.

[teknoman2]

Read teknoman2's post, if what he wrote is legit, then this is not a problem any more ! :D.

in all ancient and medieval warfare, bows were used mostly to break the enemy ranks and lower the morale through harassment. they were never intended as the main killing tool of an army. arrow inflicted casualties in a battle were at most 10% of the total and often they were non lethal as they would mostly criple the enemy by hitting unarmored arms and legs.

[Diagoras]

 

 

in all ancient and medieval warfare, bows were used mostly to break the enemy ranks and lower the morale through harassment.

 

Except for longbowmen. And crossbowmen - especially arbalesters - including mounted crossbowmen. And horse archers of the Steppe people - especially Mongolians. And Seljuk noble cavalry.

 

Come on, this is a pretty broad generalization - especially considering the period P:E is emulating is the early 16th century. This is the era of arquebus and arbalest, which are both pretty good at killing people dead.

[JFSOCC]

 

in all ancient and medieval warfare, bows were used mostly to break the enemy ranks and lower the morale through harassment.

 

Except for longbowmen. And crossbowmen - especially arbalesters - including mounted crossbowmen. And horse archers of the Steppe people - especially Mongolians. And Seljuk noble cavalry.

 

Come on, this is a pretty broad generalization - especially considering the period P:E is emulating is the early 16th century. This is the era of arquebus and arbalest, which are both pretty good at killing people dead.

 

I asked my expert friend because I wasn't buying it either, but it turns out he's totally right.

[Lephys]

 

 

in all ancient and medieval warfare, bows were used mostly to break the enemy ranks and lower the morale through harassment.

 

Except for longbowmen. And crossbowmen - especially arbalesters - including mounted crossbowmen. And horse archers of the Steppe people - especially Mongolians. And Seljuk noble cavalry.

 

Come on, this is a pretty broad generalization - especially considering the period P:E is emulating is the early 16th century. This is the era of arquebus and arbalest, which are both pretty good at killing people dead.

 

I asked my expert friend because I wasn't buying it either, but it turns out he's totally right.

 

Factor in:

 

A) The degree of suspension of belief/exaggeration we expect from the whole "adventurer" idea, for the purposes of fun gameplay, mostly, and

 

B) The fact that I'm not sure what a 6-man party is going to be doing against wolves and orcs and such really constitutes medieval "warfare," and I think it's not out of the question for bows to function as primary killing tools for characters in this game.

 

It IS always nice to know the accurate historical pertinent records on the matter, though. ^_^

 

I think myself and another actually discussed this in another topic, though, and we came to the conclusion that the dominant design and focus of ranged weapons as used by a typical video game adventuring party would be much more like hunting weaponry (which was designed to kill single targets accurately and precisely -- you're not trying to just stave off an army of deer/elk, ) than military weaponry.

[Diagoras]

I asked my expert friend because I wasn't buying it either, but it turns out he's totally right.

 

 

You asked your expert friend about the early 16th century?

[JFSOCC]

 

I asked my expert friend because I wasn't buying it either, but it turns out he's totally right.

 

You asked your expert friend about the early 16th century?

 

I did. His specialisation is ancient greek military history, for which he's working on his PHD, but he's quite knowledgeable about the early renaissance period too.