Ideas for creating items with negative attributes that people will actually use?

[Osvir]

Girdle of Femininity/Masculinity is comic relief, I never used it and I usually sell it at first chance. My friend did make a pretty funny, and curiously dumb, Orc Male Warrior who put the girdle on ("Hey! The Ogre was carrying it! Must be good stuff!". He also didn't let me identify it at first, but we had some meta-knowledge of the Girdle before-hand. Regardless, he changed the Picture of his character into a buff female Babarian Warrior and continued a roleplay of it.

The Girdle in itself has no positive attributes, but it did allow my friend to make more of it using his imagination.

The Berserkering Sword +1 is also, personally, an item with that roleplay element. I put it on Khalid, and for a moment during battle I envisioned him as a Berserker. I roleplayed it myself (Singleplayer) in my own imagination, Khalid picked up the sword to become a warrior with courage and power, something I feel he wants to become. I.E. he wants to become strong so he can protect his friends.

Eventually I "Removed Curse" on Khalid, because he did become strong with the sword in hand, and I was tired of reviving our teammates that he struck down (Every battle with Khalid was "Stay away from Khalid or he'll destroy everything around him", that's how strong he became). The effects of the Berserkering Sword is that the party member gets "Berserk" effect and you can't control him, it's a strong weapon with a strong effect, the downside being that as soon as you engage in combat, the character wielding the sword attacks the closest target (Doesn't matter if it is an ally or an enemy).

I had lots of fun with it as well before it got annoying, because the combat positioning became very dependant on Khalid, I had to adjust all of my tactics because of 1 character in my party. But I had a lot of "Oh sh..!" moments as well where I was having a battle after every battle, it takes a couple of turns after battle before the one wielding the sword "calms down" so after every battle you have to run away from one of your party members. It was great fun and I have a lot of memories of the battles that took place.

There is also a Katana, which might be a mod item, that my friend was wielding. It saps the lifeforce of your character every time they do a critical hit (You lose 1 Endurance temporarily I believe, or permanently). It's a strong weapon, but as I said, you constantly become weaker and weaker by using it. I can't say much about it because my friend didn't use it for too long because it had such a strong "weakening" effect. It was on its way to make his character only have 1 HP (if he had kept it around). It was a strong weapon with a much stronger weakening effect, which takes me to the point of Negative Attributes.

Weapons with Negative Attributes or Effects need something that is balanced. The sword I mention in the paragraph above for example; It causes more harm to the Player than it gives. There needs to be some sort of "hard cap" on how weak it can make the Player character.

Example/IIRC the Self-Inflicting Lifestealing Katana:
- At first when beginning to wield it, it is strong.
- After using it long enough, you have 50% Health. At this point the Katana isn't strong enough to justify how weak you've become.
- The idea here would be to make the Sword stronger the weaker you become. It saps your life after all, for whatever reason. As it has stolen 10% of your "Soul", it could gain 5% Strength (+5% Strength, -10% Life/Health/Stamina or whatever seems most fitting). If the weapon (The Katana) would have done something like this, heck yes it would have been worth using. Instead it became a "gateway weapon" so to speak.

Negative Attributes (Cursed Items, generally) need to be countered and balanced somehow by a Positive Attributes in an interesting manner: "Weeeell, it is a better weapon statistically buuut... it does harm my character"~ not to forget the mention of roleplay value. I have more roleplay value with a "Cursed Item" than I have with a "Regular Item". I also think that Crafted Items and Legendary Items that is tied to the Player also have roleplay value, which is why I want to advocate for "Player Named Legendary Items and Weapons". Specifically weapons, being able to create a unique item in-engine in-game, and not use some toolset for it and then finally name it something like (in my case) "Blade of the Osvirian" and perhaps even add a description to it akin to how you can write in your own In-Game Journal.

"Do I keep using this sword that has 5 Damage output or do I use this sword that has 10 Damage output but also gives my character poison in every single battle?"

I also wish to chip in Potions here. A Potion with a Positive Effect could be stacked, let's say 3 times:

1st: You get +1 Strength
2nd: You get +1 Strength. Now +2 in total
3rd: You get +2 Strength. Now +4 in total. BUT:
* Every other turn your character gets -1 Strength for 5 turns. After 5 turns it means your character is "Weakened" and has -1 Strength.
* Additionally, afterwards, your character stays "Weakened" for 10 turns. So you have -1 Strength for 10 turns.
* When the battle ends, the "Weakened" status could disappear or stay in effect for 10 "Out of Combat" turns (Meaning that if you encounter a 2nd Mob around a corner, you'd still have -1 Strength, but for maybe 2-3 turns depending on how many "Out of Combat" turns you spent)

So what is the Advantage of drinking 3 Potions?
- 1 Potion: +1 Strength for 2 Turns
- Turn 1, 1 Potion: +1
- Turn 2, 1 Potion: +1
- 2 Potions: +2 Strength for 2 Turn

- Turn 1, 2 Potions: +2
- Turn 2, 2 Potions: +2

- 3 Potions: +4 Strength for 1 Turn
- Upkeep: -1 Strength/+3 Strength for 1 Turn
- Upkeep: -1 Strength/+2 Strength for 1 Turn
- Upkeep: -1 Strength/+1 Strength for 1 Turn
- Upkeep: -1 Strength/+0 Strength/Standard
- Upkeep: -1 Strength/-1 Strength for 10 Turns

[EDIT]For an even more "Hardcore" version of it (I was kind of "kind" with the example above but really I'd like to see something like the below):

 

- 1 Potion: +1 Strength/Now +1, Lasts 2 Turns (3 turns effectively, from the point of drinking it)
- Turn 1, 1 Potion: +1 Strength
- Turn 2, 1 Potion: +1 Strength, Drink 2nd Potion During Turn
- 2 Potions: +1 Strength/Now +2, Lasts 2 Turns (3 turns effectively, from the point of drinking it)
- Turn 1, 2 Potions: +2 Strength
- Turn 2, 2 Potions: +2 Strength, Drink 3rd Potion During Turn
- 3 Potions: +2 Strength/Now +4
- Upkeep: -2 Strength/Now +2
- Upkeep: -1 Strength/Now +1
- Upkeep: -2 Strength/Now -1 (Weakened Effect Start 1 Turn)
- Upkeep: -1 Strength/Now -2 (Weakened Effect Upkeep 2 Turns)
- Upkeep: -2 Strength/Now -4 (Weakened Effect Upkeep 3 Turns)
- Weakened Effect Upkeep 7 Turns.

Pros With 3 Potions = Negative Effect:
+ You get Stronger for a "Peak" period of 1 Turn.
+ You have 9 Turns, if using it as Effectively as you can, where you are on the +Side (+1, +2, +3, +4)

Cons With 3 Potions = Negative Effect:
- The Weakness is consistent at -4 for 8 Turns.

Pros With 2 Potions = No Negative Effects:
+ You don't get weakened and you have a consistent Strength "boost" for 2 turns.
+ In Combination with 1 Potions you can get +1 for 2 Turns and +2 for 2 Turns without any negative effects (Effectively speaking: 6 Turns boost)

Cons With 2 Potions:
- You can still get stronger if you Drink 1 More Potion. I.E. You can achieve a stronger potential, but at the cost of Weakness afterwards.
- You have a Boost period of 6 Turns in comparison to the 9 Turns of 3 Potions.

Effectively speaking: You'd get a total of... let's see...

So you get 6 turns where you get an advantage, and you get 10 turns where you get a disadvantage. Negative Attributes, please BALANCE it with Positive Attributes.[/EDIT]

Similarly, drinking a different kind of a Potion that maybe makes your characters faster could perhaps make them sick afterwards or poisoned or something due to the chemical/physical reaction caused by the ingredients. I.E: Your character becomes super fast, lots of adrenaline and lots of energy and they can dodge and attack really fast but drinking too much of the good stuff makes the "overload" basically. A quick "Peak" in power before falling down to a weaker state.

"Fly too close to the Sun and your wings get burned and you fall, but for a second or two you were closer than you had ever been to the Sun"

Edited August 4, 2013 by Osvir

[forgottenlor]

I also in general avoid cursed items. I can remember in one game I played (can't remember which one) there was a powerful weapon that drained health at one point a turn. I used it in conjunction with a ring which regenerated my health at the same rate. I can see such item combinations where you need two wear items combined to get the benefits of a cursed item. Of course in that case the curse item must be good enough to justify loosing the bonus from the other item.

[Tale]

Beacon helmet. Allows you to see in the dark as if it were day, notifies all hostile creatures within a 30 yard radius to your presence.

Why would anyone use that?

[Failion]

 

Beacon helmet. Allows you to see in the dark as if it were day, notifies all hostile creatures within a 30 yard radius to your presence.

Why would anyone use that?

 

You don't care about being swarmed and want to see in the dark. Something like a prototype lightsaber. A sword thats excellent as piercing armor but occassionally turns off and all your hits turn into glancing blows a idea I can think of.

Edited August 4, 2013 by Failion

[okkoko]

If we really want to talk about weapon switching, I really liked Mass Effect 2 for that. And that os why it is my favorite title in that series. I think lots of people prefer the other two titles so I'm not sure if the appeal of that sort of tactical activity is shared.

 

But you're right it's not generally something they had to do in BG or the like. I still remember the graveyard in NWN2 where you'd want to start using blunt weapons for a while to fight the skeletons. It's still kind of interesting to swap out weapons for a handful of encounters without needing to do it during fights with any regularity.

i was thinkin more the line of how inventory is managed .like a wizard have a good idea about how to manage wand an scroll inventory and a warrior weapon and armor

 

lets say a wizard got inventory slots for scrolls 4 exstr scrolls each lvl behaves a rogue got lock pick slots wizard got spell component slots rogue got secret weapon slots and secret pockets like i always fund it puzzling that if you just had enough strength you could carry around wit a small car in you inventory and still fight wery well

[Walsingham]

Misread: bacon helmet.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Misread: bacon helmet.

I'm glad I wasn't the only one. I do have a sudden craving for bacon though.

[Infinitron]

Osvir: Good post. The idea of a negative attribute that is temporary and player-controllable to an extent is a good one. It challenges the player to use the item in a different way, as opposed to just dropping a penalty on him.

Edited August 4, 2013 by Infinitron

[JFSOCC]

Vampiric dagger: halves your total health, each hit converts half the damage done (after modifiers) into health for the character, up to 10% above their current max health (which is still halved)

[jamoecw]

in the real world picking the right ammunition for your target is important, if the caliber is too big then you punch a hole right through your target which doesn't cause as much damage and disruption as if it stopped in the middle of the target.  range affects the caliber used as well, plus there are different types of ammo as well as calibers which has a significant impact on performance.  that being said soldiers don't carry around 50 different types of ammo, heck they might at most carry around 3 types for one gun, and usually that is not for different targets, but for different effects (tracer, HE, etc.).  the only military weapon that was regularly used with different calibers that i know of are slings, small lightweight ones for range, medium ones for most uses, and heavy ones for sieges/armoured targets.  having a sling are maybe a gun that uses a couple of different types of ammo would be nice, but that should be its benefit over other weapons, is that it can adapt on the fly.  having every weapon be like that (witcher style sword wielding for example) is a bit on the annoying side, and doesn't really fit into the world in a logical fashion.

[Walsingham]

Slings aren't the only one. Think of tank and AT guns. You have sabot rounds that are subcalibre, and even squeezebore rounds that are (kind of) super-calibre.

[jamoecw]

Slings aren't the only one. Think of tank and AT guns. You have sabot rounds that are subcalibre, and even squeezebore rounds that are (kind of) super-calibre.

ya, completely forgot about how AT guns in ww2 generally kept anti personnel rounds so they could be makeshift artillery if they had to swap out mid battle.  artillery in the early part of the war functioned as AT, AA, and as artillery, though i am unsure if it was capable of all three within a single battle.

 

squeeze bore aren't used just to take out specific targets, just a way of boosting the weapon's penetrating ability (in addition to longer range and flatter trajectory).

[anubite]

I really like weapons which have nasty downsides on them - it really makes a game fun, trying to exploit that downside to take advantage of what the weapon/item offers.

 

Armor that constantly reduces your life while worn, but massively increases your defenses? Put it on in a boss fight and devote a healer to that one character, or something.

 

Yeah. I'd say, it's harder to make items with downsides interesting, because party members can always negate an item's effects. If you're wearing armor that degenerates your health, a healer can always take care of that. If an item decreases your attack speed, just have an ally haste you. Et cetera - it's much harder to make an item impactful. It really has to have a unique effect that cannot be trivially negated.

Edited August 13, 2013 by anubite

[Lephys]

What if, instead of the whole "you're more powerful, but you go berzerk and attack people at random" thing, a weapon gave you increased power at the cost of occasionally using firing off an ability at random? I mean, it'd be against the target that character's currently fighting. But, maybe you use Rend Armor or something, on something with no armor, depriving you of the ability to use that on something else against which it would've been highly effective.

 

Sort of an interesting power-for-precision tradeoff, I think.

 

Also, I'd like to add that crossing the combat/non-combat effectiveness threshold is probably a bad idea. Like that Longsword of +5 Charisma. You carry it around all the time, so that you can get freebie bonuses to dialogues, but then, when combat hits, you switch to a much more effective weapon. OR, even worse, that sword that's +5 to hit/damage, but reduces your Charisma by 5. Easy... you don't carry it around, and you equip it whenever the shyte strikes the fan. Unless it's one of those Dyson Airblade fans, in which case the shyte just gets wind-tunneled through the center of the hoop and strikes something else. 8P

 

I think the detriments just need to be rather interesting. You know... something you might not really want to happen, but that just would alter the way you get to tackle things, rather than being a hard numbers-detriment to your ABILITY to handle things. Like the weapon firing off your abilities. You still get to use them. Just, one factor of their use is beyond your control now.

 

Also, I think the Mass Effect reference was a good one, earlier in the thread. (Mass Effects 2 and 3, at least). The weapon switching in that was so easy, it wasn't really a chore. It just made sense. Plus the fact that you had limited ammunition for every weapon, so it was a matter of using your ammo more efficiently/effectively, rather than using the correct infinite damage supply against the correct enemy/defense at all times.

 

That, and you're not often going to have a full party all using the exact same weapon, and then going "Oh no, a group of enemies who are weak to axes and not swords!", then switch them all to their axes. The same happened in Mass Effect. If there were 2 armored enemies in a group, and 2 shielded enemies, and 1 biotically-barriered enemy, then I'd have the person who's already rocking a good anti-shield weapon target the shielded enemies, and the person already rocking an armor-piercing weapon target the armored foes, etc. Not to mention you had various abilities that dealt various types of damage. So, even if I had a Heavy Pistol, and I wasn't attacking something's armor yet (which Heavy Pistols were especially good against), I could use mine and other companions' abilities to take down the shield/barrier without having to switch weapons, then use my pistol mainly against the armor to take it down effectively. OR, vice versa. I could switch to an SMG to lay into the shield, THEN utilize abilities more specifically tailored to anti-armor once I got to the armor, instead of switching back to a pistol.

 

But, I'm getting away from myself a bit. The points were this: Weapon swapping being quite easy and streamlined handles the vast majority of all this " 'tactical' weapon-swapping is a chore" business, and the fact that your party will most likely be defaultly toting differing weapon types, along with the fact that your ability sets can be used in drastically different ways to support each other somewhat dissolves the rest of the concern.

 

It relies on good design, sure. It's not just automatic. "Oh, your party has abilites and different weapon types, thus IT CAN NEVER BE A CHORE!" Haha. But, yeah... it sounds like a lot of the concerns are being made from a bit of a vacuum, and drastically exaggerate the need to swap weapons, as if targets and tactics cannot be much more easily swapped most times.