The imbalance of ranged weapons in infinity engine games

[J. Trudel]

 

Heavy weapons are at their best against Heavy Armors.

Light weapons are at their best against Light Armors.

They are doing something similiar in PE with armor with high DT and low DT. see quote below:

 

In terms of basic mechanics, the primary trade-off between fast weapons and slower weapons is between damage per hit and damage over time.  If the target's DT is low, the low per-hit damage of a fast weapon is not particularly important because your attack rate racks up the damage quickly.  If the target's DT is high, low per-hit damage is a bigger problem and the slower attacking weapons become much more efficient.  But because DT is a value, not an absolute property associated with a type of armor, the applicability of weapons can shift as your character and his/her gear becomes more powerful.  I.e., a DT that is problematic for Capt. Dagger at low level will mathematically become less relevant as your per-hit damage increases due to character/gear advancement.

 

 

Scaled type armor protect thier best vs Slashing damage.

Banded type Armors protect thier best vs Concusion damage.

Plate type Armors protect thier best vs Piercing damage.

 

In P:E the Armor type has modifiers against some Damage types. for example Mail Armor has a slight weakness against Pierce and Shock damage and a larger against Crushing damage. For more information see here.

 

AoE spells do more damage vs armored.

Direct spells do more damage vs lightly or unarmored.

I think the armor won't modify AoE spells or direct spells, but direct spells and AoE spells will target different defenses(Psyche and Reflexes). So there are some foes that are easier to kill with AoE spells as with Direct spells or direct melee damage. For example it's easier to kill a shield warrior with damage spells as with melee damage. see quote below.

 

Level is a big factor in your total defenses, but the character's class determines the starting point of each defense stat (which can be further modified by attributes, spells, abilities, talents, and equipment).  For example, fighters start with the highest Deflection score and they maintain that advantage as they level up.  If a fighter really wants to focus on holding a line in melee over doing damage, he or she can equip a shield and gain an even larger Deflection bonus.  Unless you're higher level than the fighter, it's very unlikely that your Deflection-based attacks will come close to his or her Deflection defense, meaning you'll wind up missing a lot more than 5% of the time -- and it will probably be impossible to crit them.  If you want to hurt fighters, use attacks that target Reflexes or Psyche, which are their weakest base defenses.

 

Most classes have at least one ability or spell that shifts the defense they are targeting with standard attacks.  E.g. barbarians have a Brute Force ability that allows them to temporarily switch over to targeting Fortitude.  Against our sample fighter, that would have the two advantages of ignoring the target's high base Deflection and ignoring the bonus provided by the shield.  As another example, druids have a spell called Firebrand that creates a weapon made out of pure fire.  In addition to doing only fire damage, it targets the Reflexes defense.

 

 

I think P:E will have a very fun system.  Perhaps if armor reduce the Reflex defense we have almost exactly the system I was proposing

Edited September 4, 2013 by J. Trudel

[TrashMan]

@Trahsman : I approve all you said ! 

 

My personnal choice against the angry bear : large caliber gun (because of the rate of fire and the sound may scare the bear), close second zweihander, then the Morningstar. Bow would be a last choice, if you miss or don't kill the angry bear, you are screwed. 

 

 

You. No way you're brining down a bear with an arrmor...well, MAYBE if you hit it in the eye socket. Good luck managing that shot.

 

A spiked morningstar would turn a bears (or anyone's for that matter) brain into jelly.

With a zweihander, you can sqewer even a bear if you take advantage of hte reach. You are going to hit the bear first and make a Bif Friggin Wound.

 

 

 

Putting ranged weapons (or magic or melee or anything else, really) on some weird inverse curve is anti-funhaving.

 

Fun is subjective.

To me, weapons behaving differetnly and having different strengths and weakneses that don't feel fake is more fun than a million "perfectly balanced" weapons raging from dagger +1 to dagger of death  +1000.

 

I'm not a general fan of scaling - especially for wepons.

 

 

 

EDIT:

Why would fighters have poor Reflex defenses? A fighter would have to be agile and have good reflexes, otherwise he would be dead.

Or are we talking this specific case, with a fighter with a big shield. Because I can totally see shield reducing reflexes - after all, brining the shild up reduces your own vision and the shields are heavy, thus lowering your reaction time.

Edited September 5, 2013 by TrashMan

[Tamerlane]

Fun is subjective.

To me, weapons behaving differetnly and having different strengths and weakneses that don't feel fake is more fun than a million "perfectly balanced" weapons raging from dagger +1 to dagger of death  +1000.

 

I'm not a general fan of scaling - especially for wepons.

 

That's nice, but it's not what the OP was talking about.

[Ineth]

Ranged weapons, and especially bows are grossly overpowered at low levels in these games

 

Sort of agree, except that I don't see it as a problem so much as a challenge.

 

It means that when playing IWD1 at Hard/Insane difficuly, you pretty much need to give every party member a viable ranged option in addition to melee proficiencies, in order to survive the first two chapters - which forces you to put more thought into the character builds (especially since ammunition of each type is limited and tends to get used up fast, so you need to diversify).

 

The biggest difference between ranged and melee weapons in early IWD1, though, is actually in the hands of low-level enemies.

I remember plowing through hordes of small skeletons in Chapter 2 - in melee fights they didn't present much of a challenge at all to my well-equipped front-line warriors, it was more "mopping up" than "tactical combat"... However if one of the little suckers had a bow, and was standing behind cover, he could actually kill one or two of my party member before I could even get to him, if I didn't use stealth (and my own ranged weapons) effectively.

Ah, good times...

 

and equally grossly underpowered at high levels.

 

Disagree.

 

I think this perception arises because many players assign ranged weapons to their party as more of an afterthought - like giving a mage (who'll stand in the back anyways) one point of bow proficiency, and designating him as the party's archer without any further optimization.

Well, the fact that such a combination won't get very many hits against high-level enemies is not intrinsic to the weapon, it's intrinsic to the wielder.

 

If instead you take a Fighter and give him 5 proficiency points in bow, and equip him with the best magical bow and magical arrows you find, maybe also let him wear the "Bracers of Archery" etc., he will be able to hit stuff just fine all the way through ToB.

That's the combination that you should compare to your melee fighters whom you equally optimized for melee weapons.

 

It's true that the optimized ranged fighter will not nearly deal as much raw damage-over-time as the optimized melee fighter in ToB / late SoA.

But that's okay, because the ability to attack from a distance presents other advantages and opportunities to balance this out. Bows may not be ideal for producing mass-carnage at those levels, but they can be great for disrupting enemy spellcasters, hunting down fleeing enemies, etc.

 

So no, not "grossly underpowered" compared to melee weapons, just different.

 

I think the mechanic is all wrong.

 

Disagree.

 

There's no rule saying that every character skill in an RPG needs to have the same relative power at low and high levels.

 

And there's no rule saying that every weapon needs to be (equally) optimized for raw damage-over-time.

 

In fact, not designing the game using such rigid "equality" rules makes the game more interesting, by giving the players an incentive to diversify their character skills, take characters that complement each other into the party, and use the same characters differently at different levels.

 

Since you can have 6 party members, each of whom can gain proficiency in multiple weapons in addition to many other class-specific combat skills, this really shouldn't pose a problem.

[Ineth]

Another thing that often bothers me is that strength isn't taking into account with regards to archery at all. It takes more strength to use a bow than to use a sword, and that is often not reflected

 

All bows in BG2 had a "minimum STR" requirement.

For "Composite Bows" it was really high actually, so most non-warrior builds couldn't use them.

[Osvir]

Playing some ToEE, got me a nice little Ranger.

Anyways, something struck me as I was playing it. Not because it is a mechanic in ToEE or anything, but I keep moving my Ranger into an open "Line of Sight" position (because it makes sense to me, and it becomes a little bit more immersive).

If not flirting with "Friendly Fire" as a feature for Archers, could you get an Accuracy Plus or Minus depending on obstacles in the line of fire?

In essence: If you have a Figher in your Line of Fire, could that affect the Line of Fire somehow? "You lo se 25% chance to hit" or something. Just thought I'd press this into the discussion.

- Target is not obstructed by an ally or object: Higher chance to hit
- Target is obstructed by an ally or object: Lower chance to hit

Makes sense? Thus, positioning becomes more important but you can still hit an enemy that is obstructed.... and possibly Friendly Fire

[decado]

 

First of all, I didn't feel like drudging up historical references, because this is a message board for talking about video games.

 

Second of all, we don't have to dig through history when we can test these things right now, in the year 2013.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAJPoFL6fLw

 

 

You are right, this is a board to discuss about games but then you state historical evidences... And I am strongly against the fact that someone try to prove his point by uncorrects facts. This video is the perfect proof that ignorance shouldn't be spread by wanna be scientits who know close to nothing about armor. When you are wrong, accept it and learn from other who may be more knowledgeable on the subject than you are.

 

The vast majority of experiments that have involved the testing of arrows against mail were done using mail that was not representative of that worn by contemporaries. Rivets were poorly set (or the links were merely "butted" together without riveting)³, inadequate padding was used (if employed at all), the links were generally too large, and the metallurgy was incorrect—all factors that may lead to a reduction in the armour's protective capability². Recent experiments performed against more accurate mail reconstructions indicate that contemporary mail and padding provided excellent defense against all types of arrows under battlefield conditions. Nielson was one of the first to conclude this in 1991. An experiment conducted by the Royal Armouries concluded that a padded jack worn over a mail haubergeon (a common combination) was proof against Mary Rose longbows¹. 

 

Ref :

 

1. O. Nielson, "Skydeforsog med Jernalderensbuer," Eksperimentel Arkaeologi, (1991) 134-46
2. Examples include the tests conducted by Saxton Pope—"A Study in Bows and Arrows", Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology. (University of California, 1923)
3. Butted mail is commonly used by modern re-enactors but historically it rarely had a place on the battlefield. It offered virtually no protection against the most common threats, i.e. arrows and spears. Even the earliest mail seems to have been made of riveted links

 

 

I'm sorry, but you're quoting a 20 year old book, and a 100 year old study.  The fact of the matter is, you are claiming the issue is settled when it is not.  You shouldn't assume someone doesn't know the subject matter, simply because they didn't cough up links (it seems like you got a lot of information from this thread).  I never said arrows were useless against mail.  What I wrote was:

 

**But in the case of the former, arrows still fared pretty well against most armors except for the heaviest of steel plates, which would not become popular until the 14th century and still not available to most ordinary soldiers. **

 

This is hardly a controversial statement.   I don't know why you started posting links about how awesome mail was, as I know full well that plenty of armor combinations offered great protection against arrows.  If it they didn't, people would not have worn them.

 

Here's another video, of a traditionally-made, iron riveted coat of mail against a bodkin.  

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LdGUMulJUI

Edited September 5, 2013 by decado

[Valorian]

Josh Sawyer wrote:

"Most classes have at least one ability or spell that shifts the defense they are targeting with standard attacks.  E.g. barbarians have a Brute Force ability that allows them to temporarily switch over to targeting Fortitude.  Against our sample fighter, that would have the two advantages of ignoring the target's high base Deflection and ignoring the bonus provided by the shield."

 

 

I'd find it much more sensible if the barbarian could turn incoming deflection attacks against him into fortitude attacks. He's the one suddenly resisting attacks with his brute force and formidable physique. Why would the opposite be true?

Why would the fighter or rogue suddenly spread his arms and scream [no deflection check]"hit me! I'm gonna resist it!!" ? You'd first need to actually hit the target (deflection or in some cases reflex) and only then make the fortitude defense check, if appropriate.. right?

 

[J.E. Sawyer]

Not a problem in Pathfinder or 3e. In those systems, ranged weapons deal less damage than other 2handed weapons, but can be used froma distance to make up for that shortcoming. I have little dount that PE will have viable ranged combat.

 

Our ranged weapons do good damage, but can't compete blow-for-blow with two-handed melee weapons.  The exceptions to this are firearms, but they are relatively inaccurate and slow to reload.

[Prometheus]

And there's no rule saying that every weapon needs to be (equally) optimized for raw damage-over-time.

 

No, but if a weapon type has less damage over time it needs an advantage over the stronger weapon types. There is no reason to implement weapon types, that are in every situation weaker than other weapon types.

 

In fact, not designing the game using such rigid "equality" rules makes the game more interesting, by giving the players an incentive to diversify their character skills, take characters that complement each other into the party, and use the same characters differently at different levels.

 

Since you can have 6 party members, each of whom can gain proficiency in multiple weapons in addition to many other class-specific combat skills, this really shouldn't pose a problem.

 

I disagree. There is no incentive to diversify my characters, if you make skills that are stronger at high level. You can just change your party setup, to change to party members with stronger weapons. To give the player an incentive to diversify their characters make weapon types with different advantages and disadvantages, but make them viable at all levels. for example, fast weapons are better against enemies with no/light armor and slow weapons are better against enemies with heavy armor.

[Osvir]

 

Not a problem in Pathfinder or 3e. In those systems, ranged weapons deal less damage than other 2handed weapons, but can be used froma distance to make up for that shortcoming. I have little dount that PE will have viable ranged combat.

 

Our ranged weapons do good damage, but can't compete blow-for-blow with two-handed melee weapons.  The exceptions to this are firearms, but they are relatively inaccurate and slow to reload.

Sounds very reasonable.

 

Got to jump straight to curiosity:

Is it too soon to discuss/reveal "Rules of Engagement (Ranged)"? ;D

 

Are you considering "Line of Fire" elements? (Got an ally in front of the shot = Lower Accuracy, potential Friendly Fire*?)

 

* Strike through for some sort of effect *shrug* I'm still curious if Ranged weaponry can handle Friendly Fire in a RTwP environment or if it is a difficult element to handle for Archery in a game like this. It's not something I can say that I've seen 100% for sure, about 80% sure I've seen it. I do recall having seen it in some Turn-Based semi-hexgrid deal where you can potentially shoot your own units if they are in the way... can't remember which game though..... right Disgaea... but that's for targeted abilities. So not really the same thing I'm flirting with.

Edited September 5, 2013 by Osvir

[J.E. Sawyer]

No cover/melee engagement penalties like 3E/3.5/Pathfinder.  Even in a turn-based tabletop game those penalties get really odious (cover + in melee = effectively +8 AC)  and hard to avoid, so most ranged characters have to take Precise Shot (or get it as part of their class).  I'd rather mitigate the per-shot damage done by ranged weapons and not use cover/melee engagement rules.

 

In the end, the result is effectively the same: less damage done over a given period of time.  With unmodified accuracy and lower overall damage, it's more normalized/less spiky.

[rjshae]

No cover/melee engagement penalties like 3E/3.5/Pathfinder.  Even in a turn-based tabletop game those penalties get really odious (cover + in melee = effectively +8 AC)  and hard to avoid, so most ranged characters have to take Precise Shot (or get it as part of their class).  I'd rather mitigate the per-shot damage done by ranged weapons and not use cover/melee engagement rules.

 

In the end, the result is effectively the same: less damage done over a given period of time.  With unmodified accuracy and lower overall damage, it's more normalized/less spiky.

 

Probability wise, that's true. I just wonder what it will do for the verisimilitude to have every single ranged attack doing some damage, regardless of how difficult the shot? Arrows have effectively become shotgun blasts.

[J.E. Sawyer]

 

 

Probability wise, that's true. I just wonder what it will do for the verisimilitude to have every single ranged attack doing some damage, regardless of how difficult the shot? Arrows have effectively become shotgun blasts.

 

Every single ranged attack won't do damage.  They can graze or miss just like standard melee attacks.

 

And if you want a shotgun blast, that's what blunderbusses are for.

[J. Trudel]

I'm sorry, but you're quoting a 20 year old book, and a 100 year old study.  The fact of the matter is, you are claiming the issue is settled when it is not.  You shouldn't assume someone doesn't know the subject matter, simply because they didn't cough up links (it seems like you got a lot of information from this thread).  I never said arrows were useless against mail.  What I wrote was:

 

**But in the case of the former, arrows still fared pretty well against most armors except for the heaviest of steel plates, which would not become popular until the 14th century and still not available to most ordinary soldiers. **

 

This is hardly a controversial statement.   I don't know why you started posting links about how awesome mail was, as I know full well that plenty of armor combinations offered great protection against arrows.  If it they didn't, people would not have worn them.

 

Here's another video, of a traditionally-made, iron riveted coat of mail against a bodkin.  

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LdGUMulJUI

 

 

At first, I wanted to write a long reply with more proof. But it seems you are immune to scientific proof and prefer your vids on youtube. 

 

I guess I'll wear this for protection : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8QqAd6vgD8

[Jarmo]

 

And if you want a shotgun blast, that's what blunderbusses are for.

 

 

Those are in? YEAH!! :D

[J.E. Sawyer]

Ballistics can be weird at times.  Strangely enough, arrows can have a difficult time penetrating many-layered (like, 20) linen jacks.  It's not always simply a matter of incoming force and material strength.

[decado]

 

I'm sorry, but you're quoting a 20 year old book, and a 100 year old study.  The fact of the matter is, you are claiming the issue is settled when it is not.  You shouldn't assume someone doesn't know the subject matter, simply because they didn't cough up links (it seems like you got a lot of information from this thread).  I never said arrows were useless against mail.  What I wrote was:

 

**But in the case of the former, arrows still fared pretty well against most armors except for the heaviest of steel plates, which would not become popular until the 14th century and still not available to most ordinary soldiers. **

 

This is hardly a controversial statement.   I don't know why you started posting links about how awesome mail was, as I know full well that plenty of armor combinations offered great protection against arrows.  If it they didn't, people would not have worn them.

 

Here's another video, of a traditionally-made, iron riveted coat of mail against a bodkin.  

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LdGUMulJUI

 

 

At first, I wanted to write a long reply with more proof. But it seems you are immune to scientific proof and prefer your vids on youtube. 

 

I guess I'll wear this for protection : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8QqAd6vgD8

 

Proof of what?  That arrows could be turned aside by armor?  I already agree with that.  Why would you need to prove it?

[J. Trudel]

 

 

I'm sorry, but you're quoting a 20 year old book, and a 100 year old study.  The fact of the matter is, you are claiming the issue is settled when it is not.  You shouldn't assume someone doesn't know the subject matter, simply because they didn't cough up links (it seems like you got a lot of information from this thread).  I never said arrows were useless against mail.  What I wrote was:

 

**But in the case of the former, arrows still fared pretty well against most armors except for the heaviest of steel plates, which would not become popular until the 14th century and still not available to most ordinary soldiers. **

 

This is hardly a controversial statement.   I don't know why you started posting links about how awesome mail was, as I know full well that plenty of armor combinations offered great protection against arrows.  If it they didn't, people would not have worn them.

 

Here's another video, of a traditionally-made, iron riveted coat of mail against a bodkin.  

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LdGUMulJUI

 

 

At first, I wanted to write a long reply with more proof. But it seems you are immune to scientific proof and prefer your vids on youtube. 

 

I guess I'll wear this for protection : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8QqAd6vgD8

 

Proof of what?  That arrows could be turned aside by armor?  I already agree with that.  Why would you need to prove it?

 

 

Arguing that bow are one hit kills while a melee weapon is not, Decado wrote :

 

If you're wearing armor, most sword strikes are not one-hit/one-kill.  There is plenty of evidence in the historical record to show that men survived multiple weapon impacts over the course of a battle, whereas an arrow in any part of the torso was pretty much guaranteed to kill you.

 

Your words, unless you compare swords on armor vs arrows on flesh... if that was your intention. I'm sorry, my mistake. But you don't make sense when you argue bow should be more one shot kill than melee weapons because of that.

Edited September 5, 2013 by J. Trudel

[decado]

Yes, an arrow IN the torso.  As in, an arrow in the torso, not an arrow that merely hits your armor.  If I had meant what you are suggesting, I would have written it.

Edited September 5, 2013 by decado

[J. Trudel]

Yes, an arrow IN the torso.  As in, an arrow in the torso, not an arrow that merely hits your armor.  If I had meant what you are suggesting, I would have written it.

 

And we have gone full circle. 

 

Okay then a sword IN the torso is as much deadly as an arrow in the torso right ? 

 

Just one more question, when I suggest that a sword is also a one-hit kill you make a strange remark saying that there is evidence showing that men in armor did survive many blows in a battle, but an arrow is a one shot kill... ho well, I don't think I'll understand you... 

Edited September 5, 2013 by J. Trudel

[J. Trudel]

Ballistics can be weird at times.  Strangely enough, arrows can have a difficult time penetrating many-layered (like, 20) linen jacks.  It's not always simply a matter of incoming force and material strength.

 

Very true ! There is even some stranges facts about the Horo, a Japanese single sheet linen cloak used to deflect (catch) arrows. I have seen a good study on thids but can't remember who did the tests, It was impressive. 

[decado]

 

Yes, an arrow IN the torso.  As in, an arrow in the torso, not an arrow that merely hits your armor.  If I had meant what you are suggesting, I would have written it.

 

And we have gone full circle. 

 

Okay then a sword IN the torso is as much deadly as an arrow in the torso right ? 

 

Lol, no.  That was rather the point.  There are a bunch of different ways a sword can impact a human chest and not kill the person instantly.  Go visit a local hospital ER on a Friday night, and see how many people have stab/slash wounds and are still ambulatory. 

[J. Trudel]

 

 

Yes, an arrow IN the torso.  As in, an arrow in the torso, not an arrow that merely hits your armor.  If I had meant what you are suggesting, I would have written it.

 

And we have gone full circle. 

 

Okay then a sword IN the torso is as much deadly as an arrow in the torso right ? 

 

Lol, no.  That was rather the point.  There are a bunch of different ways a sword can impact a human chest and not kill the person instantly.  Go visit a local hospital ER on a Friday night, and see how many people have stab/slash wounds and are still ambulatory. 

 

 

So what's your point ? There are also countless people surviving gunshots (even some cases surviving gunshots in the head) that doesn't make a gunshot less dangerous. Just to make a closer comparison, I pierce you in the chest with a spear, what you tell me is that the spear is less deadly than your arrow in the chest right ?

 

Or a sword cut from a trained guy ? Just because you love vids, I don't want to prove a point with this. The Arma (Association For Renaissance Martial Arts) method isn't that much scientific anyway, and has been much criticized  

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3v4j3mvrDyQ

Edited September 5, 2013 by J. Trudel

[jamoecw]

well as for realism, you have to look at what gets hit within the torso, what size wound channel it leaves behind, kinetic dispersion in the surrounding tissues, etc.  arrows tend to have small wound channels and low kinetic dispersion, as well as being left in to plug up the wound, though as it is a small wound channel it does tend to penetrate the ribs better than say the edge of a sword (not the point mind you).  arrows are less dangerous on average, that is not to say that arrows can't be deadlier than swords, or that they aren't lethal enough to kill in one hit anyway.

 

now with that said, a dedicated military caste uses different bows than the average bow today, with tons of power being stored up and released all at once gives it more kinetic energy on impact at close range than a sword generally does in a fight.  as a result arrows have great penetrating power against armour, though they do less damage once they have penetrated, which may or may not be relevant.  now take into account that instant kills are a difficult thing to achieve, even if lethal hits are easy (getting stabbed in the heart may take many minutes to kill you, and before you go down you are still fighting).

 

now if we take into account parrying and such then the rate that an archer will be able to deliver armour penetrating shots to an armoured opponent charging them from say 30 yards should be about 2-3, while the same amount of time fighting in melee if both are at equal skill will be 1 at most.

 

so with all of these variables floating around we can safely say that archers should do more damage to an armoured opponent without a shield or cover before they have to run away as fast as their legs can carry them and thus do no more damage during the fight than an armoured warrior with a greatsword.  or to simplify even further: ranged weapons work better at range than melee weapons do at melee against an stupid yet skillful armoured opponent.

 

now we could get more complex and talk about effectiveness of various stances and weapons of melee to find the most effective at killing in the short run and compare that to the fastest killing ranged weapon, but i think we have enough variables in play for now.

 

 

{edit} and considering the answer of how ranged weapons will be in PE has been given to us it sorta makes the argument moot {/edit}

Edited September 6, 2013 by jamoecw