Warrior AoE attacks?

[Suburban-Fox]

Also, in response to the "it should be impossible to hit multiple people in a single swing" thing, I'm pretty sure that isn't true, even within the bounds of simulation. I'm pretty certain it's possible to slice 2-or-more torsos with a single move of the blade.

 

This guy pretty much explains why it isn't possible in real life:

 

 

Of course, I realise that this is a game, but...well, I suppose it depends on how believable the game wants to be, really. I would much rather see moves like this as a rapid succession of raking attacks made against different people, than a single swing.

 

Plus, I'm not fond of overly contrived moves in general, because they depend on a situation being perfectly set up in order for you to execute that move. Legolas might be able to stab an orc in the eye with an arrow, once in the entire trilogy, because it happens to close with him at the time when he's just about to shoot and has an arrow in his hand and an orc not defending himself, but that shouldn't mean every archer in the world should be able to stab an enemy in the eye whenever he chooses to do so. You might get it to work 1 in 1000 times, but for it to be a viable choice of tactics for you to deploy, it has to work with some degree of regularity. Again, it's probably just a personal thing, but to me, being able to contrive such a move often and easily just looks silly.

 

Also, for the record, I don't mind shouting/taunting to make people's defence go down, or scare them a bit, or whatever. I only object to being able to actually do physical damage, or stun, or flatten, somebody using such methods. Unless you have some kind of magical ability, someone isn't going to fall over or be rendered immobile just because you shout at them. They may think twice about attacking you, or - in the case of taunting - get so angry that they want to hurt you and forget to defend themselves, but they're not going to fall over or stand still for five minutes while other people take chunks of flesh out of them. XD

 

 

 

I have absolutely no problem with Fighters being able to do supernatural things, so long as there is actually consistency in the lore (a supernatural force/ability is cited as the source of some maneuver, etc.). So long as it doesn't become so similar to some other class as to be negatively dissimilar/bland.

 

QFT. I'd rather they couldn't, but as long as it's consistent with the rest of the game's rules, and that other people similarly trained can do similar things (or if there's some canonical reason why your fighter is so much better than everybody else), then I can live with it.

Edited June 3, 2014 by Suburban-Fox

[PrimeJunta]

I agree with about everything you've said, but I want to address this specifically. IMHO Suburban Fox was not asking for consistency in lore. It was as you note a discussion about the mechanics. His first post mentioned him finding a fighter being able to "to hurt, stun, or knock people down by stomping the ground, or shouting at them" ridiculous. In effect he was saying "Fighter abilities should be based upon what someone in the real world could do." A sentiment common to simulationists.When I mentioned that this doesn't necessarily make sense in the game world, he used the soul powered cobler example as an reductio ad absurdum as to possible use of soul power. Again, this suggests a desire that mechanics be a reflection of what is possible in the real world. So maybe Mr. Fox is not simulationist, but his responses sure sound like it to me. I appoligize if that's a mischaracterization.

 

If this is indeed the point you're addressing, then I agree, that attitude is simulationist. 

[PrimeJunta]

True that I would prefer it if fighters aren't capable of magical attacks, but I guess that's just a personal preference. I prefer low magic settings, where magic is a majorly big deal (even better when abuse of it has potential consequences). I also prefer it when you're not crazy-powerful, and capable of doing things that nobody else can, because I'd much rather be Aragorn than Superman. But again, that's just my personal preference.

 

The only thing that really bugs me about RPGs is when the world doesn't follow its own rules, and doesn't consider the wider effects of such things as magic on the rest of the world. All I really ask is that the world makes sense, so if soul power is common then it should be applicable to every day life in some way - it does depend on what it's actually capable of, but a wider use does need to be at least considered, hence my soul powered cobbler example. If it's rare than that should lead to the emergence of a special class that is able to use it, and considers themselves above those who aren't.

 

I don't have a strong preference for either low or high magic; however I think low-magic fantasy settings are much underused and would like to see one.

 

A game where magic was rare but scarily powerful would be a quite a different beast from our relatively "democratic" cRPG's where nonmagical classes are just about as badass as magical ones only in a different way. Perhaps something Ars Magica style where you would alternate between playing the scarily powerful but otherwise handicapped mage and her non-magical minions.

 

And a strong yea to internal consistency.

 

I do make allowances for combat and character-building mechanics though. In an IE-style game they're bound to fall apart if you look at them too closely, and doing so will get you into simulationist territory in no time flat.

[Suburban-Fox]

 

I don't have a strong preference for either low or high magic; however I think low-magic fantasy settings are much underused and would like to see one.

 

A game where magic was rare but scarily powerful would be a quite a different beast from our relatively "democratic" cRPG's where nonmagical classes are just about as badass as magical ones only in a different way. Perhaps something Ars Magica style where you would alternate between playing the scarily powerful but otherwise handicapped mage and her non-magical minions.

 

True! Although there are plenty in literature (Lord of the Rings, A Song of Ice and Fire, even the Dragonlance trilogy had very few actual magic user characters!), and plenty of RPG systems like that (namely Warhammer FRP), this mentality doesn't often make it into a CRPG, in which the preference is generally geared towards a "everyone can do magic of some sort because we want all players to feel like badasses" mentality. Which is fine, I suppose, but it doesn't really suit my personal tastes. Again, I want to be Aragorn, not Superman, and even then, Aragorn should be what I strive to become, not what I start out as. I suppose neither approach is right or wrong, I just prefer it that way.

 

The only game I can think of that captured this was the first Dragon Age game, although it did let itself down with the way it handled archery, and things like regenerating health (and the ridiculous armour designs!). I suppose Baldur's Gate 1 also falls into that category, because at low levels in AD&D, magic tends to be rarer, and not generally available to any but the wizard and priest classes - at least at the first few levels anyway.

 

But again, that's just my personal preference, and I suppose games have to be made for everybody, not just me. ;-P

[PrimeJunta]

Perhaps a better solution to the "Aragorn, not Superman" problem is not to allow magic-using PC's to start with, or only allow them very limited magic. That's probably what I'd do if I wanted to run a campaign in Middle Earth, Nehwon, or Hyboria.

[Mor]

True! Although there are plenty in literature (Lord of the Rings, A Song of Ice and Fire, even the Dragonlance trilogy had very few actual magic user characters!), and plenty of RPG systems like that (namely Warhammer FRP), this mentality doesn't often make it into a CRPG, in which the preference is generally geared towards a "everyone can do magic of some sort because we want all players to feel like badasses" mentality.

I think its more about exploring the fantasy setting to make it more interesting than badassery. Real life combat isn't that exciting to play from iso, so unless you want to play a first person game with focus on combat simulation (hopefully with stealth) i'd go with some magic.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I don't like the Batman(or other highly skilled but "normal" fictional character) or Superman comparison because it doesn't leave room for any middle ground. What about characters who are superhuman, but aren't able to push planets out of orbit or move faster than light? It doesn't seem like too much of a stretch that a Fighter(or other non-caster)in a high-magic setting would develop superhuman toughness or strength to the degree of Luke Cage or Spider-Man.

[Suburban-Fox]

It's less about the level of power, and more about the fact that he has power at all. That's what I mean by the comparison.

 

Superman is a hero not because of what he does, but because of what he is. Without his powers, he would not be able to save a single person. Aragorn, on the other hand, is a hero because of what he does, and he isn't ridiculously powerful compared to an ordinary person. In a straight-up fight with somebody like Boromir, he wouldn't necessarily have an easy victory, but if Superman was to fight anybody else (who wasn't also a superhero), he wouldn't even break a sweat.

 

To me, any superhero who is that way because of some special power that nobody else has - Superman, Spiderman, Wolverine, etc - and that nobody who doesn't also possess similar powers can even hope to cause harm to, is less impressive than one who doesn't have powers, and is vulnerable to the same things that everybody else in the world is, but does amazing things in spite of this. It's easy to save the world when you basically can't be killed by ordinary methods (and before anybody asks, no, I'm not a fan of Marvel comics).

 

So, to summarise (since I realise I'm just labouring the point now): I'm okay with there being "soul power" or whatever as long as it makes sense within the world, and the PCs aren't the only ones with access to it, and it doesn't make them crazy-powerful to the point where ordinary people can no longer pose a threat to them.

[illathid]

Perhaps a better solution to the "Aragorn, not Superman" problem is not to allow magic-using PC's to start with, or only allow them very limited magic. That's probably what I'd do if I wanted to run a campaign in Middle Earth, Nehwon, or Hyboria.

 

Agreed. I think the best way to do a low magic setting is not letting the PCs be magic users at all.

[Lephys]

This guy pretty much explains why it isn't possible in real life:

I, sadly, cannot view that video at the moment. I shall try as soon as I get the chance.

 

But, don't get me wrong... I'm not trying to defend all the "spin with your axe and hit everyone around you" and "Cleaving attack -- do splash damage at melee range!" moves and such in video games. I'm just saying, it's not wholly impossible to strike more than one person with a single swing of a given weapon. I agree that it probably wouldn't be something you could consistently do at-will. 

 

 

I would much rather see moves like this as a rapid succession of raking attacks made against different people, than a single swing.

 

Agreed. Or, if it's going to be some "I'm a huge barbarian guy, and I swing my giant weapon really hard," then it should be a matter of basically knocking one foe into another foe, and/or raking about so hard that you strike several weapons and disarm a couple of people, etc. Not just "I produce radial damage."

 

 

Plus, I'm not fond of overly contrived moves in general, because they depend on a situation being perfectly set up in order for you to execute that move. Legolas might be able to stab an orc in the eye with an arrow, once in the entire trilogy, because it happens to close with him at the time when he's just about to shoot and has an arrow in his hand and an orc not defending himself, but that shouldn't mean every archer in the world should be able to stab an enemy in the eye whenever he chooses to do so.

 

True, but, at the same time, with the game not being able to accurately simulate the exact circumstances of combat that would allow for this sort of thing to occur, it's got to be abstracted a bit, or just never have any nifty stuff like that happen, ever. That said, I think it can definitely be managed better than simply slapping in an ability called "Eye Stab" (in this case) or something. Maybe it's a 3% chance that comes with a perk or something. Oh, you're an archer? You took this perk? Now, whenever someone attacks you, and you have a bow equipped, you have a 3% chance to stab them in a critical spot for critical hit damage (automatic counter-attack). That's pretty reasonable, as just example numbers. Or, it could just be "in the eye." Thus, creatures it wouldn't work against creatures without eyes, .

 

That's half joke, but half truth. The point being that, it's nice to work in things like that and represent them somewhat accurately when they actually contribute to the dynamics of the game's mechanics. If you just have an active "eye stab" ability, that gets real bland REAL fast. AND it basically just gives you a "press here for a critical hit" button. So, it's mechanically not very interesting.

 

To represent things like the Legolas Eye Stab, I actually would prefer something like "Opportunistic Strike" or something. The exact effect (both aesthetic AND mechanical) would depend on the state of the opponent: flanked, prone, stunned, etc. That could be pretty cool. It's the "same" thing every time, but depending on when you use it on them, it could actually provide slightly different mechanical utility. And/or at least have some kind of variety in what happens, instead of just stabbing them in the eye with an arrow every time. Maybe it could just be called "Improvised Strike" or something; sometimes, you'd damage them with their own blade/weapon head. Sometimes you'd stab with an arrow you had drawn. Sometimes it'd be a pommel strike. Sometimes a headbutt, etc. I don't know how that would be coded, though, and how many different things to have.

 

 

Also, for the record, I don't mind shouting/taunting to make people's defence go down, or scare them a bit, or whatever. I only object to being able to actually do physical damage, or stun, or flatten, somebody using such methods. Unless you have some kind of magical ability, someone isn't going to fall over or be rendered immobile just because you shout at them. They may think twice about attacking you, or - in the case of taunting - get so angry that they want to hurt you and forget to defend themselves, but they're not going to fall over or stand still for five minutes while other people take chunks of flesh out of them. XD

 

Ahh, agreed as well. And, I think pseudo-magical "I just shout/stomp things into submission" abilities should be few and far between with warriors. I'd much rather have "I leap 20 feet to strike" and other such enhancements to actual fighting than just "I have a new ability that no fighter already has, because magic." Again, I don't mind magic-ness of Fighters at all, but it needs to be Fighter-y magic. Shouting until someone falls down has nothing to do with fighting.

Edited June 3, 2014 by Lephys

[Mor]

So, to summarise (since I realise I'm just labouring the point now): I'm okay with there being "soul power" or whatever as long as it makes sense within the world, and the PCs aren't the only ones with access to it, and it doesn't make them crazy-powerful to the point where ordinary people can no longer pose a threat to them.

I agree, but to be fair literature is poor analog for video games discussion, and unless you are into God of War kind of games, no one likes the "crazy-powerful" protagonist, regardless if its low or high magic setting, it is just basic game balance.

 

And while I don't necessary agree that in literature low magic fantasy settings are better, I also prefer them because they usually tend to be less about flawless sheepherders that become the one, and show more our imperfect selfs and explore various motives in moral ambiguous setting e.g. Song of Ice and Fire characters. However, as far as computer games goes I wouldn't want to play asoiaf, games aren't great in relating overreaching political intrigue and human aspects, and without that you are left with very much real life like experience aka boring, which is why they usually either "Sexed up" with action (in our case magic allows allows more options, allowing a more tactical/planing elements then straight up action)

Edited June 4, 2014 by Mor

[illathid]

However, as far as computer games goes I wouldn't want to play asoiaf, games aren't great in relating overreaching political intrigue and human aspects, and without that you are left with very much real life like experience aka boring, which is why they usually either "Sexed up" with action (in our case magic allows allows more options, allowing a more tactical/planing elements then straight up action)

You should play Crusader Kings 2, I think it does a great job of relating political intrigue with human relations. That's all.

[Suburban-Fox]

 

I agree, but to be fair literature is poor analog for video games discussion, and unless you are into God of War kind of games, no one likes the "crazy-powerful" protagonist, regardless if its low or high magic setting, it is just basic game balance.

 

 

Don't they? ^_^ Judging by the fact that people want to be able to do things like hit multiple people with the same swing, I believe that they do.

 

Bear in mind, to me, "crazy-powerful" means, basically, being capable of things that standard NPCs aren't ever going to be capable of. If the local town militia, for example, are built as fighters with the same rules as your fighter, then your PC fighter isn't crazy powerful, because other characters can do what you do.

 

To me, the action RPG where you march into a cave, in response to a desperate plea for a hero to deal with a local goblin threat, and slay a thousand goblins by yourself with barely a scratch to show for it, is an example of being crazy-powerful. I would rather kill 10 goblins, but each one is a challenge to kill and I can't do it on my own, than kill 100 goblins that die as soon as I sneeze on them, and think "yeah...why are people scared of goblins again?". Also, if the town guard is so pathetically useless compared to you, and you could basically take on the entire army and win, why are you bothering to obey the laws of the land when nobody can force you to do so? To me, this destroys any sense of believability, which is why I prefer a world in which you're only slightly better than average (if that), and there are still people around who are better than you.

[Lephys]

^ I'd rather slay 1/10th of a goblin, but have that be the most challenging Disembodied Goblin Hand fight ever.

 

 

I jest. I'm in total agreement with you.

 

I just recently picked up Dark Souls (I know, I'm late to the party), and while it still has plenty of abstraction and video game exaggeration going on, the premise of combat is at least a lot more that almost anything could kill you. It's most evident when you get attacked by like 10 of the little piddly zombie peeps. Sure, you might can kill them in one hit, but you still only swing so fast, and if they gang up on you, they can easily slaughter you, if you're careless. It's nice to know you can't just stand there and laugh.

[Mor]

 

I agree, but to be fair literature is poor analog for video games discussion, and unless you are into God of War kind of games, no one likes the "crazy-powerful" protagonist, regardless if its low or high magic setting, it is just basic game balance.

 

Don't they? ^_^ Judging by the fact that people want to be able to do things like hit multiple people with the same swing, I believe that they do.

 

Bear in mind, to me, "crazy-powerful" means, basically, being capable of things that standard NPCs aren't ever going to be capable of. If the local town militia, for example, are built as fighters with the same rules as your fighter, then your PC fighter isn't crazy powerful, because other characters can do what you do.

 

As far as we know in PoE all enemy NPC that we will encounter in combat will have the same abilities as our party members... which is ~pretty much how it was in IE games (baring few unique abilities), but even in RPG where you have special abilities, they aren't designed as your superman example but offers you ways to deal with in-game challange, because the superman scenario = broken game.

 

To me, the action RPG where you march into a cave, in response to a desperate plea for a hero to deal with a local goblin threat, and slay a thousand goblins by yourself with barely a scratch to show for it, is an example of being crazy-powerful. I would rather kill 10 goblins, but each one is a challenge to kill and I can't do it on my own, than kill 100 goblins that die as soon as I sneeze on them, and think "yeah...why are people scared of goblins again?".

Its a noble idea, but even the most story heavy cRPG has its 100 goblins verity... at least atm I can't think of game that made it work.

 

You should play Crusader Kings 2, I think it does a great job of relating political intrigue with human relations. That's all.

Play all of Paradox grand strategy games, it goes without saying that they are not RPG games, so its a mute point

[illathid]

You should play Crusader Kings 2, I think it does a great job of relating political intrigue with human relations. That's all.

Play all of Paradox grand strategy games, it goes without saying that they are not RPG games, so its a mute point

 

 

I apologize then. I didn't realize you meant RPGs only. Your post said video games in general aren't able to do this kind of thing well. I was presenting a video game that did.

 

Also, don't mean to be a grammar nazi, but it's "Moot Point" not "Mute Point."

[Lephys]

Also, don't mean to be a grammar nazi, but it's "Moot Point" not "Mute Point."

Hey, maybe someone has a really quiet keyboard.

[Suburban-Fox]

 

As far as we know in PoE all enemy NPC that we will encounter in combat will have the same abilities as our party members... which is ~pretty much how it was in IE games (baring few unique abilities).

 

Does that mean "every NPC in the game world", or just those that we're supposed to fight? ;-p

 

For this to work, every NPC in the game has to be feasibly able to learn the same moves. If I decide to take on the town militia, for example, I would expect them to be using abilities that my level 1 fighter deployed at the very least.

 

 

 

Also, don't mean to be a grammar nazi, but it's "Moot Point" not "Mute Point."

Hey, maybe someone has a really quiet keyboard.

 

Or maybe he was typing in an accent that's beyond our range of vision. :D