|
coffeetable posted:The core tenant of character design in PE is that you should be able to pick whatever stats you want and have fun with the resulting character. Suppose then that STR boosted damage for melee weapons and INT boosted it for everything else, and suppose you then made an INT-heavy fighter. So am I missing something or are you suggesting the game make stat choices matter... but at the same time without making them matter? GreatGreen fucked around with this message at 06:24 on Dec 19, 2013 |
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 06:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 20:46 |
|
|
Intelligence as +damage works fine if you think about it as fighting smart and not just bruteforcing your sword in the general direction of an enemy. Low int, high strength warriors still benefit from a larger hitpoints pool but now a finesse fighter (an archetype that has never really been optimal in d&d) can at least even the odds by being clever with his think-brains.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 06:26
|
|
|
GreatGreen posted:So am I missing something or are you suggesting the game make stat choices matter... but at the same time without making them matter? As Sawyer and co. has explained, they want a wide range of characters to be as viable as any other. If you wanna roll a high int fighter you shouldn't feel like you made a bad choice and want to reroll into any of the narrow selection of accepted "optimal" builds that you found on a wiki somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 06:30
|
|
|
Krowley posted:Intelligence as +damage works fine if you think about it as fighting smart and not just bruteforcing your sword in the general direction of an enemy. But that's not what the system being described is actually doing. It's just 'smart=good at hitting' which isn't intuitive at all. A character shouldn't have to be a genius to be able to deal out high damage - especially if that damage comes from swinging a bloody great hammer at their opponent.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 06:34
|
|
|
At this point, I'm praying they keep Intelligence as the damage stat just to see all the nerd 
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 06:34
|
|
|
VanSandman posted:But that's not what the system being described is actually doing. It's just 'smart=good at hitting' which isn't intuitive at all. A character shouldn't have to be a genius to be able to deal out high damage - especially if that damage comes from swinging a bloody great hammer at their opponent. We still don't know the ratio between int based damage bonuses and weapon/talent damage bonuses. It could be that difference between low and high int is 10 points of damage, and between low and high weapon expertise is 100 points of damage. If it is something like that, you don't need your second doctorate to hurt something. But it will help.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 06:38
|
|
|
Krowley posted:If you wanna roll a high int fighter you shouldn't feel like you made a bad choice and want to reroll into any of the narrow selection of accepted "optimal" builds that you found on a wiki somewhere. Part of the problem is having stats AND classes. There really is no good reason other than tradition to even have that sort of thing - let a fighter be a fighter be a fighter, and let the player choose how smart or dumb that character will be. To keep each fighter unique, have them select a perk each level or earn them through their accomplishments, sort of like Fallout - some perks can be a straight "more damage with this kind of weapon" but others can be "better critical hit chance" or "dodge more" or "stand up to more hits" or "hit more than one opponent at a time." You want to make that fighter that fights smart, not hard? Fine, get the perks that let you deal damage quickly, but don't tie dealing damage to a statistic like intelligence. Or you can decide there will be no classes in the game, and all characters will be able to do all things but suck at the jobs they don't have good stats for. Yeah you can have the weak nerdy type fight on the front lines with a sword, but wouldn't it be a better idea to have him switch roles with the beefy dumb guy who you've given a spellbook and a pointy hat? What I'm saying is, for a game that has made the fun and exciting design choice to be "gamist" rather than "simulationist" (for the record I am firmly in the 'gamist' camp) having physical and mental attributes - which will ABSOLUTELY define a character's role in combat before you explicitly pick what role they are going to play just doesn't make sense. Stats are "simulationist." Classes are gamist. VanSandman fucked around with this message at 06:54 on Dec 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 06:44
|
|
|
Please swap resolve and intelligence so this derail can die.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 06:51
|
|
|
The issue I have is how these attributes will effect NPC interactions and the like. I'm envisioning scenarios where humble farmboys-turned-fighters have become fountains of knowledge and lore because they wanted to hit things harder with their clubs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 06:54
|
|
|
SoggyBobcat posted:The issue I have is how these attributes will effect NPC interactions and the like. I'm envisioning scenarios where humble farmboys-turned-fighters have become fountains of knowledge and lore because they wanted to hit things harder with their clubs. Exactly! Now if said farmboy had an out-of-combat skill of "has a library card and uses it" then it makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 06:55
|
|
|
How about you unlink damage from stats entirely, and make it a variable you decide on whatever the skill/talent tree is? You have a set of six skills, each linked to a particular stat, and they all make it so that stat affects your damage bonus. If I want to make a Fighter and I want Strength to be my damage-determining stat, I pick the appropriate skill. If I'm building a Dexterity based Fighter I pick the appropriate skill to make Dex affect my damage. Then you could have players pick multiple skills to have more than one stat affect damage, or offer varying levels of the skills for even more damage potential.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 07:00
|
|
|
SoggyBobcat posted:The issue I have is how these attributes will effect NPC interactions and the like. I'm envisioning scenarios where humble farmboys-turned-fighters have become fountains of knowledge and lore because they wanted to hit things harder with their clubs. You're tying intelligence together with knowledge. Nothing says that humbler farmboys have to be dumb as poo poo, and even the most intelligent people in the world might have been raised on a farm and sheltered from everything. Besides, its a game mechanic designed to harmonize character building. It is a bit unfortunate that Obsidian kept do many D&D terms because it seems to be hanging up a lot of people, especially when they already replaced Bard with Chanter and Psion with Cipher for this exact reason, but making stats work uniformly across characters is definitely a good idea that I'm really interested to see in Pillars of Eternity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 07:05
|
|
|
Alternately, offer a few 'feats' that allow you to double dip (maybe even at a rate half as good as if you just stacked the 'intended' stat) a second primary stat. I.e. "heavy hitter" adds strength to damage, or "zen body" adds Int to health, "Stubborn", adds Resolve to Stamina or whatever. There are a whole lot of ways to keep the skeleton of the proposed system in place and still allow for builds where Str means you hit things harder with your heavy bludgeoning implement of choice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 07:09
|
|
|
Otto Skorzeny posted:Age of Decadence's system handles this in a neat way (proficiency in one weapon type increases proficiency in other weapon types by a scaling factor determined by how similar the weapon types are). The game has plenty of flaws, but that part is kinda nifty.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 07:16
|
|
|
They're building the systems around what doesn't break, and as Rope Kid has stated before, weapon proficiency systems have a singular tendency to make games appear to have more possibilities than they actually do. gently caress realism. Save it for sims.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 07:23
|
|
|
VanSandman posted:But that's not what the system being described is actually doing. It's just 'smart=good at hitting' which isn't intuitive at all. A character shouldn't have to be a genius to be able to deal out high damage - especially if that damage comes from swinging a bloody great hammer at their opponent. But they have already been doing this (and WotC in D&D): rogues explicitly do all that bonus damage because they're cognizant of weak spots and attack timings, frinst. And in PoE, melee fighters inherently get a big boost to their per-combat damage because of their passive accuracy bonus with melee attacks, on top of their passive weapon-wielding-damage bonus, on top of their passive convert-some-glancing-blows-into-full-hits feature. The bulky face-smashy dude is going to be a fighter because that's what the concept of 'a class' means in D&D-land. A low-strength fighter in this system, then, represents someone hyper-adapted to attack at the expense of defense and in-combat adaptability -- think MMA featherweight fighter in a bar brawl, or something; a fighter who can't fight doesn't exist because what the gently caress Besides, it sounds like weapons will often play as much of a role in a character's source of damage dealt: J.E. Sawyer posted:Well, ogres are actually pretty intelligent, but creatures like trolls (for example) rely more on the very high base damage of their weapons than on being smarty about where they land blows. A troll doesn't gain most of its damage from its Intellect, but from its insane claws. Ogres do a lot of damage based on their huge weapons, but have a larger bonus due to their much higher Intellect (compared to a troll, anyway).
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 07:29
|
|
|
VanSandman posted:What I'm saying is, for a game that has made the fun and exciting design choice to be "gamist" rather than "simulationist" (for the record I am firmly in the 'gamist' camp) having physical and mental attributes - which will ABSOLUTELY define a character's role in combat before you explicitly pick what role they are going to play just doesn't make sense. Stats are "simulationist." Classes are gamist. I've said this before, but we're not making "a game". We're making a game in the spirit of the Infinity Engine games. And while we want remove the most obnoxious edges of that experience, the IE games were games with ability scores and classes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 07:35
|
|
|
Zore posted:You're tying intelligence together with knowledge. Nothing says that humbler farmboys have to be dumb as poo poo, and even the most intelligent people in the world might have been raised on a farm and sheltered from everything. I looked it up on the wiki and apparently there is a lore skill, and skills in general seem to be tied to classes, not atttributes. So while my previous example may no longer prove to be true, the point can still hold true: I can have a warrior that has "learned" to crush an orlan flat with a warhammer, but lacks the strength to push a boulder out of the way of a cave entrance. I agree that getting rid of dump stats is something Obsidian should try to do, but this just seems counter-intuitive and backwards. 'Strength' isn't a D&D term; everyone know what it means. But rather than be a measurmeant of my characters ability to exert physical force, it's instead measuring my characters ability to withstand physical force (Health and Fortitude), the opposite. There's an off-putting disconnect between what players expect it to provide and what it actually does in gameplay. I think the easiest solution would be to find more suitable names for the attributes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 07:42
|
|
|
Yeah, I think I agree with VanSandman. Stats as a mechanic that shapes combat should really only exist if the character starts out as a blank slate and can be molded by the player into anything, like for example how character building works in Dark Souls. In RPGs with clearly defined classes and subclasses, where almost all meaningful actions in combat revolve around spell and/or ability use and the employment of passive abilities, stats really shouldn't come into the equation at all. They really don't provide much benefit to the player while they do open up characters to a tremendous amount of variability, meaning combat is much harder to balance. Instead, character defining attributes should come from a combination of the gear a character chooses to equip and whatever spells and or abilities occupy that character's hotbar. Heavy armor should give bonuses to the health pool and melee weapon damage, ornate robes should give bonuses to mana reserves and spell damage, Spell Plate should give bonuses to health and spell damage, but not as much as "pure" class gear, etc. Let a player's combat proficiencies be dictated by gear and skill usage, and let personality attributes be determined simply by how the player chooses to conduct the character via dialog options and regular old actions as they play out naturally in the game. I've never liked the idea that in these games, fighters are always dumb and casters are always smart. Instead of the drooling brute, why can't there be the stoic, noble and cunning warrior or instead of an autistic wizard forged via academia why can't I play somebody who isn't necessarily all that smart, but just has a really honed in ability to feel and manipulate the energies around them? If you must include stats as combat ability modifiers, I think the regular RPG tropes and associations could be diluted with a simple renaming of the classic stats. Naming the magic stat "intelligence" impedes the roleplaying aspect of the game because if a fighter's "intelligence" is low then he must be a dumbass in conversation, right? Why not call it something more in line with what the intelligence stat really controls, like "Spell Mastery" or in this game's case "Soul Mastery." Now the fighter doesn't necessarily have to have low "intelligence" anymore. And likewise for would-be noodle-armed mages, why not rename "strength" to something like "weaponsmanship" or "arms" or "melee proficiency?" That way you don't have to necessarily play a wuss every time you play a mage, etc. GreatGreen fucked around with this message at 07:55 on Dec 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 07:44
|
|
|
rope kid posted:Consider the entire pool of initial Kickstarter backers and people who have become interested in this game since it was announced. Do you honestly believe that this audience would prefer not having ability scores over having some non-traditional ability scores? Nope. There haven't been many recent western fantasy single-player epic RPGs that aren't Diablo-like loot crawls, so people look back on what they remember fondly and think "I want more of this," not "I want something like this but different in scary, radical ways." rope kid posted:I've said this before, but we're not making "a game". We're making a game in the spirit of the Infinity Engine games. And while we want remove the most obnoxious edges of that experience, the IE games were games with ability scores and classes. I never particularly felt the IE games were defined at all by DnD stuff but rather how they were put together (very carefully, especially Icewind Dale), how they looked (isometric with lovely gorgeous backgrounds), and how they played (pseudo-turnbased!). But that's not what you guys think, so whatever, really. I'm just one guy. I guess I have one last point: If you're goal is to make a game where you can build a character with any stat layout, you're going to have a real problem with balancing difficulty between the people who build totally poo poo characters that suck at what their supposed to do and the spreadsheet guys. Therefore, you're going to have to EXTREMELY limit what effect stats have on a character's combat effectiveness. So why bother with stats at all? VanSandman fucked around with this message at 07:57 on Dec 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 07:48
|
|
|
GreatGreen posted:I've never liked the idea that in these games, fighters are always dumb and casters are always smart. Instead of the drooling brute, why can't there be the stoic, noble warrior or instead of an autistic wizard why can't I play somebody who isn't necessarily all that smart, but just has a really honed in ability to feel and manipulate the energies around them? Seems like this is what they're aiming to fix with the current attribute bonuses. Muscle Wizards were specifically talked about in that PCgamer interview.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 07:52
|
|
|
Zore posted:You're tying intelligence together with knowledge. Nothing says that humbler farmboys have to be dumb as poo poo, and even the most intelligent people in the world might have been raised on a farm and sheltered from everything. It's not "hanging up a lot of people" because they kept to a D&D term, it's because those D&D terms make more sense in D&D than they do in this game. Intelligence should not make you better at hitting people with an axe than Strength does, full stop. It's completely counterintuitive to all reasonable expectation based on either common sense and understanding of what those words mean in the real world or what they mean in D&D. I understand and admire the design concept at work, but using those names for those stats makes no sense and is weird. If it's being done to appeal to D&D grognards, those people will be unhappy because of how different the stats are (down to some of the D&D stats straight up not existing in the game at all). If it's being done for design purposes, don't give your vaguely paired set of mechanics (i.e. all damage and healing being tied to a "power" stat WoW style) a name like "Intelligence" that has both huge implications for the storytelling/RP side of the game and the community of people who will come into this from other games and be totally loving baffled that raising Strength does not make their character better at hitting monsters with melee weapons. It all seems like a weird half-measure that won't please any possible audience except apparently people who think nerd tears are a good reason to make design decisions, which is a fine philosophy for people who want the game to fail and ruin Obsidian I guess.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 07:52
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:A low-strength fighter in this system, then, represents someone hyper-adapted to attack at the expense of defense and in-combat adaptability -- think MMA featherweight fighter in a bar brawl, or something; a fighter who can't fight doesn't exist because what the gently caress Not to be pedantic but this is a bad example. Even a featherweight will be able to bench 50-60 lbs over their body weight. That puts most of them around 180. That's pretty average for someone even 40 or 50 pounds heavier. If you're involved heavily in a combat blood sport now adays you will not be weak. There are no weak MMA guys who fight at a high level, even in my old gym where we only had one pro the weakest guy in there was 135(after he made weight, about 150 walking around) lbs and benched 185. That's weak compared to the other people around him in the gym, but in a bar fight he would be on par or stronger than most average people. Keep in mind, he was even an amature, only doing it for a year. In summary, if you're seriously involved in MMA you're just not going to be weak. The training will not allow it. edit: VanSandman posted:I guess I have one last point: If you're goal is to make a game where you can build a character with any stat layout, you're going to have a real problem with balancing difficulty between the people who build totally poo poo characters that suck at what their supposed to do and the spreadsheet guys. Therefore, you're going to have to EXTREMELY limit what effect stats have on a character's combat effectiveness. So why bother with stats at all? From my understanding the goal isn't to make balanced classes. It's not an MMO. It's to make classes that are fun to play no matter what the layout of the stats look like and to provide pros and cons for each stat. I really like the idea personally. However, if your goal is to make a gal who is really good at hitting things in the face with a hammer nothing I have read says that all stat layouts will be equally good at hitting things in the face with a hammer. There will, most likely, be optimal builds, but my understanding is that they want all builds to be fun to play. This will probably lead to some builds being much better at hitting things in the face with a hammer, but other builds will make up for it in some entertaining way. Plus it's a party based game. The NPC's will make up for any problems the PC has. In BG you can literally make a guy with 3's in all stats and beat the game. The assassins at the beginning may trip you up, but after you get the first NPC's you're good. MegaGatts fucked around with this message at 08:10 on Dec 19, 2013 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 07:56
|
|
|
VanSandman posted:I never particularly felt the IE games were defined at all by DnD stuff but rather how they were put together (very carefully, especially Icewind Dale), how they looked (isometric with lovely gorgeous backgrounds), and how they played (pseudo-turnbased!). But that's not what you guys think, so whatever, really. I'm just one guy. People got mad about the possibility that there wouldn't be six ability scores. Like, just the number. Before they knew what they were, what they could affect, etc. Is it really important that this game have six ability scores? Taken overall, no. Is it really important, overall, that this feels like an IE game? Yes, very much so. The presence of ability scores (despite the infuriating complications they add to classes), the number of ability scores, the naming of ability scores -- those things contribute to that. There are certain things we feel like we can safely gut and not many people will care. There are no halflings, orcs, or gnomes in PoE. Not many people care. There are elves and dwarves in PoE. Some people do not like this, but a ton of people really like this. Charisma is not an attribute. Most players think it's a stinky stat anyway, so no one really cares if it falls off a cliff. I know this disappoints some people, but PoE is going to have both classes and attributes (ability scores). Exactly what they're named and exactly what they affect is still flexible. My goals for them are what I said before: every attribute can be bumped for some meaningful benefit for every class and every attribute will inflict a meaningful loss for every class if it is dumped (i.e., there are no "opt out" penalties). Meaningful = more than just the bonuses/penalties to the defenses.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 08:10
|
|
|
Zombies' Downfall posted:It's not "hanging up a lot of people" because they kept to a D&D term, it's because those D&D terms make more sense in D&D than they do in this game. Intelligence should not make you better at hitting people with an axe than Strength does, full stop. It's completely counterintuitive to all reasonable expectation based on either common sense and understanding of what those words mean in the real world or what they mean in D&D. And why is using strength as the to-hit stat any better than intelligence as +damage? Besides 'd&d tradition' or something. Also are you seriously saying that unless they change this back to conventional mechanics, Obsidian will be ruined?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 08:10
|
|
|
VanSandman posted:I guess I have one last point: If you're goal is to make a game where you can build a character with any stat layout, you're going to have a real problem with balancing difficulty between the people who build totally poo poo characters that suck at what their supposed to do and the spreadsheet guys. Therefore, you're going to have to EXTREMELY limit what effect stats have on a character's combat effectiveness. So why bother with stats at all?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 08:18
|
|
|
Zombies' Downfall posted:It all seems like a weird half-measure that won't please any possible audience except apparently people who think nerd tears are a good reason to make design decisions, which is a fine philosophy for people who want the game to fail and ruin Obsidian I guess.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 08:21
|
|
|
MegaGatts posted:There are no weak MMA guys who fight at a high level, even in my old gym where ... Skill stomps the poo poo out of muscle with swords and arrows. (And maces, and axes ...) Theres "fit enough" and then skill skill skill and then a little specialty fitness that helps differentiate between the well matched. Zombies' Downfall posted:apparently people who think nerd tears are a good reason to make design decisions, which is a fine philosophy for people who want the game to fail and ruin Obsidian I guess.  Look at the nerd tears. Geez.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 08:26
|
|
|
rope kid posted:What I'm saying isn't based on some sort of objective personal observation of these games in a vacuum, but on interactions I've had with BG, BG2, IWD, IWD2, PST, NWN, and NWN2 players almost continuously since 1999. If we were making "a" party-based fantasy game, it would be questionable that we'd even have classes, or if we did have classes, that we'd have abilities. Or limited personal inventories. Or a lot of things. Not doing those things certainly makes a lot of rational sense, but IMO it's a mistake to think of game experiences as being fundamentally about rational thought processes. The reasons people love IE games and want to see IE-gamish-things is because of good feelings and memories they associate with them. There is a certain amount we can deviate in all things and still have people say, "Yes, this has the things I love from those games." -- even if by some more objective measure it is a mechanically superior game. Honestly, I read this and think: But you're OBSIDIAN. People gave you money out of trust that you can make a drat fine RPG. Do they really not trust you to innovate mechanically while capturing that same emotional impact and fun factor of the old DnD stuff? Some of the most fun in RPG's I've had lately have been from Spiderweb Software. They scratch that old-school itch for me, and they do it while constrained by an outdated, ugly graphic engine, because they are extremely tightly designed. They feel a lot like IE games, even though they're completely turn-based. And their mechanics don't look a drat thing like DnD and are better for it. I get what you're saying and I understand it's way too late in the design process to do much, but I really hope you all can innovate with the next game, mechanically. I'd love to see a story with as wide a scope yet as personal as Planescape: Torment with mechanics that actually lend themselves to that sort of game. You have Avellone, for crying out loud! I trust that guy 100% when it comes to making a game I'll love. VanSandman fucked around with this message at 08:29 on Dec 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 08:27
|
|
|
Krowley posted:And why is using strength as the to-hit stat any better than intelligence as +damage? Besides 'd&d tradition' or something. "Better at hitting guys" here meant "better at killing people with an axe", not "better at successfully landing a blow"; you're totally the one being a pedant here. If you don't actually understand why raising your strength should make you inflict more harm when you hit something, I have no clue what to tell you and you are insanely divorced from reality. And no. But I'm saying the mentality of "haha I hope they leave these terms weird because it makes nerds cry" is a really stupid and terrible reason to make design choices in a game that might determine the future success of your company. And it's the only compelling argument I've seen against the idea that the terms being used for stats and the character attributes they link to aren't strange and confusing. rope kid posted:The people on the OEI forums have responded more positively than the people in this thread, actually. The large majority of people who have commented have said they like the general idea and goals but debate some of the specifics. Good to hear it, I want the game to be excellent and successful and I believe you guys can do it! To reiterate, I actually like the design concept behind these stats and breaking down the AD&D thing where being a good melee fighter also means you HAVE to be Herculean, I just think the terminology being used to describe them is bizarre to the extent that it could prove detrimental to the game by being confusing and by potentially creating weird problems with the game's RP side and dialogue choices. If you guys are truly unwilling to do away with broader ability scores rather than having those stats be direct - i.e. power, health, and accuracy or whatever - then I'm not sure what the solution to my perceived problem is other than renaming the stats. And in the end, that too could prove confusing, because when you end up with six or seven ability scores with names like "Focus" and "Skill" people just end up being lost as to the hypothetical effect (whereas in the current system the hypothetical effect doesn't line up neatly with the results). FRINGE posted:Look at the nerd tears. Geez. Adurr hurr
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 08:35
|
|
|
VanSandman posted:Honestly, I read this and think: But you're OBSIDIAN. People gave you money out of trust that you can make a drat fine RPG. Do they really not trust you to innovate mechanically while capturing that same emotional impact and fun factor of the old DnD stuff? quote:Some of the most fun in RPG's I've had lately have been from Spiderweb Software. They scratch that old-school itch for me, and they do it while constrained by an outdated, ugly graphic engine, because they are extremely tightly designed. They feel a lot like IE games, even though they're completely turn-based. And their mechanics don't look a drat thing like DnD and are better for it. I have had the pleasure to work on a project where I just got to do whatever I wanted and that was pretty cool. I don't know how many people would have played that weird-rear end game, but the publisher wasn't really concerned, so I went wild. Very few projects are like that. This project is not like that and I feel like we have never pitched it as though it were. rope kid fucked around with this message at 08:50 on Dec 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 08:44
|
|
FRINGE posted:In the extreme thats because its a combat endurance sport in a way that armed combat is not necessarily. I'm a little dense I and I don't get what you're getting at. Knight were exceptionally well trained physically, the accounts of their physical prowess describe some very impressive feats of strength and endurance. As for bowmen, the English long bow is almost legendary in how difficult to draw it was. What I was saying isn't that strength beats skill. It's the total opposite. A 110lb woman who knows how to throw a punch can hit harder than a 160lb man. But if they both know how the stronger one will hit harder. It's that during the process of building that skill you're going to get strong. If you throw two thousand punches a day you arms, chest, legs, and core will get strong. There's just no getting around it. Even if you're naturally weak, if you eat right and do the things that make you skilled you will not be weak anymore. I assume the same holds true for fighting wish a sword or axe. That's why low strength fighters make me scratch my head. If they trained well enough to be a competent fighter then they won't be weak. They may not be circus strong men, but they'll be stronger than average. The only archetype that I can imagine that could fit that build would be a fighter past his heyday that spent the last few years drinking and eating and laying about. They let their body go, but they still have the knowledge of how to fight. They'd be dangerous, but they'd be more dangerous if they were in their physical prime.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 08:46
|
|
|
VanSandman posted:Honestly, I read this and think: But you're OBSIDIAN. People gave you money out of trust that you can make a drat fine RPG. Do they really not trust you to innovate mechanically while capturing that same emotional impact and fun factor of the old DnD stuff? Have you not followed the Torment:ToN turn-based vs RTwP drama? A highly vocal minority is so lacking in imagination that they can't fathom how a combat mechanic which differs from what they expected could possibly produce a good game. Sticking as closely as is reasonably possible to what PoE backers expect seems like a wise choice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 08:55
|
|
|
rope kid posted:That's genuinely cool, but we didn't Kickstart a game called gently caress You: Suck My Dick: Josh Sawyer's Personal Dream RPG Experience I'm in for at least $100 if you ever do Kickstart that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 08:59
|
|
|
Zombies' Downfall posted:"Better at hitting guys" here meant "better at killing people with an axe", not "better at successfully landing a blow"; you're totally the one being a pedant here. If you don't actually understand why raising your strength should make you inflict more harm when you hit something, I have no clue what to tell you and you are insanely divorced from reality. Basically what FRINGE said FRINGE posted:Skill stomps the poo poo out of muscle with swords and arrows. (And maces, and axes ...) Theres "fit enough" and then skill skill skill and then a little specialty fitness that helps differentiate between the well matched. Also don't be that guy who gets super involved and pissed off at strangers on a video games forum. Seriously.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 08:59
|
|
|
Y'know, I think I'm just weirded out by there being separate stats for health and stamina. I guess it shouldn't be that surprising given the stamina/health division of HP, but while I like the general function of HP and stamina as separate strategic and tactical pools, I'm not so sure about two separate stats governing "soak up damage". But, hey, maybe it pans out better in reality than in my imagination.rope kid posted:That's genuinely cool, but we didn't Kickstart a game called gently caress You: Suck My Dick: Josh Sawyer's Personal Dream RPG Experience where I do whatever I personally think is sound and neat and good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 09:13
|
|
|
rope kid posted:I have had the pleasure to work on a project where I just got to do whatever I wanted and that was pretty cool. I don't know how many people would have played that weird-rear end game, but the publisher wasn't really concerned, so I went wild. Very few projects are like that. This project is not like that and I feel like we have never pitched it as though it were. Was that Seven Dwarfs or Aliens?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 09:36
|
|
|
edit; my dumb
No Mods No Masters fucked around with this message at 09:43 on Dec 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 09:40
|
|
|
VanSandman posted:Honestly, I read this and think: But you're OBSIDIAN. People gave you money out of trust that you can make a drat fine RPG. Do they really not trust you to innovate mechanically while capturing that same emotional impact and fun factor of the old DnD stuff? Kickstarters in general seemed to bring these people out of the woodwork. Since they 'invested' in their game and believe that any deviation from what they pictured in their head is a personal offence they're going to watch every update like a hawk in order to get mad over something. Obsidian so far has seemed to do a really really good job of keeping things in balance with ignoring the crazier fringe while still keeping the core people onboard but getting too abstract and they'll lose the very people that are passionate about a certain type of game and paid money to see that developed without being completely nuts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 09:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 20:46 |
|
|
MegaGatts posted:I'm a little dense I and I don't get what you're getting at. Knight were exceptionally well trained physically, the accounts of their physical prowess describe some very impressive feats of strength and endurance. As for bowmen, the English long bow is almost legendary in how difficult to draw it was. The English bow was kind of an anomaly (AFAIK) that was a specific response to a specific problem. Before that much lighter bows were far more used, and more 'dangerous'. (Its the machine gun vs the howitzer.) Like : (archery) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zGnxeSbb3g Other interesting stuff (I cant do any of these things!) : (archery) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjSjn-6rcdg Of course these guys are strong, but theyre not Magnus Magnusson or some MMA brawler : (sword - west) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMAvSiXWrkc (sword - east) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXsMSoXrNgo Back to that sword-intelligence thing! : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1S_Q3CGqZmg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOamzdO-th0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aijGSXbA2nw (Yeah, yeah, I love watching this stuff.  )
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 09:45
|
|