Obsidian's Pillars of Eternity [BETA RELEASED, GO TO THE NEW THREAD]

[evdk]

GURPS or bust.

 

[mediocrepoet]

I like this update. It reminds me that there might be some cool stuff coming down the pipe from this project rather than respecing and romances. I'm not sure that I like him suggesting laying out the armours in tiers like WoW and Dragon Age and such though. Hopefully that's more just him trying to organize his thoughts for now than anything.

 

[deuxhero]

People tended not to wear heavy armor in 3.5 because armor class was worthless past level 6 (To hit bonuses increase at level up and are easy to get more increases beyond that. Upgrading your AC costs lots of money past an initial suit of armor and a shield, plus a lot of monsters pack abilities dependent upon saving throws or touch AC armor doesn't help with) or so and armor existed purely to stick enchantments on.

As for unique armor systems... All I can think of are the two Baten Katios games, each of which had different (but both unique) methods of handling armor, but neither I think really would work that well for PE.

edit: Actually, Strange Journey had a good system for armor: Each armor gave the main character different elemental weaknesses and resistances (and that was VERY important, as a single super effective attack could kill you), and rarely if ever would you upgrade purely for a higher defense status. I think Shin Megami Tensei 4 will do something similar, but because it will use the turn-press system, it will be even MORE important.

 

[Gurkog]

Skill check toggles will always be optional - even in expert mode. The hardcore and skill toggle will be separate from difficulty. This is a non-issue. You can unwad your panties now.

EDIT: I am about 4 pages behind in reading the thread....

 

[deuxhero]

Skill check toggles?

 

[Gurkog]

Skill check toggles?

Toggling the display of skill checks on dialog responses.

 

[sser]

Personally, I liked the armor set up found in the Game of Thrones: RPG. Armor was basically leather, mail or plate, and they each had advantages over the other beyond just base stats. Heavy clubbing weapons were effective against heavy armor; perforating had a bonus vs. medium; and cutting weapons were superior vs. light. Other bonuses were thrown in after. It's just different. And I kinda wish games would incorporate the stamina needed for armor. For example, a guy in plate armor would deflect or take glancing blows for much of the fight early on, but as he tires out he starts getting hit left and right.

 

[Zero Credibility]

GURPS or bust.

Fuckin' A.

Armor should be balanced primarily by its weight - unless you are strong enough the encumbrance is going to slow you down, reducing your movement speed and active defences. Also, has there been any mention of how armor will actually work? Because it should definitely reduce damage taken (and if the attack wasn't strong enough completely negate it), and not make you harder to hit like it is in D&D.

 

[Kraszu]

GURPS or bust.

Fuckin' A.

Armor should be balanced primarily by its weight - unless you are strong enough the encumbrance is going to slow you down, reducing your movement speed and active defences. Also, has there been any mention of how armor will actually work? Because it should definitely reduce damage taken (and if the attack wasn't strong enough completely negate it), and not make you harder to hit like it is in D&D.

Actually Armour did make active defense easier since you only had to protect yourself from hard blows, and you could use it for weapon to slide on your Armour, it made most of the attacks useless, and it didn't impede movement as much as you would think, Armour could weight about 40kg, but that was evenly distributed in your body so any average male can use it without problems, the bad thing about Armour is that you will heat more, but you will actually get tired less then your opponent without one since you don't need to put nearly as much power behind your blows, you can use lighter attacks. Incorrect attacks with 0 chance to deal damage could as well be called misses.

 

[SwiftCrack]

I love how these mega-nerds at obsidian actually question things like historic validity

 

[Zero Credibility]

Actually Armour did make active defense easier since you only had to protect yourself from hard blows, and you could use it for weapon to slide on your Armour, it made most of the attacks useless, and it didn't impede movement as much as you would think, Armour could weight about 40kg, but that was evenly distributed in your body so any average male can use it without problems, the bad thing about Armour is that you will heat more, but you will actually get tired less then your opponent without one since you don't need to put nearly as much power behind your blows, you can use lighter attacks. Incorrect attacks with 0 chance to deal damage could as well be called misses.

I'm going with the way GURPS models this problem. Proper armor didn't impede movement much, but its weight is still a problem if you don't have the strength to carry it and your weapon (a minimum a fighter will need in combat). Encumbrance slows you down and reduces you chance to dodge incoming attacks (but not to parry or deflect with a shield). Dodging depends on raw speed - and carrying 20, 30 or more kg of weight is going to slow down almost everyone.

As for armor making active defences easier - I disagree. It just makes it less dangerous to fail at one, it doesn't make it any less easier to dodge/parry or block attacks. The "weapon just slides off your armor" situation is imo modelled simpler and more realistic by just having armor negate all damage, and not calling it a miss. It was not a miss - the blow just wasn't strong enough to penetrate armor, and it is important that that information is passed to the player and not just abstracted away. That way the player knows that the problem is not the accuracy of the attack, but the damage reduction of the target's armor, and can do something about it - switch to "power attack" mode that reduces accuracy but increase damage, or use a different weapon, or something else.

 

[Commissar Draco]

People do try to dodge the blows so even light or absolute armor like mail helps against glancing hits. Once the plate is developed nobody would use mail alone as it is not protecting against both long bows and lances. So if this is XV-XVI century setting people would fight either in full plate armor with added front protection against firearms:

Half plates (breast plates and helmets):

or composite bakhtertsom with cloth gambeton, mail and scales in countries lacking proper furnaces to produce large steel pegs:

Something like this XVI century Russian warrior or plain clothes like some of the Pikemen and landskneht did. Full plate is superior to any earlier medium armor so there is no reason to use one except for the price and fact that full armor was custom made and fitted to individual unlike mail.

 

[Kraszu]

Actually Armour did make active defense easier since you only had to protect yourself from hard blows, and you could use it for weapon to slide on your Armour, it made most of the attacks useless, and it didn't impede movement as much as you would think, Armour could weight about 40kg, but that was evenly distributed in your body so any average male can use it without problems, the bad thing about Armour is that you will heat more, but you will actually get tired less then your opponent without one since you don't need to put nearly as much power behind your blows, you can use lighter attacks. Incorrect attacks with 0 chance to deal damage could as well be called misses.

I'm going with the way GURPS models this problem. Proper armor didn't impede movement much, but its weight is still a problem if you don't have the strength to carry it and your weapon (a minimum a fighter will need in combat). Encumbrance slows you down and reduces you chance to dodge incoming attacks (but not to parry or deflect with a shield). Dodging depends on raw speed - and carrying 20, 30 or more kg of weight is going to slow down almost everyone.

As for armor making active defences easier - I disagree. It just makes it less dangerous to fail at one, it doesn't make it any less easier to dodge/parry or block attacks. The "weapon just slides off your armor" situation is imo modelled simpler and more realistic by just having armor negate all damage, and not calling it a miss. It was not a miss - the blow just wasn't strong enough to penetrate armor, and it is important that that information is passed to the player and not just abstracted away. That way the player knows that the problem is not the accuracy of the attack, but the damage reduction of the target's armor, and can do something about it - switch to "power attack" mode that reduces accuracy but increase damage, or use a different weapon, or something else.

If it gives useful information for the player then it should be given sure, and power attack should be harder to aim so that makes the active defense easier. The thing is that if somebody would attack you incorrectly you wouldn't even had to dodge his attack you could let him attack you, and have his defense compromised by that.

 

[Zero Credibility]

If it gives useful information for the player then it should be given sure, and power attack should be harder to aim so that makes the active defense easier. The thing is that if somebody would attack you incorrectly you wouldn't even had to dodge his attack you could let him attack you, and have his defense compromised by that.

Again I must state my preference for the way combat is resolved in GURPS. For those unfamiliar with the system, there are 3 different rolls made for each attack:

1) Attacker rolls against his weapon skill. If the roll is failed the attack completely misses. If it succeeds, it would strike the target if the target isn't actively defending. If the target is not defending (surprise attack or defender is immobile / helpless) or the attack roll was critical success, active defence is ignored.

2) Defender rolls his (usually best) active defence if the attack succeeded (and he actually gets a defence). It the defence succeeds, he has dodged/parried/blocked the attack. If not, we move to damage rolling.

3) Attacker rolls the damage - the roll depends on the weapon and strength (in case of melee weapons). Then armor damage reduction is subtracted from the damage rolled - if it goes to 0 or negative no damage is taken. Otherwise damage remaining is taken (after modifying it for the attack type) off the defender hit points.

There's a lot more to it, but that's the basics. It is a neat and relatively realistic (if a bit complicated, although that is not a big issue in a computer game) system that separates attacker skill from defender skill from defenders armor protection. These are completely separate things and lumping them all together like D&D does just obfuscates things for the player. If my attack missed, was that because the target has dodged it or because it deflected off his armor? Unless the GM tells you that (because only he knows the dexterity and armor bonus of the target), there is no way for the player to know that. And this information can be important - if the target has high armor but not much dexterity, the player might decide to grapple with him or use a touch attack or some other attack which ignores target armor. If the target has high dexterity and low armor the same is likely to fail. This system is not just unrealistic - it also hides things from the player that he should know.

tl;dr
I really like GURPS.

 

[Kraszu]

If it gives useful information for the player then it should be given sure, and power attack should be harder to aim so that makes the active defense easier. The thing is that if somebody would attack you incorrectly you wouldn't even had to dodge his attack you could let him attack you, and have his defense compromised by that.

Again I must state my preference for the way combat is resolved in GURPS. For those unfamiliar with the system, there are 3 different rolls made for each attack:

1) Attacker rolls against his weapon skill. If the roll is failed the attack completely misses. If it succeeds, it would strike the target if the target isn't actively defending. If the target is not defending (surprise attack or defender is immobile / helpless) or the attack roll was critical success, active defence is ignored.

2) Defender rolls his (usually best) active defence if the attack succeeded (and he actually gets a defence). It the defence succeeds, he has dodged/parried/blocked the attack. If not, we move to damage rolling.

3) Attacker rolls the damage - the roll depends on the weapon and strength (in case of melee weapons). Then armor damage reduction is subtracted from the damage rolled - if it goes to 0 or negative no damage is taken. Otherwise damage remaining is taken (after modifying it for the attack type) off the defender hit points.

There's a lot more to it, but that's the basics. It is a neat and relatively realistic (if a bit complicated, although that is not a big issue in a computer game) system that separates attacker skill from defender skill from defenders armor protection. These are completely separate things and lumping them all together like D&D does just obfuscates things for the player. If my attack missed, was that because the target has dodged it or because it deflected off his armor? Unless the GM tells you that (because only he knows the dexterity and armor bonus of the target), there is no way for the player to know that. And this information can be important - if the target has high armor but not much dexterity, the player might decide to grapple with him or use a touch attack or some other attack which ignores target armor. If the target has high dexterity and low armor the same is likely to fail. This system is not just unrealistic - it also hides things from the player that he should know.

tl;dr
I really like GURPS.

This the problem that I have with the system lets take for example this against somebody without Armour, and with Armour:
Somebody without Armour:

1) Attacker rolls against his weapon skill. If the roll is failed the attack completely misses. If it succeeds, it would strike the target if the target isn't actively defending. If the target is not defending (surprise attack or defender is immobile / helpless) or the attack roll was critical success, active defence is ignored.

Attacker found an opening to stab his opponent in the chest.

2) Defender rolls his (usually best) active defence if the attack succeeded (and he actually gets a defence). It the defence succeeds, he has dodged/parried/blocked the attack. If not, we move to damage rolling.

The target had failed to dodge.

3) Attacker rolls the damage - the roll depends on the weapon and strength (in case of melee weapons). Then armor damage reduction is subtracted from the damage rolled - if it goes to 0 or negative no damage is taken. Otherwise damage remaining is taken (after modifying it for the attack type) off the defender hit points.

Attacker rolls critical dmg so what happens now? Somehow the fighter in Armour got killed by being stabbed in the chest despite that his Armour making it impossible? You must take into account that you have less options to damage somebody in Armour, a stabbing attack to somebody without one can be the most damaging, but if somebody has Armour then he will be unharmed, your effective strikes are limited by what protection your opponent has so it is harder to even get an attack that could potentially harm your enemy so that should be consider before step 3. The less you have to watch for, the easier it is for you to defend.

You have an example of that in this video:

 

[Zero Credibility]

I have to say I don't quite get what you are saying here, so maybe I will get this wrong. In GURPS, if the attack roll was critical success the defender doesn't get an active defence roll. But his armor still protects him - the armor damage reduction still applies, even though the defender didn't get the chance to dodge/parry/block the attack. So that critical strike against an armored fighter still might not do anything. Now, the attacker can target an unarmoured part of the defender's body - but he would need to declare that before attacking and would take a suitable penalty to his roll for that. Attacker can also choose to go on an all-out-attack, forgoing his future defence rolls for greater damage, higher accuracy or an extra attack - but then his only defence when he get's attacked is his armor (this is something a heavily armored fighter might do if he feels his opponent can't get through his armor).

 

[Kraszu]

I have to say I don't quite get what you are saying here, so maybe I will get this wrong. In GURPS, if the attack roll was critical success the defender doesn't get an active defence roll. But his armor still protects him - the armor damage reduction still applies, even though the defender didn't get the chance to dodge/parry/block the attack. So that critical strike against an armored fighter still might not do anything. Now, the attacker can target an unarmoured part of the defender's body - but he would need to declare that before attacking and would take a suitable penalty to his roll for that. Attacker can also choose to go on an all-out-attack, forgoing his future defence rolls for greater damage, higher accuracy or an extra attack - but then his only defence when he get's attacked is his armor (this is something a heavily armored fighter might do if he feels his opponent can't get through his armor).

It is good that you can declare to attack in the way that can harm somebody in the Armour, but it is silly that you can harm him at all when you use inadequate technique for that purpose.

So stabbing somebody without Armour might cause 10 dmg, and hitting him with a sword handle in the head might cause 5 dmg.

And the same attacks against somebody with the Armour stabbing does nothing, and hitting him with a sword handle sends shock wave that deals say 2 dmg.

You have to take into account that various techniques that work against unarmored opponent do nothing to somebody in Armour, not because they don't deal enough dmg, but because the Armour is specifically designed to protect from them, so your options to attacks are limited, so it is easier for your opponent in Armour to protect himself because he needs to only watch out for the few things that can harm him. This is why striker can get hit in MMA match by somebody who is better at grappling but much worse at striking, he has to pay attention to not be taken down as well.

 

[Shadenuat]

So if I were to implement a romance subplot in Eternity - I wouldn’t. I’d examine interpersonal relationships from another angle and I wouldn’t confine it to love and romance. Maybe I’d explore it after a “loving” relationship crashed and burned, and one or both was killed in the aftermath enough for them to see if it had really been worth it spending the last few years of their physical existence chained to each other in a dance of human misery and/or a plateau of soul-killing compromise. Or maybe I’d explore a veteran’s love affair with his craft of murder and allowing souls to be freed to travel beyond their bleeding shell, or a Cipher’s obsession with plucking the emotions of deep-rooted souls to try and see what makes people attracted to each other beyond their baser instincts and discovers love... specifically, his love of manipulating others. You could build an entire dungeon and quest where he devotes himself to replicating facsimiles of love, reducer a Higher Love to a baser thing and using NPCs he encounters as puppets for his experimentations, turning something supposedly beautiful into something filthy, mechanical, but surrounded by blank-eyed soul-twisted drones echoing all the hollow Disney-like platitudes and fairy tale existence where everyone lives happily ever after.

 

[Zero Credibility]

It is good that you can declare to attack in the way that can harm somebody in the Armour, but it is silly that you can harm him at all when you use inadequate technique for that purpose.

So stabbing somebody without Armour might cause 10 dmg, and hitting him with a sword handle in the head might cause 5 dmg.

And the same attacks against somebody with the Armour stabbing does nothing, and hitting him with a sword handle sends shock wave that deals say 2 dmg.

You have to take into account that various techniques that work against unarmored opponent do nothing to somebody in Armour, not because they don't deal enough dmg, but because the Armour is specifically designed to protect from them, so your options to attacks are limited, so it is easier for your opponent in Armour to protect himself because he needs to only watch out for the few things that can harm him. This is why striker can get hit in MMA match by somebody who is better at grappling but much worse at striking, he has to pay attention to not be taken down as well.

So stabbing somebody without armor causes 10 dmg, hitting him with a sword handle in the head 5 - ok. The same attacks against an armored opponent cause no damage for stabbing or 2 dmg for hitting him on the head - sure, if he is wearing some kind of light helmet that sounds reasonable. I'm afraid I don't really see a problem here. Can you give me another example of what you think would be an inadequate technique that shouldn't work against an armored opponent, even though it deals a lot of damage? I'm pretty sure that whatever it is there is a rule in GURPS for that - it's just that kind of system.

 

[Statik]

a Cipher’s obsession with plucking the emotions of deep-rooted souls to try and see what makes people attracted to each other beyond their baser instincts and discovers love... specifically, his love of manipulating others. You could build an entire dungeon and quest where he devotes himself to replicating facsimiles of love, reducer a Higher Love to a baser thing and using NPCs he encounters as puppets for his experimentations, turning something supposedly beautiful into something filthy, mechanical, but surrounded by blank-eyed soul-twisted drones echoing all the hollow Disney-like platitudes and fairy tale existence where everyone lives happily ever after.

That... that sounds absolutely beautiful.

x ∞

 

[hoverdog]

So if I were to implement a romance subplot in Eternity - I wouldn’t. I’d examine interpersonal relationships from another angle and I wouldn’t confine it to love and romance. Maybe I’d explore it after a “loving” relationship crashed and burned, and one or both was killed in the aftermath enough for them to see if it had really been worth it spending the last few years of their physical existence chained to each other in a dance of human misery and/or a plateau of soul-killing compromise. Or maybe I’d explore a veteran’s love affair with his craft of murder and allowing souls to be freed to travel beyond their bleeding shell, or a Cipher’s obsession with plucking the emotions of deep-rooted souls to try and see what makes people attracted to each other beyond their baser instincts and discovers love... specifically, his love of manipulating others. You could build an entire dungeon and quest where he devotes himself to replicating facsimiles of love, reducer a Higher Love to a baser thing and using NPCs he encounters as puppets for his experimentations, turning something supposedly beautiful into something filthy, mechanical, but surrounded by blank-eyed soul-twisted drones echoing all the hollow Disney-like platitudes and fairy tale existence where everyone lives happily ever after.

 

[Jarpie]

So if I were to implement a romance subplot in Eternity - I wouldn’t. I’d examine interpersonal relationships from another angle and I wouldn’t confine it to love and romance. Maybe I’d explore it after a “loving” relationship crashed and burned, and one or both was killed in the aftermath enough for them to see if it had really been worth it spending the last few years of their physical existence chained to each other in a dance of human misery and/or a plateau of soul-killing compromise. Or maybe I’d explore a veteran’s love affair with his craft of murder and allowing souls to be freed to travel beyond their bleeding shell, or a Cipher’s obsession with plucking the emotions of deep-rooted souls to try and see what makes people attracted to each other beyond their baser instincts and discovers love... specifically, his love of manipulating others. You could build an entire dungeon and quest where he devotes himself to replicating facsimiles of love, reducer a Higher Love to a baser thing and using NPCs he encounters as puppets for his experimentations, turning something supposedly beautiful into something filthy, mechanical, but surrounded by blank-eyed soul-twisted drones echoing all the hollow Disney-like platitudes and fairy tale existence where everyone lives happily ever after.

Where's that from?

 

[I_am_Ian]

And more importantly let's rub it in the face of conventional romance-tards.

 

[Shadenuat]

http://www.gameranx.com/features/id...view-with-chris-avellone-on-project-eternity/

Weapons which made Britain

Wanted to say it's videos like these which just give me instant boner. When in part 4 he fully clads himself in armour and shows how amazingly fluid and cool that gothic plate gauntlet works, I can only say

GROOVY.

That is exactly the feel I have when realistical looking and working armor is there in a movie or a game.

 

[maverick]

Also, the only reason the romance bits in Mask of the Betrayer worked was because George Ziets helped me with them since he was able to describe what love is to me and explain how it works (I almost asked for a PowerPoint presentation). It seems like a messy, complicated process, not unlike a waterbirth. Don’t even get me started on the kissing aspects, which is revolting because people EAT with their mouths. Bleh.

ROFL!