Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Re: Weapons and combat [Re: Ellderon] #663623
13/03/20 11:08 AM
13/03/20 11:08 AM
Joined: Mar 2020
Posts: 31
CyberianK Offline
apprentice
CyberianK  Offline
apprentice

Joined: Mar 2020
Posts: 31
If you watch History and medieval warfare focused YouTube channels (Like Scholagladiatoria, Tods Workshop and all connected ones) or have a general interest in military history which I guess many of the BG3 target audience might then you know that any realism is basically impossible with a system like DnD or 99% of all other RPG and action games.

Even games like Kingdom Come: Deliverance or Mordhau which are more authentic than most and really good in their novel approach and also a totally different game genre don't even come close.

Historically DnD and RPGs in general have been responsible for the worst systems from a realism perspective like Armor Class and Hit Points or DnD weapon stats. The focus has clearly been epic adventuring and the hero fighter being able to slay hordes of orcs over any realism. Also coming originally from a tabletop miniature game the math has always been very simple and fast.

As Sordak said if you allow too many things that are possible in RL then they will be quickly OP compared to vanilla actions. 5e tries to keep the mechanics simple. Like in 3e/3.5 there was all kinds of things like more resistances (bludg/slash/pierce), more stuff possible with Attacks of Opportunity or things like mounted lance charge and a multitude of feats which also lead to the most OP powergaming exploit options in any edition.
5e made everything pretty simple and stopped the influx of additional unbalanced options.

Last edited by CyberianK; 13/03/20 11:11 AM.
Re: Weapons and combat [Re: Ellderon] #663685
13/03/20 04:06 PM
13/03/20 04:06 PM
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,239
S
Sordak Offline
veteran
Sordak  Offline
veteran
S

Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,239
id like to point out that im not advocating for 5e.
Im advocating for 3.5 Tome of battle or better 4e.

im just explaining why 5e works the way it does.

Re: Weapons and combat [Re: CyberianK] #664207
17/03/20 08:25 AM
17/03/20 08:25 AM
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 76
Ellderon Offline OP
journeyman
Ellderon  Offline OP
journeyman

Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 76
Originally Posted by CyberianK
If you watch History and medieval warfare focused YouTube channels (Like Scholagladiatoria, Tods Workshop and all connected ones) or have a general interest in military history which I guess many of the BG3 target audience might then you know that any realism is basically impossible with a system like DnD or 99% of all other RPG and action games.
Even games like Kingdom Come: Deliverance or Mordhau which are more authentic than most and really good in their novel approach and also a totally different game genre don't even come close.


I do watch those channels and you are right - there is no way a computer game is ever going to capture the complexity and nuance of something that requires full-body engagement and reactions.
But it doesn't have to. The goal isn't accurate 1:1 simulation, it is just a BETTER simulation than what you usually get.


Quote

Historically DnD and RPGs in general have been responsible for the worst systems from a realism perspective like Armor Class and Hit Points or DnD weapon stats. The focus has clearly been epic adventuring and the hero fighter being able to slay hordes of orcs over any realism. Also coming originally from a tabletop miniature game the math has always been very simple and fast.


I don't mind hit point, I mind hit point inflation. If you were to get 10HP per constitution point and if it didn't change (or maybe change minimally... like 1 HP per level), I'd be fine with it.

Armor Class though, I don't like. I understand why it was made as it was (to make calculations fast and to make all armors valid), but I don't like it. For one, the idea of all armors being essentially equal disgusts me. For another, the system makes light and heavy armor function virtually the same.
I do admit, aside from giving light armor using classes doge/agiltiy buffs, I struggle to find a good way to implement proper armor. The class-based system (and it's bajillion redundant and stupid sub/prestige-classes) and it's limitations sometimes irk me to no end.


Quote

As Sordak said if you allow too many things that are possible in RL then they will be quickly OP compared to vanilla actions. 5e tries to keep the mechanics simple. Like in 3e/3.5 there was all kinds of things like more resistances (bludg/slash/pierce), more stuff possible with Attacks of Opportunity or things like mounted lance charge and a multitude of feats which also lead to the most OP powergaming exploit options in any edition.
5e made everything pretty simple and stopped the influx of additional unbalanced options.


This is why I'm not a big fan of special moves, especially common ones like "shield bash", "pommel strike". All of those should be automatic. PArt of hte standard attack/moveset.

Last edited by Ellderon; 17/03/20 08:27 AM.
Re: Weapons and combat [Re: Ellderon] #664217
17/03/20 11:01 AM
17/03/20 11:01 AM
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,239
S
Sordak Offline
veteran
Sordak  Offline
veteran
S

Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,239
why.
Why would you want combat OPTIONS beeing subsumed into only having ONE option which is to attack?

Re: Weapons and combat [Re: Sordak] #664224
17/03/20 11:56 AM
17/03/20 11:56 AM
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 76
Ellderon Offline OP
journeyman
Ellderon  Offline OP
journeyman

Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 76
Originally Posted by Sordak
why.
Why would you want combat OPTIONS beeing subsumed into only having ONE option which is to attack?


I'm not against options. I'm against pointless/nonsensical options.
Things that are often sold as "special manouvers" aren't special, they are as standard and common as a horizontal cut, and that your MC needs a special skill to use it is just insulting. It's like the MC is mentally impaired.

Then again, since BG3 is turn-based, you can get away with having a lot more options/things, but if they are no-brainers, they might as well be automatic.
Managing positioning and overall strategy is enough, no need to micro-manage every swing.

Also, the AI picking up options prevents cheesing. If you had options to stab, slash or pommel strike you enemy, you would always pick the most effective of the 3. But if your PC does it automatically based on his skill level...

Last edited by Ellderon; 18/03/20 10:29 AM.
Re: Weapons and combat [Re: Ellderon] #664228
17/03/20 12:42 PM
17/03/20 12:42 PM
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,239
S
Sordak Offline
veteran
Sordak  Offline
veteran
S

Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,239
well no.
not realy. If several options are compaeable then youll have more options in any given situation.
See Battlemaster Maneuvers

Re: Weapons and combat [Re: Ellderon] #664248
17/03/20 03:45 PM
17/03/20 03:45 PM
Joined: Jan 2020
Posts: 278
Eton, Berkshire, EU
etonbears Offline
enthusiast
etonbears  Offline
enthusiast

Joined: Jan 2020
Posts: 278
Eton, Berkshire, EU
Part of the appeal of D&D to me is that different characters have different capabilities. The soldier's speciality is physical control of the battlefield through denial of access or wresting control of a location. There isn't really much variation in how they achieve that beyond selecting the right equipment for the task at hand, and knowing how to use it. It's not obvious that there is any real benefit to overcomplicate the process of hitting things any more than there is to casting spells, which is also very simple in D&D.

I can see value in being able to perform some other actions like disarm or knock-down, but only if they are the sort of activities that are beneficial in selected circumstances rather than all - just as with different spells being useful in different circumstances. The downside of looking to keep adding different combat features is getting into a sort of arms race between adherents of the different character classes wanting more and more "interesting" things to do. The 5e rules are supposed to be simple and quick to operate, so it seems preferable to not over-elaborate combat with unnecessary detail. I think I would prefer development resources going towards fleshing out other role-playing aspects of the game that are class-agnostic.

Re: Weapons and combat [Re: Ellderon] #664260
17/03/20 04:24 PM
17/03/20 04:24 PM
Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 295
Nobody_Special Offline
enthusiast
Nobody_Special  Offline
enthusiast

Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 295
Right, who doesn't love that weapon called the "Hob Nob of Smashing". +1 iron goblin head on a stick. (mace) Does 1d4 extra bludgeoning to goblinoids.

Re: Weapons and combat [Re: Ellderon] #664267
17/03/20 04:37 PM
17/03/20 04:37 PM
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,239
S
Sordak Offline
veteran
Sordak  Offline
veteran
S

Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,239
yeah only simple and quick only applies to some classes.
ive said it before in this thread, even with Tome of battle, the utiltiy of fighters werent even near that of casters.

Anyone CAN play a Champion fighter if they want.
but give me damn combat options.

Abstracting melee ocmbat even MORE to the point where your only option is "Basic attack "nad anyhting beyond that beeing highly situational is boring.

What makes it boring is that this way, theres only one reason to play a fighter, and thats if you are new at the game.
but quite frankly, DnD is about fantasy.
And the fantasy of beeing a Scrawny wizard doesnt appeal to me.

Re: Weapons and combat [Re: Sordak] #664272
17/03/20 05:12 PM
17/03/20 05:12 PM
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 4,535
The Frog & Hounds
vometia Offline

Duchess of Gorgombert
vometia  Offline

Duchess of Gorgombert

Joined: May 2010
Posts: 4,535
The Frog & Hounds
Originally Posted by Sordak
And the fantasy of beeing a Scrawny wizard doesnt appeal to me.

You don't want to play as Rincewind?

Okay, neither would I but I seem to anyway.


J'aime le fromage.
Re: Weapons and combat [Re: Ellderon] #664276
17/03/20 05:21 PM
17/03/20 05:21 PM
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,239
S
Sordak Offline
veteran
Sordak  Offline
veteran
S

Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,239
my point is that dnd isnt a pureley mechanical game, and there should be mechanically complex options for different kind of archetypes.
I mean, at this point if you want to be legolas in 5e, youre stuck with having to choose between beeing one of the worst classes in the game or beeing a repurposed version of another class

Re: Weapons and combat [Re: Sordak] #664343
18/03/20 10:38 AM
18/03/20 10:38 AM
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 76
Ellderon Offline OP
journeyman
Ellderon  Offline OP
journeyman

Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 76
Originally Posted by Sordak
yeah only simple and quick only applies to some classes.
ive said it before in this thread, even with Tome of battle, the utiltiy of fighters werent even near that of casters.

Anyone CAN play a Champion fighter if they want.
but give me damn combat options.

Abstracting melee ocmbat even MORE to the point where your only option is "Basic attack "nad anyhting beyond that beeing highly situational is boring.

What makes it boring is that this way, theres only one reason to play a fighter, and thats if you are new at the game.
but quite frankly, DnD is about fantasy.
And the fantasy of beeing a Scrawny wizard doesnt appeal to me.



But you have a party. So even if the MC is not a wizard, you're going to have a wizzard (probably, you should). So a class being simpler and more straightforward isn't really a problem.

However, the problem of "class ix has 999 things it can do, class Y has only 10" is at the core of a class system. When you have people that can bend the very fabric of reality on the same playing field as a normal human being, they simply cannot be equal by any stretch of logic.
You can add redicolous manouvers/powers to a fighter, but you are essentially tuning him into a not-normal-human if you do that, kinda missing the entire point.

And I can think of no way to fix it other than spellcasters and non-spellcasters being serparate entirely (i.e - everyone is a mage or no player-controllable mages.)

Re: Weapons and combat [Re: Ellderon] #664351
18/03/20 11:36 AM
18/03/20 11:36 AM
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,239
S
Sordak Offline
veteran
Sordak  Offline
veteran
S

Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,239
You say that.
but you only have 4 companions thus having a fighter basically cuts the combat options by 1/4th.
Now then you play multiplayer with one friend.
So now the guy who has the fighter only has one character that gets to do things.

To me,t his is not satisfactory.

And quite frnakly id like to know the "why".
Why would you limit combat options that much?
Whats gained from it? I dont see the point.

By saying that having a fighter do anything btu basic attack turns him into a wizard, youre basically saying that any real life humam combat equates to two dudes standing next to each other whacking each other over the head.

Last time i watched a drunken brawl, more different stuff happened than in your average DnD fight of two martials.

Not to mention that the aformentioned Tome of Battle and DnD 4e exists that solve this problem.
Not to mention 13th Age, strike, rune quest (to a degree) and the variety of other game systems that arent DnD that also solve this problem.

Re: Weapons and combat [Re: Ellderon] #664489
19/03/20 09:31 AM
19/03/20 09:31 AM
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 76
Ellderon Offline OP
journeyman
Ellderon  Offline OP
journeyman

Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 76
No, I'm not saying that.
I'm just saying that any extra combat option a fighter gets should make sense and not be "magic" in disguise.

I'd rather have fewer, more thought-out and fleshed out options than a lot of useless/pointless/silly ones.

You could, if you wanted, create a micro-manage fighter. Swing left, swing right, overhead swing, etc.. you could make each selectable, but that would be pointless.


What I guess you could do is switching between stances. Less micro, but the issue is again implementation.

Re: Weapons and combat [Re: Ellderon] #664499
19/03/20 12:08 PM
19/03/20 12:08 PM
Joined: Jan 2020
Posts: 278
Eton, Berkshire, EU
etonbears Offline
enthusiast
etonbears  Offline
enthusiast

Joined: Jan 2020
Posts: 278
Eton, Berkshire, EU
I'd be keen to avoid situations like DA:I where the effects of the things each of the 3 three basic classes can do seem curiously similar, but I get the point that most soldier types don't have many active alternatives.

It doesn't bother me personally as I don't do MP, but I'm quite OK if they actually add stuff for variety that isn't strictly 5e; they seem to be adding "special" attacks depending on the weapon type selected, there's no reason to not add a few other abilities as long as the effects aren't silly ( by which I mean a martial feat that knocks the target back or down is sensible, but a martial feat that encases the target in a block of ice is silly ).

I've never much liked the idea of adding variety through things like critical success/critical failure either, it always seemed a bit lazy. I guess the obvious thing for combat specialists is to derive something like a stamina stat that is used up depending on action chosen and weapon/armour used, but basic D&D never seemed to go that route ( unless 4e did, I've never looked at that ).

Re: Weapons and combat [Re: Ellderon] #664501
19/03/20 02:11 PM
19/03/20 02:11 PM
Joined: Jul 2019
Posts: 186
Danielbda Offline
member
Danielbda  Offline
member

Joined: Jul 2019
Posts: 186
Originally Posted by Ellderon
No, I'm not saying that.
I'm just saying that any extra combat option a fighter gets should make sense and not be "magic" in disguise.

.

Well, Arcane Archers actually use magic.

Re: Weapons and combat [Re: Ellderon] #664503
19/03/20 03:14 PM
19/03/20 03:14 PM
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,239
S
Sordak Offline
veteran
Sordak  Offline
veteran
S

Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,239
4e didnt have a stamina bar no.
its still DnD so it worked on ressource management.

4e had actions you could only do once per encounter (simmilar to tome of battle but without regaining them) and daylie abilities simmilar like spell slots or rages

Re: Weapons and combat [Re: etonbears] #664537
20/03/20 11:46 AM
20/03/20 11:46 AM
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 76
Ellderon Offline OP
journeyman
Ellderon  Offline OP
journeyman

Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 76
Originally Posted by etonbears

It doesn't bother me personally as I don't do MP, but I'm quite OK if they actually add stuff for variety that isn't strictly 5e; they seem to be adding "special" attacks depending on the weapon type selected, there's no reason to not add a few other abilities as long as the effects aren't silly ( by which I mean a martial feat that knocks the target back or down is sensible, but a martial feat that encases the target in a block of ice is silly ).


Abilities dependant on selected weapon makes sense, regardless if automatic or player-triggered.
But not is those abilities are bog-standard use for a weapon.

For a warhammer (classic one, with a spike on top), a thrust is as basic a part of regular combat moves.
A leg hook/trip with it or an exe would be more appropriate for a manouvre.
Not something you generally do due to how difficult it is to pull of and how exposed it leaves you.

But I definitely want multiple damage types per weapon, depending on weapon.


Quote

I've never much liked the idea of adding variety through things like critical success/critical failure either, it always seemed a bit lazy. I guess the obvious thing for combat specialists is to derive something like a stamina stat that is used up depending on action chosen and weapon/armour used, but basic D&D never seemed to go that route ( unless 4e did, I've never looked at that ).


Different criticals for different weapons?
I can kinda-sorta see it, some weapons can create nastier wounds, but I'd rather it be things like bleeding that straight up double damage. Then again, critical are done on a success roll, so...why not? Then again, they can easily mess up combat and difficulty, so seem them go might be for the better. On the fence here.

Page 2 of 2 1 2

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.2