jeansberg
Liturgist
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2004
- Messages
- 173
Well, spears are polearms. right?Nope. No polearm-like weapons.
Well, spears are polearms. right?Nope. No polearm-like weapons.
That's what Wikipedia says, at least. But maybe you know better. I always figured a polearm was just a very long weapon.A pole weapon or polearm is a close combat weapon with the main fighting part of the weapon placed on the end of a long shaft, typically of wood. The use of pole weapons is very old, and the first spears date to the stone age. The purpose of using pole weapons is to either increase angular momentum, and thus striking power, when the weapon is swung, or extending reach.
Vault Dweller said:No. Since there are no penalties, feel free to shoot him in the face with your crossbow and watch him fly. I designed crossbows as early equivalent of shotguns. Bows are "rifles".
And? The list of unrealistic things in RPGs is miles long, what's one more? RPGs, like chess, are about abstract concepts, are they not?Bar Tec said:This is so utterly unrealistic.
There is. It fucks the ranged guy and forces him/her to get another skill or to start the boring game of moving away & shooting once.There is nothing wrong with bows becoming useless in close quarters...
Can you imagine how someone can survive a direct hit from a two handed sword? Me neither.I cannot imagine how someone could reload a crossbow while engaged in melee fight...
I don't agree that the chess analogy is a good one (I'm sure I remember saying this before ). If chess ever was an abstraction of a real battle, then it isn't anymore.Vault Dweller said:And? The list of unrealistic things in RPGs is miles long, what's one more? RPGs, like chess, are about abstract concepts, are they not?
What is chess then, if not two armies met on a battlefield?galsiah said:If chess ever was an abstraction of a real battle, then it isn't anymore.
Similarly, chess is an abstraction of strategic & tactical combat.Chess is just an abstract game. RPGs are abstraction of something - in this case combat.
I believe there are two issues here. First, the logical one - "It's impossible to use a ranged weapon in close combat. I know because I'm an expert!", and second, the conceptual one - "how does using a ranged weapon fits into the overall concept of your system?".Thus it's fine to have a hit from a two handed sword not be deadly, since on the game's level of abstraction that is merely "a hit" ...
There is no similar interpretation (that I can think of) for being able to reload consistently successfully in melee.
IMO this moving away and shooting (maybe not once) is what playing a ranged character is about. If he's just as good at close quarters, then you just made another melee type character that has the added adavantage of being able to get a few shots off before starting the real fight. I see nothing wrong with a ranged guy getting fucked for not putting enough points into whatever att. gives you more AP and not being able to get away from better armored but slow melee fighters.OTOH, if he's got enough AP to move and shoot without getting touched, I don't see this as unbalanced either, since he's always taking the risk of being caught up with and killed in two hits.Vault Dweller said:There is. It fucks the ranged guy and forces him/her to get another skill or to start the boring game of moving away & shooting once.Bar Tec said:There is nothing wrong with bows becoming useless in close quarters...
Vault Dweller said:2. You can't use a ranged weapon up close and personal, period. You are forced to take a few steps back and attack from there. That would result in a lame cat-n-mouse game where you chase a ranger all over the map, which is the situation that you, galsiah, argued against if my memory serves me right.
3. We can allow close ranged combat and assume that the reload time is the only penalty a ranger should have, and that spending 3-4 points to reload a crossbow is long enough to account for doing it in the heat of the battle. (average attack is 4-5 points)
That's how I see it.
That's its origin. Now it's a completely abstract game without any connection to combat / a battle. You can imagine chess as a battle, but it's in no sense part of the game. I don't think it would even cross a professional's / highly skilled amatuer's mind to think of it as a battle. It certainly never crosses mine (out of the current context ).Vault Dweller said:What is chess then, if not two armies met on a battlefield?
That's just not true. An abstraction of something can hide the details, but it needs to be consistent with some detailed interpretation. Chess is not consistent with any notion of a real battle. It's an abstract game related to the idea of combat. That's not the same thing as a direct abstraction of a particular combat situation - i.e. a combat in an RPG.Similarly, chess is an abstraction of strategic & tactical combat.
No, because as I said above, there is a reasonable low level interpretation for the sword hit: it was a glancing blow / flesh wound.Let's deal with the nonsence first. Since it's ok to get hit by a big-ass sword and continue fighting without penalties, it should be more than ok to reload your crossbow, if the time is being accounted for, no?
No argument there. From a gameplay perspective I agree with you 100%, and overall I think you're making the right decision (unless there's some ideal solution no-one has thought of). I just think it makes sense to conceed that you are losing a degree of coherence - with good reason.Now, let's talk about the concept...That's how I see it.
Yes.John Yossarian said:I like option 3 (btw, is this how you implemented it?)...
There are obvious advantages, so the choice is yours.... but the game should make the ranger want to get into this chase game...
Well, a fast character with a lot of APs will always outrun a slower melee guy, restricted by heavy armor. That's just common sense. Use nets.... as long as it doesn't take the better prepared melee type a year to catch up with a crappy ranger.
Good to hear.Vault Dweller said:Yes.John Yossarian said:I like option 3 (btw, is this how you implemented it?)...
If all the fast char. do is run then of course. But if he's also taking some shots, the slower character will gain ground, and if the ranger is not careful, once his at close range he should suffer heavy penalties.... as long as it doesn't take the better prepared melee type a year to catch up with a crappy ranger.
Well, a fast character with a lot of APs will always outrun a slower melee guy, restricted by heavy armor. That's just common sense. Use nets.
Sorry for not being clear, but what I mean is there at least one character build were running and shooting is the best way to fight? Like some builds are made specifically for melee, and some for diplomacy. Im just worried that by trying to prevent the cat and mouse game you have gimped ranged combat (not ranged weapons) so that if any type of ranger wants to survive against an evenly prepared opponent he, at some point in the fight,is going to have to get close and shoot his ranged weapons at close range.... but the game should make the ranger want to get into this chase game...
There are obvious advantages, so the choice is yours.
What is it then? A wet t-shirt contest?galsiah said:That's its origin. Now it's a completely abstract game without any connection to combat / a battle. You can imagine chess as a battle, but it's in no sense part of the game. I don't think it would even cross a professional's / highly skilled amatuer's mind to think of it as a battle. It certainly never crosses mine (out of the current context ).
I respectively disagree. RPG combat is as inconsistent with "any notion of a real battle" as chess is. The only differences are the rules, the scale, and the visual representation of combat (RPGs tend to mimic it visually these days).Chess is not consistent with any notion of a real battle. It's an abstract game related to the idea of combat. That's not the same thing as a direct abstraction of a particular combat situation - i.e. a combat in an RPG.
What about retaining the same defensive capability while attacking an opponent with a sword in a 1-against-3 fight?Reloading a crossbow in melee is reasonable. Reloading a crossbow while retaining the same defensive capability as a similar character holding a sword (and say attacking once, rather than reloading), is silly.
I can't see how this would apply in general. Clearly shooting from distance is always going to be preferable against a melee character, since it means there is no way for him to respond immediately. VD's approach just makes it so that a ranged character can do ok in melee (though not amazingly) - it's never (presumably) going to be preferable to get into melee.John Yossarian said:Sorry for not being clear, but what I mean is there at least one character build were running and shooting is the best way to fight?...he, at some point in the fight,is going to have to get close and shoot his ranged weapons at close range.
A *fast* ranger is lightly armored, so he will go down easily. That's another, more natural penalty.John Yossarian said:If all the fast char. do is run then of course. But if he's also taking some shots, the slower character will gain ground, and if the ranger is not careful, once his at close range he should suffer heavy penalties.
I think so. High Dex (which means high APs), Throwing (low AP cost), Critical Strike for that extra damage.Sorry for not being clear, but what I mean is there at least one character build were running and shooting is the best way to fight?
Well, to survive you must kill, so running around with more AP-expensive weapons will ensure your opponent's good health. The ranger can rely on Dodge and special traits of his weapons (knockdown and sniping) to prevent or at least delay enemies from getting too close.... if any type of ranger wants to survive against an evenly prepared opponent he, at some point in the fight,is going to have to get close and shoot his ranged weapons at close range.
An interesting take on things.Vault Dweller said:What is it then? A wet t-shirt contest?
I respectfully disagree too - though I take your 1 vs 3 point below. RPG combat is clearly a direct model/abstraction of a particular combat situation. Chess is not. I admit that RPG combat isn't always completely reasonable / consistent with the situation it models, but the further it strays from it, the less credible it seems - and the more players will tend to dislike it.I respectively disagree. RPG combat is as inconsistent with "any notion of a real battle" as chess is.
Good point. Though again, the 2nd and 3rd attackers really ought to get significant bonuses if you were going for consistency. (have you considered giving multiple attackers bonuses? I guess it'd be a bad thing gameplay wise, but it's worth a thought).What about retaining the same defensive capability while attacking an opponent with a sword in a 1-against-3 fight?
Do you mean that holding a melee weapon gives you a chance to block? How often does this make a difference?...and you can't block...
Vault Dweller said:What is it then? A wet t-shirt contest?galsiah said:You can imagine chess as a battle, but it's in no sense part of the game. I
RPG combat is as inconsistent with "any notion of a real battle" as chess is.
Vault Dweller said:And? The list of unrealistic things in RPGs is miles long, what's one more?
RPGs, like chess, are about abstract concepts, are they not?
There is. It fucks the ranged guy and forces him/her to get another skill or to start the boring game of moving away & shooting once.There is nothing wrong with bows becoming useless in close quarters...
Can you imagine how someone can survive a direct hit from a two handed sword? Me neither.
Tell me your "ideal" ranged mechanics then and I'll gladly consider them.Claw said:Personally, I would prefer not being able to use ranged weapons at melee range...
...and in regard to the common game mechanics inconsistent with realism, I'd say two wrongs don't make one right.
I'm not using a precedent here to prove that my decision isn't wrong. I *believe* that realism has got nothing to do with RPGs, and thus, shouldn't be used as an argument.Bar Tec said:The fact that element A is unrealistic is not an excuse that element B must be unrealistic either.
Perhaps. Enlighten me then.No, RPGs are not about abstract concepts. You are confusing means with ends.
In other words, let's make ranged weapons uber, so you can kill people before they reach you. Ok. Now let's turn it around a bit. Now you are a melee guy fighting a ranged guy. You try to reach the bastard but die before you can strike him even once. Sounds like a frustrating reload fiesta, followed by uninstall and a conclusion that TB games are lame as fuck.The ranged guy should simply rely on killing the opponents before they reach him - it can be achieved in many ways, for example, by adjusting accuracy and damage of ranged weapons.
Uh, no. I assume that melee guy will eventually close the distance. The question is what happens next. I outlined the options above.If you assume that ranged guy should perform well at close quarters, to be consistent, you should also assume that melee guy should perform well in distant combat.
Glancing blow? Ok, fair enough. You have 40 HPs, you were hit for 24 points of damage. Is it a glancing blow?This analogy simply does not hold. Galsiah gave you the answer - it is easy to interpret a hit as a glancing blow.
It's not a history channel, son....it is well documented...
That would result in the exciting "catch a ranger" mini game. I'm sure that people would love it.Probably, there is a way to make ranged combat at close quarters more realistic and balanced while keeping the accuracy intact. For example: you could apply heavy defense penalty to an archer. You could make possible to disarm / destroy a bow/crossbow by a successful melee attack etc.
It's an option. There are good reasons to have two proficiencies, and there are good reasons to stick with one.MacBone said:So does AoD discourage having a secondary weapons proficiency for melee, or will it be more straightforward to rely solely on one's archer skill?