934 réponses à ce sujet

[Nerivant]

Xewaka wrote...

DnD Monks are broken. When the biggest damage dice is rolled with bare hands, you know all pretense of coherency has been thrown out of the window.

I believe that an immortal being who can shatter diamond golems with his forehead is wee bit crazier than the size of his damage dice.

Got to put those dice in context.

[Matchy Pointy]

Xewaka wrote...

DnD Monks are broken. When the biggest damage dice is rolled with bare hands, you know all pretense of coherency has been thrown out of the window.

DnD monks are cool though, in BG2 they could kill a dragon with a single strike.

[Xewaka]

Matchy Pointy wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

DnD Monks are broken. When the biggest damage dice is rolled with bare hands, you know all pretense of coherency has been thrown out of the window.

DnD monks are cool though, in BG2 they could kill a dragon with a single strike.

I know. I'm playing one right now. Broken sillyness is fun every now and again.

[Ziggeh]

Xewaka wrote...

I think the term used shouldn't be "realism", but rather, "consistency".

DA:O already displayed a good deal of inconsistency, putting the term back into the realm of personal preference. That's fine of course, much of the discussion here consists of that, but if we want to talk about the wearing of armour from an objective stance, which is why people were using "realism" to begin with, I think we need another term.

[Sir JK]

Maria Caliban wrote...
Are you talking about a change in DA 2? Because in DA:O, a mage could wear robes, light armor, medium armor... all they needed was high enough strength.

Ah, no. That was what I thought. Worded myself very poorly though. Thanks for dismissing the cloud of confusion though *tips hat*

Matcy Pointy wrote...
...In the realistic department though, it would be very difficult to get form fitting amour from finding in from fallen foes or in chests like usual, or just buying it from teh store...

Yes, this has been one of my key counter arguments to X should wear Y armour. If we demand that armour should be worn for it's realistic protection we should in my meaning accept the primary limitations of armour with it (price, fit and rarity).

Either armour is "needed" but rare as is realistic or we accept that it's not realistically depicted and thus not a necessity.
I'm willing to accept an exception to this for the player due to practicality, but since visuals for companions are now disassociated from stats there is no reason not to allow them to wear what fits them. If that is a "realistic" outfit, armour or not, then I am happy. It seems to me that this is indeed the case so I'm very much happy with it (Thank you developers)

Upsettingshorts wrote...
...what fiction tells me is possible and probable within its own universe...

I sort of agree to an extent. As long as I am told "this is how it differs from the real world" I can accept it or that it's an abstraction (or ambigous enough to allow me to think it's an abstraction).

ziggehunderslash wrote...
...which is why people were using "realism" to begin with, I think we need another term...

It does seem to evoke the wrong idea. But what would be a better term though? What we argue for is that some things should work like in the real world (unless otherwise stated), what other word than realism can be used for that?

Modifié par Sir JK, 01 décembre 2010 - 02:48 .

[Ziggeh]

Sir JK wrote...

ziggehunderslash wrote...
...which is why people were using "realism" to begin with, I think we need another term...

It does seem to evoke the wrong idea. But what would be a better term though? What we argue for is that some things should work like in the real world (unless otherwise stated), what other word than realism can be used for that?

I've no idea, which I guess is my point. It's not a case I believe can be made from an objective stance.

Using realism is fine, as you say, it is what you're asking for after all, as long as it's understood that being realistic isn't any more of a case than preference.

I'm just being pedantic really, but "it should be" and "I would like it to be" are very different conversations. It irritates me when people use them synonymously.

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 01 décembre 2010 - 03:11 .

[Ulicus]

Verisimilitude.

It usually gets thrown around a lot in these kind of discussions. In fact, it has probably already come up once or twice in this one.

Modifié par Ulicus, 01 décembre 2010 - 03:12 .

[Ziggeh]

Ulicus wrote...

Verisimilitude.

It usually gets thrown around a lot in these kind of discussions. In fact, it has probably already come up once or twice in this one.

I know I've used it.

It's still subjective, so I would say it occupies the same position as realism and consistency, though I do believe it's closer to the point of the debate than either.

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 01 décembre 2010 - 03:16 .

[Sir JK]

Verisimilitude works I suppose... do you have it's grammatical forms? (or is it just a noun?)



Ziggehunderslash: Yeah, I think that was what Gaider tried to imply earlier in the thread as well. But I agree, we should all be fully aware that it's all just preferences we have and not some objective truth to strive for. That doesn not mean we shouldn't discuss it though

[Ziggeh]

Sir JK wrote...
That doesn not mean we shouldn't discuss it though

Absolutely, wouldn't be much of a forum if we didn't!

[Aermas]

Okay, to all of those saying "Only nobles can afford armor"; well yes, but are you forgetting that we will become rich & famous? The main character always gets richer, & more important. Your argument in invalid.



To those that say armor restricts movement; you've been lied to, check your facts. Your argument is invalid.



For those using D&D as an excuse; it's not.



To those who say Isabela can just dodge all the attacks, dodging takes more energy & focus than letting your armor take it. So that should be represented in Stamina loss. Also if you are dodging you cannot attack.



To Sir JK; If the enemy does a constant 4 damage, I'm I do believe that Aveline is getting repeated wacks to the head while Isabela is continuing to always get weaker hits? No. Your theory is not consistent

[Ziggeh]

Sir JK wrote...

Verisimilitude works I suppose... do you have it's grammatical forms? (or is it just a noun?)

It's a noun, though I have a feeling "verisimilitudinous" is valid. I'd have to check.

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 01 décembre 2010 - 03:20 .

[Ulicus]

Where you'd say "it's realistic", you'd say "it's verisimilar".

Whatever. I think this thread is much ado about nothing. At least in ME2 the complaints were more to do with atmospheric concerns and the problem of vacuum. In Thedas, as has already been mentioned repeatedly by myself and others, there is literally the possibility that "a wizard did it".

And we don't even know if Isabela will remain as armour-lite as she starts out as. We already know that Aveline won't -- so no-one has any right to complain, there -- and, even Isabela did go throughout the entire game sans armour, she could very well be wearing a bangle of defence +100, so who gives a crap? 

Most of the people in this thread, I know, I know.

Modifié par Ulicus, 01 décembre 2010 - 03:28 .

[Ziggeh]

Ulicus wrote...

Where you'd say "it's realistic", you'd say "it's verisimilar".

Hah, very similar, I didn't know that one. Marvelous. Learn something everyday.

[Sir JK]

It's not supposed to be consistent Aermas, it's a interpretation of an abstraction. You intepret it as make the most sense in a given situation.

If the enemy as you say consistently and repeatedly causes four hp damage to Isabela and Aveline in a fight, then perhaps Isabela is performing better in that fight. Avoiding blows a little better, getting hit a little less just being plain luckier.
In "reality" the opponent is just swinging his weapon in the air and our companions are losing some arbitrary points. The rest we have to add with out imagination. And if Isabela is indeed taking less damage. What's to say she's not just performing better than Aveline this time (once we translate it in our heads to our ideal vision of the combat)?
The hit point system is designed so that combat shall be easy while you justify it the way you think makes the most sense for yourself. It can't really simulate accurately the difference between being hit with or without armour (unless the hit makes you drop, that'd be somewhat accurate).

I have no real problem with you prefering proper armour. I might disagree on how verisimilar the idea but I don't really have a problem with you liking them. But let's not drag HP into that debate... those can never make sense in any debate on how things should work for it to be accurate according to the rules of the real world.
If someone takes less hp damage in combat than someone else then they're performing better/are luckier, that's the only explanation that makes sense with the hp system to me.

EDIT: Also to your rich argument. Probably yes. But that's late game and all we've seen is early game when the lot of us are poor. So no proper armour then makes perfect sense, no?

Modifié par Sir JK, 01 décembre 2010 - 03:31 .

[Sigil_Beguiler123]

Aermas wrote...

To Sir JK; If the enemy does a constant 4 damage, I'm I do believe that Aveline is getting repeated wacks to the head while Isabela is continuing to always get weaker hits? No. Your theory is not consistent

Stuff like that is fairly common in more narrative oriented P&P games. It isn't so much a weaker hit but that the descriptions vary. So Aveline in armour is hit with the full blow of the attack but thanks to armour takes 4 damage. Isabela being agile manages to deflect, dodge, etc. partially the attack but since less armour does 4 damage.

In such games the focus is essentially the mechanics are just mechanics. What is important is how one flavours it. A 100 damage hit is just a number it has no meaning till you place it within the context of what is going on. Hell that is one reason I have for why people in games like DA:O can take so many hits while before one of those major hits would have killed them. It isn't that magically their bodies can take more damage but they are better trained to dodge, deflect hits, etc.

[Sir JK]

Indeed, Sigil explained it better than I did. And if the explanation stretches what you believe in one situation you changed it for something you think make sense.

[Aermas]

You're not being logical. Isabela & Aveline will always take the same amount of damage, & it's not consistent, it's not realistic, it's not rational, & it's not right!

[Xewaka]

Sir JK wrote...

Indeed, Sigil explained it better than I did. And if the explanation stretches what you believe in one situation you changed it for something you think make sense.

The problem is, what makes sense to me, is to carry body armor if you expect to face melee (I can give some leeway to ranged characters since from a distance, cover is more important than armor).

[Sir JK]

Aermas... the hp system is not supposed to accurate, logical, realistic, consistent or rational. It is per design that you make up individual excuses for every situation. It's made to be quick. Not correct.



It's made that way. So that you can calculate it in seconds with only your head. It's an artifact of tabletop gaming where you don't have a computer to calculate advanced stuff quickly.



So they made a really crude but popular system. It is irrational, inaccurate, unrealistic, illogical, inconsistent... and it is intended to be that way.



Hence why hp and realism arguments do not match

[Sir JK]

Xewaka wrote...
The problem is, what makes sense to me, is to carry body armor if you expect to face melee (I can give some leeway to ranged characters since from a distance, cover is more important than armor).

Yes, it's in general a good idea to do so. But if you cannot afford it, or you're suprised without it, or there's plain noone around to make it you just have to make do without it, no?

[Aermas]

I'm not talking about HP exclusively, I have come to terms with that abstraction. I'm talking about armor being a deciding factor of damage. I've played D&D 3.5 since I was a highschool freshmen, I've played Shadowrun, Warhammer Fantasy, MERP (one of the best RPG's made), I had a brief experience with RIFTS even (I did not stay long as it's illogicalness made my brain hurt) please don't be condescending.

[Sir JK]

I apologise, I did not intend to be condesending. I have the utmost respect for you.



The point I was trying to make is this: All damage operate in the hp system.

The hp system only describes if you are able to continue fighting or not.

Thus all hp damage done can be anything that fits the situation. It can range from anything from luck and narrow misses to grazes and hits barely absorbed by the armour. Whatever you need to explain why you're still fighting and not knocked out.

So if Isabela and Aveline take the sam amounte hp damage despite wearing different levels of armour, then that amount of hp damage means different things to them respectively.



Maybe Aveline suffers worse hits but her armour protects her, maybe the enemy misses them both narrowly, maybe it represents a pool of luck that's slowly being drained, maybe it's a different thing in any situation.

No, it's not consistent that Aveline despite being heavily armoured suffers the same amount of damage if we view it as hits. But that's par for the course since the system isn't made to be consistent. If the expanation doesn't do it for you then you're supposed to change it until it does. If that means different things for different characters in different situation, that's what you should do to allow the system to work as designed.

[Xewaka]

Sir JK wrote...

Xewaka wrote...
The problem is, what makes sense to me, is to carry body armor if you expect to face melee (I can give some leeway to ranged characters since from a distance, cover is more important than armor).

Yes, it's in general a good idea to do so. But if you cannot afford it, or you're suprised without it, or there's plain noone around to make it you just have to make do without it, no?

I already stated I'm not advocating for going to the latrine in full plate, either. I don't mind Isabela's look (for example) when she's just hanging out having a pint. But if I bring her into a dungeon (and there will be dungeons), I expect a carreer adventurer such as her to carry an adequate outfit. I don't complain about Aveline leather apron, as I understand she was on a hurry and grabbed whatever she could on the run. And we know once she becomes a soldier of Kirkwall, she dons armor appropiate to her task. Same for the Hawke family on the run from Lothering, they just grabbed their weapons because it was the handier thing to do. Once that it settled and they start to actually consider adventuring -as I assume becoming the Champion will carry a great deal of this-, I'd expect all of them to get adequately outfitted for the task.

Now, if we never leave Kirkwall during the game and never expect to face combat during the plot, dismiss my point. But I think there'll be adventuring.

[Sir JK]

Perhaps, difficult to discuss what we won't know. All we know about Isabela's current situation is that her ship was shipwrecked... personally I assume that means she have little more than what she is wearing and/or is cut off from her other possessions.

And we'll... if you want her to be decently armoured you'll just have to pay up then, don't you?  

"An armour set costs whaat!? Screw that! Isabela you'll have do do without"

Modifié par Sir JK, 01 décembre 2010 - 04:05 .