Power Draw and Weapon Master queries

[ShadowMoses]

Has Power draw always been based on strength?
I would have thought agility would make more sense so there is more of a strength vs. agility character progression going on?

And with that in mind Weapon Master based on Agility doesn't make much sense to me. It seems that strength and agility are both equally necessary for character development but i think it would be better to have more distinction between character types based on these attributes. So simply speaking, ranged skills = agility , close combat skills = strength.

At the moment everyone will develop their characters in a similar way with both strength and agility getting equal attention.

I'd be tempted to remove weapon master all together and just link weapon prof to the chars current level. (so a strong swordsman isn't forced to develop agility).

Also, is weapon master based on intelligence as well? because when i just set up my char, i spent some attribute points, then increased weapon master as far as i could.. then increased INT by 1 and it then allowed me to increase weapon master again.

 

[Ilex]

You need strenght to pull the string, not agility. Weapons are handled with agility not pure strength and I like it this way. And INT gives you more skill points, so you prob. ran out of them and got 1 more from INT.

 

[DaLagga]

I don't really agree with the OP, but i do think the skill system needs to be reworked entirely. It's not that its bad...it just feels too rigid and limiting. You are correct when you say it sucks that all combat characters have to pour points into both agility and strenght to stand a chance. As a matter of fact, a well balanced character is almost always better than one that focuses their points on one or two stats. Also, it sucks that putting points into trade skills reduces the amount of points you can put into combat skills. Merchant characters don't make any sense in a game built around a combat system... So i'd actually like to see at least two entirely different skill sets that are independent of each other. So say you can level trade skills without interfering with combat skills at all. Your character's strength should be reflected what you do in the game, not crippled because you decided to try something else out IMO.

 

[Kelpo]

I don't really agree with the OP, but i do think the skill system needs to be reworked entirely. It's not that its bad...it just feels too rigid and limiting. You are correct when you say it sucks that all combat characters have to pour points into both agility and strenght to stand a chance.

I figure that a decent swordsman should be both agile and strong, the former more so than the latter.

 

[Roach]

I'm with Ilex on this. Although (bet you saw that coming) technically I suppose it should be both strength and agility for weapon master at least, since it boosts damage as well as speed (dunnit?)

Anyway, since trying a melee footsoldier for a while, I pour as many points into Agility as possible as quickly as possible, so I can boost Athletics and my weapon speed. Speed is life on the battlefield, all you need strength for is to be able to hold your weapon of choice; power strike, weapon profs and the size of your weapon (fnar) are usually enough to get your damage up to one- or two-shot kills anyway.

Strength is redundant!

Nerf agility! (nonopleasedontitkeepsmealive)

 

[malenn]

I don't really agree with the OP, but i do think the skill system needs to be reworked entirely. It's not that its bad...it just feels too rigid and limiting. You are correct when you say it sucks that all combat characters have to pour points into both agility and strenght to stand a chance. As a matter of fact, a well balanced character is almost always better than one that focuses their points on one or two stats. Also, it sucks that putting points into trade skills reduces the amount of points you can put into combat skills. Merchant characters don't make any sense in a game built around a combat system... So i'd actually like to see at least two entirely different skill sets that are independent of each other. So say you can level trade skills without interfering with combat skills at all. Your character's strength should be reflected what you do in the game, not crippled because you decided to try something else out IMO.

Good points and i like to aggre with you.
The system now is mostley based on the combat part of the game and thats ok realy so why not do as you sudgest and make difernt point where we have mind points and Body points to distribute.

 

[ShadowMoses]

You need strenght to pull the string, not agility. Weapons are handled with agility not pure strength...

Yeah, i know... i just think it would be better if your role is defined by the way you choose to develop your character as opposed to which weapon you decide to buy. In short, i'd like there to be more consequence to your choices.

I'm not really interested in what is more realistic, they can rename the attributes as "attribute 1" , "attribute 2" etc. for all i care, the gameplay mechanics remain the same. I mean you may as well just merge agility and strength together for all the difference it makes.. i'm sure most people will develop both at around the same rate anyway (except for maybe at the start).

And INT gives you more skill points, so you prob. ran out of them and got 1 more from INT.

Ah! that must have been it! thanks!

Also, it sucks that putting points into trade skills reduces the amount of points you can put into combat skills. Merchant characters don't make any sense in a game built around a combat system... So i'd actually like to see at least two entirely different skill sets that are independent of each other.

yeah merchant skills don't have that much impact. Ideally the game should accommodate all roles equally but even if it was a viable role to play, whats the point? just make some money so you can buy... better weapons and stuff?

An independent skill set could be interesting...

 

[Can O Soup]

Once you can buy one suit of padded cloth there's no need to work on your own merchant skill. Just use marnid. Or, if you don't have him use borcha's. They get experience even if they're at the bottom of the party and not fighting.

 

[Acanthoid]

http://img376.imageshack.us/my.php?image=stats7dh.jpg

If you wonder the high weapon skills and think them as waste... do you know how fast the two hander is now? =) Plus i can shoot bow in full gallop to any target.

But anyway, yes a good fighter has to invest on both strenght and agility.

 

[Ilex]

If there were no skill/stat caps I could see myself pumping up my str and power strike, but because there are caps, a fighting orientered character eventually maxes out both agility and strenght.

 

[CrazyEyes]

You guys have played too many other, lamer RPGs. This goes for a little more realism. Basically, you're saying, "ooh, it sucks that you have to invest in more than one skill..." Er, yeah, well most knights had to know what the hell they were doing, or they'd die. Skills are good. You can have some huge ass muscle dude with a war sword and eight in power strike... but if he has, like, one in athletics, I'll take him down with a few arrow hits.

 

[ShadowMoses]

Basically, you're saying, "ooh, it sucks that you have to invest in more than one skill..."

No. i'm saying: "wouldn't it be better if my character development choices had greater consequences?"

Basically i would like to see 3 main ways to develop your char: Ranged, Close and a mixture of the two. So a char that is a mix would be decent with both ranged and close but not as good in either as he would have been had he focussed on them. (of course there would be many variations inbetween).

Skills are good.

who said they were bad?

You can have some huge ass muscle dude with a war sword and eight in power strike... but if he has, like, one in athletics, I'll take him down with a few arrow hits.

Yeah that kinda illustrates my point about there not being as much consequence.

 

[Archonsod]

No. i'm saying: "wouldn't it be better if my character development choices had greater consequences?"

Basically i would like to see 3 main ways to develop your char: Ranged, Close and a mixture of the two. So a char that is a mix would be decent with both ranged and close but not as good in either as he would have been had he focussed on them. (of course there would be many variations inbetween).

It kind of falls that way anyway.

Thanks to the weapon skills improving through combat, you end up becoming better at whatever you use. The skills take on different priorities too. Ranged means you probably want to invest in horse archery too, which you can safely ignore if your going melee only. With Melee, you probably want to concentrate on shield instead, or iron flesh etc. If you build a dedicated archer, they will usually be better than a non-dedicated archer. Then there's the leadership or prisoner skills to think about...

Once you reach higher levels it starts to balance out, but then name a game where this doesn't happen.

 

[Jhaerik]

Personally, I rather wish there were less hard caps in this game. Honestly, are skills even nessisary? Seems more than anything to take some of the realism out of it. Why not just use something similar to the weapon profs., but expand the profs that increase? I mean why not have shield skill increase with, well, shield use. Riding, by riding, ect. I'd kinda like to just be able to play without concerning about these little OOC annoyances.

 

[Archonsod]

There'd still need to be a limit as to how far you can increase a skill, otherwise you'd end up dealing a few thousand damage with a simple butchers knife.

I do think it would be nice to have skills other than the weapon ones increase through use. The problem here is that they aren't % based, so would require thorough balancing. Perhaps have a % chance each level that you would get a free skillpoint in one of the skills you have used (i.e. if you're a horse bowman then it would be 33% horse archery, 33% riding or a 33% chance of it being power draw.

 

[Manu]

I have no qualms with the power draw skill as it is - historically, powerfull bows were usable only by specially trained peoples (as an english proverb says, o train a good archer, first train his father...), and this require lots of stregth, at least in the arms.

The typical longbow isn't a thin rod, it's a shaft as thick ans and axehandle, not something that bends easily.

 

[Jhaerik]

Well of course there would not be a limit, other than the fact going from 1-250 would take less time than from 499-500

Basically saying the basics are easier to learn than to master the use of said skill.