View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
kento Emissary
Joined: 03 Nov 2004 Posts: 338
|
Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2016 3:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Reviving this- Dav, I like this idea. Reduce sanctuary effectiveness, increase armor items (and making ac spells more important). Other people's thoughts? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Multore
Joined: 06 Feb 2015 Posts: 32
|
Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2016 4:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If you do that you could also expand armor types and restrict by classes:
heavy, light, padded, leather, cloth, etc
Maybe drop the total benefit by a percentage as you go farther off your preferred class based armor type(s).
Could expand equipment quite a bit if this style was implemented making more items/sets geared towards specific niches. A cloth set that boosts mana for example targeting casters...
Another option would be to allow damage mitigation as you climb up the armor classifications. On this note, various weapons do better against certain types of armor too. Crushing weapons against plate, piercing verse chain/ring mail and slashing against cloth/leather, etc.
cloth = none
leather = very little
chain = some
plate = more
Lots of options for realistic based equipment improvements. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
divsky Emissary
Joined: 13 Mar 2004 Posts: 1054 Location: Iowa City, IA
|
Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2016 5:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I do not like the idea of restricting armor by class. Monks are a notable exception. Heavy armor having increased effectiveness on paladins and dark knights is fine too.
But once you start restricting armor types to classes then equipping starts feeling artificially constrained. Mage classes should wear mage gear because that's what works best for them. Not because they're restricted to cloth armor or something stupid like that.
But you can still wear titanium tenor on a mage and I think that's cool. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
divsky Emissary
Joined: 13 Mar 2004 Posts: 1054 Location: Iowa City, IA
|
Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2016 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What I do think we should make sure in designing gear is that, in general, heavier gear should have higher ACs. And to make sure weight makes sense.
If you were to graph out every race's strength against their int/wis, you'd notice a pretty heavy inverse correlation. That would mean mages in general shouldn't be wearing heavy armor anyways simply because mages tend to be lower strength races. However, if you want to make a mage or cleric with high strength, I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to wear heavy armor.
Similarly there's a strong inverse correlation between str and dex, which means rogues are already less likely to wear heavy armor. That makes sense, but I don't like the idea that a duergar thief shouldn't be able to wear heavy gear.
In short, strength should be the only determinant to whether or not you can wear heavy armor. If you've got the strength to wear it, you should be able to wear it. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Vevier Immortal
Joined: 23 Jul 2008 Posts: 1642 Location: everywhere
|
Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2016 7:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
All armor was screened for weight-appropriate AC fairly recently, if you are able to find one that isn't, please report it as a bug.
Armor restriction is appropriate for some classes, but I agree, Divsky, I like that you can go battle-mage if you want to. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ceridwel Immortal
Joined: 01 Feb 2008 Posts: 3387 Location: Seattle
|
Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2016 7:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think armor weight should impact ability to sneak, if it doesn't already. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Nycticora
Joined: 09 Feb 2013 Posts: 2277
|
Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2016 2:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't like the idea of decreasing sanctuary effectiveness. That's going to mess with all the damage output of every class, that's super gross. If something needs to be changed there make stance the same as sanc. Armor and A/C already does have a large impact on your ability to survive. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Nycticora
Joined: 09 Feb 2013 Posts: 2277
|
Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2016 3:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
I mean unless everybody is for it, it might be kind of cool to just say "fuck it" and make all damage more effective so everyone dies a lot more, I guess. We could handle it if everyone wanted to. That's going to make duels shorter and less impressive though, and fights will have fewer combat rounds. Healers and shamans would get hit hard. Maybe warriors. Illusionists and Necromancers would shoot back up into OP land
there's a lot of impact to that decision |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Olyn Immortal
Joined: 23 Jul 2008 Posts: 3251 Location: Pennsylvania
|
Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2016 3:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'd like to see sanctuary remain the same.
I'd have to think a bit more about tenacity becoming as good as sanc, but it's probably okay. The main issue is it that it can't be dispelled. I do think that the other limitations of stance make up for that it though. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Merlandox
Joined: 31 Mar 2016 Posts: 262
|
Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2016 5:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What other limitations are you referring to olyn? That tenacity drop as soon as you sleep?
Tenacity as strong as sanc while it cant be dispelled especially now that defenders are harder to obtain seems like a huge deal to me... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Davairus Implementor
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 Posts: 10359 Location: 0x0000
|
Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2016 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lorne Immortal
Joined: 20 Jan 2004 Posts: 456
|
Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2016 8:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Tenacity is not as strong as sanc. You'd know if you play a Warlord. Because your fire giant buddy with sanc can tank better then you.
There are a few limitations with tenacity, but we shouldn't be discussing cabal powers in open forum. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tayyah
Joined: 20 May 2011 Posts: 597
|
Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2016 6:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
you read that wrong lorne, they are talking ABOUT making tenacity as strong as sanc, not that it is as strong as sanc |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lorne Immortal
Joined: 20 Jan 2004 Posts: 456
|
Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2016 8:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh my bad, you're right.
I don't think its fair if tenacity is as strong as sanc. Just because the Warlord can do it whenever they want. Don't need any potions, can't be dispelled. Can be reapplied to gain a new duration of it.
Perhaps a good medium is to make it slighter stronger then it is, but still weaker then sanc and have the mana cost be abit lower so it can be applied more often. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Davairus Implementor
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 Posts: 10359 Location: 0x0000
|
Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2016 7:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oh shit Lorne's whacking noobs on the forums already. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
m1coftw
Joined: 05 May 2015 Posts: 265
|
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2016 9:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
It's funny that usually a meta spell for clerics is a must have for pretty much anything to do with PK or PvE. Kinda makes it irrelevant if you are a cleric type or not. I'd say scrap that whole spell, it makes ZERO sense. Rewrite it so only paladins-healers have it and make it into a short-lasting immunity or something like the name claims.
It's immersion-breaking imo. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|