[crossfire] Attributes/Stats

[Mark Wedel]

On 05/14/10 09:22 AM, Brendan Lally wrote:

> On Thu, 13 May 2010 21:07:55 -0700
> Mark Wedel<mwedel at sonic.net>  wrote:
>
>>>
>>>>     However, problem in that case is that if say fire is Dex, and
>>>> magic is Pow, if I have a 20 dex and 1 pow, that is the same
>>>> damage as if I have a 11 dex and 10 Pow.  If I'm a fighter type,
>>>> in that case, I'd probably still like the high dex/low pow -
>>>> result is the same, but high dex would help me out more the rest
>>>> of the time.
>>>
>>> Could do something like the geometric rather than arithmetic mean,
>>> in that case, the 'average' of 11 and 10 is still roughly 10 1/2,
>>> the average of 20 and 1 is 4 1/2 (substantially worse).
>>>
>>> If that isn't an extreme enough effect, could use the harmonic mean,
>>> that would really punish having uneven stats.
>>
>>    Maybe - I'm always a bit concerned about making things too
>> complicated.  I realize a geometric mean isn't all that complicated,
>> but when you start trying to explain and document this to new
>> players, it can start to get confusing.
>>
>>    One thought I had, which I'll probably post in a separate message,
>> is that penalties are greater than bonus.
>
> Ok, I like that approach, it's fairly simple and obvious.
>
>> <snip>
>>>>     With that, I would make some general changes:
>>>> Magic: Pow
>>>
>>> Or maybe separate magic attacks into arcane and divine magic, with
>>> one based on the average of Pow&   Int the other Pow&   Wis? (This'd
>>> require *lots* of item changes, but then so would most everything
>>> else item-related).
>>
>>    It is really spell changes.  Right now, spells are just set to have
>> magic as one of the attacktypes - there are a few special spells that
>> don't.
>>
>>    There are very few weapons that have a magic attacktype - generally
>> not desirable.
>
> Aren't they mostly weaponmagic instead?

  There used to be a few artifact weapons that just used magic - they were 
specially designed for that.

>
>>    So to change it for spells would just mean replacing magic with
>> something else.
>>
>>    But I suppose the real question is what do you do when an attack
>> has multiple attacktypes.  The use of magic right now is not really
>> correct - it is really there to denote it is a magical attack (it is
>> similar to ghosthit to note that the monster dies after hitting).  In
>> a sense for magic, it doesn't make a lot of sense for an attack to
>> just hit with magic - it almost always goes with something else.
>
> I think there are probably 3 different cases here:
>
> * an attack is magical, and causes damage through magic (things like
> cause wounds-type spells tend to be in that category)
> * an attack is magical, but clearly causes damage in some other way
> (things like fireballs)
> * an attack is magical, but causes damage through some hybrid of magic
> and another effect (I guess comet might fall into that category, if it
> is a magical comet rather than just a big lump of rock)
>
> At the moment, everything assumes the third approach, even when it
> doesn't make sense.
>
> One way around this might be to separate attack types from damage - so
> if you strike with a magical sword, it is going to hit because it is
> magical, so hard to avoid, but will actually do physical* damage.

  To some extent, the attacktype flag should go away, and the discrete damage 
types used instead.

  Thus, in the cases you dictate, one could clearly see how the damage is 
happending.

  In first case, cause wounds, it may be something like 'dam_magic 15'.
  In the second case, it may be something like 'dam_fire 15', but some attribute 
to note that magic is involved.
  For the third case, there is nothing that says you could do 'dam_fire 10; 
dam_magic 10'

  The entire special handling of magic could perhaps be removed.  The idea 
probably goes back to AD&D where creatures had magic resistance - for such 
creatures, a fireball (magic + fire) wouldn't harm them, but something like 
flaming oil (just fire) would.

  There is no reason crossfire has to follow that same logic.  And the fact that 
there are certain spells that do not hit with magic is questionable - the main 
purpose of those spells was to basically be able to hit creatures otherwise 
immune to magic.

  weaponmagic is a similar case - it follows the AD&D of 'need a magical weapon 
to hit'.  But the problem is that things like armor should still count, but 
typically don't.  And the fact that crossfire has armor that reduces damage is 
something that AD&D doesn't have, so some of the assumptions crossfire uses may 
not be really well grounded.


>
> * would be more interesting to say 'slicing' as distinct from crushing,
>    or piercing damage - would allow more choices for armour, weapons etc.

  Yes - one can look at the AD&D example where skeletons take full damage from 
blunt, but 1 point from piercing and half damage from slashing.

  I wouldn't want to put in too many different types of physical attacktypes, 
but it would add some interest - reason to perhaps have a few different weapons.

>
>>    Certainly - but you are talking lots of changes.  It is interesting
>> to note that AD&Dv3 uses charisma for a clerics ability to turn
>> undead.
>>
>>    I'm not trying to suggest that crossfire turn into an AD&D
>> implementation, but a lot of it seemed based on it in various ways,
>> like the original 6 stats matched the 6 stats from AD&D.
>>
>
> I'm yet to see any RPG anywhere that both has stats and isn't in some
> way inspired by/based on D&D, this is more due to the scale of it's
> influence than anything else.
>
> OTOH, there are elements modern D&D has that CF doesn't, things
> like attacks of opportunity spring to mind, I'm not certain what would
> be listed on the other side there, I've not really played D&D since
> they got rid of THAC0

  The removal of of THAC0 (so higher value for ac and hit rolls (wc in 
crossfires case)) makes a lot of sense.

  I'd say a lot of crossfire is based more on AD&Dv1 or v2 than v3, which came 
out long after crossfire had been around.  And what works for a table top game 
is often different in a real time game.

  A big difference between crossfire and AD&D is the resistance system crossfire 
has - armor reduces damage by some percentage, and same for things like fire. 
In AD&D, armor just makes you harder to hit, and resistance system is a bit 
different.