JE wants their opinion(not yours)

[Jeff]

Ooh, let's not forget the high price of clean water either - didn't it cost $1000 in FO2 betty's bed & breakfast or something like that? Pricey, I'd say!

[Petey_the_Skid]

Gambling and Throwing are support skills that are just not very useful in many situations. Anything specially designed to suit these skills would very likely seem obvious and contrived.

You're right. Quality gamblers (especially poker players) don't have a good idea of how to read people, their faces, bluff, etc. Personally, I think, again, that it was just not well implemented and/or perhaps provide synergistic skills. For example -- in a certain instance, you could use your skills as a gambler (bluffing, reading motive, intuition, etc) as a bit of a synergy to someone who's trying to lie and/or cheat you. But hey, you're entitled to your own opinion.

On throwing -- again, I just don't believe the game does it justice. I don't think there was a wide enough variety of throwing items...more types of grenades other than just frag and plasma, would be nice. Molotov cocktails should have been able to set on fire opponents in the blast and/or provide burn damage over a period of time. Other throwing items (like a pseudo shark-dart, or weapons like knives and/or spears that could be coated with something like poison or similar (another use for an outdoor/doctor/first aid, whatever skill?)) would have been interesting. Throwing grappling hooks to climb on top of things like buildings or climbing up the back of a cliff for an ambush. (and again, I don't believe that for some of the throwing options, the AP balance was proper either) What about using things like bolas to trip people down? What about using nets or the like to trap/snare people?

quote]

The problem being that everything you would use gambling for was already covered by speech and charisma, ergo, gambling is useless/redundant as a skill in Fallout.

Throwing was partially broken by it's lack of good throwable objects, but will increasing the amount of items it has really fix it, or just seem as riduculous as having thousands of rounds of ammo lying around. Another problem with throwing is it is a secondary skill. You couldn't(especially in real life) use it as a primary combat skill. First, it would be awkward(and was in the game) to carry so many throwable weapons to have enough to deal with even a minor threat, second, when an enemy gets close enough to melee, throwing becomes essentially useless(something not represented properly in the game). And lastly, when, in any book/novel/movie etc, has there been a hero who's only good ability is his throwing? Essentially, never, because throwing, while useful as a secondary skill, is not something most people are going to want to dump a majority of you're skillpoints in.

[atoga]

Ooh, let's not forget the high price of clean water either - didn't it cost $1000 in FO2 betty's bed & breakfast or something like that? Pricey, I'd say!

Who says it'd be clean water?

[N]

The problem being that everything you would use gambling for was already covered by speech and charisma, ergo, gambling is useless/redundant as a skill in Fallout.

Which is why, if you made it a synergistic ability, and had more situations in the game where you could use it, then it WOULDN'T BE USELESS. Just because you can give a good speech in front of an audience doesn't mean you have 'poker skills' such as a gambler would have. I never really took it much anyway, however, I still believe that it's a situation/interaction problem that's hack, not the ruleset.

...book/novel/movie etc, has there been a hero who's only good ability is his throwing? Essentially, never, because throwing, while useful as a secondary skill, is not something most people are going to want to dump a majority of you're skillpoints in.

Oh, you're right! Because it was never in a book or a movie, that makes it a moot point! How could I have been so brash!

One should, with great throwing skill, be able to throw *anything* he or she can pick up. I tell you what, ask a good friend of yours, to pick up a pretty good sized rock, and let him throw that at your face. When it hits you in the face, tell me what it feels like. Then, repeat that experiment with the following items: a spear, a chair, a hand grenade (of frag, phosphorus, tear gas, mustard gas, flashbang variety) with the pin pulled out. There weren't enough grenades and varieties therein. Grenades were not near as deadly as they should have been. Spears, throwing knives, axes, etc -- again, not enough variety. Couldn't lasso/throw ropes at folks. No bolas. No boomerangs. No nets. And whether or not, for simplicity sake, it 'makes sense' -- knowing how to fight with/use a weapon on hand to hand combat does not mean you can throw it with great ability. Just because your average guy doesn't "spend skillpoints" on it, shouldn't mean that a fun,viable character can't have it as a spendable skill in the game. When there's a large abundance of guns -- then yes, 'throwing things' is limited in it's usefulness...but again, that is, to me, a problem with a balance in the game, and not the way the skills are separated and/or implemented in the rulesystem.

[Franz Schubert]

So I have to monitor my NPCs use of water as well now? Woohoo. Is Dogmeat drinking too?

No, Dogmeat is a savage beast. He sucks blood out of the corpses of people he kills, so he doesn't need water.

[Petey_the_Skid]

Thw whole point is to streamline the system, taking out useless/redundant skills that are not used by the average person. If they can improve throwing by adding it into melee, therefore bolstering the second weakest combat skill. and maybe actually having the majority of folks bother to use the throwing weapons, then go for it. There is no precedent in history eiether for a throwing only hero, check out all you're myths, legends, history books and so on and so on. Why should they skew the game system(fairly unrealistically I might add), to make a weak skill equal to others?

Gambling is completely useless. It's only use in the games is in games of chance playable at the casinos. Other than that, anything that it could be used for is already being done by another skill better. It just doesn't make any sense to keep a skill that can only be used by making up contrived and stupid situations for it, which seems to be what you suggest.

[N]

Yeah, you're right, stream line the system. Combine all the skills together -- it will make things that much more easy for "the average person".

And then, add in the micromanagement of water.

It is aweomse that a 'roleplaying' game system is being cut down and streamlined because there aren't enough story elements/ways to use the features and skills therein. Not on a scale of making them overpowering -- but useful at ALL or at least worth putting points towards them. Did you see Gangs of New York, Petey -- Bill the Butcher? Killed a lot of folks by throwing knives at fellas, eh? Especially those who didn't know how to throw them at him. Anyone ever hear of David and Goliath, you know, where he threw a rock from a sling and killed some giant? You're right, throwing weapons are useless, and there's no need for them when you've got loads of bullets lying around. Did I ever say THROWING ONLY? Ever, ever in any of my posts? No, I did not. If your basis is that a skill is useless if you can't have a character soley based on the mastery of *ONE* skill, then you are a jackass. The point, is that if you had a character who was good with hand to hand combat (unarmed), and had a fairly decent/more quality option for having some thrown weapons/items in there, maybe you'd take points in it, round out your unarmed attacks with the ability to throw some grenades, maybe some throwing knives, whatever. I never said that just because there isn't enough gameplay elements for a skill that the game need to be altered to make it overpowering, or even plausible for a character to be completely and utterly focused on it with as much sucess as another.

But much like there's a fine line between stupid and clever, there's a margin between useless and overpowering.

[Bulldog]

Thw whole point is to streamline the system, taking out useless/redundant skills that are not used by the average person. If they can improve throwing by adding it into melee, therefore bolstering the second weakest combat skill. and maybe actually having the majority of folks bother to use the throwing weapons, then go for it. There is no precedent in history eiether for a throwing only hero, check out all you're myths, legends, history books and so on and so on. Why should they skew the game system(fairly unrealistically I might add), to make a weak skill equal to others?

It's also important to note that by the end of FO 1&2 there wasn't anything powerful enough for a throwing-focussed player to use. It would've taken huge amounts of high powered grenades to kill The Master or Frank. Throwing knives and frag grenades are awsome at the start when you're just fighting humans (ie raiders) but later in the game there's a big shift.
Whether that can be fixed or not remains to be seen, but how much work would that take, and would it be worth it?

[Petey_the_Skid]

The point is that throwing, on it's own, as is in the past Fallout games, is a skill that is ignored by the vast majority of players. It simply is not important enough to waste skillpoints on. Even with the improvements you suggest, it would still be something that most people would not waste skillpoints on. If they can make throwing viable by combining it with what is arguably, the next weakest combat skill, then why not? While the mechanics of throwing and melee are not quite the same, it ins't that much a stretch of the imagination, especially, if going back to historic/fictional perspectives most good melee fighters were also fairly handy at throwing.

The other solution would be to give throwing a major boost at the begining(starting at a level similar to unarmed, where even with weak physical stats you had a 60% or higher skill) and inventing new weapons/bolstering old ones. But skill points are very precious(the average being 15 only), meaning that most folks will not put them into a skill that has little to no use. Because fallout is on a hitpoint system(and is likely to be again), where even guns usually can't kill with one shot, why would you want to bolster the damage of throwing weapons as compared to guns? The only one that could conceivably be increased is grenade damage, and I agree with you there, but even in the first games they were rare(the only weapon to have significant scarcity). Ergo, throwing is a good support skill that should be included in the game, but not as a primary skill where you're forced to choose between spending points on throwing and something that can actually help you on down the road. Cost/benefit analysis and all that crap.

[N]

Ergo, they were underpowered due to the overwhelming availability, cheap cost, and ease of use in the firearms categories. (If you like adding the inventory of water -- how about more critical failures, jams, and misfires of weapons, or having to carry around tools for cleaning them as you run through the dusty desert). Together, yes, you've curtailed the skill of throwing "weapons", other than grenades. Many throwing weapons don't need ammunition. They're also quiet and easier and cheaper to be made than a pistol or rifle or "minigun". That's the usefullness. If you remove that element of the world -- then you bet they're useless. Not on a rule standpoint, on a standpoint of functionality therein compared to an abundance and 'simplicity' of firearms.

Again, I never ever said to make it plausible for a completely focued character. Why not combine the skills? Because they aren't the same, that's why. And in an environment where (IMO) guns and ammunition should be rare and/or precious (not to mention the 2 AP to reload; unless you're carrying around 30 magazines of ammunition, it generally takes longer for me to "reload" a pistol than it does to aim and shoot it -- but again, micromanagement?), melee weapons, throwing weapons, crossbows, and the like would be much more of a viable skill.

Sure -- start the skill higher and base that heavily on dexterity and range on strength. But just because something isn't what the 'average guy' uses, doesn't mean it should be all smashed together to make it easier.
Hell, anyone remember some of the old NES RPG's with "Strength, Dexterity, and Wisdom". I realize that's a huge gap -- but again, I find it much more intriguing and of a higher caliber of quality, to include a wider separation and usefulness (note: not sole domination or the overpowering therein) of skills, items, and a general synergy and mix of the game world.

[Petey_the_Skid]

Ah, but I would like to see ammo and guns be more scarce and valuable. A percentage rating on guns and other weapons as well(similar to Betrayal at Krondor's or Jagged Alliance 2's systems) would be wonderful to see, along with their respective repair kits.

You can also check BaK's implementation of foods, as well as the Exile/Avernum series of games for decent, inobtrusive systems of food/water implementation, no food/water means damage over time and no resting. Hell, it would be nice to see money have weight for once, but I'm willing to let somethings slide ;)

[N]

For once we agree -- I think guns and ammo being more scarce/valuable is great, and some sort of maintenance wouldn't be too bad either (as long as it's not as crazy as it was in System Shock 2). It would balance several elements in terms of 'the game', at least in my eyes.

And for a system on food/water -- I rather like my suggestion earlier in the thread. But, that's just me.

I think we agree on many points, but have disagreements on how to fix said shortcomings.

[Petey_the_Skid]

It's very possible...someone on the interplay forums said that if you get every Fallout fan and have them make a list of stuff they want in fallout 3, you'd get a diffrent list from each one;). Anyways, it was fun getting into a heatded disccusion for once, I'm usually quite docile.

oh bty the way, if you've never played BaK, you should try it, it's freely available for download these days.

[N]

I've got other things to play -- like Gothic 2. Maybe some other time.

[SuperH]

There is no precedent in history eiether for a throwing only hero, check out all you're myths, legends, history books and so on and so on.

That's hardly true, tonnes of ancient heroes used throwing spears and stuff. Zeus is a "throwing only" hero, he throws lightning. Throwing was a huge deal, on par with the bow and arrow way back in the day, i.e. prehistory. I don't see why it couldn't be now that humanity is knocked back to semi-prehistoric times. Of course there are still firearms around, so they wouldn't have regained as much usefullness, but throwing's still not a bad skill to have in a pinch.

[DarkUnderlord]

why would you want to bolster the damage of throwing weapons as compared to guns?

Why would you choose the Gauss Pistol over the Guass Rifle? It's variety. Not everyone uses the Plasma Rifle, not everyone uses the Gauss weapons. Some people use the Bozar. That's 4 different weapons that people can argue about which is better. Why limit that? Why not increase that by making another skill viable?

throwing is a good support skill that should be included in the game, but not as a primary skill where you're forced to choose between spending points on throwing and something that can actually help you on down the road. Cost/benefit analysis and all that crap.

The idea is to make it something beyond a support skill, and into a skill that can help you down the road and complete the game. A variety of weapons (as in Arcanum) could be made to make the skill more useful, thus creating more variety for the player. It's all about variety. Hell, a whip thats use is based on your throwing skill (don't know much about whips, but you kind of throw them?), but simply making more powerful throwing weapons. As Saint said, make every object throwable that way someone can get into a bar fight and chuck stools about the place causing a bit of mayhem and damage before they pull out a grenade.

First, it would be awkward(and was in the game) to carry so many throwable weapons to have enough to deal with even a minor threat,

Not unless the weapons come back to you (boomerangs) or you cause enough damage that you don't need so many. Your argument also works against the rocket launcher which requires some pretty heavy ammo in order to be useful. As well as the flamethrower.

second, when an enemy gets close enough to melee, throwing becomes essentially useless(something not represented properly in the game)

... and when an enemy is standing 20 hexes away, your unarmed skill is pretty useless too. According to your logic, we may as well remove all skills other than the gun skills and be done with it.

There is no precedent in history eiether for a throwing only hero, check out all you're myths, legends, history books and so on and so on.

Well, I found a bad guy, not a hero:

Bullseye kills people by accurately throwing things at them, pencils, paperclips, peanuts, in addition to knives and throwing blades.

I think we'll pass on the throwing peanuts.

We also have the classic villian in Bond, who throws his knife edged bowling hat. Batman uses a "Batarang" at times and we also have the movie "BeastMaster" where the guy in that uses a throwing weapon.

[Saint_Proverbius]

I'd say at the MOST -- it all comes down to travel time/random encounter rate. If you have no "carried" water (that you bought) and a low outdoorsman skill, then it takes you longer to travel over land and/or thus increases your chance of random encounters, to simulate the fact it takes you longer to find water because you weren't carrying anything. This way, those who don't care to do either, don't die, and don't have to worry about directly negative consequences. (And the speed you move across the map could remain constant, but the "clock" could speed up/slow down accordingly.

Actually, in Fallout and Fallout 2, someone with a high outdoorsman did travel faster than someone with a low outdoorsman, IIRC. Of course, increased/decreased travel time really only matters if there's a time limit in the game like there was with Fallout's waterchip quest.

Of course, the lack of the time limit kinda broke a lot of skills, too, like First Aid, because without a time limit, you could simply rest until healed and didn't need that skill at all.

That's hardly true, tonnes of ancient heroes used throwing spears and stuff. Zeus is a "throwing only" hero, he throws lightning. Throwing was a huge deal, on par with the bow and arrow way back in the day, i.e. prehistory. I don't see why it couldn't be now that humanity is knocked back to semi-prehistoric times. Of course there are still firearms around, so they wouldn't have regained as much usefullness, but throwing's still not a bad skill to have in a pinch.

What about Captain America? He uses his shield as an offensive weapon by throwing it. Gambit of the X-Men charges cards with kinetic energy and throws them. There was the guy James Coburn played in The Magnificent Seven who's talent was knife throwing, and I don't recall him using a gun but it's been a while since I've seen it.

That's just three off the top of my head.

[N]

The character was Britt -- he challenges a guy to a 'duel', his knife against the other guy's pistol, and he indeed kills the man by throwing his knife nicely into the fellow before he's even drawn, I think.

On the travel time/water thing -- as I said, making more encounters because you're traveling slower, or, well making more quests be time dependant. Mini quests, like the one where you have to find that one farmer before Modoc rushes in and kills all the folks in the Ghost Farm.

Oh, and Xena the Warrior Princess had a throwing weapon too that she used quite often. ;P

[Saint_Proverbius]

Oh, and Xena the Warrior Princess had a throwing weapon too that she used quite often. ;P

Xena also uses swords, though. However, there was an old cartoon back in the 1970s which featured an amazon chick who wore a collar-like device she used much like Xena's chakrum who didn't use anything else.

[N]

Yes, she does use swords. And while the discussion includes (or was to negate the statement that no one used throwing weapons exclusively) throwing only characters, Batman, and the Beastmaster, and Captain America also used "other attacks". At base, punches and kicks. My argument, again, was not to make throwing skills powerful enough to make it the end all be all skill to choose in combat. But to make it VIABLE as a parallel to another combat skill, to a lesser degree, as a support skill if needed. But her chakram (I think it's called) is pretty badass, and she has used it to take out quite a few folks.

The baddest ass 'throwing only' character in memory? The 'assassin' in Desperado who is sent by the unnamed 'big boss' that Bucho's men kill after he stiletto's quite a few guys. He scampered around and threw those damn things so fast it was sweet to watch.