JE Sawyer on SPECIAL

[J.E. Sawyer]

You remember, do you not, that a lot people complained about PA in Fallout. It was too powerful, anyone could destroy hordes of Mutants with it without damage.

I certainly remember it. If anyone's memory is "hazy" try loading up Fallout, entering the military base, and trying to go through on a combat route in Combat Armor instead of Power Armor or Hardened Power Armor.

Which is why I suggested making First Aid more of a combat treatment skill. It doesn't have to make sense realistically. You just say, "Hey, this is what this skill does as opposed to this similar skill."

Sure. I could also subdivide the weapon skills into Conventional Pistols, Conventional Submachineguns, Conventional Rifles, Conventional Shotguns, LASER Pistols, LASER Submachineguns, LASER Rifles, etc. It certainly "makes sense", but that doesn't mean it's a good idea. I think you're really stretching to justify the separation of First Aid and Doctor when the initial foundation for that seems to be, "You shouldn't remove a skill because you need lots of skills." Huh? I'm buying Section Eight's ideas more.

Yes, but we're already talking about a system that is fairly well balanced. When you remove aspects of that system, you're going to have to re-balance things too.

You think it's balanced; I don't. If I thought it were balanced, I wouldn't suggest changing it.

Look at Metal Armor MkII versus Telsa Armor. They're similar in terms of DT, but the DR are different because Telsa Armor is designed to soak energy weapon damage.

You did read that I typed "subdivided damage thresholds" in there, right? If you had an Electrical DT, Fire DT, Ballistic DT, etc., you would still have plenty of variation. And why are you writing as though doing this would ruin the glorious variation of armor in Fallout? There are, what, about six or seven types of armor total in the Fallout universe? You're trying to convince me that SPECIAL needs DR because it's the only thing that allows for a wide plethora of armor in Fallout, but there was never a wide plethora of armor to begin with.

If that's the case, why not just make a new system then? Just say, "Hey, SPECIAL works great for Fallout, but we're making something that's different. Let's make a whole new system!" After all, that's the way Interplay used to do things.

Okay! We can start with you getting overly worked up over small modifications to a system that is much larger than you're making it out to be.

Which doesn't make sense, does it? Let's tear down a complex system, and replace it with a complex system, then rebalance it.

It makes sense if it works -- more variables or less. You're clutching on to anything that was in the original SPECIAL system as though by virtue of being in the first Fallout, it was absolutely perfect and could not be improved by any stretch of the imagination. Have you seen me suggesting that the XP table should be changed? That you should get Perks every two levels? That Fallout should have classes?

I wouldn't. The APA was a bit much, but all in all, a lot of people still die in power armor. Killing the President manually in Fallout 2, even with APA, can be rough. Fighting the Master or the Lieutinant in Fallout is a similar situation.

Fighting the Master when you're in Power Armor is tough? The only thing tough about it were his occasional criticals (which typically bypassed armor completely). Almost everything short of grossly powerful criticals did less than a dozen points of damage. And the fact that killing the prez. in APA was tough actually raises the question: what would happen if you fought that battle in anything less than APA?

That's a pretty extensive and time consuming list just to get rid of one aspect because you, in your own words, "don't get it".

I don't think I'm the only person who doesn't "get it". Please tell me what happens to characters in Fallout and Fallout 2 who try to play through the last half of the game as a combat character in anything less than the most powerful armor available and tell me again that I'm being silly.

While you're wrong that skills are on a percentile scale, damage resistance is, because it performs a percent operation on another value. In this case, the value is damage. High DR demands that weapons do very high damage to overcome it. Because it literally is a percentage of damage reduced, high damage values that are reduced with a lower DR can cause absolutely dreadful amounts of damage.

The only other system I know of that uses a percentile damage reduction is 2nd Ed. AD&D, and it didn't work there, either. When you give someone 75% resistance to fire, that means that the 10 point Burning Hands only does 3 points of damage, but it also means that the 100 point Meteor Swarm only does 25 points of damage.

The problem arises when you ask, "What happens when a character doesn't have that resistance?" The character who got hit with the Burning Hands only takes 10 points of damage. Big deal. The poor sap who gets blasted with the Meteor Swarm takes 100.

Stop thinking of absolutes here, JE. Just because it goes over 100% doesn't mean it's not a percentage. If IPLY stock jumped up to a dollar, that'd be a 500% change, wouldn't it? See, percentages can be over 100%.

Percentages represent 1/100th of something else. SPECIAL skill values do not represent 1/100th of anything. 3E skill ranks do not represent 1/20th of anything. The fact that you roll a d20 to check against a skill in 3E doesn't mean that all skills are on a scale of 1-20. In fact, none of them are on a scale of 1-20, and no SPECIAL skills are on a scale of 1-100.

But, for the sake of not arguing about this anymore, I have suddenly changed my mind and decided that you are right after all.

Then we're back to that skill not being that useful because getting hit with a super sledge while wearing puny armor is likely to kill you. Being hit half the time is not a good thing.

I think it's generally a good idea in games when a single character doesn't have to fend off six characters who are all as good at combat as he is. Regardless of system, encounters with groups of dudes tend to be balanced so that they aren't as good at X,Y, and Z as you are.

First Aid (sorceror) can perform a limited amount of tasks basically at will, and because they are basically using whatever is on hand, so time becomes the sole factor governing use.

Doctor (wizard) however, can perform a great deal more, but must be specifically prepared for each discrete task they can perform.

I think First Aid needs to ramp up the amount of damage it can heal per use dramatically with an increase in skill, and Doctor needs to provide the potential for truly awesome healing at higher levels.

I don't like the idea of Doctors being able to make stims. If they can make them easily, it negates the need for First Aid. If it's too hard to make them, it isn't very worthwhile.

[J.E. Sawyer]

Saint, another thing I just noticed: you object to splitting Autofire off as a separate weapon skill because it causes practical problems; a character would have to have a good Rifle skill and a good Autofire skill to use an assault rifle in various modes of attack. However, when I suggest merging Doctor and First Aid for practical reasons (gaining more general use out of one skill instead of keeping it as two infrequently used skills), you object.

All I am interested in are the practical effects of how these skills break down, build up, and are used throughout the game. I'm not particularly attached to the idea of subdividing or merging skills as a general trend. I think that I (and some other people) notice that certain skills get used a lot while other skills get used either infrequently or only in certain portions of the game (early, middle, late). That seems like a bad trend to me, and that's why I'm suggesting changing those things.

[Red]

From a game design perspective, the end result is that the most fun is the simplest. If there's 300 skills and a lot of them are similar, it's probably worth to cut down on the list to spare the user the toruble of knowing what he'll invest points into... That and also just try to imagine the damn interface you'd need to cover all those skills I always found the First Aid vs Doctor skills fairly useless, but that's because they were poorly implimented through Fallouts. Great examples have been offered to enhance both by both SP and Section8.

I'm not saying it should be too simple either, as that can easyly kill variety and thus interest, not to mention replayability...

A nice thing about the whole stats and skill system is that there's two levels of complexity within the game. The first is fairly simple to get acquainted to: SPECIAL, while the second is more complex - but one of the beauties of this second part is that the player invests his points as the game goes along instead of right away, giving him time to learn the system on his own.

To that effect, I beleive that the user shouldn't be forced to tag his skills right away. Once tagged, they're tagged and he can no longer change them, obviously, but prior to that leeway should be given to them so that they can understand the importance of the skill within the game while playing instead of starting a game and woops! too late, already tagged a skill and you stick with it and need to start another game.

I think that's a pretty simple and neat concept right there, though it doesn't talk about all the other aspects of the game, so here's my though:
Technically it doesn't matter what they start with as long as all the tests are in relation to the known starting number. If you want Doctor's skill to be harder to learn then the others, then make the "thresholds" to do something higher. Simple as that. No need to change anything with the current system. Note that I'm not saying that you shouldn't touch it, I'm just saying that there are other ways to acheive the same goal...

One more thing though, SP's comment about percents was about skills, not damage resitance. Not that this matters much... I still don't quite grasp how the skill tests are made in Fallout... I'll take the Cybernetic brain as an example, it has a -120 penalty on the test, but given you have 121, you're almost certain to pass the test...
d100 < (Skill - 120) should almost always fail no? Considering you have 121 in this example should yield to a 1% chance?

[Saint_Proverbius]

I certainly remember it. If anyone's memory is "hazy" try loading up Fallout, entering the military base, and trying to go through on a combat route in Combat Armor instead of Power Armor or Hardened Power Armor.

The same could be said about AD&D games and wandering around late in the game with just +1 platemail. Or Diablo 2 Act 4 with Flanged Gothic Plate of the Bat. Or just about any game with a character/armor system.

Sure. I could also subdivide the weapon skills into Conventional Pistols, Conventional Submachineguns, Conventional Rifles, Conventional Shotguns, LASER Pistols, LASER Submachineguns, LASER Rifles, etc. It certainly "makes sense", but that doesn't mean it's a good idea. I think you're really stretching to justify the separation of First Aid and Doctor when the initial foundation for that seems to be, "You shouldn't remove a skill because you need lots of skills." Huh? I'm buying Section Eight's ideas more.

Apparently you're missing the point here. I'm saying that stretching skill advancement over advancement and removing skills at the same time isn't that good of an idea. It's like wanting a glass of water, going to the sink, filling a glass, then dumping it out, and claiming you're no longer thirsty.

Furthermore, First Aid and Doctor are already skills in the game, JE. That's a whole lot different then subdividing skills that exist in to more skills.

Third, Section 8's suggestion involves keeping both skills, and is based upon the same foundation mine is, make those skills have more differences.

You think it's balanced; I don't. If I thought it were balanced, I wouldn't suggest changing it.

Because of the power armor, right? Have you considered tweaking that power armor rather than ripping out a huge chunk of the character system? That'd be a lot easier and take less time balancing.

You did read that I typed "subdivided damage thresholds" in there, right? If you had an Electrical DT, Fire DT, Ballistic DT, etc., you would still have plenty of variation.

Those already exist in Fallout. Armor has DT and DR per damage type already. Suggesting removing DR would mean there would be less things to vary.

And why are you writing as though doing this would ruin the glorious variation of armor in Fallout? There are, what, about six or seven types of armor total in the Fallout universe? You're trying to convince me that SPECIAL needs DR because it's the only thing that allows for a wide plethora of armor in Fallout, but there was never a wide plethora of armor to begin with.

As of Fallout 2, there's Leather Jacket, Combat Leather Jacket, Leather Armor, Leather Armor MkII, Metal Armor, Metal Armor MkII, Tesla Armor, Combat Armor, Combat Armor MkII, Brotherhood Armor, Bridgekeeper's Robes, Power Armor, Hardenned Power Armor, Advanced Power Armor, and Advanced Power Armor MkII. That's 16 types.

If you want to add in Environmental Armor and Environmental Armor MkII from Fallout Tactics, that adds 18 types.

And honestly, can you say there wouldn't be more types of armor in Fallout 3?

Okay! We can start with you getting overly worked up over small modifications to a system that is much larger than you're making it out to be.

I'm not worked up. I think it's a valid question. I don't think it's a small modification either, considering you'd have to change all the weapons, all the armors, an attribute, and several perks.

It makes sense if it works -- more variables or less. You're clutching on to anything that was in the original SPECIAL system as though by virtue of being in the first Fallout, it was absolutely perfect and could not be improved by any stretch of the imagination. Have you seen me suggesting that the XP table should be changed? That you should get Perks every two levels? That Fallout should have classes?

Now you're just watering down my arguments to mere nostalgia. That's not the case. I'm saying that DR is a huge concept in Fallout's system. Removing it would be a much less simple thing than to change the perk rate and the experience per level.

Fighting the Master when you're in Power Armor is tough? The only thing tough about it were his occasional criticals (which typically bypassed armor completely). Almost everything short of grossly powerful criticals did less than a dozen points of damage.

Try fighting the Master with something other than a turbo plasma rifle. Having the Master firing gatling lasers, while you have two floating eyes shooting lasers at you, and a whole host of spawning supermutants.. I still wouldn't call that a cake walk.

The Lieutinant in Mariposa can also dish out a hell of a lot a damage.

And the fact that killing the prez. in APA was tough actually raises the question: what would happen if you fought that battle in anything less than APA?

Which argument are you trying to make here? You seem to fluctuate between APA is uber, and other armors should be uber too.

I don't think I'm the only person who doesn't "get it". Please tell me what happens to characters in Fallout and Fallout 2 who try to play through the last half of the game as a combat character in anything less than the most powerful armor available and tell me again that I'm being silly.

Please tell me why you wouldn't use the best armor that you have available? This isn't AD&D where thiefy skills were required to be used under armor restrictions.

damage resistance is, because it performs a percent operation on another value. In this case, the value is damage. High DR demands that weapons do very high damage to overcome it. Because it literally is a percentage of damage reduced, high damage values that are reduced with a lower DR can cause absolutely dreadful amounts of damage.

So... lower the values of the DR in power armor. That's the one that upsets you, right? Seems like that's a simple solution.

The only other system I know of that uses a percentile damage reduction is 2nd Ed. AD&D, and it didn't work there, either. When you give someone 75% resistance to fire, that means that the 10 point Burning Hands only does 3 points of damage, but it also means that the 100 point Meteor Swarm only does 25 points of damage.

Diablo 2 has it. Really, as long as we're talking about AD&D, I'd rather have damage redux than that *Weapon Ineffective* stuff. Some damage is better than none, after all.

However, you have a moot point when you can still be killed in Fallout and Fallout 2, even with Power Armor and even without critical hits.

The problem arises when you ask, "What happens when a character doesn't have that resistance?" The character who got hit with the Burning Hands only takes 10 points of damage. Big deal. The poor sap who gets blasted with the Meteor Swarm takes 100.

Again, why wouldn't you use it if you had access to it as a combat character? And I've known people who have beaten Fallout with Combat Armor and Tesla Armor because they screwed up the ways to get Power Armor. You can effectively swap armors based on what's coming at you down the hall.

Percentages represent 1/100th of something else. SPECIAL skill values do not represent 1/100th of anything. 3E skill ranks do not represent 1/20th of anything. The fact that you roll a d20 to check against a skill in 3E doesn't mean that all skills are on a scale of 1-20. In fact, none of them are on a scale of 1-20, and no SPECIAL skills are on a scale of 1-100.

And yet the odds of doing things are 1-95%!

I think it's generally a good idea in games when a single character doesn't have to fend off six characters who are all as good at combat as he is. Regardless of system, encounters with groups of dudes tend to be balanced so that they aren't as good at X,Y, and Z as you are.

Really, though, if you want to use lighter armors, for the sake of looking cool or whatever, shouldn't you be... Sneaking?

Furthermore, with a Dodge skill, wouldn't that kind of reduce the importance of things like HtH Evade? In fact, I'd much rather see Perks like that expanded to give bonuses to HtH characters.

I think First Aid needs to ramp up the amount of damage it can heal per use dramatically with an increase in skill, and Doctor needs to provide the potential for truly awesome healing at higher levels.

I don't like the idea of Doctors being able to make stims. If they can make them easily, it negates the need for First Aid. If it's too hard to make them, it isn't very worthwhile.

Making stims was introduced in Fallout 2. It requires components to make a stimpack, naturally.

Saint, another thing I just noticed: you object to splitting Autofire off as a separate weapon skill because it causes practical problems; a character would have to have a good Rifle skill and a good Autofire skill to use an assault rifle in various modes of attack. However, when I suggest merging Doctor and First Aid for practical reasons (gaining more general use out of one skill instead of keeping it as two infrequently used skills), you object.

The difference is that I suggested that First Aid do something different than Doctor rather than having First Aid be Mini-Doctor. Neither First Aid nor Doctor require the other skill to work either, which isn't the case with your suggestion of Autofire and Rifle skills. You'd need both just to use an Assault Rifle.

All I am interested in are the practical effects of how these skills break down, build up, and are used throughout the game. I'm not particularly attached to the idea of subdividing or merging skills as a general trend. I think that I (and some other people) notice that certain skills get used a lot while other skills get used either infrequently or only in certain portions of the game (early, middle, late). That seems like a bad trend to me, and that's why I'm suggesting changing those things.

Well, I agree that some skills need help. I think Outdoorsman is one of the big ones that needs some uplifting. In fact, it's probably the least useful of all skills in Fallout and Fallout 2.

[Vergilius]

Just dropping a few wobbly comments here:

The same could be said about AD&D games and wandering around late in the game with just +1 platemail. Or Diablo 2 Act 4 with Flanged Gothic Plate of the Bat. Or just about any game with a character/armor system.

Would it not be nice with a change and a correction to this error? After all, two error does not make one right..

think First Aid needs to ramp up the amount of damage it can heal per use dramatically with an increase in skill, and Doctor needs to provide the potential for truly awesome healing at higher levels.

a) there is a perk that allows greater healing..
b)I still think that you should try and decrease the amount of stimpacks available instead, (after all what is the point of firstaid /doctor if you can use sevendrillions of sumperstims?)


Be able to create stimpacks? Yes that is one way to increase doctors value. But unless you make it sure that stimpacks are something rare, hard to create, something that makes you say Whoah, stimpack, kewl, all this does is that it decreases the hardship and dangers of an apocalypse world without an increase in game enjoyment

[Section8]

I don't like the idea of Doctors being able to make stims. If they can make them easily, it negates the need for First Aid. If it's too hard to make them, it isn't very worthwhile.

Well, one could also argue that Barter or Steal negate the need for First Aid, because you get get stims cheaply, or even better, for free. Basically what it comes down to is balancing resources against inate ability. And I can think of plenty of reasons why inate ability (tactical) would suit one type of character, and why resources and preparation (strategy) would suit another.

I think the big issue with stims is the fact that actually using them from your inventory incurs no AP cost. If you could only use a stim or two per turn as opposed to a nice, fat, high First Aid skill use, then it's going to make it more useful. The fact of the matter is, the need of first aid is already negated by two things. No time limit, and the unlimited stim use for the low, low price of 4 APs. So tone back how stims work. Spread their effect over the space of a few rounds or give each individual use an AP cost, and suddenly they aren't quite as attractive.

Personally I like the idea of spreading the effect, that way a player could dose up on n (where n is the number of rounds the effect is spread over) times as many stims as they need, just to get full health instantly. It's then an interesting choice, even more so if there is some sort of negative "overstim" reaction.

[Red]

Or 2AP with Quick pockets (in FO2... I liked it better at 3ap as in FO1... too powerful in FO2).

Then again they could just make sure that items used in the inventory take just as much APs (or more since you need to fiddle in your pack)...

So instead of taking AP's for looking in the bag, take the AP's for using something in it. It'd make much more sense and would prevent the stim abuse off the bat...

How about this: 1ap to LOOK in the bag, and then 1ap + normal ap to use item.

If quickpocket perk is selected, then the ap to look in the bag is removed.

So using a stimpack would normally cost 4ap, and with quickpockets, 3ap, just the way I like it. But you still get an advatage to "leave the bag open" to do other stuff - unless you have quick pockets...

Having the bonus on each item use seems too powerful, though if you think that using all the items with an extra cost, then maybe quick pockets could be applied to that isntead...

Anyway, you can fiddle with the idea and make anything you want with it... Take 2 ap's to look, but each item costs normal cost -1, quick pockets would take the cost down to 1ap to look. etc etc...

[Crow of Ill Omen]

I like it too, Section 8 and Red. It would definitely give a boost to the importance of First Aid.

Killzig, I was actually refering to the way JESawyer more or less restated my own comment about DT vs different damage types offering more variables. It made me think he was only here to address S_P. I don't mind if that's the case. S_P is an expert, after all. I'd rather be told up front, though, so I don't waste my time trying to talk to him.

Saint_Proverbius, I'm with you on being reluctant to rewrite the original system to the point where it is a whole new system. After all, despite some flaws, it worked very well. I don't think it will be possibly to change it in small ways, though. We all know how disproportionately large the effect of minor elements in RPG game mechanics can be. Fallout achieved a game balance like almost no other system, and I suspect it's a bit of a house of cards. I think the choice might be rewrite or remain unchanged.

If a rewrite is attempted, the things that were essentially SPECIAL need to be identified, so that we end up with the next incarnation of it, rather than just using the name for a whole different system. So far, I don't think any of the suggestions JESawyer has made would remove essential parts of the system. This is where my lack of expertise shows, though. I'd trust your opinion on this over most people's, and my own opinion less than most people on this forum.

Regarding First Aid/Doctor, I have been trying to understand how the comments made would translate to real effects on gameplay. S_P says to make First Aid into more combat medicine and JESawyer is saying amalgamate the skill, but there is not enough exemplification. My own suggesiton would be to keep the two skills separate, but heighten the profile of criticals within the game. The division between the two skills being the abilitiy of Doctor to mend criticals would then be more significant.

I wouldn't suggest a big change to criticals just for this, but it would also (as OTB said) form a way of handling the dodge issue.

If critical injuries were more common, and the scope of their effect had a wider range, dodge ability (whether a skill, a perk or something else) could be used to reduce the chance of receiving a critical (Call it ability to avoid/flinch/roll with a punch, whatever). That way, dodge type characters in light armour would be risking more non-critical damage, and someone standing like a rock in APA would be taking a greater risk of spork in the eye (or a bullet in the joint, I suppose).

I don't know about the DR issue. It seems you've both admitted at some point that it could go either way, but you're still talking about it. I do think that if DR is going to be a factor it should have its limits on the amount of damage it can reduce (the destructive energy has to go somewhere, surely?).

[Walks with the Snails]

I have a hard time seeing exactly what positive things DR contributes, too. I never really cared for it, and it does tend to make high-end weapons overwhelmingly powerful to overcome it. Yeah, you can tone down PA, but still, what real thing does DR contribute to the system that outweighs what it breaks? I think Fallout still would have been fine without it and some of the sillier aspects of the system that made it break down under extreme conditions would be lessened. A tighter range of weapon damages would be good, for one thing. It makes sense that an unarmored man who could take a bullet to the shoulder could take a laser shot to the shoulder as well. A hole is still a hole. It would give more character options for people, too. Like if you were a stealthy character who didn't wear PA because of the sneak penalty, you still might survive a couple of hits with a high-end weapon (that wouldn't need the absurd damage to do more than nickel and dime damage to someone in PA this time) as you ducked behind a corner, even if duking it out with someone with high-end weapons still wouldn't be an option like it would for someone with PA. You could also just as easily make weapons and armors that are designed to punch through or deflect different types of damage with just thresholds.

I still haven't seen a good defense of how the current classification of weapons works well, either. Making autofire a different skill would still be okay to me, as it works on a different principle. A sniper should be as distinct from a spray-and-prayer as he is from a melee guy. Because each kind of fighting style has its distinct benefits and drawbacks, it means you can't be the king of all the fighting styles with your gun category of choice by only buying up one skill. That was stated as a benefit for having first aid and doctor distinct, wasn't it? At the same time, you don't run into the problem of having your skill be totally worthless depending on what stage of the game you're at, like it is with Small/Big/Energy.

[Red]

I liked having both DR and DT in Fallouts, to have variety. A lot of people swore over the leather armours over the metal armours because it had a bigger DT while having a lower DR (I remember a rather heated poll pn v13 on the subject and the poll results were rather close). This added a lot to the gameplay, at least to those who considered it: it's better not to get hit then to get hit a little was the ideology behind a good DT.

I like the whole DR concept personally since it allows to make armours which aren't invincible. Take the 100 shot, apply a 50% rating and you still get hit for certain points, where with only a DT system, it's either all or nothing.

Unless you're willing to change the DT to a system that just remove points, but that'd be stupid as that's already covered with AC. And it's not that complicated to grasp.

For dodging, isn't that related to the user's Dex? Well, one could change the attack test... Add a "dodge skill penalty" when you fire your gun (or throw your punch - or rock for that matter). I really can't imagine there being a Dodge Perk though (well, other then one which would boost the Dodge skill that is...), as it really wouldnt' make sense to have either someone who can or who can't dodge.

[Saint_Proverbius]

I have a hard time seeing exactly what positive things DR contributes, too. I never really cared for it, and it does tend to make high-end weapons overwhelmingly powerful to overcome it. Yeah, you can tone down PA, but still, what real thing does DR contribute to the system that outweighs what it breaks?

What does it break? Nothing. Don't believe me? Keep reading.

I think Fallout still would have been fine without it and some of the sillier aspects of the system that made it break down under extreme conditions would be lessened. A tighter range of weapon damages would be good, for one thing.

Actually, no, a tighter range of weapon damages wouldn't be good. Look at Fallout 2, even with that broad range of weapon damage, how many weapons were there that were redundant? Way to close to one another in terms of damage. For example:

• FN FAL does 11-22 Damage, Single Shot 5AP, Burst 6AP
  G11E does 13-23 Damage, Single Shot 5AP, Burst 6AP
  CAWS does 15-25 Damage, Single Shot 6AP, Burst 6AP

They're just slightly off from one another even with that broad range. If you reduced the range of damage weapons could do, you'd end up with more and more weapons being redundant.

It makes sense that an unarmored man who could take a bullet to the shoulder could take a laser shot to the shoulder as well. A hole is still a hole.

Not quite, considering Fallout's laser is more of the classic sci-fi style laser than an actual laser. Consider that a laser in Fallout can cut someone in half on a critical/overkill damage, I'd say it makes a little more than just a 9MM bullet hole, wouldn't you?

If it can cut you in half, I'd say a good shot to the shoulder would, at the very least, totally remove that shoulder leaving that man with only one arm left.

It would give more character options for people, too. Like if you were a stealthy character who didn't wear PA because of the sneak penalty, you still might survive a couple of hits with a high-end weapon (that wouldn't need the absurd damage to do more than nickel and dime damage to someone in PA this time) as you ducked behind a corner, even if duking it out with someone with high-end weapons still wouldn't be an option like it would for someone with PA.

That sneak penalty was tossed in with Fallout Tactics - as were a lot of things without much thought. Fallout and Fallout 2 didn't have that.

You could also just as easily make weapons and armors that are designed to punch through or deflect different types of damage with just thresholds.

OKAY! It's time to stat whore, number crunch this argument to oblivion.

Actually, thresholds in Fallout and Fallout 2 were the primary reason PAs were uber. Ever noticed all the "You were hit for 0 damage" you'd get when you were wearing PA? That's not from the DR, that's from the DTs.

Say you're hit for 18 points damage when you're wearing APA. APA has 15 DT for physical and 55% DR. The calculation is as follows:

(18 Damage - 15 DT) * (1 - 55%)

Depending on how it truncates, you're going to get 1 or 2 points damage from the bullet. 18 is a fairly average to high number when you consider the rifle damages in Fallout, and the majority of that gets sucked away by the DT. NOT THE DR!

Even if you max out damage with a Sniper Rifle, that's

(30 -15) * (1-55%) or 7 damage. The DT gets 15 damage sucked away and the DR only gets 8, and the Sniper Rifle is a fairly powerful weapon.

In fact, the way the armors are in Fallout, by design, the DR actually helps the smaller, weaker armors more than the DTs! Here's the physical damage DT/DR rating for Metal, Combat, and APA:

• Metal: 4/30%
  Combat: 5/40%
  APA: 15/55%

So, let's consider the 18 point example, shall we?

• Metal: (18 Damage - 4 DT) * (1-30%) = 9 or 10 (DR soaks 4 to 5pts)
  Combat: (18 Damage - 5 DT) * (1-40%) = 7 or 8 (DR soaks 6 to 7pts)
  APA: (18 Damage = 15 DT) * (1-55%) = 1 or 2 (DR soaks 1 to 2pts)

Now, I think it's pretty clear that the DR actually helps the weaker armors over the uber armor simply because they soak damage well compared to how much they stop.

So, now you might say, "Well, what about lasers and plasma?" Guess what? DR is still chief at helping the weaker armored guy there too.

Lasers:

• Metal: 6/75%
  Combat: 8/60%
  APA: 19/90%

Plasma:

• Metal: 4/20%
  Combat: 4/50%
  APA: 15/60%

Metal is FANTASTIC versus lasers because of it's DR versus them. Likewise, Combat is FANTASTIC versus plasma and pretty damned close to APA at soaking that damage.

So, basically, that whole thing about removing DRs helping smaller, weaker armors is utter BULLSHIT because it's DRs that give them the leg up! Furthermore, it's the DT in the Power Armors that make it so friggin powerful!

Basically, all the points made against DRs in this thread about DRs vs DTs are, in fact, false as shown mathematically using the formula that the system uses!

SUCK IT DOWN!

[Red]

That was always my feelling... I mean you already have AC and DT more or less just adds to AC, but with a little twist. I still liked this twist much better then "just AC", but DR seemed much more pertinent in my eyes.

I also think however that too powerfull a DR is a bad thing... ~90% DR is just WAY too much - unless there are a lot of other penalties in using that - but the PA didn't have any... (Unlike the Tesla armour). If moderation was used for the DR rating (say never go over 60%), then it might have less of a "uber" feel...

[Crow of Ill Omen]

It makes sense that an unarmored man who could take a bullet to the shoulder could take a laser shot to the shoulder as well. A hole is still a hole.

Not quite, considering Fallout's laser is more of the classic sci-fi style laser than an actual laser. Consider that a laser in Fallout can cut someone in half on a critical/overkill damage, I'd say it makes a little more than just a 9MM bullet hole, wouldn't you?

If it can cut you in half, I'd say a good shot to the shoulder would, at the very least, totally remove that shoulder leaving that man with only one arm left.

That's not exactly fair. You're saying a guy could take a minor 9mm bullet wound but not a massive laser wound. I think it's fairer to say the guy could withstand minor wounds of either type and would be unable to stand massive wounds of either type.

I'm not sure about your numbers. My knowledge is running out here, but I dimly recall much larger damage values in the later stages of the game. Clearly, for larger numbers the impact of DR increases, while DT proportionally descreases. Have I misunderstood something? (feel free to quote more numbers - I liked those).

[Saint_Proverbius]

I'm not sure about your numbers. My knowledge is running out here, but I dimly recall much larger damage values in the later stages of the game. Clearly, for larger numbers the impact of DR increases, while DT proportionally descreases. Have I misunderstood something? (feel free to quote more numbers - I liked those).

Well, there's the Gauss Rifle, which is pretty darned insane when it comes to damage. That's 32-43, right? Average of 38 damage, let's say.

• Metal: (38 Damage - 4 DT) * (1-30%) = 23 or 24 ( DR soaks 10 or 11)
  Combat: (38 Damage - 5 DT) * (1-40%) = 19 or 20 (DR soaks 13 or 14)
  APA: (38 Damage - 15DT) * (1-55%) = 10 or 11 (DR soaks 13 or 14)

As you can see, with the weaker armor types, the DR helps out a hell of a lot more than the DT does, which I stated before. The DR helps weaker armors. Also, you can see that the the DT on the APA still outweighs the DR value for the average damage of the meanest Small Arms weapon in the game.

Basically, you have to go to the high end, extreme value for best Small Arms weapon in the game just to get the DR to beat the DT value which pretty much proves my point. In nearly every case, even the average damage yield of the Gauss Rifle, the DT is what makes the APA uber.

[Crow of Ill Omen]

Hmmm ... maybe I'm imagining things, but weren't some damage figures in the 60-100 range? I mean applied damage, rather than weapon damage. Was that just for criticals or something where DT/DR does not apply?

[Saint_Proverbius]

Hmmm ... maybe I'm imagining things, but weren't some damage figures in the 60-100 range? I mean applied damage, rather than weapon damage. Was that just for criticals or something where DT/DR does not apply?

Creatures/Enemies/Etc don't use armor in the game. They have predefined values for things. They don't use SPECIAL. However, they do use guns against you, the guy who has to use SPECIAL.

That's pretty much why you, in your APA, can zing Enclave Troopers for 30 points damage with a Gauss Pistol and their pistol only does 10 or so to you.

For the purpose of this argument, we're talking about the weapon effects on a player, not the player's weapon effects on a monster.

[Crow of Ill Omen]

Got it. Sorry about that.

[Walks with the Snails]

Actually, no, a tighter range of weapon damages wouldn't be good. Look at Fallout 2, even with that broad range of weapon damage, how many weapons were there that were redundant? Way to close to one another in terms of damage. For example:

• FN FAL does 11-22 Damage, Single Shot 5AP, Burst 6AP
  G11E does 13-23 Damage, Single Shot 5AP, Burst 6AP
  CAWS does 15-25 Damage, Single Shot 6AP, Burst 6AP

They're just slightly off from one another even with that broad range. If you reduced the range of damage weapons could do, you'd end up with more and more weapons being redundant.

Tighter as in the high end collapses. In other words, no 34-78 pulse rifles or whatever crazy damage the gauss rifle did. I think your figure was for the pistol, I thought the rifle did something on the order of 40-100.

It would give more character options for people, too. Like if you were a stealthy character who didn't wear PA because of the sneak penalty, you still might survive a couple of hits with a high-end weapon (that wouldn't need the absurd damage to do more than nickel and dime damage to someone in PA this time) as you ducked behind a corner, even if duking it out with someone with high-end weapons still wouldn't be an option like it would for someone with PA.

That sneak penalty was tossed in with Fallout Tactics - as were a lot of things without much thought. Fallout and Fallout 2 didn't have that.

I am aware of that. I for one liked the sneak penalty, though, and it sounds like it's going to be kept around. Especially if we're still going for the idea of giving different characters different kinds of paths to go through the game. When everybody's wearing PA at the end because there's no reason not to, everybody's more or less a tank, though. It tends to pretty much homogenize what the designers are going to throw at you to give your particular character a challenge.

OKAY! It's time to stat whore, number crunch this argument to oblivion.

[snip]

So, basically, that whole thing about removing DRs helping smaller, weaker armors is utter BULLSHIT because it's DRs that give them the leg up! Furthermore, it's the DT in the Power Armors that make it so friggin powerful!

Basically, all the points made against DRs in this thread about DRs vs DTs are, in fact, false as shown mathematically using the formula that the system uses!

SUCK IT DOWN!

What about from the designer's perspective. The guns are designed with the armor in mind.

Okay, they want to give you and your foes something that will pack a decent punch against APA. Let's say 10 damage. x represents the raw damage required to do 10 final damage. All results are rounded to the nearest integer.

Ballistic - 15 DT, 55% DR
10 = (x - 15)(1 - .55), x = 37

So we've got 37 base damage to do the required 10 damage. With just 15 DT, only 25 damage would be required. Obviously, the unarmored guy is royally screwed, since he sucks down 12 more damage.

Let's look at how metal and combat fare.

Metal: 4/30
(37 - 4)(1 - .30) = 23

With just the flat 4 DT, he'd take 21 from a 25 damage hit. Not as huge a difference as unarmored, but it's there.

Combat: 5/40
(37-5)(1 - .40) = 19

He would have taken 20 from the just DT scenario, so he's starting to push into the favorable end along with PA. I imagine if things were redesigned, combat armor would have a higher DT than 5, though, to better distinguish it.

I can go on if you wish (I'm sure the 90% resistance against lasers would be extra fun), but it should be obvious that the lightly armored guy does indeed get screwed when you take into account that the designers and testers set the damage for guns with a general assumption of what kind of final damage they expect them to do based on the expected equipment of enemies and players (which means the high end of that stage of the game, so that tanks don't just roll over everything). It's also why combats where you go back to fight earlier opponents with high-end weapons are such an incredible joke. If that plasma rifle just does 25 damage because that's plenty to give a guy in APA a 10 damage nick, raiders can actually still pose a threat to you in sufficient numbers.

[Saint_Proverbius]

Tighter as in the high end collapses. In other words, no 34-78 pulse rifles or whatever crazy damage the gauss rifle did. I think your figure was for the pistol, I thought the rifle did something on the order of 40-100.

Hell no. The Gauss pistol is 22-33 damge. The Gauss rifle is, as I stated, 32-43.

The pulse rifle does look fairly uber, and it is the highest end energy weapon. However, armors from Metal on up have higher DT and RT for energy weapon types.

I am aware of that. I for one liked the sneak penalty, though, and it sounds like it's going to be kept around. Especially if we're still going for the idea of giving different characters different kinds of paths to go through the game. When everybody's wearing PA at the end because there's no reason not to, everybody's more or less a tank, though. It tends to pretty much homogenize what the designers are going to throw at you to give your particular character a challenge.

Sneak penalty doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense for Fallout armors. Metal Armor is just a chest plate. It's not platemail with a chainmail undercoat to rattle around in it.

PA isn't exactly uber heavy either. It's polymer based after all. None of that Godzilla CLOMP CLOMP CLOMPing around.

What about from the designer's perspective. The guns are designed with the armor in mind.

Okay, they want to give you and your foes something that will pack a decent punch against APA. Let's say 10 damage. x represents the raw damage required to do 10 final damage. All results are rounded to the nearest integer.

Ballistic - 15 DT, 55% DR
10 = (x - 15)(1 - .55), x = 37

So we've got 37 base damage to do the required 10 damage. With just 15 DT, only 25 damage would be required. Obviously, the unarmored guy is royally screwed, since he sucks down 12 more damage.

Um.. With just DR, only 22 damage is required. I made that point already. It's the DT in the Power Armor that makes it uber - NOT THE DR.

In fact, all the computations you did are pretty redundant since I did the average guass rifle shot, which is 38 damage. Thanks for playing!

I can go on if you wish (I'm sure the 90% resistance against lasers would be extra fun), but it should be obvious that the lightly armored guy does indeed get screwed when you take into account that the designers and testers set the damage for guns with a general assumption of what kind of final damage they expect them to do based on the expected equipment of enemies and players (which means the high end of that stage of the game, so that tanks don't just roll over everything).

Not when you figure out that Metal Armor has a 75% DR vs. Laser. I'd say it's a "light armor", wouldn't you?

[Walks with the Snails]

I am aware of that. I for one liked the sneak penalty, though, and it sounds like it's going to be kept around. Especially if we're still going for the idea of giving different characters different kinds of paths to go through the game. When everybody's wearing PA at the end because there's no reason not to, everybody's more or less a tank, though. It tends to pretty much homogenize what the designers are going to throw at you to give your particular character a challenge.

Sneak penalty doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense for Fallout armors. Metal Armor is just a chest plate. It's not platemail with a chainmail undercoat to rattle around in it.

PA isn't exactly uber heavy either. It's polymer based after all. None of that Godzilla CLOMP CLOMP CLOMPing around.

I don't know, when I read "Metal plates crudely fashioned into a suit of armor", quiet isn't the first thing that comes to mind. Something more like, "CRRREEEEAAAK!"

And regardless of the noise, power armor is going to be bulky which will make you less able to sneak around unnoticed. Also the Strength bonus combined with the fact that it was made with the 50's in mind makes me think of hydraulics. So you're going to get a nice "Eeee, errr, eeee, errr" when you walk around, just like the movies.

What about from the designer's perspective. The guns are designed with the armor in mind.

Okay, they want to give you and your foes something that will pack a decent punch against APA. Let's say 10 damage. x represents the raw damage required to do 10 final damage. All results are rounded to the nearest integer.

Ballistic - 15 DT, 55% DR
10 = (x - 15)(1 - .55), x = 37

So we've got 37 base damage to do the required 10 damage. With just 15 DT, only 25 damage would be required. Obviously, the unarmored guy is royally screwed, since he sucks down 12 more damage.

Um.. With just DR, only 22 damage is required. I made that point already. It's the DT in the Power Armor that makes it uber - NOT THE DR.

In fact, all the computations you did are pretty redundant since I did the average guass rifle shot, which is 38 damage. Thanks for playing!

At least try and see what I'm saying. So do you now just want DR in all armors with no DT at all? Just pointing out how much damage DR soaks up is irrelevant if you don't take into consideration that the designers are going to scale the damage of guns based on what will give you a challenge. The argument, from what I've seen, has pretty much been DT + DR vs. DT only. The fact the damage came to 37 was actually coincidence, as I didn't know it was going to come out that way beforehand. My calculations were also all geared to show the disparity involved when you figure on the damage being scaled to meet the armor, so I'd hardly call them redundant.

I can go on if you wish (I'm sure the 90% resistance against lasers would be extra fun), but it should be obvious that the lightly armored guy does indeed get screwed when you take into account that the designers and testers set the damage for guns with a general assumption of what kind of final damage they expect them to do based on the expected equipment of enemies and players (which means the high end of that stage of the game, so that tanks don't just roll over everything).

Not when you figure out that Metal Armor has a 75% DR vs. Laser. I'd say it's a "light armor", wouldn't you?

Not when you do the math. Here, I'll demonstrate.

Metal: 6/75
Combat: 8/60
APA: 19/90

We still want to do 10 damage to the guy in APA.

Let x = the raw damage required
10 = (x-19)(1 - .90), x = 119

Yes, you read that right, 119! I guess lasers aren't really a smart choice against anything with armor, huh. Maybe it was planned that way. In any event, the effect could easily be reproduced by increasing the DT for reflective armors without coming up with totally obnoxious figures like this.

Back on topic, the unarmored guy is going to get 119 points of damage if we want a laser that hurts the APA guy for 10. He would have only got 29 if guns were designed with purely DT in mind. Good night, Gracie.

Let's see how the most vaunted metal fares against this fella.

(119 - 6)(1 - .75) = 28

A 10 hit shot with a laser against APA would only have needed 29 damage. That hit would have done 23 against the guy in metal. So yes, indeed, metal armor is still going to fare worse, and it's good against lasers.

How about combat armor.

(119 - 8)(1 - .60) = 44

That 29 hit shot would only have done 21 damage to combat armor. So he's significantly worse off.

Just so you don't come back about plasma, let's do that one.

Metal: 4/20
Combat 4/50
APA: 15/60

Let x = the raw damage required
10 = (x - 15)(1 - .60), x = 40

With only DT, a 25 hit shot would do the required 10 damage to APA. So the poor unarmored guy is going to get 15 more damage.

Metal: (40 - 4)(1 - .20) = 29

With just DT from a 25 hit shot, he'd take 21 damage. That's right, kiddos, more damage once again.

Combat: (40 - 4)(1 - .50) = 18

With just DT, he'd get 20. So combat armor is once again moving into the high end of the curve, though it's still not APA.

What all of this shows is what some of us intuitively thought and the point J.E. was trying to make. When you factor in that the damage of the guns for any particular part of the game are balanced with the armor in mind, the DT + DR means you have to jack up the damage even more which will cause greater disparity between people in good armor and people in light or no armor. Even if they've got an impressive-looking figure like 75% DR. When you only have to take DT into mind, the damage required is less, so there's less disparity. Everything is going to be relative because designers and testers are going to tweak everything to create a challenge but not an impossible one. It's not just a matter of how much damage is soaked up, it's also how much damage is going to be needed to dished out. Even if DT is the biggest factor, DR doesn't help matters at all when it comes to giving people with light armor a chance. It's not just the strength of the armor, the weapons they will produce to punch through them matter as well.