My issues with this are conceptual in nature.

Lore needs some help. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who disagrees with this. However, in some situations, this really isn't going to make much sense. To use an obvious example, Empaths forging weapons or armors on par with Barbarians and Paladins borders a bit on the farcical side. There's just a huge mental disconnect to have the scholarly, pacifistic healer class have a significant advantage in the creation of combat gear. Likewise, the idea of Barbarian alchemists is pretty much in the same boat. Yes, we do play in a fantasy realm populated with all sorts of magical and mythical improbabilities, but you can't take consistency, logic and verisimilitude completely out of the equation.

Ultimately, I think a lot of the concern is that this will punish existing characters who have dumped innumerable resources and game hours into the systems, and this, frankly, is hardly fair, and yes, before it comes up again in the discussion, I am aware that this is exactly what's happening with TM and magic secondary/tert guilds. I don't find that very fair.

>>Don't worry all, I plan on cornering Oolan at the con and noogie-ing him until he sees it our way. :D

Two problems with that plan.

1) I will of course be using godmode cheats while attending the Con.

2) It is Dartenian who will be making any and all rulings regarding smithing and so he'll make a much better target. ;)

GM Oolan Jeel

"This island is made mainly of coal and surrounded by fish. Only an organizing genius could produce a shortage of coal and fish at the same time." Aneurin Bevan, May 1945, on World War II rationing and shortages in England.

>>Should non barbs not being able to cap forged weapons? No.

Your opinion which you are quite welcome to but is one which the current staff does not share.

>>Should Barbarians, who have been traditionally been skilled in making weapons and who count many reputable and established forgers among their number suffer because the system governing this characteristic of their guild shifts its emphasis to a skill that the guild learns at a tertiary rate? No.

Here I agree with you, they shouldn't be made to suffer. Unfortunately, they likely will lose out in some manner or other with the rewrite. The exact degree in which we can buffer this is still being determined. I don't much like that it will happen either. However, that the guild bonus is being removed is a given. That the brunt, if not entirety, of the calculations are moving to a lore focus is also a given. I am all for and actively working on ideas to aid the "established forgers" with the rewrite and will continue to do what I can within the framework of what has already been established as the guidelines. I'm not going to discuss what ideas I have come up with or taken from player suggestions at this point because absolutely nothing is deffinate.

However, this mindset that only Barbarians have the right to make top quality weapons and only Paladins can do the same with metal armor is going to have to go quite frankly. There is absolutely nothing at all wrong with Empaths, Clerics, Traders or anyone else putting in effort to be master forgers. There is nothing at all wrong with Barbarians making the best healing potions along side Empaths if that is where they wish to put their effort. Even the Magic team is looking at how to open up enchanting for those Barbarians that wish to try their hands there. If you disagree with me on that basic premise, then I have little doubt that you will be extremely unhappy with the new system. I'm very sorry if that is the case.

GM Oolan Jeel

"This island is made mainly of coal and surrounded by fish. Only an organizing genius could produce a shortage of coal and fish at the same time." Aneurin Bevan, May 1945, on World War II rationing and shortages in England.

<< Your opinion which you are quite welcome to but is one which the current staff does not share. >>

I think you misread what I am saying, Oolan (And it is partially my fault, since the phrasing is awkward). I'm perfectly fine with non Barbarians putting the work in to cap weapons. I'm not so fine with existing forgers suffering.

<< There is nothing at all wrong with Barbarians making the best healing potions along side Empaths if that is where they wish to put their effort >>

There's a little bit of something wrong with the pacifistic guild that loses their primary ability if they hurt something making items that exist only to hurt things, if you ask me. I feel like that would be looked down upon.

I'm just hoping that forging isn't going to mean you can make an excellent weapon without knowing which end is the pointy end you put into the other guy and which isn't.

>>"there's a 99% chance you'll never have to even kill a rat to cap armor and weapons."

That's what I've been hearing as well.

---

[Alisyn] "Drevid i think part of your scimitar is still in my abdomen"

[Ohuzewicasta] "Nah, he's just happy to see you"

<< You're welcome to interpret Oolan's statement differently, but the way I read that is "there's a 99% chance you'll never have to even kill a rat to cap armor and weapons." >>

I'm sorry to hear that then, because I staunchly believe there are better ways of handling this without inducing such inconsistencies. It's not my decision, however. Forging is not my thing to begin with, but I just can't help but be a little disappointed on the treatment people who have labored at it for nigh unto a decade are going to be receiving.

>>You're welcome to interpret Oolan's statement differently, but the way I read that is "there's a 99% chance you'll never have to even kill a rat to cap armor and weapons."

There is absolutely nothing in the empath guild that states you must never handle, touch, or learn about any weapon ever. There are in fact many empaths that are quite skilled an knowledgable with weapons and can teach quite high level classes on their uses. Empathic Shock is a consequence of directly causing harm or attempting to do so through attacks and such but that doesn't mean that empaths are told to never touch a weapon, nor do they have this aversion you imply. There is absolutely no reason why they cannot learn to forge any items including pointy things.

As for the exact balance of the formulas, yes it is quite likely that it will be possible in theory to cap weapons without having ever gained a single rank. My guess at this point in time is that if weapon skill is included in the formulas it will probably be more as a bonus to your success than a requirement. That means someone that knows a ton about daggers and other light edges might be able to make them better than someone that doesn't at the same smithing skill, but with enough smithing skill you can ovecome that lack. This is just a possibility and not a statement of policy, but if usage skills are included I would wager this is the most likely manner.

GM Oolan Jeel

"This island is made mainly of coal and surrounded by fish. Only an organizing genius could produce a shortage of coal and fish at the same time." Aneurin Bevan, May 1945, on World War II rationing and shortages in England.

>>I was more seeing it as a social taboo. Empathic shock comes from deliberately and directly harming something, yes, but would/does the guild really overlook indirect harm? I guess its plausible, it just seems like the idea of it being less than the mainline offers a bit more RP flair. I'm certainly not suggesting that Empaths fall to their knees and scream about the terrible burning from gripping a broadsword. ;P<<

The Guild does would not care if an empath Makes the best weapons, Sells the best Weapons and has the ability to Wield the weapon better then any Barbarian. Should the Empath attack something that is when shock enters play, indirect harm does not matter or there would be rules against healing people you know are only going to go back to killing things.

---Thya Telle
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Remember the La Li Lu Le Lo are watching

<< "It occurred to me that if I could invent a machine - a gun - which could by its rapidity of fire, enable one man to do as much battle duty as a hundred, that it would, to a large extent supersede the necessity of large armies, and consequently, exposure to battle and disease be greatly diminished." - Richard Jordan Gatling
>>

Or be used to gun down entire villages of women and children.

I do like the quote, and I see somethin of the relevance, but in a way, its a bit overextended, seeing as neither one or hundred weapons will in any way diminish conflict. Unless of course, we get into a sort of one weapon in the right hands, aimed at the right target arguments aimed toward assasination.

Unless of course, we can build a large repeating bolt thrower. Then of course, I am wholly in support of anything that allows such a thing. :P

>>Although I am sure you are aware, there is nothing in the armor forging system which prevents anyone from capping armor. In fact, at this moment the most consistent forgers in the game are (i) an empath, (ii) two warrior mages, and (iii) two barbarians. I would say there are two paladin forgers that still forge consistently.

>>I understand the goal of moving to lore for the underlying math. But, I do want to make sure you are making a distinction between the forging of weapons and armor. Not a thing in the world prevents any guild from capping armor. You just need to go work on your armor ranks.

Actually there is nothing in the world preventing any guild from capping weapons at present either. However, the difficulty for anyone but a barbarian is super insane so no one that has tried forging weapons has the skills required to cap not only the pounding but also the grinding of the weapons. As you note this mentality of dual requirements does not follow through into armor smithing.

Please keep in mind that while you (generic you) might be arguing specifically about weapon making, we at the GM level are in discussion about collective creation systems that all need to be brought in line with each other at the skill requirement, conceptual and functional levels. This simply cannot be done without a rewrite and yes complete shake up of all of the systems.

GM Oolan Jeel

"This island is made mainly of coal and surrounded by fish. Only an organizing genius could produce a shortage of coal and fish at the same time." Aneurin Bevan, May 1945, on World War II rationing and shortages in England.

<<This simply cannot be done without a rewrite and yes complete shake up of all of the systems.

Gotcha. I think the practical use of armor forging shows the ability of non-paladins to forge things very well. Good luck.


Madigan

True heroism is remarkably sober, very undramatic. It is not the urge to surpass all others at whatever cost, but the urge to serve others at whatever cost.

Arthur Ashe

>>All weapons and armor should be made in consistant manners.

I've always found that one of the more interesting things about DR is that similar things (i.e. armor crafting vs. weapon crafting vs. tanning vs. fletching) are done in very different ways. Even though it apparently wasn't intended, the uniqueness was always interesting to me. It set it aside from most MMOs which tend to be overly standardized.

On some level, it made sense to me as well. In the real world, similar things are designed, manufactured, and maintained in very different ways. Its why not all car companies make lawnmowers or tractor-trailers, for instance.

In general, while I am opposed to the idea that a paladin should be able to make weapons as easily as they can make armor or that an empath should be able to make a weapon as easily as a barbarian, I am far more opposed to the standardization of a currently diverse game. Even if that diversity wasn't part of the plan.

>Of course, this is also my argument against many recent changes. Diversity is a wonderful element of DR.

Diversity isn't always wonderful. Systems being imbalanced or broken in a variety of ways doesn't make the game better.

>I've always found that one of the more interesting things about DR is that similar things (i.e. armor crafting vs. weapon crafting vs. tanning vs. fletching) are done in very different ways.

>All weapons and armor should be made in consistant manners. That doesn't mean the exact steps, but it does mean that the skills involved should make sense with one another

So, umm... No problem, right? You'll still forage up a limb and turn it into a longbow instead of buying slugs to pound into a scimitar. They haven't told us that the front end of every creation system will be identical, just that the skills will be somewhat similar on the back end.


Elemancer Opieus, Journeyman Warrior Mage of Elanthia
>Aren't I pretty, now fall down on my ice, fool! ~ Axillus

<< Diversity isn't always wonderful. Systems being imbalanced or broken in a variety of ways doesn't make the game better. >>

Imbalances never make a game system better. Years of playing Pen & Paper RPGs have well affirmed this.

The argument boils down to what is almost a rehash of one man's trash is another man's treasure, essentially. It was balanced under an old paradigm where the intent of the system was to make it so that certain professions were unquestionably the ones who excelled at certain crafts. Forging was absolutely intended this way when it was created. I remember the early meetings. In no way am I saying that this was the right way to do things, but that's how it was constructed under the old design goals, where it was deemed acceptable.

In short, its more that it is imbalanced under the new design goal paradigm, which is a perfectly acceptable argument. Goals change, and what was once the vision for DR is no longer that vision.

>>Diversity isn't always wonderful. Systems being imbalanced or broken in a variety of ways doesn't make the game better.

The subtle extrapolation of the original sentence to meet your need makes me sad.

Diversity is a good thing. Is making a capped shield at 100 ranks fair when the sword maker needs 500? No. Thankfully it ain't that way now and never has been.

To make capped arrows you need approx 600 total bows and some mech and blah blah blah. The requirements for making capped scimitars are nothing to scoff at either. I've never tanned but I doubt someone with 50 skinning and 100 leather is making the best stuff possible.

All of the systems could use work but I wouldn't say any of them are outright broken or unfair. It is dangerous business to try and "fix" everything for the sake of normalization.

- Galren

>>The Rippentropps are a mysterious collective of well-known individuals whose primary charge is to initiate the advancing task of not stopping.

>The subtle extrapolation of the original sentence to meet your need makes me sad.

What is my need, exactly?

>IMO, the movement to standardize the game creates "one way" of doing things, and the herd will follow the "one way" until there is a better way. Standardization puts the ability to choose the "one way" into the hands of a coder and takes the decision from the player.

I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about. I was speaking in the context of the code end of things. Diversity there often makes systems buggy when updated and hard to maintain.

<<I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about. I was speaking in the context of the code end of things. Diversity there often makes systems buggy when updated and hard to maintain.


I think of it like this ... code is like a machine part, most want to be able to plug that into any part of the BIGGER machine, and make it work ... make all systems use the same sort of parts {read skill A, B or so on} so that it spits out results in an easy manner..problem is that works from a logic standpoint but stinks from creative aspect, everything ends up being very simple and the same, not so fun fun! I prefer the diversity ...give me less to {read: systems} do but more to do with what we already have. My vote would be to not make things so very simple, I have always taken a great deal of pride in being able to figure out "how" {read: mix, order, amount} not "what" {read: forage, carve, wash rinse repeat}

>>Again I am really unsure how this addresses the concern or notion that all people should be able to make the best of any given item {with enough of a certain skill} But then again I am very behind in all this, will all mages be able to enchant items the same with the same amount of X or Y skill? Is this where said need comes into play, equal and balanced creation across the board? It also makes the game one dimensional, IMO, but if equal for all is what you are striving for, it does make sense.

Agreed, but your statement completely ignores the specialization paths and techniques as outlined by Dartenian. That means that a Paladin that chooses to focus on weapons will then require MORE skill to make armor items than a Paladin that had specialized in armor. And the same goes for every other guild out there. You ask about mages and enchanting. If two mages chose the exact same specialization, the exact same techniques and have the exact same skills then yes they would be able to make the same items. The diversity in who makes what will come from their choices along the path. We will have templates out there that will test the limits of even the highest ranks if the player has every proper technique to reduce the difficulty. That means someone without the techniques and specialization wouldn't be able to make it at all. Sure, if a Barbarian focuses on weapon smithing and gets 1500 ranks, they'll be able to make some good armor. But without the right techniques they would be making metal armors the equivalant of someone with MUCH less skill that took the armor techniques and vice versa.


<<It set it aside from most MMOs which tend to be overly standardized.

<<I am far more opposed to the standardization of a currently diverse game.

>>Two great and wonderful points IMO. Oolan, this is my overall point for keeping a complex mixing system.

Believe me, when it comes to diversity, I have no desire to see the normal MMO system come into DR. Set recipes where you put these three items into a container, push a button and either get a result or don't. The system will remain much more like the current. Different metals will yield different stats, multiple steps (pounds/carves/whatever) with chances for success and failure on each that impacts the final results. In short the general look of the systems should remain much the same as a general rule. When I talk about standardization I mean the general logic behind the systems. The ratio of lore vs usage skills, the general level of skills needed, the end results compared to the materials that went into it, etc. This is where things need to remain consistant as a whole. Tanning uses Skinning, Mech and leather armor skill if memory serves me right. But there is no metal equivalent to skinning for metal armors. Tanning uses player aquired materials where only one guild can get the absolute best quality product. Smithing uses purely store bought materials with the exception of the rare metals which as we know are not in circulation at this point. Even within smithing there is no consistancy. Barbarians get a massive bonus to their success at weapon creation, but everyone is on equal footing in armor making, the supposed Paladin system.

As each system was written individually and with different goals and guilds in mind there is no rhyme or reason to how things play out. What skills get involved, what the end results product is, etc. This is what we wish to change.

<<Would it make sense if the carving system was allowing creation of LE weapons twice as good as anything forgable?

>>Sure, why not? If you have the correct wood/material and the skill to make a weapon better suited for the task at hand, makes perfect sense to me.

<<Should metal shields protect better or worse than tanned ones? And wooden ones?

>>Yup, sometimes better sometimes worse. I am assuming here that these are rhetorical questions, yes yes I know I am answering, none the less:) Why would they ever be the same in all areas?

And if that's the way it happened then sure, why not. Sometimes better, sometimes worse but that very answer implies that one system was made with the other in mind so that there IS that balance. But what if even the mediocre wooden shields were always better than the metal ones? And tanned ones always fell short of both of the others? Is this balanced? Is anyone going to ever want to make metal shields in this scenario? No, but this is the type of potentially inconsistant results when each system is looked at only in terms of itself. This is the problem we are looking to resolve. If carved daggers were always better in all manners, then no one would want to make use of anything else, would they?

GM Oolan Jeel

"This island is made mainly of coal and surrounded by fish. Only an organizing genius could produce a shortage of coal and fish at the same time." Aneurin Bevan, May 1945, on World War II rationing and shortages in England.

>>Nope, nor should they. Heck, if I find anything in RL that is consistently better than anything else, I buy it, fast! As folks in DR have for years, when player 1 found THE best mix and method {g} I have always called that reward for time spent, much like RL.

Not to sound snarky but it doesn't sound like a very diverse system, does it?

GM Oolan Jeel

"This island is made mainly of coal and surrounded by fish. Only an organizing genius could produce a shortage of coal and fish at the same time." Aneurin Bevan, May 1945, on World War II rationing and shortages in England.