How randarts generation works?

[Carnivean]

What about upping the archery damage again, but giving the 2 endbosses specifically some kind of protection against it, like having them take only 1/2 damage ?

If you're going to change the combat system, as I believe Nick has said is on the list, then you can change who and what is susceptible to archery and what isn't. Dragons, golems and other hard or armoured monsters should suffer little damage from archery, while fleshy creatures should take more. Morgoth and Sauron would probably be wearing armour of fine quality, so take less damage. Crossbows might negate the armour, whereas slings and bows might have serious problems with it.

[Derakon]

If you're going to change the combat system, as I believe Nick has said is on the list, then you can change who and what is susceptible to archery and what isn't. Dragons, golems and other hard or armoured monsters should suffer little damage from archery, while fleshy creatures should take more. Morgoth and Sauron would probably be wearing armour of fine quality, so take less damage. Crossbows might negate the armour, whereas slings and bows might have serious problems with it.

In principle I don't object to having various damage types that monsters may be more or less resistant to, but I strongly object to dragons being resistant to arrows. Or do you forget the Black Arrow? For that matter, most dragons aren't able to cover their weak points with treasure the way Smaug did...

[Carnivean]

In principle I don't object to having various damage types that monsters may be more or less resistant to, but I strongly object to dragons being resistant to arrows. Or do you forget the Black Arrow? For that matter, most dragons aren't able to cover their weak points with treasure the way Smaug did...

1 arrow from a master bowman with an artifact bow? Dragon are covered in thick scales, effectively scale mail armour. It needs to be a really good shot to find a weak point.

[Estie]

1 arrow from a master bowman with an artifact bow? Dragon are covered in thick scales, effectively scale mail armour. It needs to be a really good shot to find a weak point.

Scale mail armor gives what ? 20 AC ? K, all dragons get that.

[AnonymousHero]

Crossbows are fiddly things, and used to be used by teams to give decent amounts of group fire. Bows by comparison are very easy and quick to load. Slings are relatively easy to use, but still much slower than bows, and can't deal similar levels of damage. Staff slings though could do some real damage, though still at a relatively low fire rate.

Crossbows should be 1 shot per round for everyone, but with really high damage due to the design of the bolts. Their accuracy was pretty terrible though, so you can reduce their effectiveness with penalties there. Rangers can be far higher accuracy with them, but due to the design of the crank it's unrealistic for them to be able to get extra shots.

Staff slings should be added to the game as high damage variants of the sling.

Personally, in general I don't give the Argument From Realism very much credence when it comes to game design. Games should be fun and if that means a little bit of suspension of disbelief, then so be it . (That may just be me, though.)

[Derakon]

1 arrow from a master bowman with an artifact bow? Dragon are covered in thick scales, effectively scale mail armour. It needs to be a really good shot to find a weak point.

The Hobbit specifically mentions that Smaug has a soft underbelly, which he coated in gemstones and other treasures as armor. But there was a spot he failed to cover, which is where Bard shot him. C'mon, man, don't you know your Tolkein?

[AnonymousHero]

Tolkein?

Who?

(Hint: Check the spelling.)

[Carnivean]

Personally, in general I don't give the Argument From Realism very much credence when it comes to game design. Games should be fun and if that means a little bit of suspension of disbelief, then so be it . (That may just be me, though.)

While I understand that, realism helps immersion. Gameplay changes that introduce variety and include realism are good, and I think changing the ranged weapons up would be for the better.

The Hobbit specifically mentions that Smaug has a soft underbelly, which he coated in gemstones and other treasures as armor. But there was a spot he failed to cover, which is where Bard shot him. C'mon, man, don't you know your Tolkein?

I last read The Hobbit over 20 years ago, and all the reviews of the movies have lead to me putting off watching them.

[AnonymousHero]

While I understand that, realism helps immersion. Gameplay changes that introduce variety and include realism are good, and I think changing the ranged weapons up would be for the better.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about what changes are needed for ranged weapons and rangers .

I last read The Hobbit over 20 years ago, and all the reviews of the movies have lead to me putting off watching them.

They're not that bad. If you get into the mindset of "action movie set in Middle Earth", then you probably won't be too disappointed. (Personally, I'm not really a huge fan of the book, I was probably too old when I first read it. So YMMV.)

[Estie]

They are bad. Very bad. Even if you set your expectations to zero. I watched 1, with little hope. And 2, without hope, but couldnt bring myself to watch 3. The horror.

[Ingwe Ingweron]

They are bad. Very bad. Even if you set your expectations to zero. I watched 1, with little hope. And 2, without hope, but couldnt bring myself to watch 3. The horror.

Fully on board with you here, Estie! How Peter Jackson did such a good job with The Lord of the Rings (although I do have a few nits with those movies too), but completely @#$% up The Hobbit is a mystery to me. Except the headlong pursuit of money in making what should have been one movie into three.

[AnonymousHero]

Fully on board with you here, Estie! How Peter Jackson did such a good job with The Lord of the Rings (although I do have a few nits with those movies too), but completely @#$% up The Hobbit is a mystery to me. Except the headlong pursuit of money in making what should have been one movie into three.

Well, the source material for the Hobbit wasn't that great, so...

(Anyway... "different strokes" and all that. I think we've veered rather far from the topic at hand .)

[quarague]

I think this thread derailed slightly off topic but who cares.
I think the key difference between the Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit is the amount of content. The Lord of the Ring books had enough content that you could make 10 hours of movie out of it and still had to cut a lot. The hobbit might have stretched to a 90 minute movie, but 3 full length movies is just way too much.

[Derakon]

I think this thread derailed slightly off topic but who cares.
I think the key difference between the Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit is the amount of content. The Lord of the Ring books had enough content that you could make 10 hours of movie out of it and still had to cut a lot. The hobbit might have stretched to a 90 minute movie, but 3 full length movies is just way too much.

And to be fair to Jackson, as I understand it this wasn't his decision to make. The studio basically told him "We want another trilogy out of you", because the LotR movies were so successful and all they could see was dollar signs.

[Ingwe Ingweron]

Here's what I think is a good article discussing the pros and cons of the stretched Hobbit movies. http://entertainment.time.com/2012/1...ersized-bilbo/