No point, mother’s always know best.
I feel like another Avenue to go explore in terms of balancing is reducing the amount of perks you can have.
Not only do we have a game where the PC explodes with stats but we also have a system where you can become a master of everything and not be penalized. Standard RPGS require specializing in certain styles or eventually you’ll hit a difficulty curve you can’t overcome because youre character is too spread out. In KCD you can become a master knight/archer/thief/assassin/alchemist/bard and nothing stops you from doing that.
I suggest having to pick a 1 primary and 1 minor attribute at creation. And later pick 2 primary and 1 minor combat skills. In general skills you can pick 2 and 1 minor. Maybe an additional minor skill if you chose charisma as primary attribute.
Primaries level slightly faster, minors level at base rate and non specialized level at reduced rate.
1 Like
I was talking about the realism of weapons.
And i guess, plate armor or not, my attack will hurt you.
A injury of a sword is the same like i’m kicking a ball into your body?
And to clarification, you all saying that one, two shots with a bow or one hit with a sword kills every enemy and call of jaurez is something where you beaten a complete army of npc’s?!
Sorry but after your words i am thinking KCD is similiar to CoJ^^
Bows should not do anything to a plated enemy, swords and axes should do very little, mace is where you wanna go. Mace does crap slash obviously, but its “stab” isn’t too bad and its blunt is good enough to compare to most top tier slash/poke damage anyway; but will decimate the opponents using plate/wearing helmets. My mace/shield was my go to in my first playthrough…sticking to axes and bow, for hunting, only this next run
Mace or hammer, or anything else if you can hit in between the armour plates. Also other weapons could do things to armour if the wielder is strong enough, or in the case of crossbows if the crossbow has enough power (which few did).
I’d say the best weapon against a knight in full plate is just a shield and your bare hands because you could just break his neck or something while defending with the shield.
1 Like
Lol so brutal
If you hit in the head mace is good. On the body not so much. Armour would have room to deform. Mace also has reach disadvantage and is slower than a sword due to weight distribution. Polearms is where the investment was. A16th century knight described the order he would go through weapons and it was something like:
Lance, estoque, arming sword, mace.
Swords could be used for Half swording or murder stroke both of which were good against armour. Problem is combat here is based on unarmoured combat with some of the combos being valid against armour. You would aim at joints and other weak spots. A mace is hard to stop and that makes your attacks more predictable. At least I think that was the reason that knight used that order.
1 Like
I am not sure, if by 1403 everyone, their step sister their stepsister hamster, AND said hamsters stepsisters 2nd cousin, all wore almsot full plate…
As per weight, well, yeah, armour was not as overweight as many seem to believe, BUT still had a heft. and once distributed around the body, that is okay to operate, but putting the same weight into a backpack… not quite that comfortable.
And again, that bulk
How is combat in 1.3??
One shot wonder still?