In every single game with swords isn't it kindav stupid how youd have to hit someone stupid how you had to slsh someone 20 times just to make them get a cut?

If you want a game so realistic that you can die before you even realize you're engaged in combat, go play Counter-Strike.

Besides, it'd be difficult to change the damage system and remain true to the TES skill system and classic DnD arrangement.

TES isn't D&D. :stare:

No but like D&D you get hit points every level and end up able to wade through hordes of weak creatures.
Its a question of style - epic vs. gritty & realistic. Either can be good but like most fantasy games TES has always gone for the epic

I felt MW and DF had good damage and the time of how long it takes an enemy to down you and the enemy. OB was WAY off with the level scaling.

i voted more damage but it is a pretty hard thing to get right. slashing someone crazy amounts of times, or missing a crazy amount. whtever they do im sure will be good.

The issue with TES is not the amount of damage.

It is the way it is delivered. With the current armor system, you will always do at least some damage to an opponent, no matter how ridiculously well their body is covered in armor.

Instead, the system should be somewhat like D&D, except with less rolls and more player skill (not that character skill isn't very important). If a person had obvious exposed upper arms, attacking his arms would have a huge chance to connect a blow. Attacking an armored part of their body will force a roll against their armor, to decide whether you penetrate it or not. If you don't penetrate it, you might do no damage, or we could have it so that it does very very little damage (the force of the blow hurts him a little, but no edge strikes his skin).

Weapon damage could be higher in proportion to HP. A fully armored fight between two opponents, with no magic involved, will end up in one enemy dying in just a few strikes. But because of the armor system, those few strikes might take a while to land, depending on weapon skill.

But the issue with this system is it could easily devalue light armor. But I suppose the way around this would be making it easier to maneuver in light armor. Essentially, an armored fighter blocks blows with sword n' board and takes the hit on his armor should this fail. A light armored fighter dodges and parries his foe's strikes. A fighter would win through perseverance and exploitation of bad defenses. A light armored fighter wins through fast action and quick reflexes.

Yea, I think it'd be great to see heavier armors actually cause your movement ability to reflect that, especially if they made poorer quality armors such as iron give you even less flexibility than high quality armors.

:turtle:

I think the current formula is alright, all characters have a certain amount of hit points, and if you run out, you die. It's not the most realistic way to do things, but it works for the game. Now, I wouldn't mind if either the amount of health all characters as a whole have was scaled down a bit, or damage was increased a bit, essentially, fights can become too drawn out in Oblivion. And one can often find oneself hitting powerful enemies dozens of times, and, judging from all the blood stains you've seen, they should have bled to death if nothing else, yet they still stand. Fights should end quicker, but not to the point where health loses its value. It shouldn't get to the point where every battle at high levels is of epic proportions, but if you die in one or two hits whether you have 50 health or 100, it won't be good either.

Yup, I agree. Creature health definitely needs to be scaled back - gloom wraiths at 35 have a health pool over 800, and goblin warlords even more. I'd have no problem if actual bosses had that much health, since I do expect fights with them to be epic, but when you're running into dungeons full of these things, it gets tiresome fast.

Players either need to have less health or take more damage.
Monsters and enemies either need to have less health or take more damage.

That's one thing I hated about Oblivion, is that the difficulty scale was just that, it made it easier or harder, but there wasn't anything to make combat more deadly in general. Except for OOO. Which I use.

There neither needs to be more or less damage the damage has to be BALANCED better, this inclodes locational damage and damage effects rahter than just health loss.

Another possibility could be to make health have a similar effect to fatigue, lowering your general effectiveness as it goes down, even if there aren't any distinct wounds in effect. It was always strange to me in RPG's that someone can be at 1 hitpoint, a sneeze away from death, yet still fight exactly as hard as ever.

My opinion is that, once again, TES: Redguard was probably the best in terms of sword duels; doesnt take many hits to kill but a lot of thrusts and parries mean combat can be prolonged. Problem is this system is exponentially more difficult to achieve the more weapon and control variety you provide. Redguard used the keyboard exclusively; even emulating that system with an intuitive mouse driven one would be a challenge. Be carefull what you wish for

Alot of it is

Orcs.. goblins.. dragons.. elves.. wizards with pointy hats.. Half the fantasy Lore these days comes from LOTR. Not D&D.

I have only been playing a few weeks, but this is the problem I see most. After getting a character to about level 15 I found that I had to put at least 30 arrows into every opponent to kill them. Not bosses, I mean just bears and lions I run across in the woods. The bosses are easily twice that many. I took on a Dread Zombie last night which took over 100 arrows to kill, not counting a few dozen flame bursts tossed in between arrows. There were so many arrows sticking out of him that I could barely see his body!

Because of that I decided to start the character over from scratch and put only two of the skills she uses as Major Skills in order to slow down how quickly she levels, so the bad guys she faces are at least reasonable, instead of being super-mutants (oops, wrong game...). I must say it is nice to be first level again and kill opponents with one sneak shot. I forgot how much I missed it.

'twould be tough to get right.
Skills, and such. In a completely theoretic mindset, one could get "perks" every few levels, with the rest player-skill-based.

Not what was being referred to, but nice try anyways.

Actually, believe it or not, the thread is about how much damage should be in an ES game, not how similar TES is to D&D or not :stare:

I would just want more damage. Grummites past level 40 in SI seemed to have far more than 1000 health and it just became boring trying to fight through a cave full of them.

DnD is DnD. LotR is LotR. TES is TES. Capiche?

Jawohl.