Yea, what WOULD be cool for this game would be a hardcoe mode. It only saves when you sleep, you can't sleep more than once a day. You have to sleep eat and drink to keep your stats up. Sneak attacks kill in one hit, large attacks kill in one or tow hits depending where hit, large magical attacks kill in one hit. The player takes half the damage as the average npc, so getting jumped by an assassin will kill you if you don't act fast.... you can fall victim to enviornmental traps.... mages can blow you up... archers can take you down before you get to them if you don't use a shield or magic to block.

I've always wanted an RPG to do something like this... who says RPG's have to be tank off fests? Just because you are role playing doesn't mean you can't role play as an actual person..... who is able to die just the same as your enemy. If would at the very least make the player more aware of traps and large groups.

I think it makes sense. Would be a nice feature, as long as not every NPC has a bow and accuracy is very very dependent on skill. I'd like it so that most lowly bandits are pretty rusty with a bow and arrow.

One way to balance it out is to have a magic spell that deflects arrows

What they meant in 1 hit kills is if you are in sneak mode and are attacking undetected with a bow. As far as non-sneak bow, it will only take a couple shots from the sound of it.

I'm going to say that one-hit kills from an NPC with an arrow shouldn't be done. The computer all ready has an accuracy advantage and events with multiple archers are going to be completely unbalanced against you. It will have you longing for a dragon fight.

Exactly! Why do so many people seem to think that RPG combat has to feature an endless battle in which you and your enemy slowly whittle away each others HP until someone dies? What does that have to do with role playing, other than the fact that older RPGs featured this kind of combat due to technological limitations? In this day and age, there's no reason to represent combat in such a simplified way.

Traditionally, things like increased health have been used to compensate for the fact that technology didn't really allow for complex enough combat to portray what actually makes someone harder to kill -- the ability to defend themselves from critical hits. But that's all changed now, and developers who continue to rely on long, drawn-out HP-based combat are just lazy.

As for the players who actually desire that style of play, I would submit that they've lost sight of what an RPG is supposed to be about. It's astonishing how many people mistake gameplay mechanics used to represent a particular concept, with the concept itself. The people saying things like, "I don't want one-hit kills -- this is an RPG...", are a perfect example; they fail to understand that unrealistically durable characters is merely an archaic gameplay mechanic used to represent something that couldn't be accurately portrayed in the past.

DJK, you have a good point that has merit in certain respects, but it falls flat with the following truth you seem to overlook: video game RPGs do not employ certain game mechanics simply because the technology did not allow certain things, because RPGs existed BEFORE video games. Video games have always emulated the original PnP RPG formula. Only now (by now I mean 12 years or so) is technology looking for different avenues outside tradition, while retaining key aspects of the formula that just wouldn't do to do without.

And to comment on the overall thread: nowhere was it said there were one hit kills. They said that an Oblivion mod that allowed one hit kills was the MOTIVATION for rethinking archery in Skyrim. They said arrows now did significantly more damage, proportional to how long it takes to prepare an arrow now. Like I said before, I really love this change. Makes the archer role more realistic, and dangerous to play, forcing a playstyle on you just by your choice of weapon. No more invincible archers: now the sensible tactic would be to hit a well charged arrow on an advancing enemy, and finish him off when he gets close (which is how an actual archer would fight on an open battlefield. No more Legolas clones).

While I have to admit that I've never played an RPG outside of a video game, I would imagine that even the originals couldn't exactly account for real time combat. Could they? Was it described blow by blow? Moreover, if that was the case, was each character's ability to defend themselves overlooked, and instead replaced with an ability to sustain impossible amounts of punishment? And even if that's the case, wasn't it simply done that way because real time combat was difficult to represent accurately given that medium? In other words, wasn't the "original PnP RPG formula" itself simply a gameplay mechanism intended to represent something that was too complex to accurately portray?

Since Pnp RPGs were games and not boxing matches, I dont understand your question. Points and dices were used, sure. It would have been easier to just put your friends to kill each other on the living room...but that would have been impractical (and illegal). But I dont know how that would have worked when you were fighting the imaginary creatures a DM would throw at you. Sure, he could have dressed his house cat as a dragon and throw him at you...but PETA would be pissed.

Eh, I'd like at least a chance to fight, like maybe if an arrow takes 60% of your health you aren't going to be able to take another one, and you don't have much time either, it would be challenging, and not as "la-la-la I'm just wal-WHAT THE CRAP WAS THAT!?"

One hit deaths in single-player RPGs = terrible

No.


It would piss to many people off.

Alright everyone. Get ready... here's what I think.

This whole "archers having the capacity to kill an opponent in one shot" topic is somewhat misleading, and I believe this is mainly Game Informer's fault. When I think of a one shot kill with an arrow, I think it will only happen in certain instances.

First of all, I believe it will have to work similar to stealth, and the player will have to be completely undetected.

Secondly, I believe the player will have to get a precise enough hit (maybe a head shot) to score a critical hit (due to not being detected) high enough to actually potentially get a one hit kill.

Now going by the previous Radiant AI system in Oblivion, this would never happen. If an enemy detects you, the battle music would queue, and the enemy would automatically run up to you and attack without considering the consequences (an archer would indeed shoot and arrow, but the mechanics of archery were obviously different than they will be in Oblivion). I don't know how AI will differ in Skyrim. That's not my department. But I don't believe such a situation would ever occur in Skyrim, unless the AI truly is revolutionized (Who knows? I certainly don't.). Just my take on this whole "one shot with an arrow" business.

On a more interesting note. Did anyone else notice the fire-tip arrow in the concept art of the female bandit? I think archery will be getting a lot more goodies than Bethesda is letting on.

Funnily enough, at the Battle of Agincourt in 1415, the use of the longbow (a rather simple weapon) was able to put heavily armored knights in the ground, and was recorded to have entirely impaled some knights. The French knights were utterly decimated by the English longbowmen. Armor doesn't automatically save ya from arrows, and, in fact, when charging, can work in the archer's favor. You put more momentum, as you're heavier, against the tip of the arrow, helping it penetrate.

However, you also have the example of the Battle of Pharsalus between Caesar and Pompey in which many thousands of arrows were unleashed by Pompey's archer, before the battle. One Centurion recorded that after the battle his tower shield (made of wood, iron, etc) had as many as one hundred arrows stuck in it. He also had an arrow in his eye, his thigh, and his shoulder, but he survived to go on as a cavalary commander later on (easier, when one of your legs is crippled, I suppose).

So, maybe a shield is the key to arrow defense?

Okay, that's what I thought -- points and dice were used as a gameplay mechanism, since real time combat couldn't actually be simulated using that medium. But in video games, it is simulated, so my argument still works. Characters who are unrealistically durable was an overly simplified solution to a problem that no longer exists, as more sophisticated combat can now be portrayed.

Why not? As in previous games, level and become proficient, conversely, pay attention when out scouting/exploring.

Ok, now being serious: to really change my mind on this subject, Id have to wait and play Dragon Age 2, since it seems to merge realistic enough looking combat, with the dice rolls and calculations running in the background. Until then, you can appreciate games like Baldurs Gate, KOTOR and Dragon Age for how the system plays out, and not just feel its a "mechanism because it cant actually be too real". If its too real, it becomes unpredictable, and unpredictability is not that good for RPGs, which feature a huge element of skill building.

I still think it would be bad to give NPCs this and haven't seen anything to change my mind.

BTW: I've never used the mod they are talking about, does anyone know what it is called or can link? ...it could be good practice.

With the difficulty scroll bar set to middle or far right, yes
if there is no difficulty slider I'll be one very sad panda

I really hope so! Archers have always been the LEAST threating enemy in the game ( I been killed by more rats than archers). Strengthening arrows, and adding in a chance to one-shot you if they sneak and prepare for higher level archers or ones stronger than you add to the game. Archers would be more dangerous, like mages or warriors with hammers.

They should have slight bow sway, but quadruple the damage for bows in Skyrim.