To Slash/Pierce/Blunt or Not To Slash/Pierce/Blunt

[BloodletterQ]

I've thought about including these physical elements but then realized that my characters stick to one weapon or armor type and I'd probably at least do FFX style where individual weapons are more effective against certain foes. Are these elements pointless if you're sticking with a single weapon/armor type or not? For me, I find that it's all dependent on the types of weapons or armors a character can equip.

 

[The Stranger]

You could always have physical skills which use different physical elements; this could represent the weapon being used in a variety of ways. A sword could have skills which have blunt, slashing, and piercing attacks. I guess it really depends on how many skills you want to create, really. However, if we're talking purely about the attack command then it might be worth ditching physical elements entirely, since you'd only have a single element per actor.

 

[CleanWater]

Think it that way...

Chrono Trigger had 7 characters, each one with basically one element they could use and each dungeon had certain sets of enemies weak to a certain element... If a character can't use more than one element (except Magus), are their skills pointless?

 

[Darkfire1408]

Well, you could have different "weapon types" be considered one weapon type. For instance, a sword user could use a fencing sword (piercing), a broadsword (slashing), or a steel pipe (blunt). These are all roughly used the same way and could all be considered "swords", however, the way they deal damage is fundamentally different. You could also add shield attacks if you didn't want to include something like the pipe as blunt damage.

 

[starlight dream]

Darkfire1408 spoke my mind.

Another thought: if you stick to the default mechanic where one character equips bows (piercing only) and another equips swords (slashing only), then you can link the variety of attacks to armors. Armors can have resistance to piercing for example, which can be helpful versus certain foes. The enemies' attacks can all be categorized by damage type (instead of element).
So the slash/blunt/pierce/tickle mechanic is used more for defense by the heroes.

 

[Wavelength]

Like with most instances of added complexity, my answer is no unless it produces a significant amount of added depth (perpetually interesting decisions) in your combat system.

Be very thoughtful in considering what is actually depth and what is simply complexity without depth.

If you have several similar characters or even several similar skills and one does blunt damage, one does piercing damage, one does slashing damage, etc., and enemies are simply weak to different things, this isn't a very interesting decision. The player will just choose the skill that does the most damage, or will happen to either have or not have the right character in their party at the right time. It's a lot of extra bookkeeping the player has to do and it actually restricts the space for strategy. Complexity without depth.

If the types of characters/skills that deal different types of physical damage are very different in nature (one is about finding the right opportunities, another is about setting up combos that require setup in advance, etc.), then you can, for example, use different Element Rates for each in order to encourage the player to use different types of strategies/mechanics against different enemies. There's a reasonably high amount of depth there, and it can make the complexity worthwhile.

 

[mauvebutterfly]

If you are going to just be using those three attack types, and you are calling two of them slashing and piercing, I would recommend using bludgeoning instead of blunt. Blunt sounds like it would pair better with edged and pointed, or with sharp if only doing two attack types.

edit: Or to actually address the original post and title, pierce/slash/bash.

It just sounds better to me if all three things are the same part of speech. I.e. three adjectives, three verbs, or whatever.

 

[OnslaughtSupply]

I use similar "elements" in my game. I use them for damage types: blunt, slash, pierce, firearm, fire, electrical, acidic, and dark matter. Some enemies are more resistant to some and susceptible to others but there is no definitive rock, paper, scissors. So an enemy can still be killed with weapons or skills that aren't optimal, but can wipe them out much faster with the right damage type.

Most weapons can perform a skill that deals different damage than it's normal type. With a sword, its slash but you can perform thrust which deals piercing or burning shot which is a firearm skill which deals fire damage. My hope is to still make certain character/classes/weapons relevant. Also it really plays an important role in player's armor choices. Like a suit that has really low defense but near immunity to acid.

 

[XIIIthHarbinger]

I wouldn't say that they are pointless, even if you are restricting party members to specific weapons & armor types. Because if you have multiple potential party members, it incentivizes the player to use certain characters during certain times. Which gives your player another reason to have greater familiarity with a larger roster of characters, rather than only using their favorites.

Personally I like using them, because with my current project I allow my player to create their main character, as well chose the class, subclass, & skill loadout of each character. & the characters skills grow more powerful overtime, based upon which skills they use. So having different weapons do different forms of damage actually works rather well, because the combination of a limited loadout, coupled with extensive choices allows them to craft a party that is uniquely "Their Party".

I would say that greater variety only becomes pointless, when it becomes redundant, i.e. it doesn't have any effect on gameplay. For example have a frost element & a fire element have rather obvious implications. However having a fire, plasma, & heat element are quite a bit more difficult to have meaningful game mechanic differences between.