Is there a bow and arrow in the game?

[submissive bf]

Can you play like a bow and arrow class? I know nothing about the game but.. I know there is crossbows but I've never seen a bow

[Harukage]

Nope. No bows.
There are crossbows in this game. Yes. Only because some witcher schools adapted them for taking flying monsters down to ground. They are not realy usefull in killing unless you take special skills and mutations.
But otherwise witcher's weapons are his swords, oils, potions, bombs and signs.
There were throwing knives and traps in previous games, but this one does not.

[Exarch_Alpha]

"Why you can´t do real life stuff in a game"

The lack of a helmet is dozens of ways worse than he not having bows, BTW

[Harukage]

Helmet won't save you from monster claws. Seeing it coming by your peripheralvision will. Conventional armor is useless against almost any monster. Any lesser vampire can shred a squad of heavely armored soldiers in the lore. Mobility is the witcher's armor, even the most heavy witcher armor made of several layers of flexible materials, to better protect from crushing damage and grazing wounds, instead of a more classical carapace like structure. Also quen.
Actualy, the whole witcher thing, as a proffesional monster slayers, is very well thought out if you bother to learn about it.

[pie gie]

Alot of people try to make the skills and weapon selection more than they are.
Level up stuff that you use and breeze though the game. The Vanilla game is not difficult past level 10.

[KoalafiedKiller]

Originally posted by Harukage:

Helmet won't save you from monster claws. Seeing it coming by your peripheralvision will. Conventional armor is useless against almost any monster. Any lesser vampire can shred a squad of heavely armored soldiers in the lore. Mobility is the witcher's armor, even the most heavy witcher armor made of several layers of flexible materials, to better protect from crushing damage and grazing wounds, instead of a more classical carapace like structure. Also quen.
Actualy, the whole witcher thing, as a proffesional monster slayers, is very well thought out if you bother to learn about it.

I actually like the way the game handled Witcher vs Standard armors. Almost none of the normal "soldier" armors have monster resistances, yet all the the Witcher armors do. As a trade off the "normal" armors typically have better slashing/piercing/bludgeoning (sword/spear/club) resistances than equivalently classed Witcher armors.

In the end, most of the limitations in this game are because it is based off of source material. Geralt is trained in swords, not axes, spears, clubs, or bows. Witcher signs in the lore act as small utilities that compliment their sword fighting, but they aren't powerful enough to be standalone spells. In fact, one of the uses of Aard in the books is where Geralt uses it against a group of bandits, not to knock them off their feet, but to throw dirt in their eyes.

As such, there are no classes in this game since your "class" is already predetermined for you and that is a Witcher.

[[deleted]]

Originally posted by pie gie:

Alot of people try to make the skills and weapon selection more than they are.
Level up stuff that you use and breeze though the game. The Vanilla game is not difficult past level 10.

The vanilla game....

[Y Ddraig Ddu]

You really can't go into Witcher 3 expecting an RPG experience. You play by the game's rules and those rules alone.

Instead, if you play it expecting something more akin to GTA, I think you'll enjoy it a lot more. Unless GTA isn't your type of game, in which case... there's no reason to even play the game.

[Exarch_Alpha]

Originally posted by Harukage:

Helmet won't save you from monster claws. Seeing it coming by your peripheralvision will. Conventional armor is useless against almost any monster. Any lesser vampire can shred a squad of heavely armored soldiers in the lore. Mobility is the witcher's armor, even the most heavy witcher armor made of several layers of flexible materials, to better protect from crushing damage and grazing wounds, instead of a more classical carapace like structure. Also quen.
Actualy, the whole witcher thing, as a proffesional monster slayers, is very well thought out if you bother to learn about it.

And regular armor will? The armor that in total, will weight much more than the helmet and thus restrict mobility even more?

What a stupid argument kiddo... Versus big enemies the only difference armor makes is to not be bruised when you roll, something that even more important, ya, know, in the head.

[KoalafiedKiller]

Originally posted by Exarch_Alpha:

Originally posted by Harukage:

Helmet won't save you from monster claws. Seeing it coming by your peripheralvision will. Conventional armor is useless against almost any monster. Any lesser vampire can shred a squad of heavely armored soldiers in the lore. Mobility is the witcher's armor, even the most heavy witcher armor made of several layers of flexible materials, to better protect from crushing damage and grazing wounds, instead of a more classical carapace like structure. Also quen.
Actualy, the whole witcher thing, as a proffesional monster slayers, is very well thought out if you bother to learn about it.

And regular armor will? The armor that in total, will weight much more than the helmet and thus restrict mobility even more?

What a stupid argument kiddo... Versus big enemies the only difference armor makes is to not be bruised when you roll, something that even more important, ya, know, in the head.

Claws striking chainmail and leather will do a lot less damage than striking bare flesh.

As I said before, most standard armors in the game offer no resistance to monster attacks. You may have to just chalk it up to fantasy lore but for whatever reason the Witcher armors are specifically designed to protect against monsters.

Also his argument was saying helmets restrict vision, not mobility. Unless it's a completely open faced helmet there will be be some degree of vision impairment.

And actually in the game most big enemies inflict bludgeoning damage, not "monster" damage. And if you notice most armors don't have very good bludeoning resistance meaning your armors are much less effective against large enemies.

[Chris]

Originally posted by KoalafiedKiller:

Originally posted by Exarch_Alpha:

And regular armor will? The armor that in total, will weight much more than the helmet and thus restrict mobility even more?

What a stupid argument kiddo... Versus big enemies the only difference armor makes is to not be bruised when you roll, something that even more important, ya, know, in the head.

Claws striking chainmail and leather will do a lot less damage than striking bare flesh.

As I said before, most standard armors in the game offer no resistance to monster attacks. You may have to just chalk it up to fantasy lore but for whatever reason the Witcher armors are specifically designed to protect against monsters.

Also his argument was saying helmets restrict vision, not mobility. Unless it's a completely open faced helmet there will be be some degree of vision impairment.

And actually in the game most big enemies inflict bludgeoning damage, not "monster" damage. And if you notice most armors don't have very good bludeoning resistance meaning your armors are much less effective against large enemies.

Agree with this.

Helmets do tend to be restrictive, so a person who relies on keen senses or freedom of movement might find them less than ideal, i.e. a Witcher.

Just as soldiers wearing full plate is a trade-off of mobility vs protection, so a helmet is a trade off of visibility vs protection. Though, it might have made some sense with the 'Bear' heavy armour; some sort of leather cap at the least?

Unless you make the imaginary justification that a helmet impedes Geralt's heightened senses somehow. Which, feasibly, it could. Either that or the guy likes showing of his white hair! A myriad of possible explanations. Chalk it up to fantasy trope if need be.

[Duncan]

There are different helmets though.
A skullcap : http://www.dekoase.com/verkkokauppa/images/cervelliere_kypara_helmet_03.jpg
Helmet with open ears and eyes : http://www.medievalcollectibles.com/images/Product/large/200548.png

None of these impede your eye sight or hearing, and if Sapkowski wanted, he could design special witcher helmets. Impeding sight and ears especially makes no sense since Gorbelt often wears hoods, that impede it just as much.

As for arguments that armor is needed since monsters occasionally claw you - it makes no sense. If a monster is able to claw you, you totally need a helmet and your mobility is not enough. An attack to a chest will make you bleed, but you will survive. An attack to your head will end you right on the spot.

[Y Ddraig Ddu]

Originally posted by BuzzardBee:

Originally posted by ydraig:

You really can't go into Witcher 3 expecting an RPG experience. You play by the game's rules and those rules alone.

Instead, if you play it expecting something more akin to GTA, I think you'll enjoy it a lot more. Unless GTA isn't your type of game, in which case... there's no reason to even play the game.

I'm struggling to see the similarity between those two.

OT, but if you take out the token leveling mechanic, the scaled loot and the Telltale-like cutscenes, it's pretty much a Rockstar game. Minus the insane attention to detail and immense interactivity with the world, of course.

[MateSalsa]

In the books only once is mentioned that Geralt buys a jacket. No mention about armor or helmet. It's reasonable what others said that helmet and a heavier armor while minimally helps against the damage of a monster limits a lot more the mobility, the stamina and the senses of Geralt so for him it's better without them.
In addition in medieval times a plate armor was so expensive that only the nobility could afford to buy them and were used for battles and for parade not for everyday life. Bandits, or thugs surely didn't use them. As the Witcher wants to be somewhat realistic Geralt rarely should meet opponents with heavy armor as he is not a mercenary or a knight of a king why should he bother with using the same equipment?
While the lack of helmet reduces the cusomization options in the Witcher games it has sense in the lore and game mechanics as well. I mean if you wear a helmet how could you use your batman senses while investigating? Always remove the helmet when comes that part or what? It would be stupid.

[FloydSneed1844]

Originally posted by MateSalsa:

In the books only once is mentioned that Geralt buys a jacket. No mention about armor or helmet. It's reasonable what others said that helmet and a heavier armor while minimally helps against the damage of a monster limits a lot more the mobility, the stamina and the senses of Geralt so for him it's better without them.
In addition in medieval times a plate armor was so expensive that only the nobility could afford to buy them and were used for battles and for parade not for everyday life. Bandits, or thugs surely didn't use them. As the Witcher wants to be somewhat realistic Geralt rarely should meet opponents with heavy armor as he is not a mercenary or a knight of a king why should he bother with using the same equipment?
While the lack of helmet reduces the cusomization options in the Witcher games it has sense in the lore and game mechanics as well. I mean if you wear a helmet how could you use your batman senses while investigating? Always remove the helmet when comes that part or what? It would be stupid.

Ahhh Yes. The jacket. I remember how butthurt he got when that jacket got ruined because of the Doppler :D

[Y Ddraig Ddu]

Originally posted by MateSalsa:

As the Witcher wants to be somewhat realistic...

Uh. No. Not even "somewhat," at least as far as the combat is concerned:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9EF0oLtz30

And Geralt can and does wear full plate armor.