Hellraiser789

When you have a barbarian with 22 Might wielding a 2hd weapon? When you have enemies walking right there and not triggering them? I mean that would mean that traps have souls and are sentient so that they recognize some kind of "faction" and, should the victim be of an hostile "faction", then they trigger, otherwise they don't? Oh wait...that wouldn't be how you handle traps would it? HAHAHA one of my favorite moments in BG2 was in the opening dungeon - there were a couple dwarves picking on some thieves and they were just standing between the trapped pillars. Then one would run up and get frozen solid and the other would be like " O **** " and start backpedaling, only to be coated in fire from the other trap. Ah, good times.... Yeah everyone and everything should activate traps. Just makes more sense.

Sorry, a little behind on the thread, but wouldnt it be awesome to have like a hand-drawn map that shows the areas youve explored? (like the bestiary for monsters encountered?) This would be separate from the actual map, just like a bonus thing. Also, with the bestiary - I think there should be some options - sounds like a cool thing, and Im find with it and the exploration being like a quest (as long as its unmissable?). But give some options like studying the monsters and stuff. I mean, this brings the low risk thing vs high risk combat, but maybe have it where 50% is combat and 50% is studying, because both give different kinds of information? This encourages different playstyles throughout the game so you dont feel you need to kill stuff all the time. Or maybe have it so combat fills the bestiary quicker, and the studying takes longer and more samples? To reflect the added information from combat (and the higher risk) vs studying the behavior of creatures (which would take a while IRL + reflects the lower risk)? I dont know what the best answer is... Theres a lot of directions this project seems to be able to go in. I mean, I like that theyre doing their own thing, but at the same time, as others have mentioned, the game has A LOT of combat heavy features. So combat either needs to be REALLY FUN or needs incentives. Personally I think the best situation would be to encourage both styles, combat and stealth, exploration and quest, and do as much as possible to keep it balanced so no one can complain. But that takes A LOT of work and time. So I dont know how this will work it. I guess leave it up to the devs and have faith in them.

It actually wasn't for him, either. Drizzt could dual wield because drow in 1E AD&D were ambidextrous. It was only after he got super-popular that they added dual-wielding to all rangers in 2E, to allow for Drizzt clones. This is the entire reason people associate dual wielding with rangers. So what is Drizzt's actually "class"? Is he a fighter with a panther companion and a follower of Mielikki or is he actually a Ranger? Sorry, other than the IE games I never really had any other experience with DnD rule-sets. (Im not sure if R.A. Salvatore actually classified Drizzt as a ranger - I THINK he did, but honestly I cant remember)

Hahaha I like the Drizzt books a lot, but ironically I dont think ive ever actually created a character specifically modeled after him...lol Love dual wielding, but thats not necessarily a ranger thing for me. I would think thats a bug. I mean, I could maybe understand not allowing you to have 6 people in your party if you have a ranger (the animal would count as a companion?) but then I think the animal companions are probably really under-powered in that case. Although probably a bug, if i had to guess. Although I dont have the beta so i cant test it or anything.

First, Thank you Josh for giving us some feedback on your plans. I havent played the beta, so I dont know if its currently implemented or not, but do mini bosses fall under quest categories or the bestiary group, or is the loot supposed to be the reward? For example the spider queen (which i don't think has a quest attached to it, although I am not sure - havent played the beta)? I like the bestiary idea as well as exploration and other forms of xp, as it does remove the sting of no combat xp a bit. Thanks for including us all in the decisions Josh & Co. I think we all appreciate the hard work you guys are putting into the game in order to make it the best it can be!

Or Archer with Animal Companion? Or Bowhunter with Animal Companion? Woodsman with Animal Companion? Sharpshooter with One Animal Circus? Ranger seems to roll off the tongue a bit better while mostly eliminating the need to qualify why the character comes with an animal companion I think... I would agree. If the animal companion did not exist, I would vote archer. Because it does, however, I vote keep ranger. Plus, I never personally understood why a RANGEr wouldnt use RANGEd weapons. I mean, its in the name... (I know, park ranger, forest ranger, etc, but I think it was originally intended as a ranged class-hunter type, rather than the Drizzt legend that made it popular. Could be wrong about that though) for the record, Drizzt is awesome, but he really is just a fighter who follows the faith of Mielikki....and has a pet panther.... Actually, on second thought, if Guenhwyvar is his animal companion, it would more make sense that he would be a ranger.... Panther needs to be an animal companion! and melee Rangers too! with dual scimitars!

Do you need achievements too? If XP is an essential part of the reward structure by design, then that tells me that the actual gameplay is lacking. My problem with that is what is the point of random battles? why not just remove them like TToN is doing and make every event scripted and handpicked? I can understand (kinda) the need to get rid of grinding (not really, was provided negligible benefits in the IE games), and I can definitely get behind equal xp for alternative options so no one feels penalized for not engaging in combat, but why does it have to be quest xp or nothing? Maybe I am wrong or misinformed, but I dont see why you cant have both combat xp and quest xp (objective xp, I think is the term the devs used - although I dont know if that is currently how it is implemented or not) As others have mentioned, what if I go through the game fighting monsters because it is fun (and it should be fun, xp SHOULD be a bonus), then Im still lvl2 fighting lvl 8 monsters? thats not fun. "Go do quests!" shouldnt be the ONLY option is what Im saying.

Honesty, I think the devs are doing a great job and I AM looking forward to the game. No combat xp is not that big a deal to me, honestly. However, that does not make the current system the best possible solution. Neither does it mean that just because the IE games used it and were successful, it is the only way to be successful. The devs have decided that grind-able combat xp is counter-intuitive to their project, so I think we should support that. Instead of complaining how we only want combat xp is not going to change this. However, I think suggesting some options to improve the system would be more productive. I mean, by the logic that I get experience for completing different goals (and I stress GOALS, not quests. I love questing in RPGs but if they really want to stress the EXPERIENCE, there are lots of different ways to offer xp other than "you have to talk to person A or you get no xp"). If you reward xp for exploration or sneaking around, you should also get xp if you fight your way through. It is an option and I shouldn't be penalized for it. Its MY choice to fight through them or sneak around them. I think both ways should offer equal xp, allowing everyone to choose the options they believe are best for their character. Honestly, I think most people would be fine without combat xp specifically, as long as other options were implemented as well, to make sure that combat is properly rewarded just as equally as noncombat. I think thats a fair point. Neither is better - both are equal. Wouldnt that make everyone happy? Also, I think it would be helpful for the devs to at least comment - whether it is something like "we may take it into consideration" or "no, as of right now there is no plans to change it due to time constraints. This was our decision and we think it will be good once people get used to it". I mean anything is better than no comment whatsoever. However, from what little I have read on these forums, the devs seem to pretty open to suggestion, so as Cantousent said, maybe they are still internally debating it? In which case I can understand making no comment until they are ready. Regardless, I have faith they will make the decision they believe will best fit their vision for the game (whether it has combat xp or not). Something I've kinda noticed (and maybe I cant talk because I wasnt able to back so maybe Im overstepping my bounds) but a lot of people seem to think that this game would be the IE games 2.0. I mean, its a spiritual successor - give the devs the creative freedom to create their own world. Id much rather have something awesome like this over BGEE - (good intentions, bad implementation IMO - not enough freedom to add/explore/develop). Lets just be appreciative of the fact we have SOMETHING to look forward too. For a long time I thought these types of games were nearly extinct (sure theres dragon age which is cool, but was never quite the same as BG2,IWD,or PST...). Now I have some amazing games to look forward (PoEt and TToN) and I am just grateful to have that opportunity to explore some awesome new games!

Here's the issue, though: for the ranger to be effective as a ranged fighter, it can't use its animal companion. So to enable that, the ranger needs to be effective enough as a ranged fighter that it can contribute to the party without its companion. But that brings us back to the old D&D 3.X druid problem - if the ranger is strong enough on its own, then adding the companion back into the mix makes it too strong. This is not an easy thing to balance, especially not in CRPGs, which lack the abstraction of tabletop games. I guess I can understand your point. I mean, if the ranger is too awesome at ranged combat, the animal companion would just push it to be OP. So maybe make abilities rely more heavily on the animal companion and single target damage (with combination between animal companion and ranger). I mean, I know some people mentioned that itd be like having an extra adventurer, but I don't think thatd necessarily be the case. There would be no extra inventory, and the animal companion shouldnt replace a Fighter. It would be more like a support tank, helping in combat and keeping the Ranger out of harms way, but nowhere near the level a Fighter would (if each animal fulfills different roles, they wouldn't all be tanks, but I think you get my point). Kinda like monster summoning or familiars in baldurs gate. You could argue that a mage's familiar or monster summons made them OP (well they were, but not because of those). It was just like a class benefit, thats all.

So, I havent played the beta, but from videos and reading stuff, I think the ranger is a cool class, and these improvements would benefit very much. Personally, I think stamina/endurance should be split independently. Health pools can be shared to develop that bond idea, but I think it would improve survival if they had their own stamina/endurance pools. Animals should also grow and develop (if they dont already - im not sure) so they do not become a liability, as mentioned before. Because of this, I do not think giving them armor is necessary, but a couple abilities (passive active and maybe modal?) would be fine. Additional abilities that improve coordination between the ranger and his companion are fine to me. Also, I am fine with the ranger being purely range combat - if you want your ranger to fight in melee, that is what the animal is for (or a rogue, fighter, etc). I am fine with giving the ranger a specific role, since that is how fighters and other classes are defined too. Also, this would give choosing the animal more tactical purpose, as they would be given different roles (bear = tank, wolf = dps, etc). Preferred enemies could be a talent or something, but I dont think it is required, and I like the idea of picking a specific target in battle better anyway. I think that ranger should focus on ranged combat + animal companion. Other than that, I like some of the ideas posted here. I dont know enough about combat to know exactly what abilities they need however.

So ive never played the beta, but from watching videos and reading discussions I think I have a decent grasp of how things work. As mentioned in previous posts, I think there should be lots of different ways to get experience. Questing is one obvious way. Combat is another. However, the combat xp has to be balanced to avoid grinding. Killing a bunch of lvl 1 goblins when you are lvl 12 should give relatively nothing. However, adding in little things like clearing a dungeon (whether that means steathing through or fighting your way through) should grant xp. I'll describe a couple of examples: Cave 1 has 10 goblins in it with a chest that has a battle axe and a gem. Option 1: Party enters the cave, kills everything in sight, but Sagani dies. Each goblin grants 10xp. If the entire cave is explored, 200xp is given. This offers a total of 300xp. Also, there should be an update in the journal (with a notice in the combat log?) that says - "Today I found a cave in ZONE A, and when I entered I found goblins inside. I killed them all and explored the rest of the cave, but Sagani was killed during the fighting with the goblins (or by a trap,etc). Found a chest and it had a cool gem a sweet battle axe inside!" Total XP: 300 Option 2: Party enters cave, sneaks past the goblins and opens the chest. Entire cave is explored, 200xp is gained. Then when leaving, the party gains an additional 100xp (equivalent to killing the goblins) and a journal update. This still grants 300xp, and the journal entry says something like -"Today I found a cave in ZONE A, and when I entered I found goblins inside. I stayed hidden and explored the rest of the cave. Found a chest and it had a cool gem a sweet battle axe inside!" Perhaps going back in the cave would show that the goblins had left and a journal update could say something like "I explored CAVE A in ZONE A again to see what those goblins were up to. Turns out they all left, probably because all of their treasure was stolen? " (Goblins do not have a reason to stay inside the cave, so they leave) Total XP: 300 Option 3: Party enters cave, only kills 5 of the goblins (giving 50xp total), grabs the chest and leaves without exploring the entire cave. Upon leaving, they gain 100xp for discovering the cave (or an amount proportionate to the amount of cave explored) and the journal entry says - "Today I found a cave in ZONE A, and when I entered I found goblins inside. I killed a few of them and explored some of the cave. Found a chest and it had a cool gem a sweet battle axe inside! Maybe I should go back and explore the rest of it later?" This only gives 150xp, as the entire cave wasnt explored and all of the goblins were not killed. Similar to option 1, the goblins will no longer be in the cave if the player returns, but the player would get the experience & journal entry for discovering this (similar to option 2), as well as for fully exploring the cave. This would offer an additional 150xp (50 xp for finding out the goblins left, and 100xp for exploring the cave) as well as a journal update. Total XP: 150 (or 300 if later you returned) Option 4: Party enters cave, sneaks past the goblins and explores the entire cave. 200xp is gained for exploring the cave and 100xp is given for leaving the cave (proportionately less if goblins are killed because goblins grant xp). Returning to the cave would reveal the goblins are still there and killing the goblins would grant 0xp, but would offer the reward and loot as incentive (sneaking past them to grab the loot = 0xp as well). The journal entry would read like this: "Today I found a cave in ZONE A, and when I entered I found goblins inside. I stayed hidden and explored the rest of the cave. There was a chest inside, but I did not open it. Maybe I should go back to see what was inside?" (it could also say "I explored the cave, but did not find a reason for the goblins to be there. Maybe I should go back to investigate the cave further at another time?") Exploring the cave later would show that the goblins are still there, as they are still guarding the treasure. The journal would say something like "I explored CAVE A in ZONE A again to see what those goblins were up to. Turns out they had a chest, which after killing/sneaking past them, I found a cool gem and a sweet battle axe inside!" Total XP: 300 Options 1 would be for combat xp fans, option 2 for quest fans, and options 3 and 4 would be for balance and more options. I mean these options might require a lot of work, but I feel they would be worth it in the end because they offer more interactivity to the player. They might need some more reworking but I think the idea is there. Also, on big open maps, it would be like exploring the map would offer proportional xp and journal entries (maybe given after rest or transition to a new area to simulate you recording things in your journal?), and killing monsters would offer combat xp as well. However, when you leave an area, you record in your journal your actions (killing monsters or sneaking past them) and if you didnt get the xp from killing them, you receive the xp when you enter a new area, (Proportionate to how many you DIDNT kill) but only if you actually saw them. If you did not see them, they do not get counted or plugged in. Then, if you return and kill them, you will not get any more xp, but you will get a journal entry detailing that you went back and killed them, offering loot as an incentive. However, monster you hadn't seen do not get applied. Discovering new monsters offer new rewards - if you kill them = combat xp. If you sneak past them, you will later earn xp for doing so. Both offer an updated journal entry. This would probably be a rather large project however, so I do not know how feasible such a thing is. But, I think it would be really cool, and would meet both parties' needs, offering a better and more reactive experience for everyone. Also, the journal should be broken into segments, varying with different areas. Just to make things more organized and detailed. PS: I apologize for the ridiculously long post, I started going on and on, but I thought the examples would be the easiest way to explain my view.