Jump to content

tinysalamander

Members
  • Posts

    473
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by tinysalamander

  1. Upon putting thoughts in romance.. and in view of current trending about LGBT and feminism, i would vote "No romance". These vocal groups of people were known for stirring issues with their ideology that games were not inclusive and indirectly mistreating them. I personally love romance, but i know where this all leads to.

     

    “Vocal groups” will exists regardless of what you do or don’t. You might as well stop making games if that’s going to stop you.

    • Like 5
  2. 3)  A severe lack of Class specific talents.  This class has 2 talents.  That is the equivalent to the special talents available to a single Paladin Order.  There are 5 Orders (*2 talents per Order = 10) for a Paladin to choose from, and the Chanter class gets 2 talents, period.  One gives a passive heal when you are Chanting, and the other buffs that same heal.

     

    Furthermore, since talents are pretty limited resource I think there shouldn’t even be talents that upgrade other talents. It should automatically improve with your level if the power is not too strong on its own at later levels. It’s like learning, say, Cure 1, Cure 2, Cure 3… sure they might be different spells but that’s just boring. IMO, it’s also a lazy design to pad the number of talents.

    • Like 4
  3. And not having access to a bonus is not the same as "being punished", I mean good god.

     

    In game design it can be. If the game is built around the fact that everyone get X it is punishment to not have X. Although it is a somewhat good masquerade because if it doesn’t says “you get -100500 to Stat” (or something) it doesn’t feel like a punishment. At first anyway.

     

    That is not to say this is a case here. Need more information.

  4. A different approach could consist of this:

    - add random encounters, no XP from combat is a perfect setup for this

    - add nighttime ambushes with chance of happening increasing with number of rests in given dungeon, it could decrease over time

    - add extra monsters when player enters dungeon again, after a trip to a village for those oh so important inn resting bonuses

     

    Because there wasn’t enough trash encounters in PoE1…

    • Like 2
  5. This changes my somewhat defensive oriented priest with 10 Might into a speed-focused unarmored caster which you wanted to avoid… Buffing her Might is out of the question since her primary role is buffing.

     

    That would depend on the math of it. There's this gray area between being able to wear the heaviest armor and wearing no armor at all you know, and 10 Might should fall within that gray area. The character with 5 or less Might would be the one that is unable to wear any armor due to being so weak. The idea is not to force you to invest in Might, the idea is to punish you for dumping it and rewarding you for investing in it. Also, pulling one or two points away from somewhere isn't going to kill your ability to buff, you don't need to maximize any attribute to be viable.

     

    If that medium armor would provide me something in line with those 2 options I’d consider it without a stick, though.

  6. The choice in armor in PoE is a prime example of the binary nature of the game; you either focus on protection and take the heaviest armor available, or you focus on speed and have no armor at all. Any compromise in between is more a hindrance than anything else. Therefore there could be an aspect of character creation that would allow you to build for certain types of armor. My suggestion is that to tie Might into the equipment management by having a base item weight for every piece of equipment and quick item. Might would then determine the maximum weight of the gear you can equip. This would have the effect that stronger characters can wear heavier armor and carry bigger weapons, while the same time punishing overly specialized characters who completely sacrifice Might.

     

    This changes my somewhat defensive oriented priest with 10 Might into a speed-focused unarmored caster which you wanted to avoid… Buffing her Might is out of the question since her primary role is buffing.

  7. Possible Solution: Make the weakened per-encounter spells use the "Empower" resource too (in addition to their per-encounter limitation!), but far less of it. Noobs get to throw a decent amount of spells, grognards don't get the feeling that combat is an unlimited spamfest.

    I was kind of thinking of something similar; what if all spells just consumed the same, per-rest resource, with higher level spells taking more?

     

    Wouldn’t that make it a mana system? And while I do prefer mana-based systems I haven’t really seen that many pro-mana people in D&D crowds outside of XPH lovers.

    • Like 1
  8. In a Vancian system, if you've used all but one of a level X spell use, then you start hoarding it for the right moment. So, you can't lean on it every fight. For instance, Slicken. It's level one, and you have four casts initially, but you've use 3. It's your best disable given what your fighting, but you don't want to burn the last one because a bigger fight is possibly ahead where you will need it. So, you save it, and you find other spells from other levels to use that will make due.

     

    Where if everything is per encounter, you will always have it available, and you use it every fight.

     

    The better way to fix that is to improve encounter design and spell balance.

    • Like 2
  9. Hopefully, hypothetical romance stretch goal monetary value includes reactivity. Changed/new lines, including different emotions to (likely) most of the later lines if voiced, evaluation of your character (are you a murderhobo?), all that stuff. Gonna be pretty costly, I guess.

     

    EDIT: Oh, and those scenes with pictures if your chosen character dies too.

×
×
  • Create New...