Valorian

But then again, Autismys and co. will vehemently argue that combat itself actually isn't any harder than the process of skipping combat.

I don't find anything interesting about randomness designing enemies.

Sounds great, especially if said challenge feels fair to the game and not like the game is just cheating all to hell to beat you. I'm pretty sure they're designing a symmetrical system, meaning that humanoid enemies have access to classes/abilities/talents just like the player character. Of course, if I encounter a "sirine" or "wraith" in the game, I'd expect these creatures to have certain unique properties, such as on hit effects, that are not necessarily available to the player. The type of cheating that I'd like to not be exposed to in PE is level scaling.

Temporary elemental damage that's dependent upon a spell that must be actively cast by (per example) a Wizard? Of course it shouldn't be adjusted. It's not coming from the weapon. It's coming from a spell. That spell is fundamentally no different than a DOT, only with the dynamic of the hits with a weapon determining when and how often it damages. The source of the damage is the spell, not the weapon, so the damage is balanced against the spell's cast speed/resource-requirements. Not the weapon's. Is a temporary weapon-burning spell cast by a Wizard really the ONLY thing you can possibly fathom as constituting an on-hit effect? I guess I just MUST be a nonsensical person? Oh Lephys... temporary bonus elemental damage for an unspecified target weapon is exactly the type of situation where percentages could balance things out (even if unneeded). Already enchanted weapons, you know, have been designed with the weapon's attack speed in mind and bonus damage & co. as a percentage is absolutely not necessary. Anyway, it would be interesting to have it explained how does attack speed affect different types of on hit effects, if at all.

Does this apply even to equipped items on enemies? For example, would the "Bandit Leader" have his weapon, armor and magical trinkets randomized on each playthrough? I'd prefer not. On the other hand, I have no objection to a bit of randomization for items found in chests and elsewhere, or drops that don't affect the "essence" and combat prowess of the enemy, like randomizing if the enemy will drop a pearl instead of a golden ring.

I "said something else." AKA you misunderstood me. It happens. That's why I clarified. I'm not sure what calling me out on "muddling" it up does, when I've already acknowledged that I was very much to blame for the misunderstanding. If it makes you feel better though, *shrug*. I'll take the lack of complaint about the point I'm claiming to have made to mean that you don't actually have a problem with anything about it, and the only problem you have is with my lack of perfection in presenting points. My apologies. I'll try harder next time. But, I warn you; I still may "muddle" things up with lots of words that could mean hundreds if not thousands of different things, and you still may believe it was somehow deliberate. I apologize for my powerlessness in that regard, as well. Truly? So, here, when you non-chalantly mention slower weapons having higher base damage than faster weapons, and how the application of bonus damage as a percentage of base damage works wonderfully because of that very relationship between base damage and weapon speed, I guess you were just pretending to be totally fine with it? Or, you just like to wait until someone asks about a specific concern to actually point out said concern? @JonR: I very much like that idea. I see the purely-gameplay-balance demand for certain things that don't necessarily make much sense, but it's always great when you can make them actually fit the lore. I mean, if the frequency with which you "attack" has no impact on the potency/duration of an on-hit(touch) effect, then people who lived in the world of such enchantments would simply abandon swords and switch to large, entangling nets. Have fun dodging a net. It deals 10 lightning damage every infinitely-small increment of time! 8D! So that's... infinite damage per second? That might even add a whole 'nother dynamic, if the effect/damage is met with any kind of defensive threshold. Maybe your dagger consistently does 5 lightning damage (every second), but, if you let it build up to full capacity before discharging it with an attack, it actually deals something like 25 damage. So, certain enemies could, potentially, consistently ignore/negate 5-or-more incoming lightning damage, thus requiring you to attack less frequently to actually break through the threshold. Of course, without some sort of defensive stance, this would result in a very silly "click click click, run away! Okay now turn around and attack!" pattern, heh. Still, it's interesting. You need to stop misunderstanding the context constantly and stop taking things out of context constantly. Concentrate, the context is this: Weapons with higher base damage will have a slower attack speed. This is fine. That's called balancing weapons and not making half weapons obsolete. Now. Try to imagine a wizard that has this spell that makes your weapon BURN. And you do bonus fire damage. Why would this magical fire care for the speed or damage of the weapon? Right, you could say because balance. I respond: tactics. If you have a lot of people with fast weapons, you'd maybe want to pick this spell instead of another one and have it ready in your spell book (because fixed fire damage). It doesn't cause an imbalance, unlike designing higher damage weapons to also be faster weapons. Do you undestand the point, even just a bit? Let's expand it. Why do I find it even more problematic to twist effects based on attack speed. Increasing this bonus elemental damage because you hit HARDER is something I can accept, but to decrease it because you attack FASTER.. just NO. Even more so for real on hit effects that are not just bonus elemental damage. Those effect should not care about how fast or hard you hit. Why would a curse effect care if you hit once in 3 second or 3 times in a second.

Inchresting example... if you want to put it that way, I would rather look at the enchantment as a battery, not a capacitor. Should we reintroduce durability then? You are mixing things up; weapon size, speed, damage.. There could be a variety of combinations. Big weapon, made of wood, very fast attack speed (wielder is skilled and strong). Small weapon, high damage - weapon is very sharp, slow attack speed (wielder is not skilled). What does you capacitor prefer? Now, let's be serious. Here's an example of on hit effects, posted in this same thread: It's quite simple. Korax the Ghoul tries to hit a Gnoll. Attack roll successful! Now the Gnoll has to save vs death or be paralyzed. Save successful! Still suffers 4 damage from the hit though. It's the same in PE. Just substitute saving throw with defense roll. There's no need for batteries, capacitors, measuring attack speed.. it's simply an enchantment, an effect, often rather supernatural. You hit your opponent with a full hit? Good, now the effect has a chance to be applied on the target, if a specific defense fails. There's no need to complicate and warp things just for the sake of it.

I do understand that percentages accomplish this "problem" I described (which, I don't really understand why it gets demoted to an alleged, quotation-mark problem, *shrug*), and I never said that they didn't. That's fantastic that the percentages of the base damage are some how magically automatically adjusted, completely free from adjustments based on speed -- OH WAIT, the base damage was already set based on speed. So, I honestly don't understand what point you're trying to make that goes against anything I simply observed. I also never said that this is a problem that is obviously existent here, in P:E's design, and that it needs to be fixed. I merely pointed out that game developers usually make adjustments to weapon damage/effect-potency based on the speed of the weapon, so that such a problem never arises. As for not-elemental-bonus-damage on-hit effects and their durations being "distorted," how is this any different from base damage (that you're apparently fine with?) being "distorted"? Or, as you put it, why is it okay for base damage to differ purely because attack speed, but not for any other quantifiable effects to differ for the same reason? If I can hit you every second with a dagger (look, no over the top example, just for you, because I care), and every hit can instill a 5-second debuff, or I can hit you once every 5 seconds with a greatsword, with a chance to instill the same debuff, then you run into the same thing as you do when you don't adjust base damage. ESPECIALLY if the debuff effect doesn't stack (another hit always adds 5 seconds to the duration, rather than resetting it to 5). If it just keeps resetting it to 5 seconds, then you're inherently "distorting" the effect based on attack speed, because the farther the attack speed goes below the duration time, the lesser of an effect each hit is causing. The greatsword, even if it proc'd its effect on every single hit, would never be wasting a single second of redundant effect duration, while the dagger could potentially waste 4 seconds of duration time every hit. You said something else. You went on with 'oh, you see, bla, speed, 73 attacks per second, bla, should apply shock damage differently'. Then I pointed out that attack speed shouldn't affect bonus elemental damage and the power or duration of on-hit effects because it simply doesn't make sense. Then you did what you usually do. You muddled everything with paragraphs of superfluous text explaining how you said just that, when in fact you said something else entirely. "Or, as you put it, why is it okay for base damage to differ purely because attack speed, but not for any other quantifiable effects to differ for the same reason?" No, it is not okay for base damage to differ purely because attack speed. Does that answer your question?

That's why they're using percentages, Lephys. Percentages of base damage added as bonus (e.g. elemental) damage, already balance what you think needs balancing. The slower weapons have higher base damage than faster weapons. +20% shock damage on a stiletto isn't the same as +20% on a two-handed sword. So this "problem" is actually already solved. But, like I said, that's the path of least resistance. Percentages should be the last resort. Designing every weapon type to be useful should be the focus instead and I'm sure they're already doing that. Therefore, you could put a stiletto that does 1-4 bonus elemental damage somewhere in the game, but you'd also put a two-handed sword that does 3-5 bonus elemental damage. I'm more concerned about on-hit effects being scaled/distorted based on weapon speed, such as debuff duration.

This is not about elemental bonus damage. Bonus elemental damage just so happens to be an "on-hit effect," as it could have both duration and power. Which is why I used it as an example. Sure, it would've been crazy of me to limit this to ONLY elemental bonus damage. Luckily, I didn't do that. It's just bonus damage, different from the base damage type. The main dissimilarity being, you get to make a defense check against an on-hit effect (such as stun), but there isn't a defense check against bonus damage (such as shock), which is simply reduced by DT. Also, could you stop with ridiculous, over the top, examples? But what if my character attacks faster than the speed of light!? Shock damage wouldn't be fast enough!! There's no reason to deal less shock damage, just because attacking faster. We can test it on you, if you wish. Buy a Taser and, as the first part of the experiment, shock yourself twice in a minute for 2 seconds. Then, in the part 2 of the experiment, shock yourself with it 30 times in a minute for 1 second. When is more damage dealt and why?

Shock, for example. This is not about elemental bonus damage.

Something pertaining to, among other things, Soul Whip. Posted by Josh on SA: "Pretty much all of the status effects that are applied per-hit have scaling impact based on the base speed of the weapon." Why? I can see the logic behind adding bonus damage through percentages (of base damage), even though I don't like it because it's the path of least resistance. Yes, it's certainly easier to balance when working with percentages. It also has some sense behind it, to an extent.. you smash harder.. you deal more bonus (e.g. fire) damage. But I don't see why would attacking faster reduce the duration or power of an on-hit effect. Why would a dagger-person, who deals more per-hit damage than a greatsword-person and attacks faster (because the dagger-person has trained to become special that way), apply a shorter/less powerful effect? *** Also, if you end up using 'graze on deflection --> special effect attack still triggers' (pls no ) in some situations, I have a little suggestion. The graze on deflection could downscale the result of the effect attack by 2 levels. I.e., a critical hit for the effect becomes a graze (crit -> normal -> graze; normal -> graze -> miss). Meaning, after grazing an opponent (Deflection), the effect attack (Fort, Psyche) needs to be exceptionally powerful to be able to penetrate, and even then, it can only be a graze.

here's a little suggestion: since the aura of the weapon does not do anything additional to the attack, other than build focus on hit, count the attack as two separate attacks. one with the weapon that compares to the deflection stat to indicate a hit or graze, and one with the energy that compares to psyche stat for the purpose of hit or graze. so you can do a graze with the weapon on a fighter, but get a hit with the purple aura and gain focus They are indeed counted as two separate attacks (the first one is against deflection, the second against psyche). But, in a situation where the weapon is enhanced like that and drains, stuns, debilitates or whatever else, I would prefer that failing to strike the target with a normal/critical hit precludes the possibility of the effect applying. In the case of a successful attack against deflection, the target gets to make a defense roll (psyche or fortitude) against the effect to see to what degree the effect applies, if at all. Anyway, such effects on claws, fangs or skeletal hands are what makes monsters unique challenges so I'd like it to be used abundantly. Also, Josh twitted* a few days ago that he's designing 50+ unique weapons, which is one of his favorite things to do. *tweeted :D

Hm. Is it a general rule that on-hit effects get triggered on grazes as well? In a balanced attack vs deflection scenario, that's 95% of attacks. Could be problematic for more powerful on-hit effects such as stun etc.

Hullo. There's one thing I'm curious about. The cipher needs to successfully hit (grazes don't count) his target with the weapon, overcoming Deflection first, for the Soul Whip Psyche attack to take place, right? I really like two-stage attacks aka on-hit effects. It detaches damage and additional effects. This way, the target can take damage from the sword/claw/fangs, but resist the effect. If it's lumped together, it reduces possibilities.

I was using the definition of abilities. If that confuses you too much, I gave you a definition to help you out. I will only be referring to "Abilities" when I use a capital A. I don't know what "pretent" is. Is that something you do before constructing a tent? The thing is, I don't have to prove a quantity. If you had any comprehension skills, you would have understood that my argument wasn't "PE will not have 90% combat abilities to 10% non-combat abilities" but "With the information available, you can not make a quantitative statement about abilities". Since you can not prove your assertion that "over 90% of abilities are combat related", your example is flawed. "Rage Phase" LOL, no. I couldn't care less what some double-chinned neckbeard thinks. That is English, if you can't understand it, I suggest using a dictionary to illuminate the big words that confuse you. 1. Enemy AI being slightly more intelligent than a brick wall. 2. Again, my ideal system, not PE. Learn English. I sure envy your ability to whine on the internet. I'm sure that is a hit with women. It is just something to do so I have something to laugh at during work. Honestly, anyone who takes a moron like Valorian is just as gullible as someone who takes oby or volo seriously. Except he actually rages, so calling him out on his bull**** is funny. I have to say, that looks absolutely fantastic. I'm sure I will get quite a bit of enjoyment out of it. Hi Kleine! Sorry for the delayed response to your... post. Honestly, my motivation to keep communicating with you is rather low, as you're intellectually stimulating as watching a snail crawl. But, like snails, you're part of nature too and it would be unfair for me to outright disregard you. You need to get the timeline right, it is not important what you were using or thinking/not thinking, because I defined the point you then responded to, misinterpreting "abilities and talents" to mean "talents and skills" (and whatever else you conjured in your head) out of ignorance. Then, we preDenTed (look, here's your opportunity for another utterly witty retort) that we're in a parallel universe where whatever your brain produces has any meaning whatsoever. And thus I included skills in the equation. I tried to give you a hint and let you realize that skills, by their nature and Obsidian's design goals, won't be numerically abundant. There are only so many non-combat skills that you can make without landing in the superfluous & never used zone. The problem with you is that when there's an "X" somewhere along the knowledge road, it completely blocks you. Perhaps you do know what the summation of 2 and 2 is, but if I reformulate it into 2 + X = 4, that would undoubtedly confuse you. Oh, here's an opportunity to teach you what irony is, because you previously used the word unsuccessfully. Trying to make fun of someone else's English while writing like this, is irony: The you and AI part. Who is smarter and why? J/k, the answer is obvious. 1) How would you exactly instruct AI to do anything about a deterministic system where the player has to micromanage to avoid the enemy's circle to not be seen or detected? Should the AI crazily metagame and start running, like a homing missile, after the character even if it doesn't actually see him? 2) We're talking about PE here, not about a system that you constructed in your head. Thank you for sharing your photo.. I guess. It is rather expensive to be forklifted out of your bedroom I suppose, so instead you spend time practicing typing, yes? As for being a hit with women.. I wouldn't know. Is there a specific reason why you left out half of humanity? Oh, right, you pointed out that you believe I'm a virgin and therefore, you assumed, I'm desperately trying to be a hit with women. Is that it? Cool.. but I'm not interested in women. So you work as a typist from home? That's neat. Being a typist, I mean. Do you often omit words when you're upset and angry though? It kinda spoils your work.

Again: Prove that it PE will have a ratio of 9:1 combat abilities to non-combat abilities, with "abilities" meaning "a skill or talent", not the PE resource "Ability". No, I'm explaining how my ideal encounter XP system would look and telling you to go away if the idea of no-combat XP bothers you that much. You should learn English instead of using a translator. Says the guy who has been in able to answer how he arrived at a very specific numerical conclusion. In my ideal system, yes. However, unless the Rogue was INCREDIBLY adept at stealth or every enemy was sleeping, the chance they would be detected would be almost certain. Keine entschuldigung. Man up, you lowlife virgin reprobate. 1) How am I dodging a question about the validity of a statement that I've never made? Again, talking about PE, only in a mental vacuum does "abilities and talents" equate to "abilities --> meaning --> talents and skills". Are you aware that the category "abilities" is separated from talents and skills? But all right, just for your convenience, let's pretent for a second we're in a parallel universe where your interpretation of what this discussion is about is correct: There is at least 1 class specific ability per level per class (I won't even count individual spells because that would further annihilate your pathetic argument). 11 classes x 12 levels: 132 abilities. If there are any options at all, that would quickly turn into 150+. Then there's talents. Let's be modest. 50 talents. That's 200 abilities and talents, all combat focused, if you don't count skills which also have auxiliary combat bonuses. Then there's non-combat skills. Do you believe there will be more than 20 skills? Mechanics, stealth, survival, lore, a companion skill, crafting. Go wild. 2) So your ideal XP system would be to get XP just fine for sneaking around encounters, yet NOO! XP if you choose the combat route? You keep screaming "because PE will not have combat XP!" Then, with a straight face, you keep advocating XP for sneaking around encounters, while at the same time acknowledging and supporting the idea of no XP for combat. But right, sorry, you obviously mean something else entirely because what you write is detached from whatever process is going on in your head. Oh, indeed, you're entering the rage phase, so you've started spewing what you really think and want. Not good. 3) My little Klein, missing an "n" while typing fast is one thing.. but what mumbo-jumbo is this: "Says the guy who has been in able to answer how he arrived at a very specific numerical conclusion." ? 4) What do you base your assumption on "that unless the Rogue was INCREDIBLY adept at stealth or every enemy was sleeping, the chance they would be detected would be almost certain"? I mean, unless someone clueless like you is playing the game, I believe it would be fairly easy to figure out what to do: do not cross the circle around your enemy with your circle. 5) See, when someone retorts invoking a missing "n", or any other combination of letters, it is a sign that the person has nothing meaningful to say. Also, Klein, no one asked you to apologize. If anything, mother nature owes you an apology... But, since you won't get any, the only thing you can do is sing "Born this way" every day, embracing what mother nature gave you to work with.

Leperchaun, the point of asking those questions was to establish when and how is XP rewarded for sneaking around encounters. Those are valid concerns. Your sad attempts at humor are just that.. sad attempts at humor, as usual. You have an uncanny ability to create strawmen and dodge the question. "Non-combat abilities" did not literally mean "Abilities" or "Talents", which in PE terms are resources gained upon leveling, but abilities related to non-combat, hence the lower case "a". Please pull whatever is lodged up your ass out. Now please, as I have asked you to do several times, link to where it was confirmed that the ratio of combat abilities to non-combat abilities is 90% or show the equation you used. "Inductive Reasoning" will not be accepted as an answer, seeing as it isn't suitable for deducing accurate facts. Yes it is, as the encounter is now resolved. Methods should not matter, results should. Doing otherwise punishes people who prefer to role-play non-superviolent bastards or who like using non-combat abilities. If this upsets you so much, I suggest you leave this forum and cry in your closet, because PE will not have combat XP no matter how much you whine about it. Deal with it. 1. Either bypass, neutralize, kill, or otherwise resolve the encounter. XP is awarded when the encounter is resolved the first time. Sneaking by an enemy, going back to bribe them, then killing them as they walk away should not reward 3x(Encounter XP). 2. Will vary by encounter. 3. Will vary by setting. 4. No, you will at least have to recognize the encounter exists. If you see "encounter A" and cling to the edge of the map, you would only get rewarded for "encounter A", not the encounters you did not use stealth to avoid. 5. Both. 6. No more and no less than they should get by micromanaging party members in combat in the same encounters. When insulting someone's intelligence, spelling "sentence" incorrectly is ironic. 1) Oh Kaine, poor thing. I knew you'd need a step by step explanation, but even then.. I'm not sure if it is going to work, given your immunity to logic. I kept repeating "abilities and talents". Now, why would I mention talents constantly if I was referring to everything? You're a walking contradiction. You complain that I didn't explain precisely that I meant slaughtering a city without it being a quest, and now you use terms randomly. First, start by learning that abilities, talents and skills are separate entities in PE, and then we can, perhaps, discuss things. 2) So you say PE won't have combat XP. But yet you're hysterically agitating for sneak-around-encounter XP? Your combatophobia has increased considerably in the last few days, I see. 3) Your tiny point by point answers didn't actually answer anything. But let's have a closer look at point four. So, for instance, you enter a wide open area, then you click on your stealthy rogue and scout around with him, the rogue sees that encounters "A B C D E F G.. Z" exist. Then the rogue returns to his party and they follow the end of the map to reach another area. Do they get rewarded with XP for sneaking around encounters "A B C D E F G.. Z"? 4) Perhaps it would be slightly ironic if spelling (actually, missing an "n" because of typing too fast) in a foreign language was any indication of intelligence. Speaking about insults to the aforementioned attribute... Hi, aluminiumtrioxid. You need to let go of the rage, it damages your body and soul. Following me around the forums and rage-liking posts which then get destroyed will not help you establish sanity.

Good Lord, if you are going to be all butthurt at least have the courtesy to attack what I'm actually posting. I'm arguing that PE is an unfinished system that we do not have the complete details on, therefore making quantitative statements such as "90% of abilities will be combat related" is impossible as that fact can not be known. If you can't comprehend that an accurate quantitative statement about something can not be made without knowing the quantity of the thing in question, well I have some nice beachfront property you would be very interested in. If you object to my assertion, either link to where it was confirmed that "90% of abilities will be combat related" or prove it using an equation. Example of a solution in a specific situation =/= Possible solution in every situation. Again, you keep making claims that are not absolute. It is possible to have potions and per-day abilities with *gasp* non-combat applications, and the contrary has not been confirmed. Now please answer the question, why should a party who completes an objective using non-combat abilities and resources be rewarded less than one who used combat if the end result is the same? 1. Encounter rewards X XP. XP is rewarded for completing encounter. Encounter can be completed by a variety of means, possibly including stealth. 2. No. So essentially you will get less XP because you will have no objectives to complete? That seems awfully similar to some evil XP system that ruins immersion and slaughters the sacred cows of butthurt fanboys. Not at all. If you mean a specific thing, then you need to specify exactly what you are taking about. If skills such as "stealth" and "awareness" factor in to the radii of the circles, yes it does. Far better than stealth implementations in other party based RPGs. 1) Eh, I'm sorry I let you struggle... hoping you'll eventually get it, but sadly you weren't able to implement a gram of logic, inductive reasoning, common sense.. so I'll end your misery right now: Update 7. Non-combat skills are gained separately from combat skills. They should be separate types of abilities, and you should spend different points to get each one. Non-combat skills do not use the same resources as combat skills. Therefore, if they follow their basic design goals, there will be 0 non-combat Abilities and Talents. Skills will allow you to do non-combat stuff, BUT every Skill will offer a combat bonus, so even Skills are combat-related. Next... 2) The result is not the same. 3) What does it mean to "complete an encounter" to you? When is XP awarded? At what point do you get XP when sneaking around encounters? What if I sneak around an encounter with just one character? Do I get 10x sneak XP if my party enters stealth mode and follows the edge of a map and reaches another map, avoiding 10 encounters scattered throughout the map without effort? Will there be open areas or just corridors? Yes, consider open areas for this example. Should people be able to get tons of XP by simply micromanaging party members around encounters? 4) Right, you need every single word and sentece explained in depth. 5) Back to 3).

I wouldn't know about how, but I know it can be done because it has been done. Lionheart gave 75% of a monster's XP when you snuck past them. And the game wasn't as you describe. But why not 100%? That's 25% less XP for the person who decided to sneak past all encounters... preposterous! Wouldn't that make people, who don't want to ever engage in combat, upset? Also, sneaking in PE looks like this: You have a circle around you and around your enemies. If you can navigate your party member/s (wait, do you need the entire party to sneak past an encounter to get XP?) so that circles don't touch too much, you've succeeded and you get XP? Sounds good Kaine? Well, we'll find out in a year or so how does it compare to combat. And one of the two will undoubtedly be a generally easier alternative.

Ah, I see. You are aware that inductive reasoning is flawed? Now while it is true that very little has been revealed about non-combat mechanics, assuming the ratio of combat abilities to non-combat abilities is flawed because: 1. PE is a work in progress and it is possible that mechanics are either not finalized or even fully designed 2. Since no non-combat abilities have been officially revealed, no quantitative assessment can be made about them. I conclude that no statement can be made concerning the amount of non-combat abilities, as no accurate information pertaining to the amount is currently known. How so? Drugging(or "insert other method of neutralization not induced by combat") the minions would yield the same result as putting a sword through their hearts. Resources are still likely to be used, and a test of skill still happens. Then why not reward the party the same amount for overcoming him with their non-combat prowess? Both take effort and are a test of the party's abilities. You seem to be under the impression that I am against XP rewards for combat. I'm not. To paraphrase myself: "XP should be rewarded for overcoming obstacles, not just completing quests. If someone deals with a random encounter, they should be rewarded by the challenge rating of the encounter no matter what method they used to overcome it." This? I found it to be uncertain. Did you mean random slaughter or carrying out a quest to conquer the city? To random slaughter: Possibly, but if the reason XP rewards are different is because of kill XP gained on quests it still is determined by body count. Quest: Agree. XP should be rewarded for the act of taking the city, not the method. Someone who barges in and slaughters any resistance in sight should get the same reward as someone who uses subterfuge or other methods to achieve the same results. 1) You're funny. You can't point out a SINGLE non-combat ability or talent (from dozens of combat ones) and yet you're still grasping at straws with impetus. "But umm oh uh.. it's surely their tactic to not reveal a single one in over a year.. wait and see! They just won't stop with non-combat abilities and talents when they start revealing them... uh oh, one day" I'll help you a bit: "Skills" are the things where you're likely to find several non-combat.. skills. 2) So you've chosen an example of killing you foes by poisoning. You'll become their best friend/cook and then poison 'em all! If there's a possiblity of doing so, it would be a rarity. You don't spend the same resources as when you engage in combat. You don't use your per rest abilities and talents and you don't use stamina and other potions, you don't lose health. Once you know how to poison, you can poison them the exact same way every single playthrough. Combat is unpredictable. Also, yes, you should get XP because you've eliminated them. Bravo! 3) "XP should be rewarded for overcoming obstacles, not just completing quests. If someone deals with a random encounter, they should be rewarded by the challenge rating of the encounter no matter what method they used to overcome it." ... Wait.. stop. How would you systematically reward XP for sneaking past encounters? Do you imagine the whole game as straight corridors with hundreds and hundreds of triggers everywhere for sneaking past encounter XP? 4) Huh? The reason why is this: by increasing the dreaded body count by slaughtering citizens, you make the city hostile to you, precluding quests. Also, random citizens are generally worth pitiful XP. InB4.. "But you can poison them and no one will ever know!" It was clear what I meant by "slaughtering a whole city".

Link or equation please. Already established 1 and 2. To 3: Why should the reward be less if you did not kill the minions and instead used other means to neutralize them? The party would still be using their skills to overcome a challenge, and the end result would be the same. How so? You are rewarded XP not for defeating an enemy, you are rewarded XP for killing them. I don't see any good reason why more XP should be given for killing a bandit chief after you have beaten him down to 1HP than if you decide to spare him. I see no problem with that, or how that is exclusive to kill XP. 1) Inductive reasoning. 2) It wouldn't be the same. Engaging in combat doesn't produce the same results as avoiding combat, neither does it use and spend the same resources. 3) "I don't see any good reason why more XP should be given for killing a bandit chief after you have beaten him down to 1HP than if you decide to spare him." Bravo. Neither do I. Also, I've beaten the bandit chief down to 1 HP thanks to my combat prowess. See.. combat XP without the dreaded increase in the body count. Miracle! 3b) You have avoided the example of slaughtering a city.

That doesn't give any real clue because PE is still a work in progress, as in unfinished, incomplete, etc. They might not be revealing anything about non-combat because they haven't finished fleshing out those systems yet. Since no specifics have been revealed about non-combat abilities, making statements along the lines of "character abilities consist of 90% combat abilities and 10% non-combat abilities" is not based in fact. If you assert otherwise, prove it. No one is arguing that. I'm arguing that combat success =/= body count. Hypothetically: If someone has a quest to slay a giant and they do not kill it, they should not be rewarded as they did not succeed in their task. If they kill it, either by slaughtering it and its entourage or just killing the giant, they should be rewarded the same amount because they both succeeded at their task. I didn't equate combat with body count, I equated rewarding XP for killing to rewarding for body count, not result. Again, if you do not like doing something if you do not receive a reward for doing it, then you should not play a game where that thing is not rewarded. More than 90% of talents and abilities will be combat related. That's perfectly fine too. No. You don't improve your combat abilities, talents, health, defenses and accuracy because someone instructed you to kill the giant. You improve these stats because you killed the giant. You improve these stats even more if you kill the giant and his minions. Defining kill XP as rewarding for "body count" is patently false. The quality and identity of the opponent you defeated in combat is what matters above all when it comes to XP awards. Slaughtering a whole city would increase the body count, but wouldn't necessarily procure you more XP compared to the alternative of not slaughering it. I will probably like combat regardless, , but would like it even more with kill XP. Too bad for combatophobia.

And that has what to do with the amount of non-combat abilities? I think we are all familiar with the concept of leveling. Combat success =/= body count. Defeating enemies, through whatever means at disposal, is what should be rewarded, not the act of killing. I could play a game with no XP and be perfectly satisfied. But if you are doing something(combat in this case) solely for the XP, not because of enjoyment, then you should probably play something else. In order: They revealed/mentioned close to 50 abilities and talents, and all of them are combat related. Stamina, health, accuracy, defenses... are also combat related. If that doesn't give you a huge clue about the ratio between combat and non-combat stats, you're beyond help. Not really. Avoiding combat =/= combat success. If you have a phobia of combat and equate it with "body count", then you shouldn't play an RPG that has "tactical combat" as one of its 3 main pillars.

My example isn't flawed. All abilities and talents revealed so far are combat oriented. They're gained when you get enough XP. Tying XP to "objective" count is not better because it is more reasonable to correlate combat growth with combat success. You should enjoy objectives for the sake of achieving objectives, you don't need XP to validate your "objective" collection.