Valorian

Awww, but they should be their own people, not your puppets. :D That said, I'm in favor of giving players the option to assign abilities to companions, but I prefer when they have a predefined path that fits their character.

Here we go again... I didn't miss anything, but some of you are forcing the idea of getting xp just for things *you* deem appropriate to give xp. And you conveniently call it "objectives". And everyone else is simply wrong... So you're talking about XP for objectives only. Fine. Let's say I want to play a party of assassins whose main goal is to refine their art of killing. Their objective is to kill things. Each and every enemy killed is their objective and should hand out XP separately. Do I think they should get xp for eating candy and making soup or for killing the same endless random encounters over and over again (yes, the last one is an OOC consideration)? No. I just want the standard xp system that we're used to from the IE games. And I strongly object to the notion that every way of overcoming an obstacle should hand out the same amount of XP. The process should matter.

Modes are indeed the way to go. I'm curious what type of amplification of combat mechanics are we talking about.. I'd want all enemies to spawn (Path of the Damned), but without "unfair" tweaks to the combat ruleset and enemies (e.g. twice the damage/hp). Hardcore mode between hard and damned maybe? :D

Random encounters are fun, but I'd like the option to avoid them without making XP in the process. I enjoy travelling around the world map, exploring new places.. but I don't want (endless) random encounters to inflate my party's XP as I'm doing so. I'd only tackle the unique ones.

In my opinion, quality loot should be more powerful than weapons/armor crafted by the player.

This topic is not about unique bosses or about the inflation of HP.

True that, Fallout's combat although fun, could have used more variety in this department. It's a completely different kind of setting though so I kind of can close one eye to this. It would be nice if they made a category of spells that are specifically mind affecting so that undead creatures have this little boon of being immune to them (or at least much more resistant). I also believe undeads should suffer less damage from critical hits and sneak attacks. Demons could be more resistant to sneak attacks - they see and feel you wherever you are! The title of my topic is a bit vague, I admit. :D

No, my point, which you missed by a margin the size of Jupiter, is: if they're gonna give XP for "other activities" such as persuasion and solving puzzles, they should hand out XP for combat encounters as well. Each slain enemy that tries to kill you is an objective in itself and should be awarded with XP. The most puzzling thing is that you've kept writing this way for more than 10 years by now (thinking it's funny and/or an awesomely original way of making a point).

This. Wise use of limited resources.

I don't see how is it much worse, or bad at all or not desirable. Would you say the same thing about a party that tries to avoid combat at all costs on all occasions? Probably not. What if someone wants to roleplay a group of barbarians who want to kill as many things as possible to get better at what they love... combat? Or if someone wants to explore every single square km of the world (and obviously kill hostile encounters)? I can't see how that shouldn't be desirable.

I'd use the term "grinding" only if there is an unlimited pool of monsters to kill (respawns/random encounters), but I hope this isn't going to happen.

So if my party happens to kill a mummy in a random isolated crypt that is 5 levels above us, but is not tied to any quest or "objective" ... we'd get no XP, even if we barely survived. But if my party talks a peasant (2 dialogue clicks, 2 skill distribution clicks) into saving a cat from a tree (talk skills!!) ... we'd get XP. That's neat... Not.

Yes, the XP reward for a kill should depend on the difference of the level between the killer and the killed and the specific challenge rating of the defeated enemy. For example, a level 7 creature with a challenge rating of +2 would count as a level 9 creature.

That's the case with many modern rpgs, sadly. Arcanum wasn't rich in this regard either. Apart from some enemies damaging armor I don't recollect much variety so I hope that in designing this ruleset Obsidian uses more imagination and realizes how important this aspect is. It applies to any class / party really; for any given encounter there should be a few different strategies that could work, but there should not be any strategy that you can just keep using and beat every single encounter with. Of course it does. I was just hinting that I'd love to be able to dual-wield in this game. Cryptic messages, I know. @septembervirgin Indeed, a developed background and history make monsters more interesting, but I was talking from a combat perspective. Yeah, ability damage, injuries, disables, life leech.. so many possibilities to play with. Basically, all of this shouldn't be relegated to spells only. Many monsters should have such innate 'on hit' effects.

Tactical combat (with good combat mechanics) is one of the things I enjoy most in an RPG. Now, when we talk about encounter design, I like it when monsters are not just a bleak bunch of attributes with different HP and damage. I want a touch, a special ability, that makes them different from a random fighter. Of course, it should feel appropriate for the creature in question. I.E. games are an excellent example. They have a symmetrical combat ruleset and many creatures possess nasty passive (auras and on hit effects) and active abilities. It would be neat if you had to make a save/resistance check (or however they'll call it) each time a particularly strong ogre hits you - or be stunned for a few second. Wraiths that life leech a portion of damage dealt. Hags that can paralyze with their touch. Mummies that can cast a curse upon you. A succubus that drains attributes with each hit if you fail the saving throw, a monster that is so dreaded that its touch causes you to flee in fear if you fail a will save... and so on. With a good resistance check system (we'd hopefully be able to boost it with spells/items/feats), it adds a whole new dimension to combat. Imagine you're fighting two enemies with similar stats and resistances, but one has life steal and the other reduces the defense rating or damages armor? Who'd you kill first? It's simple - the one that reduces defense or damages armor, but it's still a tactical choice. Without these special abilities it wouldn't matter. I want my dual-wielding rogue or warrior to have lots of tough choices in combat! :D

I like it. If the blow brings the enemy/party member to -[certain percentage of his/her HP], then a finishing move is executed.

XP should be awarded for kills, quest completion, disarming traps, lockpicking and solving various problems like puzzles. Basically, I'd want XP awards only for things that are finite; that means I'd hate constant respawning of monsters and traps, endless random encounters with XP awards etc. In the same vein, I'd prefer gold coins to be finite as well. Oh look, that rare herb which serves as the ingredient for an expensive potion (moneyz!!) has spawned for the 40th time. Please not.

Learn by doing is just... horrible. TES is an excellent example. (I started limiting myself in what I was doing in game just to limit the ridiculous XP income.)

I agree there should be some kind of trade-off. Edited to add: If the advancement of those skills is limited by attributes.. that's fine.

This. And as has been made known... there will be several playable classes. I want to advance with a class when I level up. I trust Obsidian to make the right decisions despite some dubious polls.

Yes. Combat is a big part of an RPG. All those stats, equipment, tactical & strategical decisions (possibly).. are tied directly to combat. I want it to be awarded with a good amount of XP. I don't want edless respawns and endless random encounters though, so in a sense I want it to be limited, but ample.

Other. Damage reduction that isn't a percentage neither a fixed number. I'll repeat what i wrote in another thread. The damage treshold value of armor should be rolled withing a range, like 3-6 for example. There should be a chance for weapons (with their own armor penetration value) to pierce through it and halve the damage reduction value. It would be rolled every time you get hit. Fixed damage tresholds make many encounters obsolete. With an armor reduction range it'd be possible to get damaged even against foes with a low damage output. Minimum of 1 damage if the blow hits, I'd say, regardless of armor.

I want distinction between classes.. each with its own flavour. Not arbitrary restrictions like "warriors can't dual wield", but more reasonable ones like: only mages cast spells.

1) I want dual-wielding weapons to be a possibility. Don't forget about this fighting style, please.

Heavier armor probably has some drawbacks.. like you're easier to hit (because you're less mobile), even if you absorb more damage. Also, for example, you'd use more stamina and cast spells at a slower pace?