Jump to content

AlexAB

Members
  • Content Count

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

39 Excellent

About AlexAB

  • Rank
    (1) Prestidigitator

Profile Information

  • Location
    São Caetano do Sul - São Paulo
  1. Hi again guys! So, after the cooldown thread(s), I thought I should breach the subject of what bothers me about them more broadly, instead of focusing in a simple mechanic or implementation. You see, one of the reason I dislike seeing PE move away from the importance of resting isn't that resting was well used in BG. Or IWD, or PS:T, or any of those titles. It is because I think it is a bit of a missed opportunity. By the way, I know we are getting resting after all, and that is great news, but I think resting can be made more interesting, by seizing an opportunity lost by these previous t
  2. Of course. But my point is that leveling what the 12 first levels of D&D represent seems a bit too much, regardless if those 12 levels are represented as 4 or as 70 by PE. Which is what I understood from from Mr. Urqhart.
  3. One aspect I would like in this game is a rather loose control of the XP points the party can earn. It would be nice if the player had incentives to both go after them or avoid them. For example, maybe if you want to get to the maximum level, you will need to use a smaller sized party, and you will need to do quests, or do them in certain ways, that aren't necessarily the best. For example, there might be a city somewhere with two factions vying for power. You could play them against each other and get XP for both quests, but doing so will escalate the conflict into an open war, killing hundre
  4. I just wanted to comment on Mr. Null's points about second and third edition D&D. It is a really good and interesting comment. But while the classes don't all level up together in that game, I think 3e threw away a game mode that was very important in the early editions. I don't know if it has an official name, but I usually call it the character stable campaign. In 3e, I think the default mode of playing was a lot like Baldur's Gate was played. You make up a party with a few characters and go facing a variety of challenges, slowly but surely earning levels, until some big end to the w
  5. No. The punishment is that they do poorly in combat. Assuming they survive the combat and have learned that they used poor tactics (or strategy), why does the player need to be punished again? This is pretty much the sequence of how this goes down from a player's perspective: * Player selects a number of spells for any number of reasons, thoughtful or thoughtless. * Player enters combat with enemies that are poorly matched to his or her spells. * The player realizes that a different group of spells would be better for these monsters. * The fight is rough, but the player survives. *
  6. I don't find nothing much interesting in simply going back to camp, it is true. But what I would find interesting, and I still have a little hope might see its way into this game, at least in some form, is that, now, a whole day has passed. This can mean a lot of things! Examples could include: 1d4 of the kidnapped villagers you are trying to rescue die of exhaustion at the feet of the orcs who plan to sell the toughest ones as slaves. The three escaping goblins flee to the underground, retell about your party's attack, and this results in a new, tougher patrol in the upper floor and making
  7. Sure! People were talking about this exactly in another thread.One of the vital points of games like D&D is that you need to be able to gather information about where you are going, what kind of challenge you should expect, etc. Old game modules were full of rumors, hand outs and what nots exactly for this reason. I really like doing detective work in games, so this is a good thing, in my view. The different systems in Ultima 8 were pretty cool too! Would love to see PE use something like sorcery or necromancy from that game. Though the comment I heard about separating combat and
  8. Hello again! Sorry for making yet another thread about magic, but I thought this deserved to be discussed separately from cooldowns and even Vancian magic. Well, in another thread, someone commented that he thought the reason he disliked vancian magic is that it looks like an instant respecification of the character. Like, you have a wizard decked with only fire spells, like fireball, flame shield, summon elemental, and what not. Suddenly the next day, he could memorize completely different things, like clairvoyance, invisibility, phantasmal force, teleport and what not. If you have a syst
  9. I just want to reiterate that I feel that cooldowns are a mechanic I would like to see nowhere near this game. Even if we are talking about long term cooldowns here. That is, say, an 8 hour cooldown for each memorized spell (which would make the system analogue to the one in Baldur's Gate), I still don't like the idea. As I see it, the only rason to do so was to remove the resting mechanic from that game, which arguably was really broken. the problem with resting in BG is that there is almost no consequence to it. The worst that can happen is a random encounter. However, the proposed solution
  10. While I usually love spell creation system in games, I think this project might not be the best for it. One of the things I loved about IE games (and D&D in general) is that spells are quirky and complicated. A fireball isn't simply 1D6 of damage per caster level. It is a ball of fire! It sets things on fire. You can lose scrolls or other easily burned items if you a caught in one. It doesn't just become a dome of fire, it expands to fill its volume! If you aren't careful and you are in a low ceiling area, it may well burn you because you didn't account for the size. If the area is closed
  11. I think limiting the party size because of the specific situations at hand, like people not wanting to work with each other, or needing to go through a small tunnel to get to somewhere, a great idea, actually. I think the main issue would be combat balance, as you might, for example, have 20 people in a fight if you play some way and be forced into it alone, if you play it another way.I actually care very little for this, I think a game that has very different difficulties according to your playstyle is better for it. But I think a lot of people would hate it here. Another problem might be pro
  12. Just a note, going back to that combat as way thing. In this way of viewing combat, having a mage who doesn't do anything most of the combat is quite ok because the real battle was decided mostly beforehand. Preparation is where the fun is, no in execution. Of course this isn't true all the time, but it is mostly the case. It is more important to have the ability to, in one round, really change how things are going, than be able to continuously change things a bit each round. Because not doing anything most of the time is boring for anyone, though, these games do better with quick battles, (or
  13. Hello! I haven't really been active in these forums, but I have been following a few of the discussions. This topic is one of my favorite, so I thought I would chime in. I much prefer the old D&D Vancian system. Not because I think it is the best possible, but because I think it is the best we have any chance of getting. People have already argued about the pros and cons of the system a lot, but I think the main thing has to do with this thing that was posted in ENWorld a while ago. Basically, I think people who want a vancian magic system want to be able to plan, to examine the situat
×
×
  • Create New...