DCParry

Here is the thing. Fighting huge things is fun, it's great, and it can be complicated. Fighting normal size things that for some inexplicable are huge is not fun, so I hope we avoid this trend. I doubt that this is a real concern with the peeps at Obsidian, but I thought I would say it. Back to the complexity, I love fun and complex fights that keep you on the edge of the seat. I hate gimmicky phased fights that over-emphasize micromanaging and replace true complexity with random mini-games to be completed to kill the monster. I will give some recent examples. DA:O - the fight against Uldred, a giant demon (which wasn't so horrendous) with some complexity using the litany. Fun stuff. Also, the first time I accidentally called the high dragon. Good times. BAD FIGHTS - anything reminiscent of a MMO boss fight, for example, DA2 MotA and Legacy final boss fights. Just freaking terrible (although better than enemy waves I suppose). TLDR: Complexity good, gimmicky phases bad.

Look, you're the one who is comprehension impaired. The guy asked a simple question which can be summed up with: "Will there be level scaling?" The answer could have been a simple yes or no. And the answer can be summed up with: yes. Enemies will be level scaled based on where we go first. This *is* a prime example of level scaling. Actually, you are wrong. Not just have a different opinion, but factually wrong and intentionally misreading the answer to suit your own hyperbolic rant. First, level-scaling, according to the ONE COMMENT we have, will not be complete. Some, as a qualifier, necessarily represents a sub set of a whole, and as such, does not refer to the entirety of the game. Just as you envision a disastrous slap to the face, I can postulate a more likely scenario. You are looking for a stolen necklace in order to get the backing of a rich but eccentric noble. You can search one of three places - a crossroads where the noble barely escaped the attacks of ravenous band of were-otters, the brothel where he spends all his time (which turns out to be a front for an evil scheme to interbreed particularly attractive and tall goblins with the local human population) or the headquarters of local thieves, which is in fact a surly pack of orphans lead by there mysterious benefactor. Let's say all the normal mobs (were-otters, goblin hookers, orphan assassins) stay the same level, all around level 10, the level you start the scenario. The first area you check you struggle through, the second is a little easier and you breeze through packs of orphans at the end. That's all fine. The Were-otter Shaman king, Huggy Owlbear the Goblin Pimp, and Missus Featherbottom the evil nanny, the bosses of the respective areas, as well as some of their lieutenants scale to your level +1. This provides a relatively stable experience that rewards approaching an area well prepared (i.e. over leveled) but also presents a challenge with the ultimate fights at each one.

While I don't share your burning white hatred for DA:O's magic system, you might be on to something interesting here, but I am thinking of something that is sort of the opposite of the charge bar. Let's say you have a Soul Bar (cue James Brown) which has something like 10 units. You cast a super bad fireball, which costs 2 units, leaving you with 8. Now there is a fatigue counter on the super bad fireball of 3, which means you have to wait 3 time units of whatever (say 5 seconds each or something). However, you can supercede this cooldown by spending more soul power to overcome the fatigue penalty. So if you wanted to pop another super bad fireball off right away, it would cost you 2 soul, plus 3 more (for the fatigue penalty). BAM, double fire ball, leaving you with 3 soul left. Now you have to wait at least 2 time units to cast another fireball, because you used your soul power getting one off quicker. Of course, this allows for deadly combos that make the mage useless afterwards, or minor spells that cost low or even no soul and have a fatigue cost (so a low level soul bolt, which does minor damage, might cost no soul, but have a fatigue rating or 1 or 2, making take longer to cast, but can be empowered to cast more often by spending soul power). Of course, this only applies to combat situations and such, and the regeneration of soul power as well (on rest? slow outside of combat? medium outside of combat and slow inside? on death of enemy? sucking soul from allies?). Out of combat, I don't utility spells should really be too concerned with these things unless you are magically unlocking dozens of chests at a time.

Because a magic system is a mechanical set of rules that are necessary to allow for (hopefully) balanced gameplay and whether or not they are explained in fluff or plot is a bonus, not a necessity. Aside from that, let us assume that when you are able to shape the very physical nature of matter, time, space, and everything inbetween with words alone (or words and gestures) that maybe those words are of a different nature than common words and holding too many in mind will cause you to die, or something. I mean, really, what's more important that the game system be balanced, effective, and fun, or that there be a satisfying one paragraph explanation in a manual? See, you present your opinion as an absolute. For me, it is the other way around. Lore and coherent world design are not fluff to me. I want to play a game, not a spread sheet. Ideally, mechanics and lore are developed side by side. Ironically, and apparently almost uniquely, in many ways I enjoyed the BG series and PST DESPITE the rules system, not because of it. D&D mechanics have their place, and are best used when mitigated by a human hand. Transferring them to a computer was great fun (I say this as someone who consumed hundreds and hundreds of hours of the SSI box sets) but I think we have the freedom to incorporate a more nuanced system with being tied to an older, table top designed system. TLDR - Lore and story is not fluff. Good explanation and good mechanics are not mutually exclusive.

I like the cut of your jib. The trick is to balance consequences with fun. If the consequences are too high, and the outcome sufficiently random (such as a failed saving throw) then all it does is make reload. Too low, and people just ignore death. Permanent consequences are an issue too, In my old PnP days, we had a sanity score, equal to your mental stats/3. Each time you were rezzed, you lost a sanity point, with all the attendant penalties of low ability scores (Points could be restored with restoration spells and other rare means, but needless to say my clinically paranoid elven cleric with a 3 sanity was a hoot to play). However, in my opinion, the environment is sufficiently different in a CRPG, that this sort of permenant penalty doesn't really increase the player's enjoyment of the game. I think the DA:O solution, with slightly harsher temporary penalties works (especially with the incapacitation with multiple injuries). I mean, let's face it, these sorts of penalties and injuries and deaths are really only relevant on your first play through. Afterwards, one's comfort with the mechanics of the game and the conscious or unconscious familiarity with the encounters make them much less relevant. My first play through in DA:O I was scrounging potions and injury kits, treating them like gold. On my 13th, I was selling them to free up inventory space.

I don't get the complaint about mages "spamming" magic. First, it is a false argument. Any well designed resource management system will work to reduce both the need and advantage of spamming. Also, as a mage character, someone who has spent their life dedicated to the arcane arts, I do not want to be a piss poor archer 80% of the time and then a living embodiment of death the other 20%, For me, this is what a Vancian system entails. Also, I know part of the pitch for PE was to recapture the magic of the IE games, but please, can we leave the D&D behind. I mean, the implementation of a problematic ruleset for CRPG's was great, but I think Obsidian can design a unique system that doesn't have Melf or Tenser in it.

Please, for the love of all that is holy, no memorization system. In my mind, it just rewards more meta-gaming habits. I mean, that's fine if it is your cup of tea, but there has to be a better system that allows for strategic thinking without such obviously artificial restrictions.

It worked wonders for Neverwinter Nights. I'm not trying to be snarky. That seems to be a commonly held opinion. Well, yes, the official campaign was universally reviled for the most part, but you can't really (I think) use NWN as an example since it can be argued it was primarily a mod platform, that is the OC was merely an example of that one could do. Some of the player made modules were of extremely high quality, and really put the OC to shame (until SoU of course, before the DOOM SONG).

Ranger bondage, especially dwarf ranger bondage, is hawt. Sign me up! ANYWAYS, rangers are always a sticky wicket. Do basically make them like rogues with higher sustained DPS, higher survivability, but lower burst and skill access. Or do you go the spellcasting route? How do you implement hunting and tracking skills in a CRPG environment? Also, there is the characterization to think about. Are we talking about one with nature hippies (more druidy) or more utilitarian survivalist types?

English longbows were superior to early guns in certain qualities. They had better range and accuracy, for example, in addition to reloading more quickly. Crossbows I'll grant you though - they're essentially low power guns. Well, lower power is relative. A crossbow will still kill you, and often will punch through armor. Crossbows have the advantage of both the point and click interface (heh) and being easier to reload than a firearm. In some ways it is the easiest ranged weapon to use, and maybe this could reflected in the mechanics somehow (1 proficiency level to become competent in the crossbow as opposed to 3 or 4 for the long bow - these could either be in separate trees with their own boni [i.e. more points in crossbow increases armor penetration or reduces reload time, while more points in long bow increases range or some such] or a generic ranged talent with branching trees [that is not to say all crossbow users could eventually become long bow experts, but one might assume if you are accustomed to firing a long bow, you might have a slight advantage in the use of a crossbow - understanding things like range, wind, better depth perception and so on - than someone who has never shot anything in their life.

Some good ideas above about firearms. I like the idea, especially with pistols, that this is a once a fight shot. As for misfiring, I am usually against random chance doing something fairly terrible to you, but I wonder if we could think about some factors that might increase misfiring: - every time you take damage you increase the chance of a misfire - reloading in combat gives an increased change of misfire - this chance is further increased if you take damage while reloading your firearm in combat - there might specific status affects (daze, disorient and so on) that increase your chance as well. This would add the problem of misfire but make it manageable.

They are the sort of firearms found in 16th century Europe: uncommon and nothing more advanced than single-shot wheellocks. E: As a side-note, firearms of this sort were part of the Forgotten Realms following the Time of Troubles (smokepowder was introduced by Gond). Now all I need is a puffy shirt and a cutlass. In fact, screw the cutlass and pistol, just give me a puffy shirt!

Well, I guess your deal, it is broken. So... see ya. EDIT - This comes off as jerky of me, but all the ultimatums and all or nothing thinking in many of the threads seems a little overboard.

But they aren't really a mashup. Flintlocks and swords were used at the same time. The same for things like crossbows and firearms. Think about things like cost and availability as well general usefulness. There are many ways to integrate early firearms with traditional fantasy weaponry. EDIT - Maybe as a time frame 16th and 17th century?

Have you considered that maybe you are not supposed to burn precious resources in each fight? And that the price for wasting your resources is to wait for them to regenerate or go to the next fight in disadvantage? Personally, playing games like BG, ID or NwN, I wasn't spending all my magic spells in just one fight (unless we were talking bosses or difficult fight). I payed attention to the number of arrows and their types for my characters (Archer kit ftw!). I certainly didn't spam/abuse the sleep/rest option. And I was having fun in the process. Having hit points system already makes combat not so deadly. If you also make it so you easily start each combat totally fresh in resources... meh. Then you force each encounter to be "Hard" because you cannot challenge the player with chained encounters (not talking about those stupid waves of DA2). You limit the strategic/tactical options in dungeon design. But I suppose that resource "micromanagement" beyond potions is "unfun". I see what you are saying, and I agree to a certain extent, but also, if a character is a mage, I want them to cast spells, not be a mediocre shot with a sling who then can blow up the town once a day. No cooldowns doesn't mean spamming. Infinity Engine games didn't have cooldowns. But didn't? Just because the cool down was 24 hours or however often you rested, doesn't make it any less limited. Resting isn't a cooldown. Resting recharges all of your abilities. A cooldown is per-ability. Resting is initiated by the player whenever he wants, giving him more control. Cooldowns are automatic. You can only rest when it's safe. Cooldowns happen in the middle of combat. In short, they are completely different. Would then having limits per encounter be better? Sort of like a sorcerer's spell selection except it works per incident as opposed to per day? It still feels a bit gimmicky to me, but I totally get why some people might not be on board with cool downs.

No cooldowns doesn't mean spamming. Infinity Engine games didn't have cooldowns. But didn't? Just because the cool down was 24 hours or however often you rested, doesn't make it any less limited.

Well, we are getting guns, which will be a nice twist I think. I look forward to how they are implemented. Hopefully I can be a musketeer.

Interesting poll. I voted for mana, but I actually would like more of a combo system (not spell combo), in that you have a limited amount of soul power, and some actions drain it and some fill it. It refills slowly (read, very slowly) out of combat but you can stop and refill with rest or consumables. As for spell combos (grease + fireball and what not), I voted yes, but I think they only work when you have a robust combat system with a lot of options, otherwise you end up building a party that is merely a combo death machine with little or no variety (as in DA2). Now, this can be mitigated somewhat (as with elemental resistances in DA2, but still not near enough), but these become arbitrary and gamey (why are random thugs immune to cold?).

This is an interesting approach, and I think it has some great potential. I know someone here hates cooldowns, but class abilities/specializations could make certain spells faster for making others slower, or lock out spells for x phases if you blow your load, so to speak. Another option would be to have something like a mana/stamina(or soul) bar that only regenerates with certain actions, so you have certain, low level, low effect spells that actually builds energy. So if you have something like 20 soul, you can cast a lightening bolt for 12 soul, leaving you at 8. Next phase you have to build up soul with a minor attack like Shock, that builds 1 soul everything it used. This adds a level of tactical management to spell casting that might actually mimic how physical abilities are activated too.

When DA:O was first hinted out years ago, there was a great discussion on classes and class systems. A place this discussion started was very helpful in formulating ideas of how to work and design classes that are useful and unique. The thing is, there are only really three classes: fighter, mage and expert. Everything else is variation on a theme, or hybridism. I think a more interesting way to approach to ask how classes are going to be differentiated, that is what skills or abilities make someone a "fighter", or a paladin, or a barbarian or any other variation. Is it the ability to merely pick up any weapon? Are there going to skill sets for each weapon? Weapon class? Fighting style? What about magic? If a soul is the source of magic, and we can safely assume that most sentient beings have souls, what gives one the ability to channel that particular power? Or, can everyone do it and only some do it better? If is it innate, what does that say about study and preparation? Most discussions like this turn into random lists of things people are cool (bard/monk/dragon disciple... rawr!). Instead, I think I more fruitful discussion on classes might be how one might take an ur-class like "expert" and have it meaningfully evolve into options like "assassin", "engineer", "bard" and so on. I think having too many base classes creates more problems than the advantages of diversity that it apparently provides. EDIT: My spelling, it was DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED.

This could add a great twist and allow for a wider field of role playing. For instant, you could recruit Foppy McFopperson, the flamboyant Scottish bard, and use him as a "front man". His charming and disarming smile hides your thuggish and selfish goals, and allows you to maintain a relatively high reputation as a party while you go about beating up old ladies for their bingo money. I wonder if they could queues to the dialogue system if you have a companion say something they are uncomfortable with or disagree with. You could either interject your own comment or get a affection role or something to push the companion into actually saying what you want.