rjshae
Members
-
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by rjshae
-
-
I concur. I didn't realize that when they said the god-like would be similar to the plane-touched that they might turn out exactly like the plane-touched in all but name. It is still too early to tell, though, so I am hopeful that these are initial drafts towards a more original race. Planetouched-like is pretty much what I had expected when I heard godlike; IP rights and all that. But that still leaves plenty of room for future inventiveness. (Mechanus-touched humanoid, anyone?) Her slightly unusual proportions I wrote off as a legacy of her birthright.
-
I'm not sure. Some deities may not have an obvious associated feature type. Take Woedica, for example. Plus, we don't know if the deity of a godlike character is necessarily the deity that formed them. A cunning deity may choose to obscure the origins and aspirations of "their" character.
-
Might it be that they need to get far enough along in the design process that they know what type of information they should collect? I would speculate they'll reach that point near the end of the first six months.
-
Hello Noisefolk#1, Well your English seems pretty good. However, I'm not quite sure what you mean by PG. Player Character (PC) perhaps? My understanding is that the developers want to allow you a variety of ways to build your character, starting from the initial class.
-
-
-
-
Wandering randomly probably works better at lower levels because the opponents at that difficulty rating are more common. Higher level opponents are scarce and you have to travel to where they are located, resulting in a more linear experience. I suppose a game could switch between low level and high level groups of PCs to mix up the experience a little more; maybe send lower level lackeys on missions that you can control. Or they could split up the party and provide handicaps for the higher level characters.
-
Yes, this approach is perhaps a bit too strategy-gaming in approach. What I'd like to see is a set of "build A or B" options, rather than "build A and B". Do you turn that tower into a Wizard's study or a hippogriff roost? Is that spare wing going to be a Knight's stay or a herbalist's conservatory? Do you have sappers tunnel down to the sea caves or seal up the opening? Do you add a kennel for hunting dogs or a castle garden to host a guest druid? &c. With choices you get more replay value.
-
Providing ranged combat with some versatility against different armor types would necessitate carrying around two or more different sets of arrows and switching up as needed. But that also implies a need to track ammo; otherwise you may as well just have one type that is equally effective against all armors.
-
-
The text panel at the center made dialogue feel very solid. It had infinite amount of scrolling space for text and replies, portraits felt natural, NPCs standing at the center of it felt natural, and you did't have to roll your eyes all over the screen to read text in little box there somewhere. It looked important and made game more about "reading". NWN2 had the worst readability ever. You mean you didn't move the text box to the center of the screen? Why not? The NWN2 text box can be resized and relocated. The view can be modified to your favorite perspective, including having the leader at the center of the display. The readability seemed fine.
-
The one aspect of the IE interface I didn't much care for was the amount of real estate taken up in the vertical direction. The visible game area was much wider than it was tall, even with the isometric viewing angle. That forced a left-right exploration direction in order to see a decent distance ahead of the party. Expanding the text panel only made it worse. It was much better in NWN2 because the text panel could be located anywhere and resized. The icon strip in NWN2 was quite small, making most of the game area visible.
-
-
This morning it occurred to me... the new zombie romance film, Warm Bodies,... is a nec-Ro-meo and Juliet story. I guess you had to be there.
-
Hmm, how about this: if you wield a decent weapon for long enough (say two consecutive level ups) and use it to kill some number of foes, it becomes a "named weapon". That is, you get to give it a custom name. Thereafter it becomes your weapon, and it begins to level up whenever you are wielding it. Any magical benefits are tied to your character's soul, so it turns into an ordinary weapon while somebody else is wielding it.
-
So that's where it's been going. I always wondered why my sword felt so heavy after a good slaying. So it wasn't fatigue or moral guilt! You know, all and all, I could maybe find this acceptable. Yes, that's probably a decent approach, especially given the fact that XP may not be otherwise awarded for combat and that the armor system may encourage weapon swapping. But what happens if you swap your now enchanted personal weapon with another party member? Does it still accrue XP for kills? Do the powers go away?
-
Okay, but there are some considerations with respect to the game length and balance. If a character sticks with a single weapon for decades and achieves some phenomenal accomplishments, I could see a strong character endowing the weapon with a certain aura. But how long do you need to keep using a weapon before you start to see it reflected in the capabilities? By the time that happens the character may have already had multiple opportunities to upgrade, so there must be some reason to stick with the older weapon. One way to reward that behavior is to punish weapon switching. But is that really fair to the player who wants to play with the best tools available? Further, if each weapon is to acquire powers merely by being wielded, what would be the benefit of switching to something else or of working to gain enchantments? The logical conclusion is that personal endowment of weapons either needs to trail other means of weaponry improvement, or improvement of that weapon should require some significant sacrifice on the part of the player.
-
Interesting point, and it actually implies magic when weapons do get better that way. Once again, man yf those magical weapons of yore in medieval legends got to be magical because of its former wielder. If a highly esteemed chieftain or a king successful on the battlefield had used the weapon, it had somehow gotten charged with power and magic. Thus, this would be great for our heroes as well. A mundane weapon that they use for their great or dirty deeds turn magical over time and you get to level it up, etc. But mind you, this require magic to begin with, so wherever we turn, a weapon familiarity system of this sort will mean mundane weapons turning magical in a slow process that we as players get to steer a bit. The other stuff, where you get better using a particular weapon, it is a matter of weapon proficiencies and the like. Would you be willing to spend the equivalent of feats to bestow your favorite weapon with magic-like properties? Or should it just automatically happen?
-
-
-
How is your preference for old-school class builds incompatible with a flexible character build model? If you want to just follow the old school model then do so. But that's no reason to foist your wish for tight restrictions on the rest of us. Have the self-discipline to stick with vanilla class builds.
-
Wizard with a sword is replaceability, not flexibility. And if one will place fighters position in jeopardy (like how famous kensai/mages did in BG2), the whole class system goes down the toilet. Every class replacing other class because of tailored "build" is an MMO route. Bah. I'd rather just start with a career start package then build whatever kind of character I want. It's approach used in multiple role-playing game systems not called D&D, and it works very well. Classes are merely representations of character specializations, which make just as much sense to build in point-based systems. Giving a point-build character diverse abilities just means they won't be very good at any of them. (*COUGH*bard*COUGH*)
-
I do have much respect for the resilience of the North Korean army. But the world isn't the same as it was in the 1950s and military technology has advanced considerably, as has South Korea. I agree that an attack by North Korea would be suicidal in the present era.
