rjshae

From a purely schedule- and cost-driven perspective, I don't think that adding destructable environments will make sense. The latter is more suitable for action RPGs. It would make more sense to focus on more widely-applicable elements, such as getting the spell effects and character animation looking good.

One thing that could be done is to store checkpoint data in memory at key moments of the game; each time you save, you're saving the checkpoint data rather than the current state. This will require you to replay the game from the last checkpoint. It's somewhat similar to how saves work in DS2, except you don't have to retrace your steps as much.

Wouldn't it be better if our peculiar selections for a character build weren't considered a "mistake"? Otherwise this advanced planning just looks like min-maxing to me.

A decent idea; I could definitely see a grapple-type attack being implemented via a spell-like special attack that effects both parties. I don't think it should be a full stun effect, but it could definitely give some action restrictions to both. You could even have multiple, cumulative grapple effects against a single target. A simple visual effect, like an appropriate spell going off (Bigby's grasping hand!), would provide all the graphics it would need.

Given the nature of this game, I suspect that most structures will not have destruction mechanics. Maybe barrels. The only physics we might see would be from rag-doll physics, knockdowns, and perhaps trajectories from projectiles and explosions.

Another DA2 rant. Yawn.

I don't know how much of this we're going to do, I like all of those ideas and I think it would be fun to build an AI that can do them. We'll just have to see which of those behaviors is a "fit" for the game. I think we'll almost certainly have smarter AI that will try to do things like protect a spell caster or other weak allies. That kind of things isn't too difficult to implement and makes for a more interesting challenge. Thank you, David. I can understand that some of this type of AI might not be the best fit for a tactical game of this type. Still, some type of group tactical behavior would be nice to see, even if it is just cooperative behavior between neighbors in the mob, or targeting specific enemies. Whatever you decide upon, I'm sure it will be enjoyable. Thanks again.

Inevitably all slaves turn on their masters, just like the slave rebellions against the roman empire. With the major difference that a band of mages is far more dangerous than gladiators. So whatever society cooks that up will be probably a short lived one. Well, no. These slave-wizards are not dangerous because they are taught a different style of magic. They don't know spells for hurling fireballs about and they can't learn such; they know spells for cooking cabbage, cleaning chimneys, and sweeping the floor.

We're assuming that the wizards are free to contribute to the economy as they will. But what about a society that enslaves wizards? Or rather, a society that looks for slaves with wizard-like potential, then trains those individuals in a more constrained form of magic? What then? You can get your wizard-slaves heating your boiler rooms and providing water for your fountains, yet they have become the lowliest members of society. I'm not sure what means they'd use to maintain control over the wizard-slaves, but the Romans managed (for the most part) to maintain careful control over their gladiators; some very dangerous individuals indeed. Perhaps there is a crystal collar that can be used to suppress spell casting unless allowed by the handler? Maybe the form of spell casting allowed can only be used with certain scarce material components that are carefully monitored by the masters? Or maybe it uses prepared runes on parchment paper, with the masters controlling the special ink required? At any rate, this would allow wizards to contribute to the economy without having any significant power.

I can't think of any mythology where anthropomorphic races are the good guys, although you're welcome to give some counterexamples. Even then, I'd guess the good anthropomorphic guys are the minority among mythology. So what do you want to imply? We're fine with slaughtering them. First, depending on the source, Medusa was a normal human that was cursed with the snakes. By another source, she was one of three sisters. Hardly a race, even if having strange hair alone counts! Second, Minotaur was a singular freak of nature, who got locked in the labyrinth because he was related to the king. Again, not a member of race of minotaurs. And Anubis, of course, was a god. I think the point just flew over your head like a harpy on a mission. These are concepts that have found their way into modern games. Is that designer laziness? No.

Note that mythology had anthropomorphic races. Minotaurs? Medusae? Anubis? Ergo, the conclusion that developers must be lazy when they draw upon such concepts is a mental waste product. Personally, I have no problem with a "furry" type character race, although they should have a suitable origin story (like a god created them). That being said, I voted 'no' for this game.

See the Kickstarter page.

However the skill is implemented and improved, I'm actually more interested in the AI response to the lockpick attempt. It should take some length of time to pick a lock, and during that time nearby observers should have some chance to detect the activity (depending on the conditions). What happens when a detection occurs? There should be an area response to the alarm being raised, which should then have negative consequences for the player. Likewise, when an enemy discovers that a lock has been picked, there should also be a response; albeit less direct.

Thank you for the interesting responses, Steve. If I may, a general question I'd like to ask you is regarding AI: how much consideration do you think will be given to group AI by intelligent enemies? Will trained enemy soldiers attempt to fight in formation? Will they coordinate attacks so that, say, suppressing fire will be targeted at the party's PCs while the heavy fighters take on the PC front line? Likewise, will they work to protect their spell casters? Will they exploit bottlenecks and other terrain advantages? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this. Meanwhile, I hope your liver survives the PE experience.

Is this normal? Absolutely.

^^^^ Yes there are going to be players who don't want to mess around with a detailed inventory system, even though it is more realistic that way. It does get a little tiresome when the inventory grows significantly. Possibly there is something they can do with the Expert mode to enable detailed inventory, then keep it lightweight for the casual gamers.

Another option to be considered is entangling attacks. A net or a web spell could be as effective as a baton to the back of the head for subjugating a foe. Transporting the captive is a factor as well; does the party guard the captive while exploring the rest of the area or do they take the captive along? Would the captive have an opportunity to escape during overland transport? Is special gear needed to prevent this?

Yes, I was thinking along those lines. The body is dragged off to be eaten elsewhere (or buried), but the blood stains on the ground would remain for some time afterward. They could enhance the sequence with partly consumed corpses from time to time, followed by scattered bones.

Unless you're playing in expert mode, to me it would make a certain amount of sense to abstract some of the loot system. We don't need to be bothered with every little detail of looting the corpses and selling of the low-cost, mundane items. Nor do we need to track the spending of that money on food, drink, clothing, repair, and outdoor gear. Just assume that the one takes care of the other and you can get on with the more interesting aspects of the game.

For me, Paladins held some appeal because they are honor bound to "do the right thing". I could definitely live with them being chivalrous knights, or even samurai who follow the bushido. On the other hand, the general concept of a potentially fanatical individual who rigidly follows a religious (or other) creed is very unappealing. I'll have to see how they are implemented in the game to see if I want to play one.

Nobody is choosing the barbarian. I wonder why?

I don't have an issue with so-called traditional, nature-loving elves in the Tolkein sense, but I would like to see them have some radically distinctive differences from humans. Mythology describes them as supernatural beings, rather than just another race of humanoids. This could be exploited to fundamentally change their nature. For example, instead of the D&D-style split into light and dark elves, they could be split into two groups based upon their gender: Females are the traditional trouping elves who nurture the wilderness and wild things, but have an unfortunate reputation for stealing human babies because of their cursed relationship with the masculine elf lineage. The latter appear distinctively different than the females, having darker skin and a love of tools, civilization, and dark, deep places beneath the earth. Because of an ancient divine curse, the males and females are doomed to live apart because to do otherwise would threaten their immortality. For when the male and female elves come together to successfully mate, the pair immediately and irreversibly begin to age. It is this curse that has doomed elves to a steady decline in the face of more aggressive, fecund species.

With a split between Stamina and Health, I think a "non-lethal" attack would be okay under some circumstances. In particular, if the game allows the players to take captives for ransom, or engage in fisticuffs in a bar brawl, then Stamina-focused attacks seem like a reasonable mechanic. But it should be clear under what circumstances that makes sense.

A realistic level of gore is fine for me. Body parts flying all over the screen because of a sword strike seems utterly ludicrous and detracts from the maturity level, although it would be reasonable for an actual explosion. I appreciate it when the developers take the simulation seriously.

Yes, the amount of loot you could carry around in the DS games was ludicrous. Plus they didn't us item stacking, which was a nuisance.