Kaz

Hey Josh, I was curious how large of a role damage type will play among the many tactical decisions the player will face in combat. Is the intention to make it a dominating factor, or something that is sprinkled in on occasion for flavor?

It might be early to talk about specific UI implementations, but since we've touched on intuitiveness of combat mechanics I thought I'd throw out some ideas / options that may help with conveyance. When you select a character and move your cursor over an enemy to attack, the cursor could change to hint the expected performance of the given action. The verbosity is up to the design but a simple example would be "Advantage" or "Disadvantage" popping near the cursor. Problem with this approach is that it assumes you only have one companion selected. Perhaps for a group action the information could pop over the individual's portrait. Render a thin line between the selection circles of the assailant and it's target, then color code the line to indicate the effectiveness of their actions. To avoid visual clutter this feature could be hidden until the player presses ALT. Color code the combat log so effective and ineffective actions can be distinguished at a glance. Enemy attacks you - it's super effective! You attack enemy - it sucks. Enemy attacks you - it sucks. You attack enemy - it's super effective! Would you guys consider this over-conveyance, which reduces combat to a game of "try all the things until it turns green", or does it cut the headache of spreadsheeting and free the player focus on other fun decisions like character positioning?

This crossed my mind before. I can see a thief sneaking into a storage room and sabotaging some of the enemy arsenal by drenching it with a corrosive potion or something, which would force the enemy to rely on their dinky side arms. It would be a fun little way for a stealth oriented party to weaken the enemy.

No. There is no kill experience whatsoever. Sigh. It doesn't really solve the issue of avoiding combat becoming the best solution though. If the XP system was the only thing considered, yes you have a point. I assume you're implying things like damage to health and expended resources associated with the combat path, opposed to the sneak path which doesn't suffer either of those? Perhaps this could be balanced by the fact that enemies will drop gold and stamina recovery items? The other way would be to make the sneaky characters use expensive consumables such as invisibility potions, or bribe some guards etc.. My point is there are ways to balance it out, not necessarily a irrevocable flaw in the XP reward design.

This could be a way to support alternative styles of questing while retaining combat XP. 1. A quest is allotted a pot of XP which is granted to the player upon completion. 2. If the player kills enemies associated with said quest along the way, you get full combat XP, and the same amount is subtracted from the XP pot. 3. Upon quest completion all remaining enemies' XP is reduced to 0. This is essentially what has been proposed by the devs, with the only difference being combat XP rewarded on the spot. Players can mix and match when to sneak/fight and gain the same amount of XP when all is said and done.

When I think of the Barbarian class in combat, I see a hulking brute who wades into the thick of things and flails violently until everything around him is nothing but chunks and gibs. While Fighters / Cleric / Paladins may excel in defending other characters, a Barb's idea of crowd control could be darting to the front and provoke/draw the enemy to him through taunts and flashy war paint. Because of his brutal fighting style it could be interesting if he frequently inflicted glancing blows to anyone standing adjacent to him, including friendlies, which would be great for damage output but would also make you think again before using him as a defender in close proximity to your glass canon wizard. Hell even trying to heal his stamina near him could be a risk while he's swinging his axe of insta-gibs +2 around.

Ability to capture/store a custom formation after manually arranging your characters would be nice.

Wading through waist deep murky water.. sounds amazing.

That's just the thing. They have said there is only mitigating attacks, not out right negating them. Stamina loss is still considered damage and we know you always take more stamina than actual health loss. So who is to say this isn't exactly what they have done? Which by the way, is exactly how they should do it. Good post. Health is a strategic resource while stamina is a per encounter/tactical one right? So unless we face the same foe over multiple encounters, which is unlikely unless they're a boss of some kind, it doesn't make much sense to mirror the health/stamina model on common enemies. Perhaps once enemy stamina hit 0 they are considered dead unless there are shaman/clerics among them who can bring them back, in which case a health stat would be meaningful. E: My point is though, for single encounters situations the impact of dealing full stamina damage would tactically mean the same thing as a full blow to their health. It all depends on how they handle the enemy health system. So far it sounds like enemy stats in general will be closely mirror the structure of player characters. It will be interesting to see whether that includes the health system as well.

Critical misses didn't bother me in the old games. If we remove it from the bread and butter melee rolls perhaps we could bring it back in a few melee abilities, like a simple power attack where you trade extra damage for an increased chance of fumbling.

But he also has no right to complain about it. If he doesn't like it, he could not use it. People have every right to complain, criticize, praise, make frowny faces (within the forum's rules ofc), regardless of the validity of their claims. And you have every right to consider / ingore it. I'm glad things like rest spamming are addressed because it blurred the intended rules, thus diluting the challenges set by the game. While I'm capable of self imposing limitations, that's not the reason I buy these games. I could be wrong, but I don't think the devs have said anything about limiting your ability to save the game. I personally feel the way to approach save scumming is not to limit the player's ability to save but rather minimize the benefit / incentives of reloading by tweaking the mechanics. IE games did include critical misses iirc. Baldur's Gate had it for sure.

It's an interesting idea, but I think the cons outweigh the pros here. As you know the main character in the IE games served as an anchor point on many levels. In an open world supporting multiple play-styles and party compositions, the presence of a player-generated character throughout the plot was one of the few constants devs could assume and build upon. You take that away and suddenly anyone can be in your party at any given moment, which has it's own problems. Dialog could still reference past events with the player's involvement, but town folk and factions won't be able to directly compliment or hold you accountable for those actions because you might be rolling with a completely different party now. The game could check for these things, but to me all it does is fragment the lore, and the work involved to accommodate these scenarios could be better spent refining a richer plot that assumes a main character who is always present in the party imo.

Here's some ideas I had on the Druid class that I wanted to dump off. I have ideas on Barbarians and Ciphers too, which I'll edit in after I refine some things. Druid Might be bizarre concept, but what if there was a spell or category of spells where the effects are based on the type of terrain surrounding the druid? Standing by a body of water unlocks a set of spells like summon water elemental, forests could provide wildlife summons or powerful entangle type spells. Conjure a big wave by a river *cough* *that scene from lotr* Another similar idea, since it has been hinted that there will be local gods inhabiting forests, rivers and so on, it would be cool as a druid to be able to talk to them and request aid, and even have his abilities restricted to what the local god can provide. A sample scenario; A druid is walking through the forest which belongs to the spirit/god Cernunnos. The druid spots a group of bandits approaching him and must defend himself. He drinks of flask of peyote cactus extract which throws him into a trance. While he trips balls he may communicate with the local spirit. Cernunnos favors the druid over the bandits and provides him with a list of powers he is willing to grant the druid. Druid picks a venomous entanglement and makes quick work of the bandits. Might sound a bit complicated but from the player's perspective it just means downing a potion to enter the trance, then picking a power from the list that pops up. Perhaps entering a trance outside of combat would allow you to initiate dialog with the spirit (if she/he is willing to talk), and could be a way for the druid to gain knowledge of the area, burrow the god's power to setup an ambush, or receive a buff which can last for a few hours. Having your options being limited by the terrain would take away from strategy in a way, but on the other hand it means your tactical option shift from area to area and keeps things fresh. Either way I think linking some abilities of the Druid to the surrounding terrain could be an interesting way of differentiating him from other spell casting classes. Some other thoughts: Create elixirs and potions from various extracts for others to use Chew on bark, snort ground up roots, smoke herbs for mind altering effects. (Example: Immune to pain for a short time and forego damage to stamina, health is still affected) Serve as a guide on hallucinogenic trips at campsites which can unlock innate soul powers of companions (similar to dream sequences in BG) Could there be synergies between classes? Extract lethal poisons for fighters and thieves to coat their daggers and arrows. Preform ancient rituals which drive spirit-sensitive characters (such as barbarians and other druids) into a frenzy. Help break in an animal that could otherwise be difficult for a ranger to tame. (dire wolf / bear etc.) Use of these skills could be a great time to trigger banter between companions. Summoning Tame and bring along animals who serve the druid. Tame an eagle (not as great in combat compared to a wild dog or something but great for scouting?) Happy holidays!

I think Josh Sawyer mentioned something along the lines of "an important part of game design is how it actually affects the way people play the game". Sorry if I butchered that quote, but I think that's a important point to keep in mind, and while things like reach are interesting I think it can pose some problems when you look at how it affects gameplay. I can see weapon range playing out in a few ways. A. The player manually kites the enemy to maintain his/her ideal distance. Don't think some will appreciate the amount of micro it would take (a fighter at that) to capitalize on the range bonus. Feels too much like starcraft to me. B. Characters automatically adjust their distance to opponent and is driven by AI. Could be interesting, although the fight might get drawn out to the point where characters end up on the other side of the map, triggering more foes along the way. That's an extreme case though, and I think this might be cool because it differentiates roles within the melee characters. Polearm wielding fighters might be excellent support but horrible at protecting a mage because he needs to move around all the time. C. Polearms are used only for the initial strikes and quickly replaced by the character's primary weapon. Also has potential, although if damage to HP ratio is anywhere near the old IE games, gaining a bonus in the first few hits will have negligible impact on the overall fight as enemies typically took quite a few hits before going down. This idea would be interesting if fights were quick and deadly, however that would make for some punishing gameplay if not heavily microed. Turn based games seem like a better fit for that kind of model rather than an IE type game using RTwP. Those are just a few scenarios that I could think of. Overall I think weapon range is an interesting one since the devs have hinted that character placement will be important in combat. I like the idea of STR DEX modifiers on weapons to give them more flavor. This is more about presentation/communication to the player, but I'd prefer if bonuses were expressed as; giant war hammer gains +X to damage and suffers -X in chance to hit. Having my innate strength and dexterity altered by picking up a certain weapon doesn't make much sense, and the system could throw things out of balance if skills make checks against core attributes. The mechanics are similar to what you proposed, it's just a different way of expressing them.

Could be a nice reward to unlock after beating certain difficulty settings.

*nerdgasm* Thanks for the update, happy holidays y'all!

Here. Skimming though that link I thought the user Mrowak had a cool idea and wanted to share. Hope s/he doesn't mind me quoting here I've had a similar idea before about skill overlap within the party. Take lore for example, traditionally if a mage had high points in lore, none of the lore possessed by other party members mattered. Mechanically it's saying Char#1 knows about A, B, C Char#2 knows about A, B, C, D and E Char#3 knows about A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I In this model the party knows about a total of 9 unique things. When in the real world there isn't as much overlap, especially if you come from different professions. So the lore would be distributed as such Char#1 knows about A, B, V Char#2 knows about A, B, C, J, K Char#3 knows about A, B, C, D, E, F, I, L, O In this model the party knows about a total of 12 unique things. A and B represent things that could be considered common sense but a game doesn't have to model that kind of detail. My point is it might make sense for some skills to look at the sum of the party's capabilities when making checks, to avoid scenarios where overlapping skill/specializations go to waste. Summing the points might make it hard to balance the game, so in the lore example it might make sense that you take the highest lore score, then add 50% of each characters lore to the pile.

@AGX-17 Could be a factor, I've experienced this in titles where I've had multiple play-throughs though. Could be that I simply enjoy making the most out of limited resources. Items for example, feel diluted and pointless when you're showered with them mid-late game.

This. I've always felt RPGs were the most fun (at least combat wise) when you're just starting out. It's strange though because picking up every small shield and selling it for a few coins = not fun, yet it's the barely-getting-by feel that made it so satisfying. Maybe it's because it's easier to balance the game at the start (esp in open world games) since devs have a good idea of how capable the player is at that point. Another reason might be the sense of real danger in every battle due to your character being so weak (an extreme case being Baldur's Gate where a few unlucky rolls got you killed in a hurry). Battles tend to loose tension mid-late game because aside from the occasional boss fight, you're just mowing through mobs left and right. Anyway back on topic, I think it's possible to design rich and interesting content without going epic level with everything. I'd rather have believable characters because it's more impactful when they accomplish hard tasks - that's doesn't mean you can't be fighting crazy things from time to time. BG2's unseeing eye quest is a good example where characters could defeat a powerful foe with the aid of a legendary artifact. Using this kind of design allows you to slay dragons while still keeping goblins relevant. Not saying all bosses should be designed like this, just pointing out a tool available to the devs. Anyway, believable, down to earth embellished with rich and interesting details gets my vote.

This is pretty much a given in today's standards I think, I personally like this feature. I also think there's should be some content that's only revealed to very observant characters who have invented in a perception type skill/stat. Kind of like how secret doors worked in IE games. Adds to the "exploration" vibe to the game.

I like a lot of what's being thrown out here. I feel off-stats having a large influence on how the class plays is a good thing. Not for the sake of limiting min/maxing but just to open up more avenues for role playing. In the old games, a high intelligence fighter was simply a bad fighter. It didn't stop the hardcore role-players from boosting an auxiliary stat, but beyond that there was very little reason to build an unconventional character. Sounds like the devs are already aware of this and are taking measures to offer different flavors for each class. Heavy armor wearing mage being an example. This might be a bit controversial, but I'm entertaining the possibility of character attributes having marginal effect on his/her overall combat efficiency. That is to say, a low STR high INT fighter could compensate his lack of physical strength by rapidly identifying enemy weak spots (expressed through critical hits which have de-buffing effects), or by choosing more effective weapons / fighting styles which require a lot of technical skill / knowledge. This allows him to stay on par with your traditional high STR / DEX / CON warrior in combat usefulness. The specifics about how it gets balanced is not important, there's plenty of ways to justify the existence of these unconventional builds. The main point of this is, by offering ways to keep unconventional builds viable in combat, players can focus on choosing stats that best describe their character without worrying whether their choices will have a negative impact in combat. Now you might be thinking, how would a fighter with nothing but charisma be able to fight like my hulking fighter with 22STR?? This wouldn't make sense to me either, you're not going to charm your way through an orc camp(or could you?). In order for this to work it might make sense to divide character attributes into combat and a non-combat pools, similar to the proposed skill point system. Then allow the player to adjust stats within each group instead of balancing combat against non-combat. One issue with this is, not all classes value or classify combat stats the same way. Wisdom is a good example where clerics call it a combat stat, while fighters do not. Perhaps wisdom could be bundled into intelligence to retain it's relevance, or design cleric spells so they depend on a wider variety of stats and not just WIS/INT. Another way might be to restrict character stats to things that are useful / relevant to all classes, then have a subset of attributes that are class specific which help you further define your character.. Anyway, I've ranted long enough. Peace!

Players will be "knocked out" for the duration of the battle once they reach 0 stamina, that's the important part. It's not meant to serve as a buffer for health but rather a stat which gives health a tactical significance during individual battles.

Thanks for the awesome update! Enjoyed every bit.

Medicinal ball flail of gluttony +3 Every time the wielder invokes the image of cheese burgers the flail will devour the thought and increase in diameter. Binds to user on equip. Cannot be dispelled or removed through magical means. It does what it wants.

You know what, after watching some videos of actual BG1 footage I gotta say I stand corrected. BG1 movement speed is indeed comparable to the rate at which progress is made in US government. While the things I said about resolution and fidelity are true it might not have much to do with the sense of movement. Bonus moon walking eagle 7:53. 'Merica! http://tinyurl.com/a57w66r