Adhin

Yeah and my opinion is freakishly further on the side of 'I'd prefer more monsters then more animations or a vast array of death animations'. It's kinda like how i don't want my games entirely in black and white. I want the variation, and I want that variation to have a gameplay impact. Also, attack animation again are the easiest thing to implement in comparison to new monsters or death animations. They'll probably end up with a little variation for the vast majority of them 'and' nifty death animations with hopefully a good list of monsters. Like JFSOCC said, variety is the spice of life. And a lack of monsters just so you can have a few extra ways to stab a spear is the wrong direction for variety.

My point was having knowledge doesn't magically make it not a tactical thing. I can understand the desire to want more choices in this regard and wanting some form of drawback to weapon switching, such as becoming vulnerable so perhaps moving your warrior type out of harms way so he can swap (think tactical retreats or advances in military where the squad does it in steps so someone is always covering everyone). That I get, but a lack of options doesn't make it not tactical, just kinda makes it boring on are end. And that... yeah, if its boring its no good. Like playing chess with a 3 year old, I'd rather there be some risk involved in swapping to the better weapon for said challenge. Also I agree on the halberd thing! I think it should, ultimately, be a worse contender in general. I mean a swiss army knife kinda makes for a ****ty knife cause of all the crap it has. Its a ****ty pair of scissors while we're at it. I mean the only thing it 'really' does great is have a plastic tooth pick which is, generally, more resilient then a normal wooden one and has a special carrying case (a compact pile of crappy knives and other tools). Even if there isn't a risk though I know I'll generally use the swords over the maul unless its absolutely necessary. End up relying on other party members to finish off stuff while he keeps stuff busy. Also if there are ever any elemental dmg on weapons, I doubt armor DT will effect that portion of the damage so by end game trash mobs I probably wont bother even more. As for how they could handle the swapping I'd say this is a great opportunity for them to have a very specific set amount of... weapon 'sets' and visually show the weapons, on your character all the time and then have sheath/unsheath animations for all of it. Course that gets a bit complicate once we're talking about 2h pole-based weaponry as thats not something you just carry on your back with a sling heh. And 'dropping it on the ground' (while still keeping it in your equipped slots) would just be kinda awkward. Then again 2h polearms and spears could just be one of the things that appears outa no where but I doubt they'd wanna put that effort into all the other weapons and have halbers and pikes just not show up on you unless its your current equipped. At which point there fancy walking sticks if your not in combat. Meh, well, hopefully they have some kinda period of inactivity while swapping weapons, preferably with some form of animation to accompany it.

Well, outside of reach and shields, that's why Halberds exist. They're 'reflexive', axe on a long pole, hammer and a spike. They literally exist to fulfill multiple roles depending on whats required or what best suits the situation. Like a big ol' swiss army knife. Since the spear stuff came up folks keep mentioning ancient time greece, romans, even throwing out some stuff like vast majority of vikings only had a spear...which is kinda incorrect. Rome had trained and equipped armies. Shield, Spear, Sword. Sword acted as a backup. Vikings often had spears and had at least 1 backup, often an axe cause there cheap and extremely effective. Also makes a good tool. Anyway point is, outside of war and moving massive numbers like its a chess game, weapon IS reactive. That's how it should be. ****, tactics are reactive. Tactics are what you pull off, what you come up with amidst a confrontation. Some are extremely simple, some are a bit more complex. Strategy is the larger picture, tactics is the smaller picture, the detail by detail thing. It's your reactions to whats going on, the quick plan, or the often times heavily rehearsed myriad of plans and picking said one to fit your situation. More simply Tactic - "a plan, procedure, or expedient for promoting a desired end or result." See a guy in heavy armor? Drop the sword, grab the maul. It's a tactic. Tactics are almost always reactionary to what you see before you and your picking the option that'll give you the best results for your desired outcome of winning said confrontation. Keeping the sword would be poor tactics in that situation and I have no doubt I'll end up picking that option if I don't think I absolutely need to swap to a maul to win out. But to say its reactionary, reflexive or whatever other term you want to use and then turn around and say that means its not tactical? That's just kinda silly. Sticking to just your sword

Ended up just picking just have fun... but part of that's cause I prefer 'lets plays' that aren't 10 minutes. Never been a fan of the 10 minute little quips, kinda like a long advertisement at that point. Who sits down for 10 minutes of an RPG? 30 min chunks if there gonna records longer sessions make more sense then having a few hundred 10 minutes.

Finesse was a 3E thing and was in NWN from day 1. Was good for your Neo-dexer 'tanks'. I always found heavy armor, high AC tanks kinda amusing in DnD as it was the same in the end. Both high armor ac vs dex based AC in cRPG both constituded a 'miss' on you. When the armor AC was meant to be a deflection. That being, you got hit, but because your in angled armor and your positioning your self right it 'deflected' away from anything vital and just didn't count as damage. Way I see it, there system is the same its just deciding said deflections are glancing blows, inflicting very little damage in comparison to a proper connect of which DT can heavily impact beyond that. Personally i hope they have a finesse like setup for PE as well as I enjoy making rogues, fighters and monks into finessers and go mad dex or agility or whatever to up my hit and avoidance chances. Definitely be viable in PE, hell you'll be able to completely nullify critical hits on your character going that route, minimize vast majority of dmg on you and have a small but more sizable chance to avoid all damage all together. It's like having Evasion for AC.

With magic, outside of some bizar special cased, they could have stuff for specific elements. Acid melting, lightning frying, fire ehh... burning? Vast majority of these games it doesn't matter what someone dies by they just fall over and play the same animation they always do. Nice thing about the elements is they don't need to extreme difference in animations as there using 3D models and will be using particle stuff for spells and all that. Point is, they can use particle generated stuff for monsters that would be effected by said stuff. I mean a texture bleedin/swap + on fire graphics, little jolting around animation and you got a something dying by fire. Swap the particle effects for acid and make the body disintegrate or... don't, just use greenish yellow gasses with sizzling noises. Either way theres a lot more universal like effects you can apply to the elemental side that would fit the vast majority of spells with out requiring overly special stuff that would add that kinda flavor into the game.

I plan to follow same as my Barb/Psion for my first char (Barb, Cipher if I can dual class). Dual wield swords with a backup 2h Maul. Probably a 2H sword if I have more then 2 slots.

Ahh yeah, must of misread it last time. Well I kind of like that to be honest... does make me wonder how many weapon sets will be available and hope a 'set' can consist of dual wielding. Pretty sure it will, but Infinity engine games where absolutely horrible at that. Couldn't use a shield as a part of set and a bow or 2h sword... was really bizar. BG1-2 had 3-4 sets for fighter types. But the shield was a separate slot so if you where using a shield it wasn't so much 3-4 'sets' as main hand weapons you could swap between. If you wanted to use a bow you kept it in your inventory, removed the shield then swapped to a bow mid fight. I forget how many IWD2 had but I remember them not failing as hard with it and maybe upwards to 6 of them or... something. But besides the infinity engine games... yeah. Vast majority either don't have weapon sets or have 2 and a hotkey to do a quick swap. ...think PST may of had 5. -edit- IWD2 had 4, sorry, and it did allow for multiple 2 weapon per set (allowing shield as part of the 'set') - http://lparchive.org/Icewind-Dale-2/Update%209/27-22.jpg

@PrimeJunta: true enough, I'm heavily in the camp its a bad thing. If the games im playing all feel similiar and they're not meant to be I just... I mean infinity engines are a good example to this. They used a lot of the same resources. BG2 vs the IWD series, IWD used a lot of pre-existing resources but also did a bunch of there own along with completely revamped spell graphics and interface which made it feel very different then BG2. PST had entirely unique assets compared to the other 2 series and it felt extremely different then the rest while keeping the same control and play style. I think your idea fits indy games well, not so much big company projects... or small/big projects like PE but then re-using resources game to game of the same series, in a series like PE makes all the sense in the world to me. But then, that's also the idea behind the engine there using. Giving an easy, flexible engine for use in games of any caliber a good jumping point to make it simple to get off the ground. Rest is in the developers hands.

<p>You can't access your 'stash' mid dungeon or adventure to use any items, at all from it. But its your stash, its there to drop items to for sell or keep later on, its a choice to say you wont be using said items till later. Top of the bag stuff are things your carrying you have direct access to at anytime anywhere. Pretty sure you'd be able to keep a mace in that for use if need be, even mid combat if you absolutely had to.</p> <p> </p> <p>-edit-</p> <p>Or at least that's what they've said, don't remember them stating the main inventory (bag/top of backpack) was restricted when in a fight. Only the stash being restricted as a one way street in the field.</p>

Yeah I know what you mean, a lot of modding communities around games are that way but mods are 100% non-profit. It's a hobby, its stuff people like me and others do because we just... do I guess. I'd frankly rather actually work in game development but I have no idea how to manage that. In the end though they're a business. The community for which they'd be doing that would be with in there own company. I could see that working with some indie stuff. Putting business and money side though animations, modeling, texture work, all that stuff on an individual basis is art. Folks can argue all they want about games being art or not, I don't really care, but on the individual basis the pieces of the lego beast of games are art. It's not like building a computer where you just go find the pieces you want and slap them together its a rather involved process. The way stuff animates in relation to how it looks and how its sound is what gives a game its distinctive soul and personality to try and sound like an artsy ****. Of course game mechanics and how the base controls handle and feel also play a massive role in that. My point is, you can't really share art assets across multiple platforms all willy nilly and expect them all to be unique, or at least feel like there own thing. I still get where your coming from but its like asking a painter to give away his **** so someone else can re-frame it so they don't have to do as much work to slap there name on something. It's kinda bull****, money or no.

I half agree with you but you could say the same thing for any of it. Pool of detailed models, graphical art, music, sounds. Anytime you find a 'pool of assets' it costs money, people had to make it. Yeah sometimes you find little bits of freebs, often music or sound but they're often unfinished. Models and animation take time, they have to get refined and consistently checked for errors. That and game files tend to be there own 'thing', own format written specifically for the game engine in question to handle said library of animations. Either case work they do on PE they can keep around for future projects which will be nice for the future.

They did that for the past infinity games, used pre-existing resources from the last games into there newer games, its one of the ways they saved time. Added new stuff, picked which stuff to update, used a vast array of old monster graphics. And will work great for PE's expansion and PE2. Speaking of which, unless they did some bad stuff like with the NWN engine and literally writing in limitations to how much could be stored for animation sets (hell if I know why they did that, just bit them in the ass for expansion). But they could easily add in more weapon swing animations in a patch if they didn't have time before a release date.

LOL, it's only trash if we start magically hiding the monsters in balls and use are beast slaves to fight each other and learn how to be friends over are horrid murderous slavery. ...I love you Japan. <3

Heh potion looks like it has green stuff, open? Think that was my favorite. And yeah All the infinity games had a 2 animations for all 1H weapons. And really when you think about it, Sword, Mace and Axe can use the same animation, so come up with 3 swing animations, use it for all 3 and you got variation. 2H becomes a bit more of an issue since you don't hold a 2H sword the same way you do a 2h blunt. 1h or 2h spears though you basically thrust with and variations on thrusting are mostly the area of the body which is a bit pointless to do unless we're talking special death animations. I can bet you anything they'll end up adding a bit of attack variation in after, closer to the end of the project. It's one of those things they can get in later on, what they meant by its not a priority. They need an animation in for the sake of playability for testing stuff and all that, they don't need 2 for the same thing. Get the basics in, move on to more important stuff (like all the other animations, walking, more bestial monster attacks). Later on when touch up stuffs going on they can add in some variation. But then this thread/poll is more of a what-if all or nothing scenario (which it isn't, really). -edit- When i say 2 anims in infinity engine I mean just that. Wasn't a minimum of 2, it was literally 2. How much was supported. 2 Attack anims, cast animation, sometimes they had 2 cast animations, everyone in awhile you had some extra special attack animation for a skill (Giants throwing rocks in IWD2). Really was a min of 1, often 2. If there was a 3rd it wasn't a base attack animation it was something else.

Yeah, if they do a 1-2 animations per weapon type I'd be happy, even if its just 1 per type. But I don't need 3-5 variations of swinging a 1h mace. Don't get me wrong, variation would be nice. But if it comes down to a time thing and they can only manage 1 animation per type - which is what they're doing right now as a base before moving on, so 2nd or 3rds would probably be later on if they could fit it in - I'd prefer the death animations as its a more interesting detail as a whole then a secondary version of thrusting a spear, 2nd ones a few pixels off or has a bit more jitter too it, I dunno, but they're both thrusts in the end. Basically my line of thinking is this, multiple attack animations for the same weapon type can add some nice randomized shift to break up some repetition. Interesting death animations (for enemies and your party members) adds a new detail that otherwise didn't exist before. No infinity engine game really had it, Fallout did from what some folks have said (I honestly can't remember fallout stuff to well sadly). I mean if there is a different animation for a sword and a mace killing a person that's pretty damn good. BG1-2 had the same 2 swing animations for swords, maces, and axes in 1h. Polearms and Staffs and 2h swords all had the same awkward swing animations (only 2). If they instead did 1-2 'per' type instead of forcing staff and polearm to be used the same way along with unique anim for the 2h... that's already an improvement. Same for death except there are a lot more monster/people variations in relation to weapon types. Death animations is more work then a few more weapon attack animations, and add more atmosphere in general for this style of game.

Diablo had that, to some extent. Was actually a pretty interesting system when you look at it. I mean, bosses completely ignored the system and showed you what was what up front but normal critters you'd find would just show there name. Kill enough of em and it would release some kind of resistance to whatever they have, or if they regenerated faster then normal or whatever. Was always disappointed that was thrown out the window on later games. Personally don't think it would fit into a mouse over to well in an infinity style game, armor type as a base makes a good bit of sense since the vast majority of that would be visual anyway (full plate, rock monster). Now a bestiary... that right there, that's something they could have that update info side (maybe not direct numbers or anything) from kills yeah? Kill a monster, get an entry, kill a few of em get some basic details like 'resistant to fire' or 'immune to fire', or regenerates quickly. Personally I'd prefer that over bonus mouse over info. More atmosphere that way too, could pull a little witcher and have some monsters show up in read books that pre-emptively fill out a bit of the bestiary. But armor type... that kinda an obvious one as far as im concerned, unless your missin' a buncha your marbles anyways. I mean it takes a rare, rare person to look at a rock wall and assume they can cut it with a sword. And I bet that same person would continue thinking they can even after they've dulled the blade from attempts... -edit- Hell I'd go one step further and instead of having it entirely kill based... I mean say some mutant dog monster is heavily resistant to fire. Kill a few, maybe get some details but not that one. Toss a fireball at once, get the entry 'seems resistant to fire'. Basically have it keep track, to some degree, in relative simple terms, if its resistant to attack types you've used before. Kinda thing players could easily notice by looking at the combat log but like I said earlier, atmosphere.

Also its a rock monster so one would... probably assume heavy heh. I kinda hope you guys go with little AB or AR or whatever with level progression (which it sounds like your considering atm). Something I was experimenting with in a mod for the past ehh 6-7 years now? Keeping the attacker stat base relatively static in relation to level and just give out a bonus based off class type. For instance Base 100, mages have it, warriors have a 150 or something. Rest of the bonuses stem from skills or magic items (of which is relatively small bonus over all). Then again I also started using higher base HP values with growth entirely attribute/talent driven instead of by level. Keeps the awkward lvl 1 vs 20 from being such an extreme, but the general difference in damage and available skills to use (passive or otherwise) tends to make more then enough difference as far as 'experience' goes. I mean you keep all that stuff generally the same, a lvl 1 mage vs a 20 mage... that 20 mage has a hell of a lot more going for him, even if his HP and other general states haven't changed from lvl 1. Warrior types ultimately have more passives which bump up a lot of that stuff, few more use abilities, stuff that makes it easier to handle groups of enemies that kinda thing.

What? I.. what? Priest isn't a male or female thing. Sorcerer 'is' male and female, Witch is male and female. None of the examples you throw out have a gender bias. Also, Barbarians? Class name is meant to be a descriptive of that characters combative leanings. Barbarian is generalized, Amazon is a culture. Vikings is... a word with in a culture we've started using as a title 'for' that culture and some of them 'maybe' Barbaric in how they fight but... Anyway im gonna just blanketly state I disagree with the OP.

I went with death animations because... some of the games I've had the most fun with, like PE... all use a singular attack animation and death animations are also kinda bland and basic. The idea that humanoids could have a vast array of dying from monster types and weapon types (which would also be used on said humanoid enemies when you murderize them) I feel would add more to things. I mean Infinity engine games had 2 attack animations per weapon type. Diablo 2 had 2 attacks but skill uses where forced to use a singular animation making the 2 attack animations (which had specific heighs for monster types) useless. So yeah, death animations. Sides, only so many ways your gonna animate stabbing with a 1H spear behind a shield, you know? -edit- Side note, you'll see attack animations and death animations A LOT. General number would be in melee/ranged attack animations but unless your solo'ing you'll see a chaos of attacks off timed from eachother (think of an RTS). Anyway yeah, Snazzy death anims.

@Luridis: The way touch attacks worked in 3E, they generally speaking, had a higher chance of effecting the vast majority of enemies out there. This is because DnD total AC number was a culmination of multiple AC types (of which only 2 where armor related, go figure). Basically you have base AC 10 (base value), Deflection AC (Armor/Shields), Enchantment (magic rings/cloaks, not to be confused with +enhancement), Natural AC (thick hides, chitin, thick fur), and Dodge AC (dodging...). Only Base AC and Dodge AC effected touch or ranged touch attacks. All others where ignored as they where deflection or absorption based. So unless you where trying to touch or range touch a monk or rogue with high dex and some magical dodging boots, you had a rather high chance to actually land your touch attacks even with a crap BAB. Often better chance to land then plenty of the SV would allow. Little dex could help bolster your ranged touch, finesse feat + dex could also help with the touch. Biggest issue is surviving the close range touch stuff but they also had spells (like ghost touch) that let you use your touch spells at range. Add some defensive casting and a high concentration check in, and as long as an enemy wasn't already whaling on you... well they've proven useful before. -edit- As an example say a Warrior with no dodge equipment, full plate +5, Shield +5 was your target, say hes going full imp. expertise. that's around 42 AC. Touch Attack only has to beat an 11 cause the 'vast' majority of his bonus is deflection based. Which, at that type of equipment, your mage has that in BAB, you'd have to roll a 1 to miss the spell.

I do like the idea of power boosts via some kinda face related stuff. I'd throw out some kinda scottsman face paint crazitry (which, I may point out, shows up in the vast majority of cultures in ancient times to some extent). Less ancestor more 'quick war face paint' thing for some bonuses, could easily be a 1 use/day that lasts a few 'hours'? -edit- Could be a moral boosts for face paint or face closed helmets or some such... that would all have to be passive and item based I'd imagine.

Not always, least with the newer thing they've been considering (with the miss range beyond the glancing blow) and glancing blows (along with all damage) keep track of decimals. So that goblin, glancing doing his min 20% of his min dmg to you would be about .2 to .3 damage a 'glancing blow'. Gather up a lot of goblins and have them flail away... after awhile it may start waring you out even though they're barely landing stuff that matters in the short term. Ultimately, if they stick with the idea of a true miss showing up 50% below whats considered a glancing blow... you still have the 'critical misses' and critical hits, but the middle ground gets smoothed over. And ultimately that was only melee combat, it had nothing to do with ranged or magic. And the vast majority of having to use every trick in the book was due to magic, not melee enemies. Either way as I've said before I hope they go with the -50% from a glance to be a complete miss, makes more sense then never having misses. -edit- Would also give them more to play with as far as talents and such are concerned which, in general is better for them regardless if complete misses are fun or not.

To rigid and a bit to voodoo oriented. Don't know of any berserk like stuff that would fit a mask. Though the Barb/Psion I mentioned always had a blood red skull helmet (actual skull). -edit- I could see a quick and dirty face paint thing... but yeah I just... I dunno. I figure anything like that should be a minor moral boost like thing (like 'bless' from clerics in 3E, +1 to a buncha stuff). To me, the thing about Berserkers or Barbarians or whatever you want to call it, the idea of calling on anothers power is a weakness. They fight to prove them selves, not use someone elses power to fight, you can't prove your self on a cruch. Really need to keep that level of mentality alive with this class or a lot of it gets lost. In relation to Ancestors they'd fight to prove them selves to them, instead of using there power as there own. That's more of a weak mans approach. Priest, for instance are powerful but in DnD at least, they're that way because something else is allowing them to be through devotion. Barbarian, like a Psion, is sheer power through there own will and physical prowess and nothing else. A Priest prays for it, a Fighter learns it, rogues play dirty (and from behind).. Barbarians are through brute force and will power.

I've lost my whole party multiple times in original BG. Rare in the other ones but the low lvl in BG getting hit by some AoE oriented stuff can cause a lot of issues unless you know its coming to setup a protection. -edit- It's why I think they should have them, but should be single target or small AoE. Once you get into screen wide CC's on your party it gets bad, least with the old rules.