ArcaneBoozery

From the many RPGs that I've played, I noticed that when you have running in the game (as in Shift Click to run), then walking is usually ridiculously slow, and you pretty much have to resort to running to get anywhere, whereas in games that only have walking (like Baldur's Gate), the walking is usually done at a brisk pace, which is just perfect. Running looks bad and kinda ruins the immersion for me. How many times do people run in the real world? Very rarely, only if there's some emergency, while usually they walk, and when your characters runs, it just looks bad. So I am definitely for Baldur's Gate type of brisk walking.

Well, ideally it would be nice, of course, if there was every kind of weapon in a game along with the associated weapon style, but given real world limitations in terms of time and money, I seriously doubt PE will have that, so if they put in Greatswords into the game, along with longswords/bastard swords, all of them will have to use the same fighting style. And if that's the case, chances are it's going to be the "hit slow but hard" style we already have in all of those other games, just because of how large those greatswords are. Since I personally would prefer a style oriented toward parrying, dodging, disarming and finesse type moves, I would love it if PE just concentrated on the smaller two handers such as longswords/bastard swords. Btw, here is an excellent example of the kind of two handed combat I would love to see in PE and in games in general: From the movie "First Knight", fast forward to about 1:20:

Hhhmm, yeah it's been a while since I saw that movie, so for some reason I kept picturing him with a greatsword, but I looked at it now on youtube, and you are right, he was a bad example to use. I probably associated him with it because Arnold was a big muscled dude. Anyways, the points still stand, but I won't use Conan as an example anymore.

No, I will spare you my uber fencing skills, especially since I already mentioned in this thread that most of my knowledge comes from reading about it, not actual practice. As far as using human history as basis for games, the point was that there are already a ton of RPGs out there that go with the giant greatsword approach (Bethesda games, Gothic games, The Witcher, etc), I am sure it won't kill any of you protesters if PE was one of the few that displayed two handed sword fighting with smaller longsword-type swords, which was the typical way it was done.

Sounds like they were mostly used against pikemen, since hacking out breaches in defenses would likely throw them at pikemen/spearmen (those were the most common defensive troops), but the overall point (supported by your quotes) is that this was a specialized weapon meant to serve certain roles on the battlefield. This is similar to how knights used lances on horseback, for a very specialized function. But expecting to see an adventurer carrying a lance or a greatsword around as an all-purpose weapon is completely different. From your quote: "However it would become unusable, as soon as the opposing forces collided with one another". Well, while adventuring, one would guess that you often have to fight inside buildings or caves or dungeons or tightly packed forests or groups of people, and such a weapon hardly seems practical. Also, it seems to be mostly an offensive weapon, as its increased size and mass would probably put the wielder at a disadvantage while defending/parrying blows, so if faced with an oppponent using a smaller sword, if he managed to dodge/sidestep/block your initial blow, you would probably be at his mercy.

Did Obsidian mention why they went with the Stamina/Health system instead of the typical health only approach? If so, anyone have a link? I don't recall seeing their reasoning for it. Two words. Dwarf Fortress. Sorry, couldn't help myself...

Wow, dude, just wow. I see Merlkir has already pointed out some things to you, I just want to add that if you think that "That entire video was a basic overhand chop to rising slash movement", you must really not know anything about longsword fighting. Sorry to be blunt, but it's the truth. As I mentioned, I am by no means an expert on it myself, but I had the pleasure of reading a few things on it, written by people who study medieval/renaissance era manuals written by the masters of the times, and who actually practice that type of swordplay. What's going on in that video is actually incredibly complex, although of course most of us wouldn't realize that just by looking at it. Western longsword fighting involves many different guards (the positions each fighter starts out with) that each have some specific purpose, attacks that counter those guards, the transitions from a guard, attack, or parry into another favorable position, maintaining the initiative in a fight, body position for maximum balance and cut power based on physics, and that's before we even get to the fancier stuff in the video, such as pommel hits, disarmament, grappling. It is like a high speed game of chess in some ways. But my other point is also that you are making a strawman argument. Aside from your incorrect understanding of swordplay, the main thrust of your argument seems to be that we shouldn't adopt more historical based two handed sword fighting because it will be way too complex and detailed for the average player to understand. But no one has asked for that, and several people already pointed this out to you, including myself. While real longsword fighting was indeed very detailed and technical, I don't think anyone here expects an isometric RPG to implement even a small fraction of those details/technicalities. We simply want two handed sword fighting to look different and have a different surface feel from the typical massive greatsword wielding brute. Instead of slow massive strokes, graceful looking sword movements, smaller longswords worn at the hip, stances and abilities that have names indicating technique and skill rather brute strength. I don't see how any of this would present any issues for the average RPG player. It's just a style thing.

Love that fight! I still think Rob Roy had the best sword fighting of any movie I ever saw. However, the sword Rob Roy used in that final fight was not the claymore we are talking about here. It was a one hander, it just happened to be bigger than the rapier Tim Roth was using, and while Rob Roy was a big strong guy, he used quite a bit of finesse and technique in blocking/parrying the Englishman's attacks. He did end up using his 2nd hand at the end (no spoilers ), but I don't think they ll be modeling that type of 2 handed swordplay in PE.

Well thanks for the detailed descriptions, although I never claimed to be an expert on swordplay, and neither should you , since your claims run counter to what people that actually work with these swords think (see 2nd link in my previous post for details). But you are missing my general point, which is not to make the combat super duper complex to make it uber realistic, but to simply adopt a fun historical alternative to the Conan type cliche of 2-handers we have now in every game.

I think the exact terminology differs between different times and countries and even groups, but in the most common terminology, longsword and bastard sword are probably the same thing, because bastard sword means its a hybrid between a 2-hander and a 1-hander, which is exactly what a longsword was in late medieval times. It's only in AD&D that there is a difference between the two, since they consider longsword a 1-hander. The historical longswords probably had a hilt that was long enough for a hand and a half (hence the name). The 2nd hand was placed on the end of the hilt and the pommel, allowing the sword to serve in both 1 handed and 2 handed circumstances. In the video above, the hilts seem longer since these guys just duel without shields, so that works for them, but such a hilt would make it hard to wield the sword 1 handed. Yeah, but claymores were pretty similar to the longsword (much more so than to the greatswords/flamberges/zweihenders). From WIkipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claymore): "The two-handed claymore seems to be an offshoot of Early Scottish medieval longswords". So my point still stands, that it would be more realistic/historical to have two handed swords be smaller and more finesse oriented than the typical RPG greatsword behemoth. As for being worn on the back, I've seen many people who practice swordplay/medieval recreation societies/etc claim that that is nonsense promoted by Hollywood, and that it's either outright impossible or extremely difficult to draw a weapon from the back, especially a large weapon, but even shorter swords. Here is a sample discussion of this: http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=5792 We have so many games now where a warrior can wield massive 2-handed greatswords in Conan-like fashion, that I just think it would be sweet to have one (PE) where two handed swords would be more about technique and finesse for a change, that's all.

In all fantasy/medieval type RPGs, the player usually has a choice between using a sword and shield combination, a one handed sword by itself (usually the least effective style), and a two handed sword for his sword oriented melee characters. In AD&D, the most popular type of one handed sword is called the longsword, and in most systems, the two handed sword is called something like greatsword or flamberge, and is typically a huge thing, close in length to a man's height, and is worn hanging from his back. This is really not realistic. Historically, greatswords/flamberges were a late comer, appearing in very late middle ages and renaissanse to counter the prevalent pikemen formations of those times. These swords were not meant to be used in sword fighting or duels, as they were too large and heavy to use against an opposing sword fighter. Instead, they were meant to hack off the sharp ends off pikes, and possibly hack away at gunpoweder infantry while those were reloading. They were a very specialized weapon, so it's kinda silly to see them being used by adventurers in RPGs as an all-purpose sword. On top of that, they were never hung from the back, as it is physically impossible to remove a weapon of that length from the scabbard on one's back (the arm won't go that far, there are some youtube videos on this). Instead, they were simply carried over the shoulder, like a spear. Meanwhile, the longsword that AD&D portrays as a one handed weapon was actually a hybrid weapon, that could be wielded in one hand with a shield, but could also be very effectively wielded in two hands. In fact, longswords are pretty famous as two handed weapons, because during the late middle ages, there were schools of sword fighting in Germany and Italy that specialized in longswords and developed very extensive and beautiful styles of fencing with them. Here is a great video displaying two handed longsword fighting: Anyway, I guess it's not a huge thing or anything, but given the developers' track record of fighting cliches and established approaches, I would love it if PE allowed longswords worn at the hip to be the two handed sword of choice instead of the typical greatsword, which would not only be more realistic and historically accurate, but also possibly lead to more finesse oriented two handed styles as opposed to the typical "swing slower but hit harder" approach.

Like most things in life, both approaches have advantages and disadvantages. I've played a bunch of games with both systems (BG1&2, P:T, NWN with RTwP, and ToEE, FO1&2, Arcanum, FFVII with TB). In general, TB allows for more precision and somewhat more tactics (as in specifying what every party member will do precisely, something not really practical with RTwP). However, RTwP allows the player to specify tactics to a large degree as well, so TB's advantage is not huge. The flip side is that pretty much every RPG I've ever played had a lot of trash fights, or trash phases during important fights, and TB is terrible during those. Waiting for each trash enemy and each party member to move and animate while the fight is already decided is annoying as hell and takes forever. For these reasons, I personally prefer RTwP, as I feel like it gives me almost as much tactical depth as TB but without the overhead.

I am not dipping into 1v1 fights, I stated in the post you are quoting that this applies to any fight, so I am not sure what you mean. I already explained how you cant prepare for this exploit (neither the AI nor you). If you disagree, look at my example ealier in the thread, and tell me how the AI can possibly prepare for your abuse of Magic Missile and such. As far as archers/melee interrupting spell casting with their physical attacks, it's a similar issue, and I would like it dealt with as well for similar reasons. The reason I did not bring it up as much is because at least mages have tactical defenses against archers/fighters, such as stone skin/immunity to weapons/etc, so they can deal with those somewhat, whereas a mage/caster can remove their protections with his own spells and then they are at the mercy of his quick hitting spells. Again, I am not talking about removing archers or spells or anything like that, I just want to remove the timed spell casting/active spell interruption mechanics, because they lead to exploits and abuse. and replace them with more strategic/tactical mechanics such as the rolls/checks thing described in my previous post. That's already taken care of in IE by one cast per round mechanic. Casting time simply refers to how long it takes to cast a spell, not how often you can cast it. In IE, even if it only takes 1/10th of a round to cast Magic Missile, that doesn't mean you can cast another right after, you have to wait until that round ends before you can cast the next spell. That's why I think the only real reason for casting time is the interruption thing in IE. And personally, I think higher level spells being the obvious choice to cast when available makes perfect sense. If lower level spells are overall as good as higher level ones (less powerful but quicker, etc), then you are not really getting more powerful as you level up, which is counter-intuitive.

As I already pointed out earlier, the way AD&D and most systems are structured, there are a lot more lower level spells available than higher levels ones, so there will certainly be enough to shut down the other guy(s) in any important battle, unless the NPCs are cheating. I only used the 1v1 scenario as an example, to keep it simple, but the principles that were illustrated work the same exact way in battles involving many participants on each side. For each caster with quick spells on my side, I can shut down one caster on the other side. Well, being interrupted and casting time are intimately linked in this case (in IE type gameplay). My assumption is that casting time was introduced into IE mostly in order to allow spells to be interrupted (it's not exactly a quick-draw type game, where whoever casts first wins, although you might disagree). If you remove the interruption effect, there doesn't seem to be much reason for casting time to remain, and that is why I brought up the casting time thing as a whole. The big difference with turn based gameplay is that everyone gets a turn of their own to do their action. During that turn, as you mentioned, they might be affected by certain game mechanics, but that's how it's meant to be. If you lose a roll or a check during your turn, you are submitting yourself to the game systems, and I have no problem with that. It's all part of the system as intended, and the player can take strategic steps to improve their chances (e.g. get an appropriate feat or cast some spell that buffs their concentration, etc). But with real time gameplay of IE, aside from game system stuff (like saving throws, resistances, etc), you can also be affected by player exploitation of game mechanics in ways that the designers did not intend. I don't think the designers of IE and AD&D ever intended Magic Missile and other low level spells to serve as a hard counter to higher level spells, but that's how the player can use them because of the side-effects of casting time/spell interruption. My original purpose with this thread was to simply bring this issue to the attention of other fans and hopefully developers. I did not have any specific solution in mind, but I like some of the stuff you brought up, like using rolls and checks. It might be a good idea to replace casting time/spell interruption with a system that is closer to the turn based approach in this regard. For example, if a mage is about to cast a spell, he/she might have to make a successful roll to succeed, and this roll could be affected by various factors, one of which could be whether or not the mage is being targetted by opponents, and another of which could be the power of the spell. This would make higher level spells harder to cast, especially under fire, but it would be within the game system, and thus allow the player to increase their chance of successful cast with proper feats/talents/level up choices, as well as possibly strategy/tactics (maybe casting other easier to cast spells that improve concentration first). The benefit of this system, as opposed to IE, is that it is impossible for one side to simply time their low level spell casts to shut down the opposition. Of course, this is just an example, and it would have to be fleshed out, and maybe it has problems with it, but you get my basic drift. Yeah, I obviously have no idea at this point of what kind of magic system PE will implement. I just created this thread to voice my concern about the biggest problem I saw in IE games, as far as magic went.

I am in! Would love to see a quest or even multiple quests like this. Although in the spirit of PE, I hope the clues would be more in dialogue, with different NPCs telling you quite a bit of background info, which contains important clues hidden within, but only if you carefully parse and analyze the text. Kinda like Agatha Christie's stuff.

Well, the time stop argument doesn't really work, as it was (together with Improved Alacrity) an end-game "I win" button basically, There is nothing anyone can do against that, so strategy/tactics do not apply, and it is irrelevant to the argument at hand. But low level spells like Magic Missile would indeed out-perform stuff like horrid wilting and meteor swarm, because once we removed each other's spell shields, i could interrupt your casting of wilting/swarm with a faster MM. I haven't played SCSII or other mods like it, but if they address the problem I brought up about low level spell abuse, no one has mentioned how so far, in terms of actual mechanics. The problem seems to be that many people "feel" like casting time adds a layer of strategy to combat, but ignore the fact that it also leads to very cheesy exploit-type gameplay.

So I state that low level spells with quick cast time are completely overpowered and unbalanced, and ask how an AI could possibly counter them. Your response is that the AI should resort to casting those low level spells. Doesn't that support my point? These kinds of mage duels would degenerate into both sides casting their lowest level spells at each other and pretty much ignoring all the cool higher level spells they get later, as well as ignoring all the cool countering mechanics we all love so much. Also (to address your other points) keep in mind, the mage will (at least in any approach similar to AD&D) have a lot more low level spells than high level spells, so they will never run out of them before shutting down the higher level spells and dominating. And I don't see how any mod can fix this as long as the basic mechanics remain the same. Sure the mod can make the AI resort to the same cheesy low level spell exploiting tactics that the player can use, as mentioned above, but then all the cool countering gameplay and high level spell casting is completely ignored and what's left?

Yes, please add sheathes when out of combat and carry weapons in scabbards. Since the character models are 3D, I dont think its a huge thing to implement, but it really adds to the atmosphere and realism. But please do NOT do it like some people suggest and simply not show weapons when outside of combat. That was how it was in Arcanum and it was seriously ugly, to see a guy in full plate mail but without any weapon.

We all loved IE combat because of the counters and the strategic gameplay, but my point is that the timed spell casting ruins this strategic aspect. You say there are counters to breach, but I never said that breach was unbalanced, I said that the lower level damage spells with their quick casting time are unbalanced. No matter what spell defenses are used, and what counters are used, you have to agree that eventually both mages will be without the spell defenses (either because they cast them all and those were breached/removed, or because they switched over to other types of spells). As soon as that happens, one mage can dominate the other with spells like Magic Missile, even if the other has the most powerful spells in the AD&D system. That's what makes the whole thing broken. Spells like Magic Missile were never meant to be counters to high level spells, they are simply meant to be low level damage spells that scale very well with higher levels and might be useful in certain situations. Here is a simple example. My mage enters a fight against an AI mage (1v1 to keep it simple). The enemy mage casts some spell shield on himself. If he doesnt have the instant cast contingency/spell sequencer, I might already dominate him by casting magic missile right after him, interrupting him and stopping his shield. But even if he did have the insta cast, I cast some breach/remove magic counter spell to remove his shield. So the round after that, he can continue casting shield spells, and I can continue removing them until he is out of defenses, or at some point he can switch to offensive spells against me. In either case, I can dominate him with magic missiles/other low level quick spells, by interrupting his higher level spells while also doing damage to him. Please explain to me how you would tell the AI to act against this dominant tactic. This is clearly an exploit/cheesy tactic instead of strategy/counters.

This is one of the many reasons why I LOVE Baldur's Gate 1. To this day, it was the game that had the most fun, for me, item model. Not only were magic items rare, but even good non-magic items took a while to find and cost a fortune. Anyone remember finding a suit of plate mail in Beregost going for like 900 gold? or the full plate mail for 9000g. I savored saving up that much dough for my warrior character. Took a while too. And magic items were truly rare, and also special. Many had unique characteristics as opposed to just more damage/stats, and all had a well written background story which was a delight to read. Some of the more powerful ones even had serious setbacks that made them unusable. Remember that 2 handed sword +3 that made you go berserk? This kind of item distribution makes the player really appreciate great items, and makes finding something special truly feel like an achievement, contrasted with the more modern model where magic crap drops all over you.

I voted balanced. Obviously we all want the game to be of high quality, but there is this false notion that in order to do that it has to be short. There are plenty of high quality RPGs that also have great length: Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 were both 100 hours long or longer, Fallout 2 was around 100 hours, Gothic 2 was fairly long, as was Divine Divinity, and these are just the ones that immediately come to mind. I really hope PE will be way longer than 40 hours as some people here suggest, as that's pretty short for an RPG. Length isn't just a matter of having more content, although that's really important too, but it also gives this sense and atmosphere of a real world, as opposed to smaller RPGs feeling more like modules. The way I see it, Obsidian's initial asking for 1.1 million was for about 40 hours of gameplay, since it's hard to make a serious standalone RPG thats under 40 hours. But since then, they raised almost 4 times that amount, with much of it explicitly for more content/length: longer story, new region/faction, stronghold with associated quests, and finally an entirely new HUGE city, not to mention other stuff that should add hours of gameplay like crafting, finding out extra companions' stories, etc. So given that, I hope it will be at least in the 80-100 hours range, hopefully closer to 100.

I understand the points most of you make and I am sympathetic with them. I don't have a problem with casting time per se so much as with the kind of tactical gameplay it leads to. Yes, AI is definitely part of the problem, but as long as casting time is in, how can the AI deal with it effectively without letting the player abuse the low level fast cast time spells such as Magic Missile? Someone here suggested using defensive spells, and that was the first thing I thought of myself back when I was playing Baldur's Gate games and this issue started bothering me. But the problem is, defensive spells are countered with breach-type spells, after which you can go back to shutting down powerful late spells with MM. For example, at the begining of the fight, both mages throw up defensive shields. Then they cast breaches to remove the shields. Then they can either continue buffing-debuffing each other until they run out of shields/breaches, or start offensive casting. Either way, low level spells will dominate against late game spells once again. Am I missing something here? I am not against Magic Missile or level 2 spells being useful, but it just seems really weird and immersion/lore-ruining that a spell that a rookie mage learns in kindergarten should allow them to dominate a terrifying lich with spells that can change the nature of the world.

I made a post before that touched on this somewhat, but this is a broader post. In IE, all spells had a casting time, from the almost instantaneous level 1 spells to the high level (8/9) ones that took a while to cast. This was not present in turn based AD&D games as far as I know, and was presumably introduced in IE to balance out the power of the higher level spells. So something like TIme Stop or Horrid Wilting would take forever to cast because their results would be so devastating, while a relatively weak Magic Missile could be cast quickly. This was coupled with spell interruption, so that if the caster took any damage during casting, the spell would be interrupted. I dont know about the rest of you, but I really don't like this mechanic. I think that the way it's handled in turn based games, where it takes the same amount of time (one turn) to cast any spell is much better. My reasons for this are that this mechanic actually seems to punish casters for becoming more powerful and also leads to "cheesy" combat. When a melee character or a ranged physical attacker levels, they become more powerful without any drawbacks, gaining more attacks, damage, chance to hit, etc. But although a magic user gains spells that are more powerful when he/she levels up, those spells also come with a longer casting time, making them unreliable in many situations, particularly when being targeted by the enemy. In addition, this leads to cheesy tactics, like in Baldur's Gate games, where you can pretty much shut down a powerful enemy mage just by timing your low level spells to interrupt his powerful ones. In those cases it feels like you are winning with an exploit rather than strategy, especially since the AI is completely unprepated for this. Or some spells like Creeping Doom completely shutting down a magic user's spell casting. Personally I would much rather have PE balance out the power of high level spells in some different way.

You are of course entitled to your preferences, but I think most people found IE handling of melee combat pretty boring. In fact, if you go to various forum posts around the internet advising people on what classes/kits to play in IE games, you will almost always see recommendations for playing magic based or hybrid ones and warnings to stay away from pure fighters. There is just nothing fun about running to the fore and clicking on the target and forgetting about that character. Within the context of isometric tactical combat, it seems like the only way to remedy this is to give fighters their own set of active abilities, so just like magic casters, they can select something specific to use based on the situation. The more reactive/speed based stuff is more controversial, but I did not mean it to be twitch based, but rather something that requires tighter control than the typical spell casting approach, to differentiate between the two, but as I said, it's just one way to do it, other people might have better ways.

As far as micromanagement concerns, i did mention in the OP that the added options for melee fighters are optional and the fighter can instead just be set to auto-attack/tank. This will of course make the fighter weaker than if optimizing his skills, but it should be sufficient if you wish to concentrate on other characters. But if your main character is a fighter (or a barbarian, or swashbuckler type rogue), you can always minimize your management of other party members (only use priests to heal, and mages for utility, etc) and use your melee's full range of abilities to do much higher damage, or better defense. This way, everyone will be happy, and able to choose which characters to micromanage and which not to. The IE system, on the other hand, penalized melee classes, making them very boring. Stances are a good idea, but by themselves, they wont make the melee fighters anywhere near as interesting as magic users. You also need something else, like more detailed active abilities and such.