Osvir
-
Posts
3793 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Osvir
-
-
A minion could be a minion you spawned from hell or whatever it is. Your (naming it w/e) elemental air spirit with its own life.
You don't just summon a Wind Spirit, you summon your Wind Spirit. Necromancy would require the same bones and dust, giving a longer longelivety, but eventually as the dust runs out and can't be gathered you can't summon as many skeletons to your aid and need to re-gather more dust. Ingredients+Magic.
Could summons be a part of the mortality business with stamina and health? Meaning that a summoned beast could eventually did? Damn need to make a "Summoner" thread.
On topic: Could a Wizard float over obstacles? Telekinesis? Leaps/Jumps? (as simplistic as possible) can you skillfully dodge traps that you set off?
-
Mog is one of my favorite characters ever, and his dance abilities are really powerful.
Not really advocating for a "dance" but the thing about it that made it special (in my opinion) was how it changed the "environment". Could illusion spells be visually stunning?
When the Wizard casts the illusion the calm wooden area transforms into a fiery scenery or burning hell, panicing the enemies. Or Horror makes it look like ghosts are floating spectrally in and out around them.
How mean can the illusions be, and could they also be so great that they could extend someone's life, enhancing the willpower of others. Or to escape.
It'd be fun with an illusion where you create pitfalls, and if an enemy walks into it they stumble and get stunned laying on the ground for 1 turn~. An illusion that makes them encumbered, making them believe they are wearing more than they can, as if the metal armors suddenly began to wear a couple of tons each.
TL;DR: Environmental and Visual/Graphical Illusion Spells.
Thoughts?
-
2
-
-
The only downside I can see to Osvirs Combat XP separation is that players who want to play a more stealthy, sneaky or diplomatic character could be gimped in combat later in the game because of their choice of how they play. And lets face it, eventually you will be forced into combat no matter how you play.
But that's just the thing Rabain, if you play a non-lethal approach, you'd be weaker than the combat/action approach, likewise, the combat/action approach would be weaker in dialogue and such. If you want a combat character you play and make a combat character, if you want stealth, diplomacy and charms you make such a character.
If you practice sneaking around kitchens for 5 levels you'll be better at sneaking around than if you had battled opponents for 5 levels.
You can't expect that those not partaking in fighting gains experience in fighting at the same rate as those who partake. Perhaps tools could be upgraded, things to use in battle to dazzle opponents and sneak past them fast etc. for those who want little to do with combat. Similarly, when you do get into such a combat situation that you can't avoid you'd have to use abilities where your strength in combat would be lacking. Taking down a boss with another method and other sets of tactical formations~ IF similar as to described.
-
^And that is exactly my concern.
-
It was explained before, there are different objectives big and small. If you have a quest like: venturing the dungeon, you will get exp after finishing it, but inside the dungeon you will get other exp for things you do in the dungeon.
Alright cool. Does this only apply to the dungeon within the dungeon? (The game itself is a "dungeon", metaphorically speaking)
Does it apply to world map traveling as well, "Surface" exploring. In cities or whatnot, or is this "In-Dungeon" experience only for "In-Dungeon"?
-
I had a dream about this (played like a Flash movie), a "vision". Basically, animating and modeling encounters on the same "platform" in development. Then simply dragging out the platforms~stretching them and placing the "encounters" on the map, with a "distance to encounter". Instead of having it as 2 individual "object", it is 2 individual objects on the same platform. Man.... I have no idea to explain this...
It was awesome in my dream xD step-by-step maybe?
Step 1: Modeling Character and "Monster" individually.
Step 2: Placing them on the same platform, being able to animate the encounter close combat.
Step 3: Being able to stretch the platform, so that you can place the monsters wherever on the map.
Step 4: As a character/player walks around the map, the "platform" dynamically shortens and extends, in-game it is invisible.
Here is an example "mock-up" Paint "thing"~shmradble 1-3 (It is not meant to be pretty, it is meant to convey the basics of my conceptual thought/dream/stuff):
What's happening in this picture? The monster stands on one platform and the characters stands on one platform, both of them are then placed on a "shared" platform. This way a modeler could (as far as I know) make close combat animations as if they are part of the same "object". This way (I think) encounters could be modeled up close on the same platform (monster vs player) like a "2 player Beat Em Up" game, then simply "dragging" the shared platform out.
On placing, and stretching out the shared platform, the P (player/party) and the Monsters (M) are part of the same object upon entering [Map/Area].
Then as your character moves, the platform sizes also dynamically changes. They are invisible so you wouldn't see them, but there could be some other "variables" depending on how far away or how close you are. Perhaps even some monsters could be on the "same" platforms as well, leading up to some interesting encounters in battle.
Fighting an Ogre, or the "Finisher" Animations we see in Dragon Age: Origins is kind of what I'm aiming for here, but a constant such experience. In DA:O it still feels like the Ogre and the Player character are two different physical objects that are merging during an "attack" or "animation" phase leading up to a "Killing Blow".
-
I've had some thoughts on experience (most of it gathered up in my wall of text in my signature though) and how I view experience.
I am slightly concerned about P:E (as thus far revealed) being tied to Objective Based experience. I like it a lot, but I'm also scratching my head about it; "Are there more ways to improve it?". Now I don't realize to what extent this is going to be implemented and "How", merely just discussing and sharing some thoughts on what I see could be an issue.. to the point:
Being rewarded after getting from point A to point G. I experience a lot during the journey between A and G (B, C, D, E, F), but I will only be rewarded at G, when I have fully completed the objective. Which to me feels more like a "temp-work" kind of dealio. I contracted this job and I will only be paid at the end of it.
That is what concerns me. My character going through the dungeon, facing enemies, solving mysteries and riddles, finding books, items and equipment making my character slightly stronger, but won't level up until I have finished the dungeon and returned to the surface.
I view the "Objective/Quest Experience" as "Character/Player Experience", or even "Spiritual Experience". Life Experience. Insight Experience and so on. I would like to see the Character Experience and the Combat Experience differ, being two different experience tables. What your character does in the world, in terms of quests and objectives, makes your character grow in knowledge, in reputation (how the world sees you), in insight, understanding of the world, exploration and so on. Your character becomes more devoted into their Class, their way of life, as they explore the world. All "Character Experience". It doesn't define any "Physical Aspects" but only the "Mental Aspects".
Knowing in theory how to swing a sword will make it easier for you to understand how to swing a sword, but will you swing a sword better because of it if you've never swung a sword before? No. You're going to be a noob like everyone else, you might be a better noob or a worse noob, the point is that you are still going to be a noob with that sword. You might learn faster, or you might learn slower depending on pre-knowledge and research.
The concern I have is exactly that, with a Quest based Experience system the issue could become that my character is suddenly a Master Swordsman, regardless of Class. "Poof" like a magical smoke out of nowhere.
Drawing a parallel to Baldur's Gate:
Baldur's Gate has both, that both defines Character Experience and Combat Experience. It is one pool. What I am suggesting is splitting up the character in 2, but keep the way experience is gained like the IE games.
BG: Quest+Combat = Leveling up 1 Experience Pool.
The proposal/Suggestion:
Quest = Levels up the Character/Class
Combat = Levels up Combat skills
--------------
Conceptual (Numbers are conceptual as well):
In the IE games you take down an enemy to get 15 Experience. Your character has now 15/1000 experience to level up. As proposed, you'd still be at 0/500 experience to level up your character, but have 15/500 on combat aspects.
Experience Graph
IE:
15/1000 Experience
Proposal:
15/500 Combat Exp
0/500 Character Exp
P:E (as far I know it):
N/A Combat Exp
--------------
Likewise, in the IE games, finishing a Quest in those games you get perhaps 450 Experience, adding up with the pool of defeating monsters you would be at 465/1000 Experience to level, whilst as proposed you would have 450/500 experience to level up your Class, and 15/500 experience to level up your weapon.
Experience Graph
IE:
465/1000 Experience
Proposal:
15/500 Combat Exp
450/500 Character Exp
P:E (as far as I know it)
N/A Combat Exp
450/1000
--------------
Perhaps the level of the Character could decide (accordingly) how fast your Combat experience grows. If you have a Level 4 Sword Experience and a Level 8 Fighter, but you want to play with a Mace instead (and it's level 1), the Mace could grow at x2-x3 times experience up to a certain point (so that Bandit that gave 15 experience is instead giving 30-45 experience). Just to make you be able to catch up with another weapon and specialize in more than one combat aspect.
How does this balance the game? More importantly, how does this balance the classes?
Your Rogue can be a level 5 Rogue, with specialized Combat making your Rogue a more adept sneaky bastard or a straight out close-combat martial artist. It could even make your level 5 Rogue an Adept in Magic, a Rogzard (Rogue/Wizard). Your Fighter would become a level 5 Fighter, but not at all specialized in close combat, or just so. Perhaps being an excellent tank, or a weak magical buffer. Or heck, even your level 5 Fighter is a Fighter but roleplayingly he could be seen as a Level 5 Paladin Trainee (due to his combat prowess and direction you chose to upgrade/level him).
-
1
-
-
Have lots to say about this but leaving space.
In my opinion Rogues should be the best at disarming traps, but if I don't want a Rogue in my party, could there be items or other ways to overcome traps? Could a Fighter or Barbarian be able to stop that boulder rolling towards the party by physically stopping it?
Can 2 melee Strength-based characters be able to open doors at the cost of stamina? (Holding up a closing stone door Indiana Jones style~). Could there be some sort of experimental equipment that nullifies poison traps? (gasmask thing, making you able to just walk over Gas traps like it was nothing).
What kind of traps will exist in P:E and what kind of mechanics will be used to deactivate traps? Will we see more of a Grimrock style? Pitfalls? Spikes? Arrow shooting traps? Or will it be more in-tune with BG with no "buttons" or similar?
Player vs Dungeon. Not really "What enemies are there?" but "What obstacles block the way forward?".
-
Mechanics that lessen the impact of death I dislike. GW2 and Borderlands 2 are built around this 'second wind' mechanic. It might be okay for a very powerful special ability, but I'd rather see Obsidian implement abilities we need to use actively in combat, not passively rely on what amounts to a free resurrection.
teknoman2 already addresses it. In Borderlands and GW2 it is pretty much a "free" resurrection... but you still have to take down someone to get up again. In a sense it is a sort of "mini-game". That is not what I am advocating.
But at the same time, I am advocating for a "free" resurrection, in a philosophical sense. I like the thoughts teknoman2 brings to light, namely "What do you lose?". Time. In one playthrough you run over the bandits like nothing, on another they run you over.
Likewise, what do you win? There's no real reward, except a "second chance" and more "narration". Most important: Material for your own Player/Main Character Plot. You get to get back into the game on your Ironman mode and you don't need to restart the game from the very start. It could be your life savior, you think you lost the battle but you are surprised as you wake up in a jail cell, still alive. A Narrated text describing the descent your character has made from being "The Hero", now a slave under the command of a greedy old Lord who has abused you for weeks. Now's your chance to escape.
In Baldur's Gate, you would have been dead when you met those Bandits and you would have had to create a new character (if permadeath). And that would have been that. I'm advocating for a "second chance" because I believe everyone deserves it. In Ironman mode perhaps even all of your companions dies, permadeath, and only your main character survived. Wouldn't that be quite a sudden twist to the story of your character? Something that necessarily didn't have to happen.... but it did. That is also part of "What do you lose?" and even "What did you win?".
Equipment, Gold, Reputation...?
How important is the Player's Journey through the game, and how important is the Main Character's Story for you? I think pretty important. A Narrative Second Wind could be one way for the Player to feel like he is "interacting" with the story and being a part of the story. It gives more material for your own Custom Home Made Main Character Story. "Who is your character?" type of thing~
-
True. But an "Assassin" implies that the person has been trained, by profession, to be a killer. "Hitman" springs to mind. Something I feel that the Rogue falls short on. To me, the very essence of the Rogue lies in wandering, drifting, adventuring. A skilled Rogue, who is possibly a bad person too, is skilled enough to be able to kill people. Does the act of killing/murdering imply that the person is an assassin? Yes and no. If hired as a mercenary, which I can see the Rogue being, yes, a Rogue being a Contractor for shoddy and dirty tricks, the act of killing as well. But that's that, a Contractor, not an Assassin.
Really though, I'm just arguing against a straw man (I think? I don't really grasp the concept of what "straw man" is yet).
If the Cipher could focus on the "Assassin" part (being DPS, the thing many seems to not want from the Rogue come 3rd Edition, what with the backstabbing and all), the Rogue could focus on the "Thief" part.
Instead of putting both of them on the Rogue. What started in this thread, how I see it, people want something like this:
Rogue (Support in itself?):
- Possibility to go Assassin Kit
- Possibility to go Thief Kit
Balancing a class with these two taken into consideration seems like a bit much, this is how I thought:
Rogue
- Thief Kit
Cipher
- Assassin Kit
I didn't do well in school but one thing I remember is my teachers, and in the homework, always telling me "Motivate", "Why", "How" and so on. Specially in mathematics, you can easily solve 1+1 but we had to tell how we were thinking as well.
If the Rogue focuses on a Support role, not with the intention to being good in combat but out of combat, we could get a True Support character in P:E. Someone who just won't be good in combat and has to dodge, evade and sneak his way through some encounters.
League of Legends reference: I only play Support. A Support role can't do anything by him/herself, hardly really. Pretty much everyone can take down the support, even the sort of Support I play can be taken down by the enemy team Support. It isn't about dishing out a ton of damage, it is about protecting the team, whilst distracting the enemy. The Support is mostly the weakest, squishy and goes down in a couple of hits, but with the abilities the Support has (I almost wrote Rogue) he/she can get away from difficult encounters.
As Janna I can get away 1v5, I can't deal any damage (a tiny amount), what matters is that I can survive. The Survivability of a Support is amazing, if all skills are utilized properly in the right way. That's how I see the Rogue, and I do hope that it could fulfill that role.
The Rogue could have nets, grappling hooks, on-the-fly-Traps, acid potions that they throw, smoke bombs. Batman utility in a sense.
If the Rogue is focused on being a Support, and doesn't need to think about being part of the "Assassin Kit" (that modern games make it into) it could be focused much deeper. Hence why I think the Cipher would be better with the Assassin Kit. The time it takes to implement "Assassin" into Rogue is instead used and implemented into the Cipher.
Example:
Rogue with a Thief role and an "Assassin" role is 100% workload apart from finding the Rogue's place in the world. Instead, giving the Assassin to Cipher you'll look at 50% workload to the Cipher and 50% to the Rogue. Still the same amount of workload but you just managed to cover 2 Classes, instead of addressing just 1. Though, is it an effective method?
I like the idea Obsidian seems to go about with the "Anyone can wield anything, they just won't be as good as those specialized or trained for it from start". Naturally that would mean that the Rogue could go the Assassin route based on what kind of equipment they wear and how they act in battle. That would ease a lot of headaches for developers and players alike, I think.
-
-
Here is a great site for reference... how many monsters did Baldur's Gate have?
http://mikesrpgcente...e/bestiary.html
EDIT: Quick counting I get it to 74. Doing a quick head count I get it to something like "32" unique monsters. <- These numbers aren't accurate, I just skimmed, doing a quick head count.
-
FYI, they added a mechanic called "Skirmish" later on that you'd probably use for a Swashbuckler or pirate instead. First time I saw it was with the Scout class, but I don't see why it couldn't be borrowed and thrown in as a Sneak Attack substitute for Rogues..
See, that choice is kinda what I'm arguing for. While I don't know how effective that skirmish option was, if they made sneak attack an option rather than there by default it would make for more possible rogues that could fit different playstyles. Want to be the backstabbing assassin? Then you can take the Assassin branch and develop things like sneak attack, but if you want to be a pirate instead you could take the 'YARR' branch instead that gives you other skills like dirty fighting techniques!
This thought popped up a week or so ago when discussing Ciphers. Are Rogues the only class applicable to being an Assassin? I'd like to argue against that.
Rogues are more applicable to being thieves. A James Bond character, agile, unpredictable and very intelligent. Street smart. Scum of the Slum. The Rogue doesn't feel like he was trained to do damage, or trained to sneak into buildings (infiltrating) and take someones life, sure, probably take some gold or valuables for his own journeys and adventures, but taking a life? No, I can't see it. Not by profession, way of life. A Rogue with a nasty personality? Sure, but not the everyday hitchhiker~traveler. No.
Thief is not "Assassin", that's my conclusion. Let's take a look at what Ciphers are and see if they fit the Assassin role... yes, most definitely. Soul manipulating, soul eating S.O.B's with psionic abilities? Mind reading, keeps to themselves, possibly what people would call "Gifted" or be afraid of (Spec Ops), heck maybe not even knowing about them. Mind Control? Mind Erasing? What can the Cipher do? I think about "Ghost" (StarCraft) when I look at Ciphers. An applicable Assassin? Yes.
I linked here from there but doing the vice-versa here. Torches!
I would say keep them where you can see if you want them to be effective, so if they leave the 'light pool' their critical miss chance and other stats change, so that they are more likely to be hit, hurt themselves or friendlies, etc.This should be difficulty based. I don't want my party to miss too much or be all critically dangerous to themselves on Easy up to Normal, whilst on Hard and Expert it should be noticeably different.
Could the Rogue+Cipher have the ability to critical hit in "darkness"/shadows, whilst the rest of the classes can only deal normal damage in "darkness"/shadows? The Rogue should be accustomed to darkness, regardless if having a nightvision thing~ or not. So if darkness is going to be penalizing somehow, I would like to see the Rogue (and other shadow curious classes, e.g., Cipher) not get as much penalties.
I am including the Cipher in the sentence because I see it possibly having an Assassin Kit more so than the Rogue having it (I see the Rogue having a Thief Kit).
-
No you don't. You just have 50 monsters with some different colors.but if there are 50 monsters and 5 colors are being used you suddenly get 250 monsters.
Visually yes, is that true mechanically and tactically as well? Do you deal with Blue the same way you deal with Red?
Blue could be great at magic, having a large mana pool.
Red could be more melee and damage, having a large health pool.
Anyways, I get what you are saying, but 1 monster with 5 different colors is true what you say, it is the same monster, the same family. Just different varieties of it. It does still make the bestiary feel bigger than it is (Final Fantasy 1-7). They still share different traits, one monster is bigger, stronger and more physical, hard working laborer. The colors are simply indicators for "This one is different than the other one I faced".
I think there are some 4-5 same type looking soldier in FF7 that feels like different types of soldiers, but really all they are are different colors. In the game Lore (of FF7) they would be classified as different "Ranks". One is a simple Guard, one a Veteran, another one an Elite Guard. Physically they look the same, the only difference is Red & Blue.
EDIT: Let's turn it around, if you were a developer, would you want to make 100 individual monsters for your world? Possibly, yes. But do you have enough time, or does it take time from something else that also is important in a game (locations/houses/areas/quest effects/spells etc. etc.). What would be most effective?
Instead of having regular guard and elite guard have different animations, gear, abilities etc. etc. it could be easier to simply give Reg. Guard the color White and the Elite Guard the color Black. Same animations, visually the same, but still having different abilities, strengths & weaknesses. Though, perhaps Equipment could take into consideration how the Humanoids of P:E look like (those capable of wearing Equipment~) whilst monsters are something different.
Thinking about it, in BG there are Gnolls, Gnoll Veteran, Gnoll Elite and Flay (or something like that) and they have some minor color adjustments, some have major color adjustments. Ogrillon+Half-Ogre are pretty much the same, one has a helmet and some armor, but their animations are pretty much the same.
Small adjustments in color tone and some adjustments to "gear" (visually) really does a lot for immersion.
Here are some examples from BG (animals) that are the same (top of my head):
* Black Bear
* Brown Bear
* Bear
* Polar Bear
* Wolf
* Winter Wolf
* Dog
-
I would say keep them where you can see if you want them to be effective, so if they leave the 'light pool' their critical miss chance and other stats change, so that they are more likely to be hit, hurt themselves or friendlies, etc.
This should be difficulty based. I don't want my party to miss too much or be all critically dangerous to themselves on Easy up to Normal, whilst on Hard and Expert it should be noticeably different.
Could the Rogue+Cipher have the ability to critical hit in "darkness"/shadows, whilst the rest of the classes can only deal normal damage in "darkness"/shadows? The Rogue should be accustomed to darkness, regardless if having a nightvision thing~ or not. So if darkness is going to be penalizing somehow, I would like to see the Rogue (and other shadow curious classes, e.g., Cipher) not get as much penalties.
I am including the Cipher in the sentence because I see it possibly having an Assassin Kit more so than the Rogue having it (I see the Rogue having a Thief Kit).
EDIT: This could fit well with some sort of "Role of the Rogue" (14 pages might seem like a lot to read but it is a really good thread, well worth it)
-
^Intended for it first Aleron. I did want the thread to shed some insight for the developers but oh well
I'm still curious if there is a possibility for such a game like this, where you play 1 party and your friend plays the DM. Live action Modding. Sending a lightning strike, adding in a quest as your friend goes along. Handing out objectives, removing perks, adding perks. Deciding when your party levels up and when they don't etc. etc.
I know someone made a DM map for WC3 (several maps/several authors) with this purpose but it was shoddy and I was way too young/inexperienced to even understand what the heck was going on. I remember there being some sort of DM map in Starcraft: BW as well.
-
You probably would have been better off just describing your idea instead of comparing it to the "Second Wind" mechanic, since some people still seem to be taking it literally rather than metaphorically.
Then I think some people need to read the entire post before criticizing and/or commenting on it. I describe the idea in the first post under "B".
-
~PlateCraft Puzzles
"Stand on this one to active this other one which activates that one over there to activate something that finally opens the door whilst shutting you in and you have to find another plate that activates another plate that opens another way out of the dungeon"
With 6 party members some physical "Press this button" or "Stand on this plate" in synchronicity would be cool. Perhaps not a puzzle that requires all 6 party member slots filled (what with players playing different party compositions ranging from 1-6) but some dungeon puzzles that requires a party (and those who play 1-2 characters gets left out). Likewise perhaps there could be some content or puzzles that can't be accessed if you are more than 2 player characters.
Perhaps some "God" Door doesn't accept the passage of 6 party members, but "gladly" grants passage for 2 characters. This would allow for replayability as well.
-
The transition between Baldur's Gate and Baldur's Gate 2 could be seen as a major Narrative Second Wind.
Take an area in Baldur's Gate as an example, you fight some Ogres, then you get taken to some designated point on that map. For guards, there could be a jail in a town where you get taken too as well, so not so much "Create/Draw more areas". Getting sent to jail in Baldur's Gate could also be seen as a Narrative Second Wind, but as it is part of the plot it is also a major Narrative Second Wind, what I am curious about is if it is possible to make minor instances.
Maybe only 3-4 encounters that leads to some sort of ~"Second Wind".
-
-
For some reason I'm thinking some Banshee stuff (Marvel, or Greek Mythology~Siren). Supersonic abilities like a bat, can shatter mountains with a beaming voice (figuratively~). I can see some glass doors or glass floors, Hidden passages that only a Chanter can open by taking a high tone and shatter it into pieces like an Opera singer.
In a popular manga/anime (which shall be left unnamed) the "Chanter" variant is a Ninja with tools to enhance their "sound" abilities. Could a Chanter be a "Tinkerer"? Megaphone.. or some sort of sound blasting Gun. Probably not..
I like the standard, Bardic idea. Having instruments (Harp, Guitar, Flute) but in my opinion should be a great fighter without it. A Guitar Sword would be badass (similar to a Cane Sword, but you pull out the sword out of the Guitar neck). Maybe even the Guitar body could be a Shield.
-
Didn't find the original thread! But it's somewhere. This one always makes me smile
-
Monsters Lore - this could be real unique mechanic for ranger - it should be similiar to favoured enemy, but instead of choosing it, ranger should gain more bonuses against monster type depending on how many he already slain. It would make sense that when ranger meet new monster he dont know how to deal with him better than other class, but he study his pray and learn his weakness so next time he would be prepared. It would make him great at cleaning cannon fodders and not too overpower when fighting more unique monsters
Didn't read everything, this caught my attention. I like.
-
-snip-
Pffft!!! Ravenloft blahblah
Just wanted to clarify, I was thinking about Ravenholm in Half-Life 2.
Maybe those who think PE could be scary should give some concrete examples of scary scenarios. My example of what I want to see was:I said it before but I'd like to see the Fog of War have a part in this somehow, a light that looks like a spirit kid that waves you to follow her. Looks like a ghost or something, you follow her only to get to the big monster that looks like a deep fish with a lantern on its head and it is about to eat you.
Another one is the Fog of War being the enemy somehow. The Fog of War itself is coming after you at some point, trying to eat you or simply going all Cthulhu on you, closing in on you. Meaning that the Fog of War becomes bigger and bigger and your vision of your characters becomes smaller and smaller if you can't get to the exit in time.
Not really horror from here on but more or less some "jumps":
Floor tiles that fall into an abyss as you are just about to walk over it (triggered to fall so you are always safe~you can't fall) just to give a sense of Indiana Jones: "Snap! Almost fell to my death!!".
Traps that appear out of nowhere.
:
Anti-Trap Mechanics & Player vs Dungeon
in Pillars of Eternity: Stories (Spoiler Warning!)
Posted
Corrected.
A disable device skill could work. Would it get better as the character levels up or as the character disarms more devices?