Lv99Wizard

In all threads like this, I ask myself one simple question; "What was it like in IWD/BG?" The answer is then immediately apparent - complete control. This game is billed as a successor to the IE games and this idea of full control is at the core of that. Like, literally, the absolute core concept was a tactical 6 member approach to combat as well as (in BG) story with companion specific side quests. The companion's primary defining feature will be their class and their story. Everything else from that initial point will be chosen by the player. I don't think this is even a discussion topic at Obsidian. Also, there are a few really odd extrapolations by other posters which are not at all based in reality or history or any statements made. So in that regard, I should probably substitute "delusions" in place of "extrapolations".

I'm so confused by this thread. The interviewer is terrible. The questions weren't particularly interesting and when Sawyer was giving answers, they'd cut to incredibly distracting videos, even playing the PE pitch with the *sound* on. Still not convinced by cooldowns. How will random encounters be integrated into the game? Or will those disappear? I think cooldowns are, in fact, inherently evil. Probably Lawful Evil. I do think the idea of the Grimoire is excellent however. If changing the Grimoire/Spelltome is the only thing affected by a cooldown I'd be far happier.

The second soul symposium of sermons of sympathy of Od Nua. Oh you were expecting something serious? This is the issue which matters the least to me. They could call it "the ring-like box of murder:once opened you have only seven days to live!" and I'd still buy it. Because it would be seven days well spent. Although, thinking about it, having a malevolent demon incentivise you to sell the game to some other person (with proceeds going to Obsidian obviously) would probably be incredibly profitable. Or maybe I'm over thinking this.

I sincerely doubt they would remove any features pledged during the campaign. Everything mentioned will be in the final game in some way. For things like classes, Obsidian have ~18 months to balance etc and how can a Barbarian feel silly anyway? It's an awesome class. Secondly, the Hall of Adventurers is an excellent idea from the perspective of a lot of people. Obsidian are designing this game from the ground up, with a very strong narrative at it's core. These stretch goal features will be created around that, with the player able to pick and choose the options which make the game perfect from their perspective. And it is unlikely to affect players who don't like Barbarians or the Adventurer's Halls. A modular approach, if you will.

Anything that adds to the mythos and lore of a brand new setting is definitely welcome by me. Also, in their description, these races are said to have been imbued with something a little extra by the Gods. I think it would be cool to call them Godliked (implying they're chosen/special). Just throwing it out there.

Perhaps but, if I were a mage and my magic didn't have semantic components, I'd still say something awesome. Just like Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction before he blows someone away. He didn't *need* to have that dialogue but the movie would have been poorer without it. The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. (I'm just bored right now)

Absolutely. It doesn't have to be Latin necessarily but any mystic chanting or similar would be awesome. The way it was done in IWD/BG really brought magic to life.

We do not have a spellcasting system designed. This is not something we have to "change" because the majority of what we have developed for things as complex as the spellcasting system are ideas. It's three weeks into a fundraising campaign to make this project. I cannot tell you what final form the spellcasting system will take, what elements it absolutely will or won't have. All I can tell you is the sort of goals we have and general ideas of things I'd like to see and avoid. I'm trying to create the feeling of strategic spell selection and tactical spell use in D&D while avoiding the constant rest spamming that was so prevalent in the games I made. There are probably a number of ways to solve this problem. I have some ideas on this, but we haven't settled on them. I want to tell people about general ideas and opinions I have, but I don't think spending a day trying to design the system in the forum is going to produce good results. I'm still not sure that rest spamming is such a massive problem or that the (still ethereal) alternative concept is worth the potential sacrifices to depth and atmosphere. We all really appreciate this project and this forum. We'd like to offer our perspectives of what made the original IE games so memorable. And we're also trying to give feedback to the question you posed about backtracking.

Isn't the incentive that the fight goes much easier when you scout and select your spells prior to engaging the enemy? Whether you're going to get AS back immediately after the fight or as soon as you can/choose to rest, the enjoyment comes from having AS before you start the fight and using it in a tactically excellent way. Scouting is what gives you the buffer of safety to make those preparations. My spells weren't initially tailored like this. This evolved due to economising a scarce resource. I found that I could use AS to hit multiple enemies and this behaviour lead me to go further in the game. By the time dragon's eye came about, I had increased the amount of times I could use this strategy. If I could cast whatever spells I wanted, I'm not sure it would have led me to this tactic. The scarcity of spells necessitates a deep consideration of a player's strategy. Which spells are best to keep at lvl 1, 2, 3 etc? How can I build redundancy for something I don't expect? (eg.Trolls need acid to kill, where can I add that in?) Within a cooldown mechanism, none of this matters. The incentive is also to push as far as I can before needing to risk resting inside the dungeon. (And also finding a suitably defensible position so my melee characters can screen the vulnerable mages). This again creates a feeling of progression. The player sees how much more powerful their party is becoming. It also has the effect that no fight is trivial. Every spell cast is important. It requires the player to consider whether the fighters can deal with the current weak threat to conserve spells or if having your party at full health is more important.

Well, that is a good question: should spells of that power (mass save or die, enormous damage sink summons) be in the spellcaster's arsenal, period? I know some players do want "omnipotent" (to use one poster's words) wizards. So in the old system, these types of powerful spells were (relatively) balanced and enjoyable. In the new system they don't fit well so you're questioning whether they should even be implemented. I can't see the impetus to make these changes. Are the advantages of this system (not having to backtrack) really worth having a "weak-magic" setting? Is that something fans want to see? Is it something they'd have preferred in the original games? I don't believe so. The greatness of IWD (easily my favourite) was it's incredibly vast, all encompassing story line. It was of a massive scale (inter dimensional god like beings struggling trying to conquer Icewind dale). Powerful mages made that believable - without them it wouldn't work well.

If we knew more about the current ideas Josh and the dev team are having, we'd be able to give better feedback. As it is, everyone is just guessing about things and a lot of misconceptions are arising between people interpreting certain information differently. The idea of spell regen after every encounter would eliminate the feeling of peril found in the IE games. It would not reward scouting the area and preparing tactics for what you encounter and would not be have the same atmosphere as the IE experience. It would not reward the player understand the system and optimising/creating their own unique strategies. For example, in Dragon's eye I started by sneaking my thief around the place. Then I had my 2 mages stocked on Agannazzar's scorcher. They'd flank the rest of the melee characters who would lure and engage a pack of enemies in some chokepoint (bridge etc). The fighters would keep the pack in place while the mages cast, dealing damage to multiple enemies - thus optimising my spells and making them go much further. There wouldn't be any incentive to find such strategies without limiting spell casting.

To me it implied cooldown length was on that order because that is the alternative you're providing to backtracking 3 minutes, resting, fixing your spells and then walking back another 3 minutes (~6 minutes in total). I guess I misunderstood. No it doesn't. Nothing about it implies that. We are talking about the Infinity Engine games and the experience that they created. Do you believe my representation of how players actually played the game is inaccurate? Am I wrong? Did people look at Dragon's Eye in IWD and guess, "You know, I bet there's... five levels to this place... lizard men with shamans, armored skeletons, blast skeletons, some cold wights, ghouls, a cleric of Talona, disguised yuani-ti casters, a mix of yuan-ti fighters and casters and... I've got a feeling there's a marilith at the bottom." and then do a point-to-point march through the dungeon, not only selecting, but conserving their spells perfectly so they never had to backtrack out? I feel like I'm describing what is a very common circumstance in the Infinity Engine games. People pay attention, make educated guesses, but ultimately are unable to know the full extent of the challenges they are dealing with. The only way they would be able to do so is through extraordinary prescience. Well Dragon's Eye could not be completed on one set of spells but backtracking wasn't a problem. In my games, the various fighters/paladins could pull the party through any encounters until the mages got a chance to regain their spells. This also reinforces the need for a balanced party. I tried the same with an all-caster party and it went badly. More generally, the Vancian system required players to understand the mechanics more keenly to progress through the game. It introduced risk and tension to the game which, for me, made the experience so much more intimate than other RPGs. I really felt connected to my characters because they were in peril and my decisions could worsen/improve their situation. I have no idea how you plan to implement the cooldown mechanics but my main worry is this atmosphere would be diminished or worse without a resting system. In my experience, backtracking wasn't a problem big enough to warrant cooldown mechanics.

JESawyer's post implies cooldowns will be on the order of 5 minutes long. I don't think introducing this mechanic will qualify the game as a successor to the IE games. Instead, it pushes P:E into MMO territory. In terms of the original question: The obvious answer is nothing - but the question is loaded. This experience can be minimised by game design as well as player strategy. The real question is, is this occasional inconvenience worth the sacrifice of a Vancian system? I don't believe so. In terms of compromise, how about this: -Put rest on cooldown. This ability (fluff wise could be a direct teleport to the players house) would allow the party to recharge spells etc instantly but can only be used X times per day. It has 100% success rate. -Have the option to backtrack to an inn if you don't have your teleport spell. -Have the option to rest in-spite of the danger, in the hopes that your melee characters can get your party through. Cooldowns eliminate a lot of player choice and planning which is at the core of the IE games and I believe it would be very difficult to implement it and retain the feel fans are yearning for.