Mr. Magniloquent

Agreed. One area which I would really like to see change revert to the "old school", would be smaller scale Gold Box scenarios. I'm so tired of LoTR derivatives where ONLY YOU--THE CHOSEN ONE, can save ALL OF EXISTENCE from the HORDE OF BAD GUYS. *Sigh* What happened to haunted keeps and swamps? When the scope is too large, both the stories and the characters get lost--player controlled or otherwise. Just take things down a notch and focus on the quest your on. Make each quest have character and meaning rather than being a speed-bump to aggrandizing your messiah complex. I would have been much happier with the NWN official Campaign if they had just focused all of their energy and equivalent resources into Chapter 1 and the city itself. There was so much room for intrigue and drama, but it just got lost in the yawn-worthy epic scope they pushed. I believe it to be the main reason why the expansions were so much better than the original OC. I feel this can be said just about every c"RPG" ever made since.

I would define RPG more along the lines of having a meaningful choice in not just the development of your character, but more importantly how that character influences the events in a game. In that sense, Icewind Dale and even Planescape: Torment more closely exemplify an adventure game, while Arcanum and Fallout are more representative of a actual RPG.

There are people who like(d) this? I consider myself closer to a traditionalist in nature, but when has this ever been a "feature" anyone enjoyed? *Edited for grammar/spelling corrections.

This is what is going to matter for PoE, I believe. If spell do not scale with caster class level, then spells must be differentiated by what effects they can produce. For example, areas of effect. A first level spell would only be able to target a single foe, while a second level spell could use the "line" or "single target" area of effect. The same would be applicable to other effects, like Paralysis, Concealment, Poison, Absorption, Reflection, Damage over Time, etc. There are two issues for a system that would work in this way though. DCs and damage would both have to be calculated independently of the spell level they belonged to. If not, lower level spells would become completely, or at least effectively useless. Only by computing these things through class level + abilities + feats/traits (etc) without respect to the level of the spell being cast would they be able to translate to higher level engagements. This is a form of scaling though, so I doubt that we will see this.

I see Mr. Sawyer has been on a posting rampage of sorts. Thank you for the information both in this thread and others. Our current design for wizards allows them to learn a new spell every time they gain a level, so if there's one that you REALLY want, the system allows you to take it when you advance. E: This doesn't apply to unique spells, but there will probably be very few of them. How are you handled "Difficulty Class" of spells in PoE? With not having spell scale, I'm hopeful that you're planning to have a universal spell DC for each caster based on abilities/feats, while having spell levels differentiated by what effects they can produce. That's the kind of information I was looking forward to seeing in this most recent update. Is it still to "risky" to share any of those details?

I'm very open to new ideas and have generally liked just about everything Obsidian has made mention of to this point. My one contention though, is spell casting. Multi-player and the resulting "balance" that it has wrought over the last...13 years or so has ruined spell casting. Boring, neutered, unimaginative, unsophisticated spells and magic systems have left me wanting. I'd like to see the potency, flexibility, creativity, and the relatively elaborate interactions of the Baldur's Gate spells make a return. That's one point which I am vocal about seeing kept relatively intact. Since the BG series, there have been many great stories told. There have been many wonderful and reactive NPCs. There have even been games with great tactical combat--even if they weren't exactly RPGs. What I haven't seen though, is a game with great spell casting--those have been sacrificed before birth on the altar of "balance" no doubt. After Baldur's Gate.....perhaps Magicka in 2010(?) gave me something I was looking for. Aside from that adventure game, I'm still waiting for an RPG with a spell system that can even approach a game that is approaching TWO DECADES in age. That's really sad. If someone knows any, please inform me.

I'm glad to hear that Druids will be able to select additional forms later on. As far as spell not scaling with level, this is a curiousity. From a design standpoint it should make things a great deal easier, though there is the potential for crutching on "minor, lesser, greater, major" variations of the same spell to accomodate for players outgrowing a staple spell. We shall see....

This is incorrect. While they do allow for many quests and scenarios to be solved with quests, dialogue, or other alternatives...the game will not be competable without engaging in combat somewhat regularly. There will be certain instances, like end-of-dungeon critical path quests which will only end in combat. That has been stated by Mr. Sawyer, though I don't care to dig up the quote. There will, however, be options available for certain defeated foes to determine their fate. You might kill them, set them free with after a lecture, or even take them prisoner. How prevalent this will be is unknown, but will likely be reserved for major plot characters. Look to the first update on the Stronghold for information on this.

The best game you've ever played in your life is just....over three dozen mods away! PM me if you would like the more specific mod names. This installation order is my own, and likely the most comprehensive on the internet. I don't believe I've shared it before now, oddly enough. It's also current as of....January 2014. It seems like a great deal, and it is.....but it's very much worth it. My particular installation is optimized, completely stable, and arranged for no cheese whilst matching PnP rules as closely as possible.

Mhmhmhm...thats...thin. But I appreciate the effort The way I am understanding it, is that they create devices to create magical effects. A spell scroll is not an instruction manual on how to cast a spell, it is a machine which creates said spell. The grimoire functions as a glorified housing for said machines.

So what do you guys think about the details divulged within the update? Do you feel this take will represent the spirit of the classes which makes them so iconic? How do you feel about them putting twists on convention, is it new life to an old bag of tricks or sacrilege against what has already withstood time? How do you guys feel about the spells? Are you glad to see departures from D&D conventions, or do you find the differences to be undesirable? I think I may actually like the take on with Wizard's grimoire. The description of its function reminded me of a scientific apparatus. The grimoire and the scribed spells within it function like a device. The Wizard merely creates and operates them in the same way an actual scientist would create an operate say....a high-pressure liquid chromatographer. This feels consistent and flavorful to me. I'm hoping Arcane Veil compensates for the declared absence of pre-combat spell buffing. I haven't made up my mind on the Blast ability yet. While only being able to damage "surrounding enemies" rather than a small AoE, it feels a bit contrived. It also appears to imply that any wand may be used in this manner--even if it has different abilities specific to it. The Druid feels somewhat unremarkable to me just yet. I certainly approve of retaining spell casting in shapeshifted forms, though I am unsure about how only one form may be selected. This limits avenues of problem solving and variety for the Druid which is generally has a negative impact. I imagine the forced singular "bond" choice will have role-play implications? What do you guys think?

As a reminder from the Pre-Combat Preparation thread, moving protective spells exclusively into combat only does not solve the "pre-buffing problem". Instead, you're actually guaranteed to be casting protection spells more often since the Wizard will be entering every instance of combat unprotected. This not only functions as a tax on a Wizard's daily spells and time in combat, but now has to raise protections under duress, rather than before-hand--even when credible danger is to be reasonably expected (or even assured). There are three things yet to be seen which will make substantial differences: The potency of Arcane Veil. The total penalties and modifications which wearing armor imposing on spell-casting. The ultimate potency of spells. I imagine that Arcane Veil is being designed as an improved form of (3rd Edition D&D) Stoneskin & Mage Armor combo. We shall have to see how it performs. I imagine that it will scale being that it is explicitly an ability rather than a spell. Armor may also play a more prominent roll in the careers of Wizards, though we do not yet know the full extent of the penalties. What truly matters though, is how potent spells will ultimately be whether they be offensive, defensive, or otherwise. If pre-buffing is no longer needed to hedge against spell casters, this could indicate that magic in PoE will be just another bland failure in a long secession of RPG magic systems. If, however, the absence of pre-buffing means that there will be a real tactical choice between a powerful and aggressive first strike or hedging against one....hope might not be lost. We'll have to wait and see.

The piece makes no effort or claim to identify the historical origins of the term, "Magic" or define magic itself. It speaks about how scientific thought and the intrusion of empiricism and rational explanations of natural phenomena have changed cultural conceptions of what magic is--particularly as it pertains to RPGs and their corresponding mechanics. I'm not sure how this piece led you to your tangent. Agreed. From what has been shared, magic within PoE appears to be transitioning from a superstitious phenomena and into an empirical science. In terms of game play, a cRPG will inherently require predictable rules with quantifiable inputs and outputs. While the article is great food-for-thought, I linked it mostly to introduce to this thread the concept of magic not being separate from natural orders, like biology. A person's muscle make them strong, but magic is what makes muscles work! Therefore, within PoE, a characters Might is an approximation of the inherent potency within them--strong muscles and/or powerful magic are merely reflections of that magic which pervades their body.

I'm surprised people are getting lost in the definitions and distinctions. To me their choice in naming the statistic "Might" says it all. Might (Adj.), being the potency or force of something is different from Strength. Strength is a specific form of might--it is not might itself. Given that character abilities of all types are fueled by the magic of their souls in one way or another, the statistic might being applied wherever damage is calculated is logically consistent. I have a link to share with you guys, and I think you'll like it. It speaks about exactly what I think is confounding people's sensibilities within this thread. This link contains a superb musing on the concepts of magic within RPG systems and how the pervasiveness of scientific thought have changed cultural notions of "what magic is". Enjoy. Breaking Out of Scientific Magic Systems

This is most excellent.

I'm very surprised at how many people here have a poor opinion of Sword Coast Stratagems. This is honestly the first time I can remember encountering a negative opinion. In vanilla BG, enemies don't move to escape area effects and generally just attack the first thing they encounter/is closest to them. Creatures don't call for help, nor do they respond to immunities or protections by attempting to dispel/breach them or change to targets they can damage. Casters make poor use of spells, spend most of their time buffing. In between spells, they either stand there--or worse, enter melee, rather than walking around evasively. Everything changed with SWS. Try breaching that Stoneskin or Spell Reflection when they're simultaneously using Protection from Abjuration. Things get really interesting when they're using a Simulacrum, Mislead, or Improved Invisibility and have Protection from Divination! Think you've finally got that mage down for the count? Now he's activated a sequencer with invisibility and mirror image--only to now summon a demon! Or try when one of your characters is low on health to find that this mage rips of a sequence full of magic missiles that seals your poor adventurer's fate. Try team-work for that matter. That archer which previously ignored your mage suddenly decides to wail on him once he's been breached. I could go on and on. SWS did things the correct way. AI used not only used spells and abilities to their maximums, but they responded to player actions and changed approaches when necessary, cooperate, and even flee when nothing they throw at your works. While I found Icewind Dale 2 to be a thorough challenge, it was mostly due to contrived "gotcha" scenarios where I was fighting my fifth horde of equivalently level (or greater) creatures with no safe rest zones. It's still preferable to HP bloat and associated gimmicks that J"RPG"s and MMOs resort to, but lacks the elegance and real tactical combat that SWS brought forth. *Edited to extend ToB advice.

Obsidian should get some advice from the Sword Coast Strategem creators. They are still active and accessible. I cannot play Baldur's gate or Icewind Dale without those mods installed anymore--they enhance the game that much. In a single player tactical game, AI is everything. Do what you must to make sure it is done right the first time. Patching is great, but positive first impressions are greater.

I'm just hoping that there will be appropriate responses to keeping a hulking wild beast in your company. "Greetings, Sir. Welcome to The Grand Cosmopolitan Hotel. Notice the irreplacable artwork, expensive furnishings, and exotic rugs--each individually valued more than the entire lifetime income of a commoner. Nevermind that behemoth dire boar thundering about with you, come right in!"

A NWN persistent server called Montlethia Under Siege had a recoverable arrow mod installed. Arrows could only be stacked in bundles of twenty or less, and their weight was increased mildly to reflect their cumbersome/bulky nature. Arrows which successfully damaged an opponent were recoverable from its corpse. This included non-mundane arrows. However, all arrows had a 15% chance of being irretrievable either due to "breaking" or "becoming lodged". Misses arrows were lost as well. The server was a hardcore rules server with a major survivalist bent, but the system worked incredibly well. The system reduced the overwhelming power of ranged weapons for the server's (generally) low-level scenarios, while allowing them to be practical. The use of enchanted arrows became practical as well. Furthermore, the system provided incentive to utilize the crafting systems.

Baldur's Gate actually had this. I believe the party formation with the prominent leading arrow with a trail behind it is the one you are looking for. I cannot recall if the other IE games possessed this, but I've used it in Baldur's Gate for sure--particularly in the Planar Prison.

I can't see the benefit. T:ToN is a science fiction setting with advanced futuristic technology spanning eons of development by various cultures while P:E is distinctly early human renaissance in terms of technological development. P:E also has explicit magic, whereas T:ToN does not. Aside from perhaps rag clothing for paupers and urchins, I do not imagine any avenues for overlap or art collaboration. Even if it were purely to benefit modders, both projects would have their individual development constrained and limited due to these efforts.

I can't believe this thread is still going. If you're making the claim that NPCs cannot possess depth of character or interaction without being romance-able, you're lying. You are lying. You....are....lying. Believable NPCs are there to breath life into an otherwise static and artificial world. Trying to seduce or become emotionally codependent with an NPC are only singular forms of interaction. NPCs can still possess a wealth of personality without being seduced, much like any person in the actual world does and should. Any claims otherwise are patently false. Admit it. Admit it so this thread can die and the moderators can put a sticky up that Promancers simply need to come to terms with their pathos and find their quasi-emotional fulfillment elsewhere. People harping in X thread for XX pages "on the virtues of interactivity" that only romances provide need to perform some serious introspection. This thread is not about NPC interactivity. That is a lie and we all know it. Some of you just haven't come to terms with it yet. Moving on...

Particularly, I would like to see all aspects of a Godlike's influence reflected. Take a Death Godlike for example. I would like to see them actually be more vulnerable to dying, rather than resistant to death/poison/damage effects, since their essence/nature is closer to Death itself. To elaborate, I'm hoping that a Godlike's soul is a result of a particular deity taking interest in its creation, rather than deciding to enhance an otherwise mundane soul. In this way, both sides of their proverbial coins are reflected instead of merely being a hyper-powered race.

There's no evidence of this. Yes, if everyone bought a game payed higher prices it would be better for people who make the games, but there is no evidence that everyone who buys at steam sale price would buy it at full price. Bingo. If anything, these sale prices indicate that there is a massive market that will not purchase them at the previously non-discounted price. If anything, lower prices encourage people to take risks and allow a company to build a clientele which (if their games are enjoyed) will be more likely to possess a future time preference that will purchase the game at a higher rate. I am coming to believe that a great many game developers do not understand the new macroeconomic realities of the western world.

I like the basic damage types. Elemental: Fire, Cold, Electrical, Acid Physical: Slashing, Piercing, Crushing Magical: Magic (That's it) I don't care for holy, positive/negative, necrotic, etc. Magical damage is perfectly suitable for just about any extra-normal use. Spell, abilities, and effects which target or damage based on alignment/creature type should and tend to state the targeting parameters anyway, making the differentiation of these exotic damage types pointless. The only complicated damage type is Poison. D&D treats it as an ability reduction, but I don't like that. I feel poison damage is best represented as damage over time, particularly as massive damage over a brief interval.