Pipyui

Sometimes you have to go through a quest to obtain unique equipment, right? Can't see a reason why not to do something similar for certain spells. The spell descriptions thing rubs me the wrong way a little, though. If I use my soul as a medium for a spell, I think I'd know the "structure" of the spell. Magic as described so far doesn't feel to me like a "speak words and magic happens" type system, but more of a "shape my soul to influence reality" kinda thing. Seems odd to me to be able to "shape" my soul into an unknown force. Of course, unknown spells might just be "soul schematics" or something, so I'm not against the idea outright.

Elephants, it seems, ruin everything from video games to forum threads.

Hrrm. Well, taking a look at the map blows my "isolated" idea out of the water. Despite the mountains blocking the east, the plethora of coastal cities concludes that trade isn't new to the folks of PE (on these coasts, at least). Of course, this means that we may see a whole lot of foreign influences in these locations, from people to cultures and architectures. Ghettos (in the traditional sense) might not be uncommon here. Further inland seems to be these uninhabited Ruins of Eir Glanfath, so likely only small towns around here near the rivers. Probably not much foreign influence in these parts, though the inhabitants might be a little "unusual" themselves. So my guess is that we might see a different mixing of peoples and cultures depending on our latitude along the coastal regions. Anything to add or rectify?

Indeed. A little mixing in of foreign cultures and events can suggest a world much more vast than the player can explore. Perhaps these men are renegades of a great war being held elsewhere, and the world of PE is like the Shire of LOTR - isolated and oblivious to the world at large.

I loved Beyond Good and Evil, but I'm not sure how I feel about an elephant-man in my western RPG (ambivalent maybe). To the (real) topic at hand, I'm with gglorious on this. A few scattered or localized non-playable races from other lands would be neat, so long as they "fit" in the PE world. Ultimately it's a world-building decision - if they don't enhance the world, history, and lore; don't add them.

I myself have little fear of such conent being too inaccessible. Riddles can be pretty straightforward, and not everything has to be one. Verbal directions conveyed through a tome can be followed so long as a distinct landmark is presented (or at least definitively referenced). My rat example requires almost no problem solving skill whatsoever. Besides this though, even a little content that is relatively inaccessible would be welcome to me. To be rewarded for connecting and understanding bits of lore to find a unique (though perhaps not rediculously powerful) item could be neat. It rewards an understanding of the world, but doesn't depreciate the value of the game to those who don't find it. Kinda like an easter egg without the metagame references. (People will just find it through the internet eventually anyways). I don't think it's wrong to reward those observant enough to find this "hidden" content, I do think it'd be wrong though to make that content central to the game though. You're not always alone there. However, I think that while the journal can dictate my adventure for most of the game (main story and most sidequests), I would also like to experience many adventures outside of its strict instruction. Can't just have everything handed to me now, can I?

So I got to thinking, does every quest have to come explicitly from someone? It's nice to get clearly defined tasks sure, but what about quests and content that don't present themselves to the player so easily? Though the experience is rare, I really like when I can find a riddle, vague instructions, or gossip in a tome or hinted through dialogue but never clearly expressed that leads me on a "quest" I wouldn't be given. It's very rewarding to follow a lead only thus hinted at to discover otherwise "hidden" content. To be clear, I'm not talking simply about extra caves and such here that aren't tied to any task. I'm talking about (fairly) rich content that is tied to lore and social interaction that doesn't yield itself in the form of a "go do this" journal entry. A book detailing the death and ritual burial of a legend might implicitly convey a particular landmark hiding powerfull treasure. Words written on the wall of one cave might contain a riddle leading you to the next, which of course could also only be opened by knowing the riddle. After a long series of riddles and locations/NPCs/tomes, you discover the lair of a cult to which you just unwittingly completed a hazing ritual to join. Words shared between citizens on the street might be mostly garbage, but hint at a rat infestation in the city's infrastructure. Hearing of rats showing up in peoples' basements enough times, you investigate to find a HUGE rat nest in the sewers (with a giant rat queen, of course). No one "tells" you to solve the rat problem, you just decide to see if there was anything behind it but garbage dialogue. I enjoy the satisfying feeling of discovery when I find this content without explicit aid. It also helps the world feel more organic and adds history, I think. Some things may be forgotten in time to NPCs, but are still recorded in the world for you to find. Maybe I can't find every task in the game by asking people explicitly for them, but problems abound whether people request of my assistance or not. This ended up much longer than I intended to type about a very simple idea. Anyway, what are the thoughts or ideas of the fine folks on this forum about my request?

I'm not even interested much in the mechanics of being "bloodied," I'd be fine to me if I could just see at a glance which enemies and which of my companions are significantly injured. I think stamina is supposed to mangage the fatigue / injury mechanics anyway.

I actually like having to hoard ingredients to perform a few particular spells, so long as the acquisition of these materials involves a real cost. Having a collection of spells that can only be used with certain reagents gives me access to more (or more specific) power when necessary, but must be mangaged as a non-infinite resource. It's not much different from potions, really - just more class-particular.

The bloodied idea sounds really neat, where enemies with little remaining health would appear so. That could help me prioritize my targets without breaking immersion with health bars. I don't think it would require much dev time either, as you could just stamp a (maybe even the same) bloodsplatter mesh on each character/creature model. As an aside, what would be neat but would also require more dev resources would be to have NPCs react to my bloodied PC (or party). "I'm ready for a quest, sir!" "Ready? You're a mess! I like your enthusiam, but I've no need of a martyr. Go and get some rest, and then come back and speak with me." "No sir! I'm a martyr, a sucker for punishment, and I will not rest until every concievable task in this land is seen to a conclusion!" "Alright, alright. If getting killed is your wish, I'm not gonna stop you. I need you to ..."

How does stamina factor into this? Do we want health to be a constant, but ramp stamina? Vise-versa? Both? Neither? That aside, this sounds like an interesting idea to consider. How would scaling enemies work though? Tougher enemies have to deal more damage to be more dangerous, but weaker enemies have to deal damage too, especially at lower levels. Suppressing other factors, constant health would mean that tougher baddies will either insta-kill you, puny ones will be insignificant even at lower levels, or baddies will all be equal in power. To solve this, enemies would not scale damage, but would scale hit percentage? Thereby the only way to gain effectiveness against them would be to increase dodge chance or armor rating? I'm trying to understand the implications of fixed health from a mechanics viewpoint. I feel somehow that this isn't such a simple task as just dropping health ramping. Unfortunately, I'm not smart enough to fully comprehend this on my own. Anyone care to help me out?

Right well, so far as I understand it, "multiclassing" hasn't been detailed by Obsidian yet. They certainly have plans to allow for some class-fudging, like creating spellswords, but nothing is concrete yet (unless my info is dated). There is a nice multiclassing thread where speculation and ideas are being thrown around if you are interested. Edit: There you go, KaineParker

Melee casters? Sure, why not. Meal casters? Isn't that what I donated for?

Hormalakh's got some good ideas up there. I think one good solution, though perhaps this was expected, is to have many scripted encounters. This can be used to provide mini objectives during combat, allow enemies to make full use of their terrain, grant them more advanced tactical symbiosis, or any number of things. Or just produce a wider range of NPC AIs. Anything to give hostiles a little more character than "I approach, and I swing. I approach, and I swing. I ..." Swarmers should try to actively surround and sepparate the party. Archers and wizards should have guards that will (relatively) hold their ground to defend them. Rangers can switch to melee when confronted, but should switch back when it's not necessary. Mages can blast at you from on high as you try to cross a river (wading water decreasing your combat effectiveness), with a melee troup positioned on the other side to hold you in. These kind of things could make combat more dynamic and rewarding for me.

This. I keep pushing this I know, but I really really hate that my rogue can sneak through a darn prairie like it's nothing. Forest? Sure, don't even have to calculate LOS, just imply (modifier) that rogue can hide more effectively in a forest. Flat barren wasteland? Better be one heck of a good rogue.

Yeah, in retrospec my idea cannot be reasonably implemented in a video game like PE (perhaps in a stealth-centric one though). So I suppose that simplifies that idea down to perception vs. stealth checks. If I can come up with any bright (and realistic) ideas to make this better for stealth/scouting, I'll be sure to let everyone know. I guess when it comes down to it, I've always been very unimpressed by past implementations of stealth in isometric games, DA:O included. So I suppose my reservations about "farsight" are more a sentiment against isometric stealth mechanics in general. Sentiments for another thread.

To the first part - isn't that a risk to be taken for scouting alone? I don't see a problem here. To the second part - dialogue shoudn't pause gameplay, just like in NWN. If your scout is chatting with a hostile (one that doesn't immediately gut him), perhaps that dialogue would end abrubtly (and violently) when said hostile discovers the arrival of reinforcments for the scout. You can manage your party formation and try to approach the scout during conversation then, but at the risk of losing out in possible dialogue options and content. Scouting is still risky business, but not wholly disadvantageous. Greater risk, greater reward. Regarding implementations of "farsight," isn't this what stealth is for? Not saying it's a bad idea, just don't see it as being a necessity. Scouting only works because scouts have an advantage in knowing where they're looking and usually what for. I'm no word wizard, so you'll just have to use your imagination here, but a scout knows to examine anything in the way of his party's destination. The scout doesn't need farsight to avoid being spotted, it's good enough that (s)he knows an enemy camp is there and not vise versa. The scout uses stealth and has the advantage of knowing what to look for (an encampment isn't hard to spot) on his party's intended path. The camp will surely have sentries, but they don't know when or where an enemy might be - much more uncertainty here. Am I making sense (not being sarcastic here)? The scout and the enemies of the encampment might have the same visual range, but the scout has a huge advantage in spotting the encampment over being spotted.

Though I think you're right about this for the most part, I feel that with reasonable responsibility civil arguing can be productive - that is, so long as the conversation doesn't degrade into polar arguments, each party unwilling to compromise and just throwing out the same responses ad nauseam. I think tossing ideas around to be a constructive exercise, one just needs be careful in how they choose to respond to a topic.

It seems many share my sentiments that multiclassing is a bit cludgy. I'd eleborate on this more, but the fine folks just above me have already done a pretty good job of it. This isn't to say that I dislike having wiggle room in my class structures. Throwing out an idea here, but what about "core" talents having trees common to all classes? Say magic, stealth, and combat can each have a bare-bones tree available regardless of class. Thus my wizard would have his own unique wizardly talents, but could also learn to pick up a sword from the core combat tree, though perhaps without so much afinity as a fighter (the fighter him/herself having their own unique (or more elaborate core) combat tree). Yay? Nay?

Melodrama doesn't bother me so much, as long as my character doesn't get dragged into it. That kid from ME3? The one that appeared for a cutscene at the begining and died, only to have Shepard lament over him for the rest of the game, whatever their moral integrity? That was just really bad. I had no established connection to this arbitrary child, and yet he determines my psychological state for the whole game! No, if any emotional impact should be conveyed on the player (player, not PC) it should be through others. If the above mentioned child dies and I have to witness/console his mother about it, who is justifiably crying, perhaps screaming at Shepard's incompetance, I, the player, might feel a lot worse about the whole ordeal, but I wouldn't be forced to through my PC. Then I can have my PC react according to my own sentiments on the subject, or my character's if I'm roleplaying. By making the player react to such situations, they can better connect to their PC, and thus to the emotional content of the game. Forcing the PC to feel something for narative purpose is NOT good mojo for an RPG, and more than anything disconnects the player from any emotional content. Like in the case above - seriously Shepard, screw you.

So long as my characters don't facepalm on a spell fail, trolls don't assualt me with "lol u mad?", and Vegeta's disembodied voice doesn't scream "over 9000!!!!!" when I reach 9001 kills, these are still a-ok.

For your perusal: Maintaining risk and unpredictability

I wouldn't mind a few, a few, pop culture references, so long as they're clever, subtle, and somewhat timeless. Monty Python jokes, old IE game references, etc, are fine. No gangnam style, troll faces, or any other internet memes, period.

Certainly I'd love to see terrain modifiers, both for combat and stealth gameplay. Dodging missile attacks would be much easier in a dense forest than knee deep in a river. Elevation should certainly augment combat prowess. A rogue should be largely more effective sneaking within city walls than sneaking on a prairie (that always bugged me).

While I agree 100% with this, was it really something that needed to be addressed? I kind of thought this sort of behavior was, you know, expected. Everyone knows they should be civil, some just don't care, and I doubt starting a thread telling them to is going to change that. It's unfortunate, but no amount of patronizing can stop the internet from being the internet. Edit: Smiley face for positive inflection.