Jump to content
The Community Blog (An Invitation)

TRX850

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    632

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

 Content Type 

Everything posted by TRX850

  1. TRX850
    Short answer: the greater the threat, the more unfair life is.
  2. TRX850
    yeah, my 3 int Barbarian should totally sound as sophisticated as my 20 int Wizard! Try playing NWN with a 3 int, then you'll see what I mean. Constantly reading dumbed down conversation text is immersion-breaking and frustrating. It's one of those areas where logic doesn't work.
  3. TRX850
    Hell yes!
  4. TRX850
    Psychometabolic Powers Absorb Arrows - Per Encounter - The Cipher ignores all base damage from a number of "missiles" equal to his/her character level. Bonus damage and elemental damage is still applied.
  5. TRX850
    Hassat, with respect, you sound like a man whose faith has been questioned. I'm not here to rattle anyone. I'm not here to be an arse. I've demonstrated through rational and lateral thinking that with some of the new concepts that OE are bringing to the table, that they can address these hotly contested topics. I'm a problem solver, not a sh!te stirrer. If you've read my other threads, you'd know that. I'm an advocate for player choice. I'm old enough and bitter enough to see when choice is compromised via broad, sweeping comments. Don't jump on a bandwagon that is unproven or easy. That way lies folly. I spent twelve years as an IT professional, which ultimately means they paid me to test and break software. It's what I'm good at. It's what I look for. And reading these threads, I'm reading between the lines, putting the words into vision. Visualising the end product. Producing suggestions that encompass all play styles, and not just the lawful good ones. Do I like playing the good guy? Yes. I do. But I also play Devil's Advocate and champion the arsehole. Because sometimes, we learn something about ourselves when we make different choices. Sometimes we learn something about ourselves when we're honest, and not bullied by political correctness. <-- why on earth would you want to be yourself in a game world that promotes escapism? Why would you waste that opportunity? Ok, I've finished my rant now. You don't have to answer me, just answer yourself. And please, read through all of these comments. You will see we are actually on the same page. Have a good day, sir.
  6. TRX850
    Thankyou for using the word "nor" correctly. Just.....thankyou.
  7. TRX850
    <scratches head> This is a formula for an "Encounter Challenge Rating" rather than a single enemy challenge rating? You could expand on that, adding in so many more combat factors, like archers being a threat to you, but you're unable to be a threat to them, and so on. Gets rather knotty. The previous discussion was about whether it's fair to fight a single enemy for a long duration and not come away with any xp. As opposed to fighting many enemies over a long duration and gaining xp per individual kill. By the way, I searched the forums for "Challenge Rating" and realized there were quite a few older topics on quest-only-xp vs combat xp vs degenerate behaviour. It still seems to me that the latter situation can so easily be addressed by making the reputation system an integral part of a player's choice to slaughter everything, including examples of completing a quest "peacefully" then returning and killing everything. Also, with the introduction of Souls. Either have your Soul betray you for behaviour that willfully goes against quest-giver agreements (i.e. slaughtering them and all their kin), or have a "You can do what you like, but remember, God is watching" approach, which guilts a player into staying within their good/evil (and all variations thereof) chosen play style. If they handle "degenerate behaviour" this way, it allows for total choice of play style. Otherwise, they're just penalizing evil play style, which I thought we were trying to avoid this time around?
  8. TRX850
    It's not simply precedent. It's because you've "eliminated a threat". What we're really talking about here is the scale of the threat. A greater reward for a greater threat (which inevitably takes longer to overcome). As you kill your way through those 20 orcs, you're gradually reducing the threat as you go, so the duration can't be compared to the time it takes to battle a dragon. It's a series of much smaller threats spread out over a long duration. Which is not the same as battling a much higher threat for a long duration. Hence the greater xp reward for defeating the dragon. Edit: IOW: Challenge Rating needs to be taken into consideration.
  9. TRX850
    Is it possible we need to look at "Encounter Challenge Rating" as opposed to individual "Enemy Challenge Rating" ? Is that the question you're asking?
  10. TRX850
    1 x Dragon = 1 enemy. 20 x Orcs = 20 enemies. You must defeat 100% of a single dragon to gain kill xp. You must defeat 100% of a single orc to gain kill xp. If there are 20 orcs, this rule applies to each of them. There are no special cases. Dragons have a much higher CR and therefore a much higher xp reward. Orcs have a lower CR and therefore a lower xp reward. What am I missing?
  11. TRX850
    I understand the dilemma. But kill xp only comes from defeating 100% of a single, individual enemy. It's how the D&D game mechanic has always worked. Single powerful enemies would most likely be handled as boss level encounters though. The Guardian in IWD2 for example. And it's why there are CR stats that reflect the xp reward differently when fighting easy and difficult enemies. Unless they invent a system that determines partial xp for a partial single enemy engagement, you'll still have to defeat 100% of that individual enemy. Edit: Partial xp for a single enemy, where you kept leaving and returning to the fight would definitely look like an exploit though, assuming both parties involved were able to restart the battle fully rested.
  12. TRX850
    If it was part of a larger quest, then presumably you'd come back to complete that quest, and reap all the rewards available (loot, xp, intel, story advancement and so forth). If you didn't come back, you wouldn't receive those rewards. And if it was part of the main quest, then I'm guessing you'd be in limbo until you completed it and unlocked the next chapter.
  13. TRX850
    Running away from a fight in an IE game might seem like an odd thing to some players. Personally, I prefer to finish what I started, and treat each encounter like a transaction, because unfinished business is always messy. But if you were halfway through a fight and it suddenly turned bad, you could flee back the way you came, and attempt to rest at camp or go back to town. Either way, the previous battle is unfinished, at least in terms of its design purpose. Now, my question is: is it more reasonable to allow a party to flee from battle and try again later, albeit with fewer enemies, than to reload when things go bad? When you flee from battle, regroup, and reappraise the situation, it demonstrates an applied strategy and that the party/player has learned something. Whereas reloading is always the easy way out. The real problem we're discussing here is whether or not the party had a legitimate reason to flee, heal and return, or were attempting to exploit the game somehow. And logically, every battle the party does win will inevitably become easier towards the end of that battle as enemy numbers dwindle. Does the party suddenly have an unfair advantage because they're winning the fight?
  14. TRX850
    If P:E was set in the Forgotten Realms, there could be an army general who yells "THIS -- IS -- YARTAR!" (Ok, I'll just get my weasel and stoat...Jeez).
  15. TRX850
    Some bagpipe trivia, from the movie Braveheart. Despite the film being set in Scotland, and based on the life of a Scottish folk hero, the primary instrument heard throughout the soundtrack (most notably at William's father's funeral) are the Uilleann pipes, which are a smaller traditionally Irish version of bagpipes rather than the ubiquitous Great Highland Bagpipe. I've heard other films have done this too, because they preferred the warmer, richer sound of the Irish pipes.
  16. TRX850
    Mockney Rhyming Slang in the seedier parts of town could add some colour too. Maybe you have to locate a tome to translate some of the stranger rhymes? "Hold up, Guv. I'll get me weasel and stoat." (coat).
  17. TRX850
    Maybe because in the previous examples in this thread, people thought there would always be a combat/stealth/diplomatic solution to every encounter/task, which is unrealistic. Some fights you have to fight. Some areas, you're better off being sneaky. Sometimes, words can solve problems. Just not all at the same time.
  18. TRX850
    That's what I'd like to know. (see link)
  19. TRX850
    After reading and contributing to some of the other threads, I actually wouldn't mind the option to level up either at camp or in town. But I would like to know mid-quest/mid-battle that I have enough xp to then go on and do that at the earliest opportunity if I want. But by withholding xp during a quest, it seems to limit choice when it comes to character development, in this example, levelling up. It's still a case of swings and roundabouts. But this new system seems to limit *when* you can level up, which suggests having less choice.
  20. TRX850
    It shouldn't matter where the xp comes from. It was just that that example was a combat example. If you were 100 xp away from levelling up, and you managed to use stealth or diplomacy or some other non-combat method of achieving something worth experience, then why should you have to complete the whole side quest (or a sub-section of it) to gain a large chunk of xp that would take you well over the 100 xp you needed to go up a level? Why not break it up into smaller intervals, like the old way, so your character can level up *during* the quest, and not after it? And I don't want to kill everything I meet. I don't know why that keeps coming up. Maybe because kill xp is usually a known quantity, whereas other types of xp awards are at the whim of the devs and not known until you actually do it. My point is, quests are fine, because it's what we're doing for 90% of the game, but we ultimately do the quests so we can develop our characters. I'm not sure I know any RPGers that play RPGs who aren't interested in character development.
  21. TRX850
    I just meant if you are close to levelling up, say 100 xp away, it seems a bit iffy to "do a whole lot more stuff to complete the current quest" so you can get a big chunk of xp that awards say 1000 xp in one go. Why not just do it the old way, and gain smaller increments as you go? It gives the player the perception that they have more control over their character development, because as I mentioned further back, your characters are what you're really attached to in the game. And the story/quests themselves tend to come second. It's not a case of having a narrow view. It's a case of recognising that character development is the product of adventuring.
  22. TRX850
    Past Life - Temporarily bestow an enemy with the AI/scripting behaviour of a different class. - Wizards engage you in melee. Fighters stay back and "chant". One might say the Cipher has accessed the enemy's soul.
  23. TRX850
    Are we talking about Ciphers or Roleplayers in general?
  24. TRX850
    It's actually not a bad idea. It takes care of "random forks" from the main bolt path, effectively allowing the odd ~5ft jump either side as it continues (roughly) in a straight line. Statistical damage has always scaled with fireball, 1d6 per caster level (capped at 10d6), but in IE games it was almost always less useful because it was carried over from the PnP days where enemies aligned to a grid. So back then, you could take advantage of casting lightning bolt down a hallway for example, because everyone conveniently lined up for that round. Now with free-form AI that tends to "cluster", the old school advantage is lost. So, uh, yay to random forks!
  25. TRX850
    Maybe then, instead of damage in the traditional sense, a mundane weapon that was used enough was downgraded from normal (sharp) to blunt, and that's as far as it can be damaged. So you then need a whetstone or honing stone to return it to normal status. Blunt could be simply a -1 damage penalty, which would incentivize players to keep their weapons maintained. You could have masterwork variations too, so if blunted it effectively operates as a normal weapon. And would this still apply to magic weapons? Adjusting damage output only. Not magic property output. I'm not sure if you can "blunt" or "dull" armour though. This is where it gets fiddly.
×
×
  • Create New...