TRX850

Sounds like scrapheap challenge lol Well, given that there's been some discussion on background feats, if there was an option to choose "Armourer" or "Bladesmith" or "Fletcher" or "Jeweller", then I'd like an opportunity to repair Plate Mail, Greatswords, Composite Long Bows, and Gold Necklaces and sell them for a profit. This game is begging for something like this.

This is the real crux of the issue, and I think you hit the nail on the head. Rather than removing the thrill/benefit of instant XP from combat, more opportunities to make the array of other skills more useful/profitable should be the approach.

I like the idea of quests that involve mining ore or other smelt-able metals. Either for a local manufacturer or for your own stronghold. Pickaxes and shovels all round, sir. And graveyard quests. Definitely graveyard quests.

Because there's something very special about that "Spear and Jackson No. 45 Round Mouth with D Handle +1" the first time you use it.

I think there's something exceptional about the type of player the IE games attract. Namely, we are in fact patient when it comes to immersive RPGs. I'd imagine most players wouldn't find it anywhere near as fun if their goal was to play the game in the shortest time possible. Some might after a few playthroughs, but generally, I get the feeling that we're all more than happy to spend extra time adventuring in this type of world.

If we can potentially end up with a whole cart-load of broken (read "repairable") items, then I'd also like the opportunity to own or rent storage space in the nearest town so that I can store all my stuff while I work out how to pay for the repairs and then sell the items on.

There also needs to be a clear distinction between the term "combat" and "combat strategy". The latter is the cornerstone of IE games. An exciting combat encounter will have all the hallmarks of good combat strategy. One that usually involves many different play styles, tactics, spell combos, sneak attacks, summoning, turning, raging, singing, and a raft of special talents. Since they're expending so much time and effort on the new combat system, I damn well want some XP rewards from combat. Not in 30 minutes time after I've marched back to a slippery car-salesman-like gnome who was too lazy to do it himself. ....grrr....I'm off to bake a cake.

"Some players aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some players just want to watch the world burn."

Without any sarcasm or insincerity, I ask, as long as the game provides a super wonderful awesome gaming experience (which I believe it will), why does it matter so much that players can choose to run around like mice in a maze, AS WELL AS enjoy a super wonderful awesome gaming experience? If they want to, let them. That's about half a million in dev funds saved, right there.

There seems to be a lot of obsessing about traps and locks in this discussion. It's not merely the trap or lock that's the focus, but what lies beyond them. A trap can guard against access to other areas. A lock can guard against a player receiving a bonus item. I think this was discussed in one form or another a few times. And the thing about a player gaining an "advantage" really does seem irrelevant in a single player game. If it's a sudden, huge advantage out of kilter with the game, then fair enough. But gaining small advantages over a period of time is a legitimate style of play. It may seem pointless to some, but you could argue that viewpoint about every single play style that isn't considered favourable or "normal" because there really is no such thing as normal play style.

Even overlords have been known to change their minds. But, I will ultimately get behind whatever system is put forth I suppose.

Isn't that "refining" kill XP though? Even if only a little? I think "specific critters" needs to be expanded upon and worked into the equation more in that case.

If you combine the Thug background feat with Extortion you do gain a bonus to your intimidate check. It uses STR or INT, whichever is highest. So you can "puff up" and flex your muscles, or look them in the eye and use words as weapons. It's an abstract form of confidence and/or bravado. I also thought about scaling with either level or how successful the die roll was, but it seemed to be a bit too exploitative at higher levels. Marching around villages and extorting 30gp from some stable boy seemed a bit much. The idea came from the discussion that gold and loot might be a scarce commodity in P:E, but I think that ended with a resounding "let's wait and see" answer.

I was nearly going to suggest that perhaps in certain cases, where double-dipping would tear a hole in the fabric of space-time, that an enemy's CR was set to 0, overriding its real value. Although, even this smacks of a workaround.

IE games have always had a combination of quest XP and kill XP. Instead of removing one or the other, can't we "refine" both? I believe this is what PrimeJunta, myself, and others were onto yesterday. Edit: It's like quests can now receive a "glancing blow".

All good points Alexjh. I had various reasons at the time to describe them the way I did. They're certainly not meant to be considered absolute, and as always are open to scrutiny. Some were inspired by comments from other threads, and a need to address the background feats option. Mixing and matching is also desirable. I just put the thug prerequisite in to demonstrate that it could be a feat chain, but with a few caveats could indeed be omni-class talents.

I prefer the old way, not simply because that's the way it's always been done (in IE games anyway). I'm all for considering change if the innovation doesn't nerf my enjoyment. From reading posts in this thread and others, there are partial solutions that appear to come close to solving the issue, but then we are promptly reminded of the potentially endless and staggering number of ways a player can break (intentionally or unintentionally) the XP mechanic. Most players, whether they realize it or not, think only of their characters' development, and don't particularly have any loyalty to quest-givers beyond the fact they provide opportunities to gain more XP and build their characters up even further. It may not be the popular view, but I think character development tends to trump story development.

One of the things we've only touched on is the party changing their preferred tactics on the fly as conditions change. It may ultimately have no bearing on exploitative behaviour, but as we've discovered, you should never underestimate the whimsy or stubbornness of players. It's the reason there are so many excellent Solo/Roleplay/Powergaming "Let's Play" series' on YouTube for games like BG/IWD/NWN and a zillion others. People play for their own reasons, and each playthrough is different. I personally like the roleplay/discovery style on the first playthrough, and then over the course of a year or two, I may work my way up to powergaming and optimize the living bejesus out of every decision I make. Then play solo. Then apply mods if they are available. And when I want a dose of nostalgia, I'll reinstall everything and go vanilla. Sometimes I find myself shouting at the LP video (well, not literally) demanding they go back and pick up the gems they so blatantly left behind, or those magic arrows, or not to bother killing that peasant because their reputation will drop. It drives me nuts. Then the next day, I'm ok with it, and I continue watching the LP. Because ultimately, it's a great adventure, and the micromanagement and tedium of some tasks is always always always outweighed by an immersive, timeless classic.

XP for cow-tipping? I'd like to see the animation for that, if nothing else.

There wouldn't be anything "random" to a rule which states you get XP for killing actively hostile enemies, and none for a cheap shot at a guard who was not actively hostile. If their selection circle is red, and they're coming at you, then it's a clear opportunity for an XP kill. If their selection circle is not red, and you want to stab a merchant in the face because he questioned your mother's marital status, then it's clearly not worth kill XP. Remember, fighters and fightery types kill. It's what they do. It's what they train to do. They prepare for it. They yearn for it. They welcome it. They revel in it. Denying them kill XP as they progress through a quest, is akin to undermining their usefulness. The fact that they *might* get an equivalent amount of XP after completing a quest has, if anything, a demotivating aspect to it. Another analogy: If my employer promised to pay my salary YEARLY, and I reluctantly agreed, I'd spend the whole year grumpy and second-guessing their intentions, even if their intentions were good. In a game world, this comes down to player expectation. If they receive naff all XP during a standard game session, the entertainment value would diminish. Whereas if you rewarded them for what they're good at, at regular intervals, it keeps the sense of progress alive.

Maybe there should be an "XP decision tree" that awards XP for defeating hostile enemies, but less, or none, if you attacked a neutral person/creature first? i.e. if they were not presenting themselves as a "combat threat" then killing someone who was unprepared for combat doesn't count towards XP. This might solve the degenerative issue of completing a quest via non-violent means then going back and killing everything for extra XP. ????

Anybody want some cake? There's plenty to go around.

>> I wear such nice shiny jackboots and want to force everybody to play My Way. I'm sensing deja vu here...

All good responses here. It's one of those prickly subjects that requires a certain amount of abstraction, a little bit of realism, and a large dose of common sense. No one would expect a warrior type to smash a chest with an axe and assume the contents to remain intact, therefore they would (almost) never do that. But they could try "breaking the lock", which is controlling your strength very carefully, some might say there's an element of dexterity and/or intelligence to this. But breaking a lock is different to picking a lock. If there was a system designed that allowed non-rogue types (or indeed, all character types) to attempt this option, and as long as the calculations used did not fly in the face of an equivalent level rogue, then there's still the chance of success or failure, regardless of how many HP the lock/chest has. Because if you can't break a lock by being careful, then we're back into rage-smashing territory. Realistically, a fireball or acid storm would probably destroy or severely damage a chest. But chest-loot in RPGs represents a reward for overcoming the owner of that loot. It's an abstract concept. So if you destroy it via normal encounter/combat means, you're only going to aggro players who now feel they've been duped, and they may just reload until they win the battle and keep their loot intact. Maybe a solution is to take the spell focus-point into consideration. A fireball centered on an enemy will cause damage to that enemy and all enemies in range. But because it was not centered on the chest, even though the chest may also in range, it is immune to those spell effects. This leaves open the last resort option of smashing the chest full on. If you can't or don't want to break the lock, you can take a risk. Whack it with your axe or hammer, or choose a spell and aim it directly at the chest. Either way, there's a risk of destroying the contents. And with regards to the "Knock" spell, perhaps it needs to be changed from auto-success to a success-or-failure outcome depending on the spellcaster's level, again using values that don't undermine the usefulness of rogues, while giving non-rogue classes a sensible option. (The "Find Traps" spell should use the same success-or-failure logic. I beleive it already does).

>> Amazing, full bodied, facial hair. http://www.moviebrainrot.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/31-blessed-415.jpg We definitely need Brian Blessed types in P:E.