.jpg.ce846aae50e732dc4985eb712252381f.jpg)
Somna
-
Posts
263 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Somna
-
-
I'm not even sure if undead would even fit into the Eternity world. Then again, It may be that the first group of skeletons you run into are really a lich and its huecuva servants.
-
Wait, blast doest actually damage the target, just stuff around the target? What if there is only one mook, you have to aim the blast at the ground near them?
Or target someone in melee with it.
-
@Lephys: From what you've described, are you looking for something like what Pathfinder did to races?
Basically, you have the default "vanilla" traits, but there's a listing of alternate traits you can swap in to customize the character. For example, an Elf character could have Woodcraft (+1/+2 bonus to Knowledge (Nature) and Survival), Silent Hunter (reduce Stealth penalty and can use Stealth while running) or Envoy (minor SLAs if your Int is 11 or above) instead of Elven Magic (+2 SR checks, +2 Spellcraft checks). It also gives Favored Classes an alternate option on level up besides the +1 HP or skill point.
You can't modify the stat changes like that though.
Edit: Adjusted link to jump to more appropriate section of that page.
-
What if you could pre-cast certain spells on ammunition so that the effect was delivered via your ranged weapon?
You could bless crossbow bolts in NWN to insta-kill Rakshasas, but I would suggest there should be some limit to the number of arrows/bolts/stones affected to keep it balanced.
So, obvious contenders for this would be spells like fireball, dispel magic, slow, silence etc. The question is, how high a level should be allowed? Things could very quickly become unbalanced if you could imbue a quiver of arrows with Wail of the Banshee or Horrid Wilting. Then again, if the game were to go into epic levels, it's something to consider.
What sort of spells would you like to attach to your ranged weapon ammunition?
See Pathfinder's take on Arcane Archer. Especially the Imbue Arrow option. It's really not that huge of a deal imbuing ammunition the way it does it.
-
I mean, whats the difference between a man and a bear to a mad brawler? Bears a better challenge!
Good question. I'm just trying to think of how Barbarians and Fighters might have subtle but poignant differences when it comes to combat knowledge. You could argue that fighters are trained to fight, by and large, against other fighters of the same racial type. In most cases anyway.
I suppose a Barbarian could also learn to fight against their own type, but at some point, whether through trials of adulthood or whatever, will have to fight against beasts also. And I'm really just making this up on the fly here, I haven't had time to think this through just yet. This is a fantasy world and I'm thinking in terms of distinguishing class features that give an advantage over another class.
So to answer your question, maybe their favoured enemy could be expanded to "Man and Beast". Which would preclude creatures like undead, constructs, and all other magical or unnatural denizens of the world.
Remember, history and logic aside (????), we're trying to decide how the Barbarian is *different* to the base fighter class, and other fighter sub-types like Ranger and Paladin for that matter.
Edit:
Meaning that if we apply history and logic too much, we might find that fighters and barbarians have almost no difference, which is a rather inconvenient answer.
Barbarians could simply be masters of improvised fighting. That is, they can still use any weapon a Fighter can use, but their specialty is in using what's available, figuring out how to use it effectively very quickly, and doing so. If there are penalties for Improvised Fighting, they should be bonuses for the Barbarian instead.
-
They could possibly implement a spell-writing mechanic for a sequel. I'm not sure it's needed for this release.
Considering it before the first game is finished makes it easier to mesh if they think it's a good idea though.
It would be an excellent casting style for the Cipher, for example.
-
A spell-writing mechanic for high level wizards could be fun. Obviously to limit the hassle of implementing something like this, you could limit the levels of the design and be given a certain number of "points" assigned to various sections of the spell. You could have break it up where they would design whether or not the spell was a passive spell like a buff, a defensive spell, or an attack spell. From there you could decide its various effects an invest your "points" into either the power of the spell and its damage, or how many turns the buff/defensive ability lasts. You could also determine range for the spell whether or not you want it to be limited to yourself or a party buff, or be an AoE type attack. You could choose from basic spell types already in your book and mix/match. Like a paralyzing poison spell, etc. Duration, Damage/Power and Range would all subtract from the allotted point system.
If... that makes sense. I think if executed properly it would limit players so their spells weren't overpowered and would be more like combining or altering existing spells rather than creating entirely new effects, meaning that it wouldn't be TOO much of a pain for devs.
I know I'd love to be able to do "assemble your own spell" kind of magic, but a lot of games seem to shy away from them.
The only ones I can think of that are close to this are the Words of Power variant spellcasting for Pathfinder and an old Playstation game called Kartia, The Word of Fate, which basically took it to 11 and made it so that spells, items and a lot of your army was created by the runic (i.e. Kanji, given the game origin) magic system.
-
Several classes had the Thief 'Hide' ability in AD&D, though; hence the use of the generic term 'Rogue', which is used as a category of classes in AD&D. Nondetection was also quite necessary for hiding in AD&D... In 3.Xe, hiding effectively is spread throughout many many abilities all over the game (which was true to a lesser extent in AD&D), beyond the move silently and hide skills, which are in quite a few classes. Things useful for hiding are Mind Blank, Darkstalker, Camouflage, a lead-lined cloak, being an incorporeal undead, having Hide in Plain Sight, Nondetection, etc. etc.
Hmm, only AD&D class other than Thief that might have Hide in Shadows that I can think of is Bard, which is, as you imply, also a Rogue. What else was there? Ranger? I know Clerics and Wizards definitely did not, unless it was a non-weapon proficiency?
Non-Detection, lead-lined cloak and so forth shouldn't be needed if there's no reason for them to look at you in the first place, but Hide/Stealth is not working as intended in 3.0+ settings as written anyway if this thread can be believed. (Edit: Whether you believe the guy or not, I did find it entertaining though!)
-
Now to wait the several years and see if the core question of this version is "What does one life matter? … and does it matter at all?"
-
[...]
In other words only a rogue should be able to "hide in the shadows" (like in D&D) and complete feats that require a large amount a dexterity, so that the borders between classes are not too loose in regards to stealth abilities. This is supposed to class based game after all.I would say that if anyone should be able to sneak to some degree, then anyone should be able to achieve some degree of greater concealment within shadows (unless, of course, the thing they're hiding from possess infrared senses, like some snakes and such.) I was actually under the impression, for what it's worth, that in at least one of the editions of D&D's ruleset, all classes had access to the "hide in shadows" ability. Or, if they didn't, they could still literally hide in shadows, and "hide in shadows" was simply the name given to the Rogue's superior ability to hide almost anywhere (and it was just implied that he always found the best shadows... naming style, really).
[...]
AD&D, rogues were the only class able to actually hide using their class ability. Everyone else depended on Invisibility.
3.0 is where the general "Hide" skill came in, and high level Rangers and Shadowdancers became better at hiding than equivalent Rogues due to their "Hide in Plain Sight" ability. Rogues were simply more likely to succeed with their "Skill Mastery" ability if they chose to use Hide as one of their Skill Mastery skills. So in a sense, they actually took most of the stealth superiority away from Rogues and gave it to anyone who chose to specialize in it.
-
No one ever played Vampire: Bloodlines - The Masquerade? I'm assuming exp will work in a similar way in Eternity, and I don't mind at all. I don't see what the problem is? They'll offer different ways to solve quests but want to give similar exp to different solutions. Let's not pretend that a lot of gamers don't powergame and go for the option that gives most exp. Not because it is the solution they actually want from a story perspective, but just to get the most exp out of the system. Let's say your about to make your way into a fortress. You either engage the guards and gain entrance. This grants you objective exp. But maybe another player wants to sneak in through a hidden back entrance. He'll also gain objective xp. I don't see what the problem is. I wouldn't automatically avoid combat just for gaining exp from the other option. If I make a character that can handle himself well in a fight, I will try to force my way through.
There really isn't a problem. It's just a "Ew, DIFFERENT" reaction that people can have to something Pen and Paper campaigns can do all the time.
-
Oh, ok. So you're going to punish players who make pacifist choices, because they will receive less cash and loot to sell.
No. Awarding loot is not systemic.
So loot is uncommon or what? In other words it is quest based and not quest and combat based? Which means that mobs only drop weapons and armor?
And what if someone sells all of the armor and weapons he finds on mobs? How will you try to balance out a pacifist's disadvantage in this case?
You sound like you really need to read (or re-read) the information they've already released. That would probably trim half of your questions before you even post them.
Here's Marceror's thread stalking compliation on Sorcerer's Net. He also includes sources for things mentioned on other gaming sites/reddit/etc:
-
This isn't such a crazy idea. Slow motion has actually been a staple of certain real-time strategy titles for a very long time.
P:E was not billed as a RTS on kickstarter. I feel quite secure in saying 99% (margin of error: 1%,) of the people donating were not donating to see a RTS game result.
I agree. ...However, that pause-start-pause-start-pause-start did annoy me on some fights at times--especially ones with lots of things on the screen--so I can see a point in the slow-motion option at times.
But this is the exact reason why you DONT want slow motion.
You have lots of stuff going on within the screen you don't want to be having to rush orders, potentially missing stuff because when you queued of your first cast and moved on to the second/third and then fourth member of your team to do something then you completely missed the fact that your first player has now cast said spell and/or died.
It's going to depend on the lots of stuff too though. Also, pause-unpause ad nauseum waiting for stuff to get to the right distance can get very annoying.
-
I had forgotten about DA. It could be interesting if Grimoires could also act like a mini Spell Sequencer for buffs. If you're using temporary buffs in it, however, it's might be too powerful if it removed the need to actually cast them -- especially if it's a lot of buffs.
I don't mean spell sequencers, where you "pre-cast" them so that a chain of spells all trigger at once, although that would be cool if we could develop that too.
I just mean having a UI button (or three) that you can assign a sequence of buff spells to, with specific order and target location, so that when you start reaching higher levels, and your spell pool increases, so does (often) your preference for buffing yourself with everything you have right before a battle.
So instead of buffing your party manually, which gets tedious if you're having to do the same long sequence many times over, you just assign your preferences to a list and click once, and it tries to resolve it for you, while you relax for a moment and ready yourself for battle.
We'd probably have to see how the buffs work for that thought. If they're always-on passives anyway, it may be a moot issue.
-
I don't think you necessarily need such a thing in a CRPG - the merit of it in a turn based tabletop game is clear because its a more chess like experience, so setting up you character to be reactive when something happens is a useful thing, but in a game where everything is happening simultaniously, it might be better to just have optional AI settings for party members you aren't directly controlling at the time, or indeed, just manually get a character to do whatever it is needs done - something you can't really do in tabletop games.
Readied actions would end up being a kind of optional AI settings, actually, since things like standard and move actions aren't going to translate well. The only limitation is that you can only ready against one situation at a time, however.
I know it's not exactly the same as what you're describing, but it's pertinent:
(From Update #36)
-
Reversal - Reversal prepares the rogue for the next melee attack against him or her. When it hits, the rogue takes reduced damage and instantly rolls to the opposite side of the target and executes a powerful melee attack. This will even allow rogues to move past enemies that are fully blocking a path.
It isn't, but I think I understand why you are bringing it up -- it's because it's an ability that also tries to counter things, right?
If there are some stock buffs that I use, I think having them readied so they automatically go up during combat can be quite useful.
This touches on one of the (few) things I liked about dragon age, where you had "tactics" slots so you could program your party to act semi-independently.
I've been thinking a lot about programmable buffs recently. There may be certain battles or areas in which you want to pre-buff your party or yourself multiple times, or with different buff chains, so having a Buff1, Buff2, Buff3 option in the UI could remove a lot of hassle. Provided you have the correct spells in your current spell pool when choosing which buff chain. And if you didn't have one or more of them prepared, then maybe it could just skip those and cast whatever remains in the list at the time.
So Buff1 could be:
Bless
Bull's Strength
Haste
Buff2 could be:
Mirror Image
Shield
Summon Monster II
...and so on. I don't know what would be a reasonable limit to the number of spells in each chain. There's no real advantage or disadvantage to having as many as you like, as long as they are available to you. When you "program" them, you might have to also select where you want it cast. On the caster, center on the party, the party leader, in front of the party, etc.
I had forgotten about DA. It could be interesting if Grimoires could also act like a mini Spell Sequencer for buffs. If you're using temporary buffs in it, however, it's might be too powerful if it removed the need to actually cast them -- especially if it's a lot of buffs.
-
Reversal - Reversal prepares the rogue for the next melee attack against him or her. When it hits, the rogue takes reduced damage and instantly rolls to the opposite side of the target and executes a powerful melee attack. This will even allow rogues to move past enemies that are fully blocking a path.
-
This isn't such a crazy idea. Slow motion has actually been a staple of certain real-time strategy titles for a very long time.
P:E was not billed as a RTS on kickstarter. I feel quite secure in saying 99% (margin of error: 1%,) of the people donating were not donating to see a RTS game result.
I agree. ...However, that pause-start-pause-start-pause-start did annoy me on some fights at times--especially ones with lots of things on the screen--so I can see a point in the slow-motion option at times.
-
[...]
But why should I engage in combat with Orks if they only drop crap loot (if at all) and I am not rewarded with XP either? If there is no point in doing something then I personally will not do it either. I'll just kill what is in the way and forget the rest.
[...]
I'm quite sure this is exactly what they want you to do, instead of killing every thing that moves (and some things that don't) along the way to milk as much XP out of it as possible.
-
I know the IE games had options where you could pause if a certain situation happens, so it's definitely not a stretch to think something like Readied Actions could be built in.
Readied Actions (in case someone isn't familiar with the term) are from 3rd Edition D&D (and onwards) when you spend a significant part of your character's turn preparing to react to an action -- for example, readying an action to attack the first opponent who tries to cast a spell, or readying an action to move around a corner if someone takes out a bow.
I could easily see a party readying actions to scatter from a central point in the party formation when someone not in the party starts spellcasting.
The catch is that the ones readying would be moving around at half speed. (So someone readying an action and moving quietly would be moving at 1/4 speed.)
It's potentially open ended and obviously useful to some degree, but it's also how some automated stuff work as well (like the Gambit system in one of the later Final Fantasy games), so it could potentially get to the point where the game is playing itself if it got out of hand. Other than that concern, anyone have any thoughts?
-
Besides the normal skill progression, I like to think that at higher levels a fighter becomes increasingly proficient at fighting while surrounded. To push that further, perhaps a "Guard your back" ability that helps protects adjacent allies from backstabbing? Kind of like extending your shield in Star Trek.
Fighting while surrounded is a good point. In the early SSI game "Pool of Radiance" and its successors, a fighter learned to "Sweep" while surrounded. It was a bit like the current Cleave ability but it basically attacked all adjacent enemies regardless of whether you felled the previous one or not. So a tactic was to allow yourself to become surrounded for that very reason.
I think it may have only triggered if the level difference between the fighter and the enemy in question was above a certain value though, so a 4th level fighter could Sweep a 360° circle of say, goblins, or skeletons. And it really sped up battles when there were 6 party members and 60 enemies all trying to surround you.
I remember that. It never showed up at high levels in Pools of Darkness though. :/ I'd hazard a guess that iit only really happened if you could potentially one shot the target, which just does not happen in the later versions.
-
More Friends, More Benefits. I'm not against in-game romance in general, but I want to play a game, not build a harem.
-
Hell, my first CRPG wasn't based on D&D, the mechanics were made specifically for computers. (Might & Magic II) Additionally, what I've seen of the D&D books made in the last decade makes me seriously doubt they were anything but carefully considered, and were rushed out the door. That said, I still don't see why one thing or another shouldn't be discussed here.
D&D has been on a decline ever since TSR was bought out. Quite sad.
3.0 and 3.5 were still popular enough for Pathfinder to get spun out when 4.0 got shoved out the door, at least.
-
I wonder why no developer ever tried to implement treasure hunting in terms of actually letting the player find wealth in a form of coin-filled chests.
Ultima Online had awesome treasure chests like this.
In fact it had an awesome treasure hunting system overall.
I don't remember anything about UO anymore except the need to constantly cut down trees.
Could you elaborate?
-
I only skimmed the last 10 pages so maybe this was already addressed. Arent they already removing kill experience so people cant "degeneratively gain experience"? With that mechanic in effect the developers should know exactly what the party level will be at any given location and adjust the encounter accordingly. Now a second contived mechanic is required to ensure the first contrived mechanic is working?
They are putting forth the possibility of making the main encounters scale to the expected party level range to accomdate people who like to go side-questing.
Most of the 10 pages is ad hominem attacks and sniping about what level scaling is and isn't, so you really didn't miss much by skimming.
-
If currency was made harder to acquire and therefore less common, why not include it in encumbrance calculations? Now before you shriek "God, no! This is one of those abstract mechanics we've grown to love and depend on!", what if it allowed you to be more strategic with how and when you cashed in your loot?
Say you looted a dungeon and came up with some cool items and a bag of gems. In regular RPGs, you'd trek to the nearest "Ye Olde Adventuring Shoppe" and exchange all your loot for gold, right? What if in P:E it just meant you carried that bag of gems around with you and only cashed in what you needed when you needed it? The value-to-weight ratio of a bag of gems would be far superior to a metric shed-load of gold.
I know where you're coming from on that, but it's moot with the inventory system they have already thrown out as an example. Where it could get interesting, however, is if there's multiple currencies that are being kept track of. We know there is going to be two big cities, so you can have two different currencies just off of that. Dungeon delving and killing stuff from a different age can produce its own currency as well. Currency in one area doesn't necessarily convert to an equivalent currency in another area, especially if the two areas are not on friendly terms, and depending on what background activity is going on in game, could cause events to happen for the party.
For example, if the party went to clean out an elven burial site and spent the money found there in an elven area, that could cause a bounty to be placed on the party by the elves after a couple of days to be brought in for questioning...dead or alive. Or spending money from one city at the other city when they are not on friendly terms could result in the party being contacted by the local thieves guild for possible jobs.
If they put in spending/buying caps in locations, given that the party can get a stronghold, what might be really interesting is if you can put found items to use gearing up your stronghold people instead. Found a bounty of Fortified Plate Mail that no one can afford to buy? Equip some of your stronghold soldiers with them instead, so they have a higher survivability.
-
2
-
Skeletons and Zombies
in Pillars of Eternity: Stories (Spoiler Warning!)
Posted
That depends; think we can cap the thread? >_>