Jump to content

Sacred_Path

Members
  • Posts

    1328
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Sacred_Path

  1. Fallout style point-buy with racial mins and max'. This way, while it's possible to create an Auamaua who's stronger than any other character, it's not needlessly pushing you in that direction. You can still have Auamauas with mediocre strength, you just can't exploit it as a dump stat as much as, say, an Orlan could. This and racial traits for me, thanks.
  2. That's quite valid for humanoid opponents, but what if you're fighting giant beetles, who have heavy armor? You're not going to be able to visually identify them by their shiny steel plate armor. So, the game's probably going to have to include some kind of mouse-over info, or an icon beside a healthbar indicating armor type. If that's the case, then it doesn't really matter, in the grand scheme of things, if the humanoids appear to be wearing the correct armor or not, since you'll still know. I was of course only referring to beings that wear armor in the conventional sense. Most animals will count as unarmored I'd guess, while the few animals that are packed in an equivalent of plate are gimmicks/ stuff for the player to experiment until you realize that armor-breaking weapons are the way to go here. No hovering menu necessary IMO.
  3. Of course this involves some meta-gamey LARPing on my part. If I get companions that show extremely one-dimensional behaviour I just assume they have their reasons. Why is Montaron a self-serving murderous little halfling? Don't know, don't care, extreme personal experience or indoctrination would be possible. While it would probably increase my immersion if Monty himself offered some insight on why he is the way he is, I don't need him to act out his inner conflicts (if he has any). That's more LARPing on my part though; as fantasy worlds tend to be monster-filled and war-torn, I assume this drives people into more extreme philosophies as they offer, ostensibly, more sense of stability and security.
  4. That would be an argument for basing combat skills on both STR and DEX though, or on STR respectively DEX for different weapons. Which would be ok IMO and would allow for some variety. When I said "realistic" I assumed DEX to be the only stat that controlled reflexes and coordination though, and I don't think anyone would have much success in combat without either. Though that has to do with survivability as well.
  5. It depends on the character though. Let me cite Keldorn again; if for example a character belongs to a faction that is generally narrow-minded and enforces this behaviour in its members, there's no reason why your companion shouldn't conform to it. Characters that try hard to go against the grain are mostly a PITA. That's why I said characters should be grounded in the world they lived in before they met you, rather than standing out at all costs.
  6. That's the very reason why I cited swordfighting (but any fighting that involves blades really). I doubt that a human could compensate for an extreme lack of agility on the battlefield by simply being stronger. Of course, non-human races could be so tough that their lack of reactions is made up for by strength, but I think the Auamaua (prime suspects here) aren't that different in size.
  7. It would mean you probably wouldn't see a fighter character with low Dex (Agi, w/e). While that may be somewhat realistic (how many able swordsmen are clumsy and slow?) it would limit character building more than I'd like. What I would have liked to see is a non-combat, non-magic use for Int such as determining skill points. But that won't happen I think
  8. Unfortunately (?) in P:E though, you might want to send someone different to deal with a swordsman or a halberdier due to armor penetration issues. Of course that is even more true for different armor on enemies. Therefore it's very important to know what your enemy's armor and weapon are mechanically.
  9. I do suppose that you mean the character would be mechanically different if he wears different armor or a different weapon? OtherwiseI think this would just draw even more attention to the aforementioned problem (loot). "Gee, a gnoll with a greataxe instead of a spear! I wonder if he'll drop strawberries instead of a diaper".
  10. A final stage that can only be solved by violence. You almost had it right, Fallout
  11. Instead of making characters memorable/ likeable I'd argue for them to be "rooted" in the game world. Take Minsc in BG1; he has a purpose of his own in the game, but still he sticks out like a sore thumb. The whole Rashemen theme wasn't implemented very well and seemed strange to people not steeped in Forgotten Realms lore. His miniature giant space hamster and powergaming stats just increased that perception of him as an oddball choice. A well-done example is Keldorn in BG2. He convincingly ties into the world and is aligned with a faction, he has a residence and his personal troubles are bound well into the gameplay. So instead of making all characters "stand out" like Minsc did by adding contrived details (not every companion should have a hamster/ parrot/ peg leg and eye patch) make them more convincing by making the player feel that this really is a character who had a life of his own before they met the PC.
  12. What makes a character likeable and memorable is so subjective. I remember a certain psychotic necromancer and his murdering halfling friend who to me were much more welcomed company than a certain female fighter/ druid. Therefore, I'd clearly advocate for companions in P:E to be as diverse as possible, ensuring that everyone will find some of them likeable and some not. If you can't bring yourself to include one of them in your party that is ok, because: 1) there's still the Adventurer's Hall 2) you're probably not a powergamer, therefore there's no fault in you just taking those characters you like. If you are a PG and still can't for the life of you include that ranger companion that your party setup lacks, see 1)
  13. I'm waiting for the first update that tells us what magic in general is in this world, and spellcasting mechanics/ example spells. There will be so much **** flying around but it will also be met with much enthusiasm. edit: but character development and stealth are on my list too.
  14. People get colds in SoCal, and no amount of Wisconsin cheese can protect them? Then we are all doomed. Hope you all enjoyed your holidays!
  15. Thinking about it... I'm sure you didn't refer to Arcanum's seamless world maps when putting "Arcanum"? I don't think anyone ever ran from Shrouded Hills to Tarant w/o using fast travel.
  16. Full control is almost always better. Not only is the AI too poor usually, but it's just as bad if your companions make decisions that you didn't anticipate. If my character start sneaking or using an item correctly in a situaton where I'm like "Gee! I'd never thought of that", then the game plays itself. I also can't quite understand how it's more fun if they follow an auto-level scheme rather than you spending skill points manually. The only thing I don't have a problem with is if they stay within their starting class and you can't change that. No "influence" mini-games that you have to powergame your way through if you want this character to assume a specific class.
  17. There's a difference between "it's possible" and "it's viable" though. Playing without a healer was like running a race while shooting yourself in the foot. Hopefully in P:E there will be no such imbalance in regards to classes. This is somewhat related to the above. While hacking/ healing/ hacking wasn't always the best strategy, it was enough of a strategy for large parts of the game.
  18. I'd take the ol' "Path of Light vs. Path of Darkness" over forgettable minor branches any day. Luckily, there are possibilities in between. I'd love to get involved with PE's religious factions. That would offer some easily recognizable moral decisions for players who want that (altruistic cults vs. fascist-militaristic vs. economically thinking), while at the same time offering some streaks of grey (the cult that cares for the sick and poor is still questing for power, while the fascists are still more morally sound than monsters, bandits and necromancers).
  19. I voted for SoZ. Arcanum's travel is basically only an even more abstract and less interactive/ eventful version of SoZ's map. Games without random encounters tend to have ridiculous (because solely stationary) encounters. Nothing makes the world feel more artificial than knowing exactly when and where you will meet what enemies, then making time to have an appointment with them at your sweet leisure. If I had the choice I would have voted for Realms of Arkania's overland map. The sadly failed Thorvalla promised to have this. SoZ is pretty close to that though, in that your character's non-combat skills are tested while travelling.
  20. For all 3 of these cases I think it's not inappropriate to say you slash around wildly, therefore not inflicting a full hit (and full damage) but you can graze part of an enemy's body, thereby inflicting a fraction of damage. Same goes for the swift fairy someone mentioned ITT.
  21. I think the ultimate test that occurs in a CRPG isn't just how skilled/ shrewd a player is, but how well a character or party of characters perform in a given situation if used to their (preferrably) fullest effect. This is only to some degree influenced by chance (although too much randomness can obfuscate the results). If you want to put more emphasis on the player's strategy, that's fine, although I'm not sure I'd like to see chess translated 1:1 to a CRPG; say you're pre-determined/ very limited in your setup and both sides can only take the exact same measures, so it's all down to player strategy. Ideally I want to be able to take on fundamentally different characters, perceive their performance and failures if used in a certain way, then compare them to a different set of characters that I've built using prior experience. tl; dr I've liked the IE games but their new approach sounds interesting too.
  22. For me personally nothing is gained by very short pause or no pause, except honing your twitch skills. Especially the placing of spells is a PITA in real time. A slider could appeal to some people, but then I'd say you can always enforce short pauses yourself (much like I'd play with no reloads even if there was no Ironman mode).
  23. The first clear statement I read said that healing magic will be rare. Then someone said there would be none at all. Current stance seems to be that it's rare. So I'm building on that when I'm saying that you'll want to be very careful with your health potions and possible rare spells. How is that system inferior to IE style DnD games? Where you could tag "cast healing spells on rest" and then just spam that rest button, considering that even a lvl 1 cleric or druid could cast healing spells? The only thing it accomplished was forcing you to include at least one of either class in your party (= no brainer).
  24. I hope that stats will figure in less heavily compared to weapon damage, but that's just my preference. My point was I could imagine the following: complete misses, yes. Glancing misses, yes (should happen most of the time). Full hits, yes (should inflict non-trivial damage, replaces crit hits).
  25. About DT: as long as a fighter in plate armor can't die from a thousand papercuts, I'm fine. One other thing Josh, in your example you mentioned the classic longsword doing 6-12 damage. This allows for quite some randomness already, where 6 dmg might represent the slicing of a forearm, while 12 might be a serious hit to the abdomen. I think that's a bit at odds with the further reduced damage of a glancing miss. Instead, why not make glancing misses more common, but damage on a full hit less trivial (say 10-14, 1/3 damage on a glance) ?
×
×
  • Create New...