Odglok

Yay America! July 4th is usually a family holiday for me, but this year some of them went on vacation, so the rest of us are just enjoying the free day off work. I'm celebrating with beer and pizza for breakfast. Since it's raining where I live, I'm staying indoors, which prompts me to post my personal Top 4 July 4 Movies! Independence Day (1996) - starring Will (the actor formerly known as Fresh Prince) Smith, also starring that guy from Jurassic Park - a modernized retelling of the American Revolutionary War Braveheart (1995) - starring & directed by Australian-American actor Mel Brooks, also starring one guy from Sons of Anarchy - FREEEDOOOOMMMMMMM!!!! Rambo: First Blood (1982) - starring Sylvester Stallone - I have not personally seen this one, but I understand it to be the story of a former boxer turned psychopath who fights corruption, repression, and possibly terrorists in small town America The Godfather (1972) - starring Al Pacino, directed by Martin Scorsese - America's answer to Pride and Prejudice, this is perhaps the most iconic allegory of the American Dream, also the prequel to Goodfellas May the rest of the world have a blessed day, and thank you for sharing it (the world) with us!

Just dropping my comments in after reading the OP. While I don't see myself playing as either type of orlan, I really like the direction you're going the wilder subrace. I was very critical of the first orlan concept art revealed, but now I can see them as a people to be taken seriously. I may be in a very small minority on this feeling, and I don't mean to offend anyone, but I had been just a little fearful that orlans might become too "furry" for my taste. It was a subconscious apprehension until I read "hirsute" in the OP, which I immediately assocated with "fursuit", and it hit me. But the renders defintely evoke more wildman notion than anthromorph, and I personally like that much better. I'm very curious to know how paladins will function in the absence of alignment. I would think each paladin has a particular diety or cause that drives them, yet the possibilities seem too numerous for the team to create an extensive list for players to choose from at character creation. And I would like to think that paladins will have abilities specific to their diety or cause, so I'm not sure how this would be accomplished. I hope you're not planning on giving all paladins access to the same selection of abilities, since it would mean that playing a traditional, Lawful Good paladin would be no different than playing a Chaotic Evil death knight (at least, not in combat).

I'm glad to know there's no mana bar, so thanks for that info. I guess I still feel like spellcasting should gradually fatigue the caster, but really it's more important to go with whatever system works best in the actual game. I haven't read any of the Harry Potter books, so I may be speaking from ignorance here, but it irked me that in the movies there seemed to be no limit or consequence for spellcasting. Granted, it's a movie, so there's no real need for such mechanics. But I recall one of the few actual spells that Gandalf casts in the Lord of the Rings books (not depitcted in the movies) was when they were attempting to escape Moria. My memory is vague, but Gandalf is trying to magically shut a great door as they flee from the balrog, when suddenly the balrog uses a counterspell (or something to that effect) and Gandalf describes the spell-battle as physically exhausting. To me that just made more sense than "derp, I'm out of mana, guess I'll run away" or "oops, I've already cast all the spells I can for today, better take a nap".

Haven't read any of the replies, but just wanted to say that I like these aumaua models much more than the earlier concept art. I find myself really wanting to know more about this race and the setting in general. Good work!

Considering that two of the playable races are original, which is somewhat rare in fantasy RPGs, I think it's likely that they will create plenty of new monsters, too. But dwarves and elves means there will be plenty of familiar enemies, too.

Well, there actually are shadows at night time, so long as there is moonlight. It's mostly only noticable in the woods.

I'm honestly impressed. Beautiful. I think you hit the right balance of realistic quality and stylistic quality.

Speaking of trolls, how do you guys like your trolls to look? Seems that in most CRPGs, trolls either tend to look like D&D's version (green skin, lanky bodies, high speed & agility) or more like the Lord of the Rings movies (fat ogres). I tend to prefer the later when it's done well. Didn't like Dark Age of Camelot's trolls that looked exactly like Thing from Fantastic Four, but I do like the idea of giving them a sort of earthy affinity.

Even though underwater combat isn't a feasable concept in this type of game, I still really like aquatic/ambhipious enemies where they're appropriate. I'm also pretty fond of snakemen. Yet I've never seen a game with aquatic snakemen.

As fascinated as I am by PE's pantheon and the soul-centric nature of the game, I can't say I've been excited by either of the new races' concept art. In fact, I almost laughed at the Orlan. I hate to be critical, especially since I know I couldn't come up with a decently original humanoid race if you held a gun to my head. But I can't take this one seriously. Based on the wiki description, I assumed Orlans would have a more sinister appearance. I can only assume they're trying to evoke a rabbit vibe with the ears. While Watership Down and Donnie Darko were both chilling and unexpectedly dark, this fellow doesn't strike me as someone who is capable of having a "nasty reputation". He looks more like a boyscout. I guess his appearance could be described as more bat-like than rabbit-like, but he seems to lack the appealing mystique of bats, capturing only the aspect which categorizes them as vermin. I am super excited about the religious aspect of the game, though. In particular, I'm curious to know more about how much a priest character's choice of deity affects his/her abilities. In past D&D-based games it didn't seem to make much difference at all (alignment was more significant), but after playing Dungeon Crawl, I would truly love to see priests with wildly different abilities based on their god. And since traditional alignment isn't being used in PE, I have high hopes for that.

I've only skimmed through the thread so far, but I really just have one suggestion: limit voice acting as much as possible. For some reason the only RPGs I've played that have voice acting I could appreciate were Bethesda games, but these were also first-person and (apparently) didn't want to force the player to read a lot of dialogue. But I thought Morrowind and Fallout 3 were great in that respect (Morrowind's Dunmer are truly special in my opnion). Obviously this whole topic is extremely subjective, but I think in an isometric, pseudo-2D RPG like P:E, voice acting is best kept to a minimum. As awesome as BG2 was, I think it's vocals were straight up campy, pretty much breaking the immersion everytime an NPC spoke up. Grunts and battlecries are fine, but when it comes to whole lines of conversation in interactive dialogue, I could do without simultaneously hearing the same words I'm trying to read.

In-game economy as a whole is a bigger subject than I feel capable of tackling, but I did want to make a suggestion regarding one particular aspect, which is the issue of selling extremely valuable items. Either the player will end up with more gold than they know what to do with, or merchants don't possess enough gold to pay the player what the item is worth (which is realistic, but unrewarding). Skyrim (which I haven't personally played, but have watched others play) and Dungeon Crawl (a popular 2D freeware game) provide ways for players to "spend" valuable items they don't want/need without merchants being involved. In Skyrim, there are certain crafting tables that allow you to destroy enchanted weapons/armor, capture their magical essence, and then enchant other items (at least that's my 2nd-hand understanding of it). Dungeon Crawl doesn't even allow you to sell items, but instead many characters can sacrifice magic items to their deity (the game places a lot of emphasis on your choice of religion) in exchange for divine favor. My point isn't that P:E should do precisely either of these things. I'm just pointing out that there are ways the game can be designed to reward players for parting with valuable items without involving currency. Heck, if nothing else, there could be spells which consume weapons or pieces of armor. Why not?

Though we've focused a lot on Orcs' alignment and culture, the question of intelligence begs a bigger question: if Orcs are going to be in PE, what primary attribute bonuses/penalties do you want them to have? I'm not familiar with 4E D&D, but most computer RPGs have aimed for a balanced set of primary attribute adjustment, so that the net effect is 0. So dwarves commonly recieve a bonus to constitution and an equal penalty to charisma, for instance. We don't know for sure if PE will go with this format, but it's been standard for their past games. How do you guys see their base stats differing from humans? Personally, I see them having bonuses to strength and willpower/discipline, with penalties to intelligence and charisma. Of course, all of these stats may not even be applicable to PE (particularly charisma based on what I've read), but speculating is fun.

I can see both extremes of the spectrum being equally appealing, just depends on exactly what kind of experience the developers desire. So I think that unless Obsidian specifically wishes to limit players' control over their companions/followers, the degree of control should be a player-selected gameplay option. You should be able to toggle whether NPC level-ups are automated and have a separate option for combat AI, possibly with a slider for how liberaly they use their items, spells, and abilities. That way those who want complete control can have it, and those who want to be less hands-on with their companions can be.

While I don't disagree with anyhing you're saying, AGX-17, I think you're focusing on realism more than Obsidian is. The 3 damage type mechanic that's been described is very gamey, and the hit-and-miss system (or rather the hit-and-glance system) is utterly unrealistic. I think they're aiming for a rock-paper-scissor model of weapon & armor, not anything truly realistic. So I think it stands to reason that there would be a ranged weapon of each different damage type, or that piercing would be relegated to ranged weapons only. Having said that, I've got nothing against realism in an RPG, but I think it's clear at this point that Obsidian isn't focusing on it.

I suppose they could make it so that normal bows deal slashing, crossbows deal piercing, and firearms deal blunt.

I like it much better than D&D's armor system so far. I would like it if they restricted Piercing damage to ranged weapons only, as I kinda feel like spears and daggers would realistically function more like Slashing weapons in terms of damage type. And I don't think it's unrealistic for bows and crossbolts to function as Piercing weapons when you consider the extremely close range that combat takes place in. Makes me wonder if javelins will be useable weapons in PE...

Well, just for clarification, Sawyer said that after a character loses all their health, they enter a critically injured state or the player can "optionally" choose to be killed (except in Hardcore mode, of course). Since he didn't explain what exactly happens after a character is critically wounded, we can only speculate, but it wold apparently include... not dying. My guess is that they have to be carried back to a town or appropriate place to be revived (likely at a significant cost) and there may be high level spells that can do the same. Probably some permanent penalties for being resuscitated. Anyway, I haven't read all of this thread, but to comment on the debate about whether healers should even be a role in this kind of game, I basically agree with Lephys. I don't think it should necessarily be impossible to regenerate stamina in combat through abilities, but I don't think it should be one class's defining role. Personally, I'd like to see it possible for one or more classes to transfer stamina to allies, rather than generate it via spell with no other costs. That way, healing (stamina generation) would be more an act sacrifice than an act of magic. And the one doing the healing can't just stand around and cast healing spells all battle or he'll quickly deplete his/her own stamina and pass out. I would consider that design to be more tactical in nature than the old D&D cleric/druid healing arrangement.

Love the topic, but let's go ahead and accept that Project Eternity isn't a horror-themed game. Having gotten that out of the way, there are definitely aspects of horror settings that can be applied to isometric RPG without feeling out of place. Three in particular come to mind: 1) Quests that involve macabre or disturbing subjects. Anyone remember the tanner quest from BG2? I can't remember many details, but it started with you investigating some murders in the main city in which the victims had been skinned. Spoiler alert: 2) I would really love to see some dungeons that can't be approached in a step-by-step manner, if that makes sense. Places where you never really know whether you're safe just because you've cleared a room. New enemies could come around the corner at any time. There might be a raiding party that returns while you're still clearing the dungeon. I'm not suggesting random spawns all over the place, but your party definitely shouldn't be able to rest for 8 hours in the kitchen while a group of ogres wait patiently in the room next door, oblivious to your presence. Here I'm talking about realism more than horror. 3) It would be nice if undead were treated a little more seriously. I understand that in fantasy settings, monsters and evil races are common. But I would think walking skeletons and zombies would be considered unsettling, even if they aren't especially dangerous. I don't have much to add on this topic, I think it's worth considering.

We'll never reach a consensus on what a ranger is or should be, but I'm gonna preface my preferences with this quote: Please don't throw in a ranger class just because people expect it to be there. Make it unique; make it logical; make it fit the world of Project Eternity. Having said that, when it comes to class design, I put more emphasis on function than style. An inferior fighter who gets free dual wield, a pet, and some druid spells isn't defined enough for me. I actually like the idea of rangers being the premier archers of PE, because it gives them an actual role that isn't better filled by some other class. And it makes a ton of sense for a self-sufficient character who spends all his time outdoors. I don't have a problem with dual wield, but I don't think it should be a class-defining ability (seems more fitting for barbarians). Speaking of which, this is how I see the trifecta of traditional warrior classes: Rangers are the masters of ranged combat - stealthy, quick, evasive, lightly armored Fighters are the most heavily armored - front line tanks, waging a war of attrition Barbarians are the masters of melee damage - epitmoze the philosophy that the best defense is a good offense So while rangers could have a variety of useful and flavorful abilities that other warriors don't, their ultimate purpose in the game would be to kill enemies from a distance with non-magical damage. The more their special abilities fit this goal, the better. My two cents.

I actually really love the idea of this in a horror-themed RPG, where Will might implicitly encompass sanity. Reminds me of a game I recently called played Amnesia: The Dark Descent. It's a first-person, Lovecraftian survival horror game, which has a sanity bar in addition to health, and running out of either would end the game. How would "death" by Will loss be handled in the game? Would it be similar to death by Stamina loss, where the character becomes incapacitated until the end of the battle (if I understand the plan correctly), at which point you can revive him? Or would there be permanent consequences for reaching zero Will? I assume it would regenerate over time, like Stamina? Could it be affected by things other than spells and abilities, like maybe if a party member dies? Though I guess that could really go either way, depending on the particular character... I'd like to know more details about your system and how it might fit with Project: Eternity.

I rather like the idea of giving the monk a "magekiller" element. I'm not sure if Sacred_Path and I are on exactly the same page, but I am big on the notion that every class needs to have a clearly defined role and concept. I'm not fond of jack-of-trade classes and D&D's various hybrids. I'd like to think that a robust system would allow you to make whatever particular kind of character you want through skill/trait/specialization selection and multi-classing. I find it difficult to accept that someone who wants to play a woodsman warrior needs a specific class for that. If a ranger is just going to be a fighter with lighter armor, some outdoor-related skills, and a few druid spells, I would like to think that such a player could just start as a fighter and customize the character into what he considers to be a ranger. If not this, then at least make rangers & barbarians sub-classes of fighters. You don't need to design a class for every imaginable background, you just need classes for each basic function... I got a little sidetracked there, but back on point: part of my bias against monks is that they seem to be fighters who don't have to wear weapons or armor. Oh, and they have a wide variety of useful abilities that fighters don't. Because they're spiritual or disciplined or something. Yes, that's a unique playstyle. But it's not really a unique function or role in the game. So I like where Alexjh is going, suggesting specific combat situations in which monks can bring something to the table that no one else can. The more well defined a class's purpose, the more accepting I am of it. If the only purpose of including monks is to give people who like kung-fu movies a class to play, I can live with that, but I would be highly disappointed if they functioned just like fighters. I like the idea of monks being "above the influence" of magic, but I would expect that they couldn't benefit from it either. And fantasy setting aside, if they don't wield weapons or wear armor, I don't expect them to be able to stand on the front line of battle the way a heavily armed warrior could. But if you give them an unparalleled ability to pass through/over the front lines and get to the softer targets in the rear (casters & archers), like Alexjh suggested, then there's something they can do that others can't. In that way you're starting to define their playstyle by more than their equipment options, and I think that's a better route of class design.

Wow, good stuff! I'm pleasantly surprised to say that I found every one of these answers agreeable and encouraging! Love the way you guys are thinking.

Haven't read all the responses yet, but all the talk about Monks made me want to ask: is it really important that the class not use weapons? It just occured to me how much more believable the monk class would be if they could simply wield a weapon. Baldur's Gate 2 had a subclass called Swordmaster (I think) who was basically a fighter designed to wear little-to-no armor while wielding a sword one-handed, no shield. If the monk was designed so that you could choose an appopriate weapon to master (sword, spear, staff), and exclusively use only that weapon in addition to all your other monk abilities, I think it would be more sensible and interesting. Or... is the unarned combat aspect what makes people want to play monks in the first place? I've honestly never been much interested in them, so I may be missing the point of playing one.

Well I've read the OP and some of the responses, but not all, so forgive me if I'm being redundant. Lots of food for thought in this thread, but I'd like to focus on one particular question (which might actually be better suited in its own thread): would you prefer to have both a mana pool and a stamina pool, or just a stamina pool which spellcasting also depletes? I personally feel like the notion of mana is just too nebulous and "unrealistic" for an RPG of this sort. But at the same time, D&D's slot system doesn't satisfy either, nor does any system that limits spellcasting by attaching recharge times on individual spells, variable or not. Why can't spellcasting just use the same energy that other physical and mental exertions use? As it relates to this particular concept, I like the way Morrowind and Oblivion handle fatigue: the lower your stamina bar, the worse you perform at everything. It's most noticeable in melee combat, of course, but it also affects your casting success and persuasion/speechcraft attempts (if I'm not mistaken). The problem with these TES games is that in every combat situation, the player's stamina depletes way too rapidly. Historically, most battles lasted hours. Imagine if every ancient or medieval warrior tired to exhaustion after 90 seconds of engaging the enemy. So don't use Morrowind as an ideal model of stamina's affects on combat. More on point, instead of thinking of spells as consuming some vague resource that otherwise has no affect on the caster, think of them as draining your mental and physical energy. If a warrior swings his axe too hard and too long, he'll eventually collapse from exhaustion and possibly pass out. Likewise, a wizard who casts spells non-stop will eventually collapse. The higher level the spell is relative to the caster, the more draining it is. And your energy level affects, to some degree, your overall combat effectiveness. Thoughts?