Lephys

Fallout was kind of the same way. "We need a water chip. Now go have fun outside, *shove*". Heh. I mean, there's still such a thing as TOO dull. But, yeah, it's kind of refreshing to just be a dude in the world who has a goal, and not have fate constantly sweeping you toward epicness.

I obviously can't guarantee it, but it seems like those specs should run the final game. Pretty much every single game gets severely optimized over the course of the beta phase, so if it already runs at all on your rig, it'll probably run better by the time the game releases. Dunno if it'll be 5% better, or 50% better. But... some amount. 8P

I don't really think they should, though. Not by default, anyway. It's unnecessarily restrictive, and that's only ONE concept for magery. I don't much enjoy the notion that I've got to friggin' deploy my Mage and watch his little hooks dig into the ground way back behind everyone else, so that he can then fire big magical mortar rounds at all the enemies. And just say "Oh, but he's only got like 5, so, they should kill everything." The system already allows for lots of flexibility in spell-casting frequency, and I'd honestly much rather have the spells scale better as they become more piddly (relative to your Wizard's current level), and be able to regularly fight with magic (just like everyone else gets to regularly fight with their class stuffs), than to just arbitrarily accept that the resource MUST be as scarce as it is, and that, to compensate for that, they simply MUST produce gigantic ouchies. Honestly, I should be able to make a mage that fires off oodles of weak spells "constantly", OR one that fires off a few very powerful spells, a lot less frequently. Or any combination there-in. There's really no reason for that to not be an option. *Note: When I say "oodles" and "constantly," I still mean "a bit less often than firing arrows from a bow, etc.". Basically, on-par with other classes' abilities. Put simply, there's no reason "arcane magic" automatically equals "slow, scarce, but REALLY powerful!" There's nothing wrong with having slow, scarce, really powerful spells. But, why not take adavantage of the other possibilities as well? Another thing with the scaling (and this could even factor into Talents and the like) is that, instead of spells JUST shifting from per-rest to per-encounter, etc., they could also acquire decreased cast times. I mean, if you're level 9, and you're casting some level 1 spells, chances are you've kind of mastered them at this point. Then, that's a perfect example of all the great things you should be able to tweak about your class. Traits, talents, level-up options, what-have-you. Maybe you have an option that's "spells 2-levels-or-lower below your current level cast 30% faster." Or "spells below your current Wizard level cast more slowly, but deal 5% more damage per Wizard level." That, and we should really have lots of grimoire options. Want 7 level-1 spell slots and only 3 level-5 spell slots? Should be doable. Want 7 level-5 spell slots and only 3 level-1 spell slots? Also doable. That sort of thing. This same flexibility can be applied, conceptually, to any of the other classes, and their abilities, etc.

I know that feel, but: A) PrimeJunta isn't the type of person who eliminates the possibility of actual discussion, and B) Automatically assuming no one's actually going to discuss anything with you isn't really a justification for never giving actual discussion a shot. The only losing at forums that can possibly occur is the active inhibition of discussion. Disagreements can be productive. Even polar opposite ones. The whole point of discussion is to find out what can actually be learned on both sides, even in the midst of a disagreement. Not to determine "Oh, we didn't happen to be in perfect agreement from the start? Well, then I guess we can never talk to each other again." Basically, you're either seeking out discussion where you can find it, or you aren't. And if you aren't... well, you're not doing anyone much good, yourself included. Opinion sharing is fine, but to what end? That's the question discussion asks.

True that. Take someone who's new to D&D, and give them a party of Level 5 adventurers, then see if they're overwhelmed or not.

That's what I was trying to say. The act of picking the lock is only important because of what is gained by it. Not because it happened to be a lock, and you happened to pick it.

There's nothing at all wrong with pre-buffing, in-and-of itself. It's just a different system than one that pretty much doesn't let you do it. It's basically just a different lore. Do people in this world walk around with anti-flame forcefields for hours on end, or can they only maintain such an effect for like a minute, tops? That being said, I think the hard limit on it is a little silly. I think between simply having much shorter durations on buffs (no 1-hour-to-one-day buffs), and having most (if not all) buffs generally announce your presence when you cast them, I think that takes care of itself. You can cast spells before combat, but there's no reason the game needs to make sure you're able to stack 10 spells on everyone before you even enter combat. My issue with that is, if it's totally fine and normal to just buff the crap out of yourself before you even start any kind of conflict, then why don't buffs stack? Why not just let you already outfit your party with the protection and effects from gear, THEN have a party of 6 buffers, and just stack 6 instances of every buff on everyone before every fight? At what point is the limitation inherent to the combat/encounter system totally pointless?

HOW DID I MISS THAT?! I'm not fit to work a pun-anvil. -_____-

Really, if every instance of lockpickery/trap-disarmery is going to grant XP, I'd rather just see a full Elder-Scrolls approach, and have these things directly improve your skill. I mean, either simulate or don't. Either the act of practicing a skill grants you experience, or it doesn't. If it does, then great. Make a whole game around that. If it doesn't, then only certain things grant you XP, abstractly (like quests!). Once again, "objectives" covers it all. Not just the name/word. The actual implementation. There is no system in which the devs aren't designating certain things as objectives and not others, regardless of whether or not they ever use the word.

ZOMG! Totally an additional incentive to help people with "mundane" things! Your mindset, as the player, might be "Oh, your child is missing? I don't really care!" But, maybe that person knows about things, but is too distraught to calmly discuss anything with you or give you any information until their missing child is found (or until someone's death is avenged, etc.). Not that I'm saying quests should be mundane. I'm just referring to those things that some people's characters wouldn't really care about so much. Helping people for the sake of helping people, etc. Maybe you "help" them, but only to get them to calm the hell down so you can get info out of them. Then you say "thanks," and take all their stuff, and tell them that you lied about finding their child alive, because you're a horrible, horrible person. *shrug* YAY FOR ROLEPLAY! Haha.

Only other thing I can think of is to make engagement simply a status, instead of purely location-based. Basically, Foe A would have an engagement radius, based on whatever factors you want (however it's already done, etc.). But, simply stepping into it wouldn't trigger engagement (unless maybe that foe was idle/standing still? In which case, still, a mouse-over or something should show you where not-to-step). But, if two people were just crossing paths, they shouldn't automatically stop and engage. That doesn't make any sense, since both of their goals are destinations away from each other (i.e. "I'm running over here to heal an ally, and you're running over there to get my guy off your Wizard."). Anywho, once you're in melee engagement, you cannot move outside of the engagement radius without first disengaging. It's not a "once I cross that line, it all happens so fast!". No, it's a "Okay, I want to break engagenent, and then I'm obviously not going to stick around inside this bloody circle!" The system doesn't need to care when you cross the line, because you're never going to intentionally leave the circle while simultaneously expecting to not disengage. So, yeah, active disengagement. It's already there with the "escape" type abilities (grimoire slam, Rogue's "Escape," etc.). Why not just make that the standard? Those abilities don't warrant an AoO, but simply disengaging does. You could even still have double-click (or shift-click, or whatever click modifier you want) automatically break disengagement AND issue a move command somewhere. Except, you know the second you double-click that you'll get AoO'd, and not be worried about when you step across a cursed radius. Now, with initial engagement, I'm not really sure how to treat that one. You can't really just wait 'til someone's okay with it to let an enemy engage them. So, I think you just need to very clearly indicate when engagement is going to occur/where the engagement radii are. Another thing there is, if Foe A is currently engaged with its maximum number of targets, you no longer need to broadcast the engagement radius until it becomes disengaged, because no one needs to fear engaging with it, anyway. Another little tidbit -- there's no reason to allow engagement until an attack can actually be made. Best example: If you JUST attacked, and disengaged, you shouldn't be able to immediately engage someone else who happens to be roaming into your circle, because you still have a whole recovery bar before you can even do anything. Nothing you're doing yet warrants "engagement," since you're incapable of acting, yet. But, yeah, there definitely shouldn't be any "oops, I stepped one pixel too close to you, then immediately left your circle because I just wanted to keep running... I just got AoO'd!" It should be, "Okay, I definitely shouldn't try to get too close to that guy, lest he stop me in my tracks. If I do engage him, I'll have to manually choose to take an extra hit and flee, if I want to not stand there and fight him to death."

Kit-cats and hush-puppies, perhaps.

I thought that's what rjshae meant, too. It wasn't strictly specified, so I was simply commenting on the fact that the designer has to make sure, if you go down that road, that you make them actual trade-offs. I didn't think rjshae was asking specifically for things that didn't come with significant disadvantages.

^ True, but I don't really think hashing out backgrounds a little more would be that difficult. Changing all the places throughout the story where they affect choices/options/reactions, sure. But, just changing what they do for character creation? Not that tricky. That's like a one-time modifier for an equation. "You have the Soldier background? You now get a 20% chance your critical hits will knock people down." Boom. Done.

This is true. One good thing about it wiping everything is that you do have to weigh the loss of beneficial effects versus the elimination of harmful ones. BUT, it's a two-sided coin. On the other side, you have the fact that that weight is actually just tied to anything AOE that doesn't discriminate. I'd almost like to see a sort of "eye for an eye" dispel that needs to remove a friendly effect for every negative effect it removes. That might be cool. This is true, but that tough choice remains even without any dispel at all. You still have to choose between making fog, or hurting things with fire, or hurting multiple things with lightning, or boosting your allies, etc. That's just the nature of limited spell slots vs. a larger number of spell options. Don't get me wrong, though. I agree that a no-brainer ability like "Just remove negative effects on allies" would be boring. Or, rather, ONLY having that type of dispel would be boring. It's not really inherently boring, so much. So long as you still must select your target, and choose when to cast it, etc. That, and you can always have various levels of potency. Maybe the level of your dispel is compared to the level of the effect, and its effect lessens with larger gaps. Maybe it can remove a larger number of lower-lvl effects, and a smaller number of larger-lvl ones. Maybe it functions very interestingly. Maybe it's kind of like chain lightning, instead of just "this circle gets hit." So, if you want to hit mostly allies, you have to launch it at them while they're sort of in-line with one another. Etc. The options for making dispel interesting stretch far beyond just "does it only do good things, or does it remove all things in a radius?"

Or maybe check out upcoming game projects if you're interested in them. Ahh, the power of "or." Unless you only have one in the water... ... I'm missing something here, o_o... *be's blond*

The thing about lock XP is... it should still be that certain lockpickings grant XP, and others don't. If you find a locked chest in some monster's cave treasury, and inside it are The Sword Of Amazetasticness and 1,000cp, and you don't accomplish anything else in unlocking that chest (in relation to the story or any "quest"/situation/world conditions), then why is acquiring the stuff in that chest somehow a lackluster reward for picking ONE lock? "There's not any incentive for it... I need some XP, too. As a garnish." Now, if picking a lock gets you valuable access to the baron's castle or something, then great. If getting access to that actually achieves something beyond a success at lockpicking, then XP. On the other hand, if you get into the baron's castle via some other means, then picking that lock shouldn't get you jack crap. Unless it accomplishes an escape from that very area, perhaps. Just think about how anything was ever made a quest in the first place. Or, think about Exploration. You an explore a new 10-foot square of a grassy field, and you don't get XP. And you might think "Well, obviously... that's not a significant discovery/exploration effort." But... that's the point. If you don't filter what's actually significant, and what isn't, then what's the point? Arbitrary things grant XP at that point.

I just picked "objectives" (not really sure why it's the only one that gets quotey marks out of all the options, heh), because it covers all the bases. Killing this thing not part of any objective? All you get is non-XP rewards, potentially. Killing this other thing IS part of an objective? XP. Exploring the 10-foot space behind that farmer's barn isn't worthy of XP? Then it isn't an objective. Exploring those ruins, or this whole forest area, is? Then you get XP. That's what it all comes down to, in the end, so it's honestly a little silly to designate entire categories of things that are going to yield XP, then have to go through and weed out the exceptions. Might as well just hand-pick what grants XP and what doesn't, from the get-go, since you're already doing it.

*gasp*! I don't want to hurt poor little innocent kittens and puppies! T_T Are they infected with something, or being controlled as puppets for evil? Because then I can hurt them.

As long as the disadvantage is a definite disadvantage, and not "+ a bunch to something you're going to use on this character, but - 50 to Lockpickery." Then, you just go "LOLZ! That character wasn't ever going to pick locks, anyway. I JUST GOT A FREE BONUS!" I think that kind of goes along with their goal for stats. That way, you could actually have things like that. If your eyesight legitimately affected a definite frequently-checked factor, then bad eyesight would be a great balance to some chosen bonus. Another example would be "You do less damage, in general, but you inherently ignore 5DT worth of armor." Now, you can build that character to be a better armor-piercing character. BUT, you have to have a large enough portion of enemies in the game actually have 5 DT or more, and you can't have that character do so little damage that they can't hurt anything and are ONLY viable if all they ever fight are armored foes, etc. It's kinda hard to pick those tradeoffs, but a lot of that just relies on general game balance. Which is why it's best to kind of balance your core factors, if you can (enemies with high HP, damage values, typical armor values, bonus values, etc. -- get 'em all centered around some kind of nucleus), instead of just trying to balance this one thing against that other thing, succeeding, then trying to balance THOSE things against some other thing... Still, it's a bit of a puzzle.

I like all that a lot more than just "BEGONE, MAGIC!" dispel. Wiping everything that could possibly be beneficial to your enemies isn't a tactical choice. It's like Samuel Adams... it's always a good decision.

Not with that attitude there's not. That's like running around punching everyone you see in the face, and saying "There's no such thing as a peaceful meeting." What happened to you, archangel, to make you so cynical and bitter? Sincere question.

From a strictly lore standpoint? Maybe. It's not really clear whether or not it requires any sort of taxing effort on the Wizard's part to use the grimoire. But, I would have to assume that it does, since a Fighter or Druid can't use a Wizard's grimoire. It may not be his own soul energy fueling the spells, but it's got to at least be his own that's running the "operating system," so to speak. If not, you'd think it would function like a simple device: flip this switch, and watch it go. *shrug* @Crayfish, Another thing that I didn't see mentioned in here that's different from the old Vancian restrictions on the Wizard is that, if you can cast 5 spells per day, for example, you don't have to assign an individual spell to each slot of spell "ammo." In other words, you don't run into the "Awwww, I had 3 Magic Missiles prepped, but only 1 Ghost Sounds! I could really use some Ghost sounds right now, but I only have Magic Missiles left!" I like this. Personally, I don't much mind the very structure of the Vancian system. It simply represents fatigue/limitation, as should be present with anything. However, I do feel like it was overly restrictive. And they mainly justified that, I think, with the whole "yeah, but later on, you get to like, sneeze, and a mountain explodes, while a Fighter still has to hack things a lot to kill something, etc." And I'd much rather have consistency and be able to actually perform more than a single candle-lighting before retiring for the evening, than just put up with extreme limitations because I'll be an uber-god later. Anywho...

"Yes!" "No!" Done. Very fruitful "discussion." Everybody learn much knowledge!

@archangel, this is not about winning anything. It's about the difference between opinions and facts. The stuff we've pointed out to you is true regardless of whether or not we like it. It's like explaining how 2 and 2 add up to 4. You can't dismiss that as opinion. You can love 4, or hate 4, or want to add different numbers, etc. But 2 + 2 isn't 4 purely because someone likes that answer. Doesn't mean "HAHA! We're right and your opinion is bad!". It's simply two different things. So, when you respond with stuff about winning, it kind of suggests you're missing that distinction. We didn't invent what game design is or isn't. We're just telling you. Or, if none of that still makes any sense to you, I'd ask this simple question: At what point does a game grant sufficient freedom? When is it not cutting off someone's preferred options?