Jump to content

Vhostym

Members
  • Content Count

    4
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About Vhostym

  • Rank
    (0) Nub
  1. The problem with how KotOR2 handled alignment shifts is that, while it may have affected their appearances, what items they could use and how much Dark and Light Side force powers cost, it didn't change their personalities in the slightest. At least in BG2: Throne of Bhaal and DA:O when you converted someone to your way of thinking, it changed some of their dialogue. In DA:O, if you "hardened" Alistair, it could even have an impact on the ending. I get what you're saying, though I thought that their personalities changed as a result, may just be remembering incorrectly. What I liked about KOTOR 2 was that you had 2 companions, Kreia and the spherical droid GOTO, who tried to change you as well. Kreia in the sense that Alexjh was saying, she tries to bend you towards neutrality, and Goto who tries to change you towards a more lawful evil worldview. Also, if you got low influence with a companion they would lean in the opposite direction. Granted the game took this to extremes, where if one of my characters really hated me I could turn them into a dark jedi (if I'm good) or a light-side jedi (if I'm evil). This made no sense, but I think that if the mechanic was toned down it would be interesting. I get that there is no alignment system but as humans we always try to find absolutes and generalizations so I don't think it'd be too hard to work up a quasi-alignment system that doesn't have in-game ramifications but is used as a sounding board as to how characters view the world (or you could look at things point by point).
  2. Personally I'd like to see something loosely related to what Obsidian did with KOTOR 2. If you had high influence with a companion their alignment would be shifted towards yours. While I understand that there won't be any alignment in P:E, there will be some sort of influence system (preferably invisible) and I think that it'd be cool to have your companions begin to mimic your world views to a degree. Of course this would only work for companions who can be influenced, but in my mind Obsidian already has a handle on that especially since in KOTOR 2 you could not influence everyone, Kreia was always neutral, and the psychotic wookiee Hanrrar (or whatever his name was) was always evil.
  3. I think you could also make language a more cultural concept, like how many modern CRPGs do it. When someone speaks another language they don't speak it exclusively, but instead intersperse words of the language into their speech to emphasize certain points or use culturally relevant invective. With a higher language skill or intelligence stat the player could do this as well, giving them a cultural connection, and probably a reputation boost as well. This would show how the player is knowledgeable about the culture and would add some level of immersion. If you wanted to go overboard you could add in a mechanic where the more you interact with a culture (quests, companions or something else) the more you understand their language and can gain this quasi-fluency. Also I second Agelastos, Daggerfall was the best Elder Scrolls game, with Morrowind as a close-ish second.
  4. Firstly, I haven't read the last 5 pages of this thread so I apologize if this has already been mentioned. What strikes me as odd about the rogue is that there are only a few common ways to differentiate him from a fighter, he can either be a strong DPS or he can be a strong DOT. The OP obviously doesn't like the idea of a rogue being DPS because he/she feels that there is no reason that a fighter should not be able to do everything a rogue can. The issue I see with that view is that the only combat viable way to play a rogue (and while I recognize that in a good pnp or even computer game there would be ample opportunities for a rogue to flaunt his/her skills such a perfect situation cannot be assumed) would be to work with the concept of "bleeding wound," where the rogue darts into combat, strikes an enemy and then runs out and waits for the enemy to either die of blood loss or become weak enough that he/she can then dart back in and finish him off. While I think that this concept of rogue is both interesting and more realistic, (it would synchronize well with the poisoner archetype) at least in d&d it does not work well at all. This is because in d&d lingering damage is just too low to be viable. If P:E changes this I think that this is another way to play the rogue and while, in theory, a fighter could do the exact same thing, he would have no reason to do so thus providing the rogue with its own combat role, albeit a niche one. The problem with this is that it's difficult to make damage over time effective enough to merit its use. While you can kill an enemy with a minimal amount of risk using this tactic, it is also extremely slow and prone to being heavily overshadowed by the fighters ability to take down the enemy in two hits. Unless you can provide an AOE version of the standard DOT effect anyone capable of fighting will do something else and the rogue will still end up as an inferior fighter. On another note, I have never personally experienced a situation where the rogue ever really outshone the fighter with regards to damage (granted my experience lies solely in 3.5e so I can't comment on 2e or 4e). In general I feel that sneak attack is more of a consolation prize for the rogue. Unless he has hips or a bow he has to be in melee range to use a sneak attack and with the exception of level 1 enemies, he almost never brings them down in one blow. Unless my DM is much crueler than yours, the first thing most enemies do after the rogue sneak attacks them is turn around and attack him, so the rogue has to immediately run away. Even with a bow he has to be within 30 feet to sneak attack and so the enemy can pretty easily attack him afterwards. So while in theory a fighter would be capable of doing a sneak attack, I believe that from a game-balance perspective the rogue does not gain untoward power by possessing it while a fighter of equivalent level would gain a much larger benefit. I could support these views with numbers but this post is already pretty wordy and I don't really want to run the calculations. To conclude: d&d values damage potential, and so rogues possess sneak attack in order to allow them to play a skirmishers role in combat. Despite this they still do not generally outperform their peers (at least while reliant on sneak attacks, umd and other skills tend to be far more potent) so while realistically there is no reason for a fighter to lack sneak attack abilities, from a balance perspective the rogue class requires them (at least for inexperienced players).
×
×
  • Create New...