Iucounu

Not when the creature has bones like steel.

I'd describe wisdom simply as the ability to see the "broader picture". But of course, a definition like the one from Lephys, where it's about using knowledge, would give you more possibilities of using a wisdom stat in a game, and provides a finer or clearer distinction between intelligence and wisdom.

I would be glad if some of my companions would do most of the looting, automatically after every fight, they should collect all the stuff from the corpses that are lying around. And when the items in the inventory are well sorted, I really have no problem with looting at all. Also don't give a crap about limited inventory. It should also be possible to select several items at once, to transfer them into some sort of stock or to another companion.

bla

I don't really see the connection here I think he means that if the AI is scripted, you know what the opponent is going to do during the second playthrough, so the difficulty levels is not as high. Therefore Soloing is simpler, ..but not necessarily simple enough. Take for instance the final fight in TOB against Amelysan, and try to win it with a single fighter on normal difficulty. Well ok, you might be able to beat her with an archer, by constantly running away and shooting at her. But I consider that broken gameplay too. Heck, you can even beat Ascension with that tactic. I don't really see the connection here The whole point of a multi-class is to have a character that is able to handle different situations, in my opinion. What do you do if you play a Solo-Fighter and you encounter an enemy that is immune to physical attacks? However, I don't think or believe that would be a problem for a PE Solo-Fighter. I hope every class has some sort of ability to use some sort of trademark magic. The Fighter's magic library might just not be as large or even near potent as a Wizard's magic library and potent (IF the system works in any way like this). Will the tools be available for my character to handle different situations? I believe/hope there will be (that's just speculation). In that sense, overcoming the AI shouldn't be too hard in theory, if one abides to the rules and takes logical tactical & strategic decision-making into account. I'm with you there, but I think it's also a question of raw power differences. If you take the final fight, a single level 12 character must be able to beat the opponents that were first and foremost designed to fight a group of perhaps six level 10 characters. This requires a system that allows an experienced player to make a build that far exceeds the power of a build an unexperienced player can come up with. I'm all for that, but I think it will be hard in P:E, considering there is no such a thing as multiclassing, so you're more limited in your builds.

I don't really see the connection here

The level-scaling will be only subtle though (for god's sake), so you might still get advantages if you're higher level. But I think you'll get less experience for weaker opponents, wich counteracts the whole thing a bit. But be that as it may, I don't think soloing will be possible at all on normal difficulty. In Baldur's Gate, it was only possible because of broken gameplay (like in BG 1 invisibility), and the powerful mage class in BG 2 and TOB. But P:E will have more balanced classes and builds, and there probably won't be much room for cheesing either.

Some people

Don't understand how people get the idea that magic is everything uncommon. For a definition of what magic actually is, look up Wikipedia: Putting the gaming, fantasy and show-magic context aside, the definition we are looking for would be: Have fun with that.

Well, the NWN games, both one and two, were a bit overcloaked for my taste. Everyone of my party was wearing a cloak from an early stage. I think as soon as you introduce magical cloaks with bonuses, you have the same problem as with helmets: You either wear them and gain bonouses, or you don't wear them lose bonuses. In both cases it changes your visuals, and if it doesn't, like when you're wearing a helmet but it isn't showed, it feels akward. By the way, I don't mean to imply that I have any problem with helmets. And I also have no problem with the possibility to wear cloaks, but I guess tastes differ how excessively they are built in.

Yeah, that would be a real application for trap setting and stuff. And in some way, it's a ressource itself, when you really need it on high difficulty modes. I'm also against food. Carrying firewood is probably also a bit too much, but if the party happens to travel through some sort of ice desert, it would make sense. Something like Rope Trick would definitely be cool.

You could make it challenging to find a good restspot at all. If you decide to rest at some place that is not hidden enough, the spawning monsters/enemies could be overwhelming, more or less the half force of the whole dungeon or whatever, coming for you while you're fatigued, hunting you out of the dungeon, if you're not surrounded already, because somebody hasn't done his job right. There could be expendable ressources as well, e.g firewood for camping out in the cold, that determine how refreshing the rest is, so you can eventually rest up to full health and zero fatigue without returning to the main camp, but only for a very expensive price. If you have a longer journey, where you're often ambushed, this could bite back, so it adds to the overall strategical challenge. Also, firecircles for protection against predators and monsters when sleeping somewhere in the forest, perhaps even magical shielding, which would require more than one spellcaster to establish. In some cases there could be larger encampments nearby, when you're travelling with some mercanaries, other adventurers or when you're escorting merchants. Naturally, it would be saver to rest in this cases, even if you're ambushed by a large force. Also, powerful magic scrolls like ropetrick in D&D that allow you to rest in dangerous places without being discovered (as long as your enemies aren't using scrying magic).

Signed. Perhaps take chess for combat mechanics then, and play a game of chess against the computer for every confrontation. The Endboss would have around 1600 Elo on normal, and 2000 Elo on Iron Man. Brilliant.

It doesn't need to be totally realistic, does it? Know it's not the actual topic, but I don't think that no HP -> totally realistic system. Of course when you go from general HP to more specific values and states, it's harder to find a system where you can keep the 'suspension of disbelief' when you try to realize more spectecular combat. But who is to say you can't find some sort of balance? Although I have to admit that I rather thought of an single-player action rpg myself. I'm not so much into pure numerical stuff, when thinking about game systems.

Orb of fatalism Artifact, that "stores" a timeframe of any length, and than creates some sort of time warp. All damage and spelleffects that have been taken in the stored timeframe, are taken again by all people in a certain range of the artifact.

Perhaps it's also a question, how complex you want your game to be. But I think it's possible to simulate 'action movie physics' or the element of supernatural abilities without hitpoints. Or at least much less hitpoint dependent than in current games.

The problem are not deathspells, but excessively randombased deathspells. Power Word Kill is basically just a damagespell, the only difference being that it does nothing if the victim has a certain amount of hitpoints left. Nothing wrong with such spells, even if you want to have more deterministic mechanics. What I would like to have in P:E is more contitional, circumstantial deathspells or deathcurses. In the way of: preparationspell or curse can be cast under certain conditions, then if the victim behaves in a certain way, it instantly dies, or a deathspell can be cast that makes it instantly die. Rough example: "locking" away a certain spell from an enemy mage, by cursing him while he casts the spell, for instance, arcane veil. If the wizard casts arcane veil a second time to protect himself, he instantly dies, or a deathspell can be cast that kills him immediately. The more general the conditions, the more powerful the deathspell. This concept can be extended on other sorts of spells as well. So they are more dependant on what people are actually doing on the battlefield, instead of only statbased or randombased.

This is especially a great idea for action games, but I would very much like to see it implemented in P:E too. What you are suggesting is basically to do without hitpoints, and go with more concrete, less abstract things to make combat more interesting. I think that in the end, that's where the future of RPG's is, and the only reason hitpoints are still in use, is that developers haven't come up with enough good things to make up for it.

Does anybody actually know a game with a "gamey" set of attributes, with no real dump stats? And with 5 or more attributes?

I wouldn't compare skills like lock picking and trap disarming to actual combat. They play only a minor role in games, and are something the player doesn't want to concern himself with too much. Combat on the other hand, is a major element of the game. While I don't mind some insta-death dice rolling, I wouldn't say there aren't better ways to deal with deathspells. Although it also depends how much power you give the element of chance in your game. Obviously, Obsidian wants things to be more deterministic.

In Night of the Raven, you had trouble to even get one attribute above 100 without whole lot of magical supplements. What you could adapt, is that attributes became more and more expensive, the higher they were. I think at 120 in a attribute you had to spend six learning points/attribute point, while at the beginning the ratio was 1/1. This is how it should be imo: In the beginning, very fast progress, at the end, very slow (at least when it comes to attributes). This also kind of emulates the border of what is achieveable for a human being in a very elegant way. The magical supplements, alchemical potions and stuff, to even have a chance against regular orcs was something I found very cool. Though for a party rpg, it's probably a bit too much.

Different feats/skills that make use of attributes in different ways are a good way (only way?) to solve this. The whole D&D 3.0/3.5 games had plenty of that stuff. Like intelligence for defense, wisdom for defense, charisma for damage etc.

Actually, imo an attribute that affects casting speed would be quite cool. Even though it might make things much harder to balance. I don't know any game that implemented something like that. What your system fails to accomplish imo, is to differentiate the strong clumsy type, from the small speedy type. So I think another attribute wouldn't be bad, or build it somehow else in. Flexibility sounds good, but a heavyweighted type can have it just as a lightweighted type. Don't like wisdom to affect your ability to aim at vulnerable parts much, that's rather something I'd associate with somthing like cunning, but I guess wisdom is ok if you interpret it that way. Other stuff sound all good, if it's not the only factor that affects the respective ability.

Hell, two pages of posts within only 2 days. Those were the days I guess. I alway liked the idea that the actual attributes wouldn't be the is-state of your character, but would more or less define the potential that a character has and what maximum he can reach through natural ways of training. But the is-state attributes could grow with each level then, nothing against that. There are fast muscles and more resilient muscles though, so I think it's legit to abstract the whole thing into kind of strength and flexibility/mobility/dexterity/speed/whatever. Maybe if you're not so strong and use a two-handed hammer, it should slow you down. But just because you are strong enough to wield a heavy hammer, shouldn't mean that you have a higher natural speed then say, someone who can only fight with daggers due to low strength.

Just cut out all those crappy lamer classes that are fighting with a stick and go for magic all the way! No seriously, I think I like this approach It ensures that magical spells remain largely a mage thing, but some non-magic character builds with highly specialised and unique abilities can develop magical abilities due to their soulpower, which enriches the range of possible builds. So doesn't break too much with "lotr tradition" in this genre, that you need to have pure figher classes. Although who is to say that you can't make a good game otherwise