J. Trudel

My experience with DA:O was somewhat different, my bowman was a really good asset against enemies mages. One more important fact about real life, swords are a one-hit-kill, wait a minute here... almost any weapon is a one hit kill. Some weapons are designed to hurt or defend with non-lethal damge, but the vast majority of them are very lethal. You don't have to be a hunter of grizzly bear to know that fact. But P:E doesn't aim for realistic combat (I don't think I'm wrong with this statement). So I don't know why bows should try to mimic real life while swords are not. If you're wearing armor, most sword strikes are not one-hit/one-kill. There is plenty of evidence in the historical record to show that men survived multiple weapon impacts over the course of a battle, whereas an arrow in any part of the torso was pretty much guaranteed to kill you. Barbed heads could ruin muscle tissue and cause massive internal bleeding. The discriminating factor here would be armor, and the type of arrow being used. But in the case of the former, arrows still fared pretty well against most armors except for the heaviest of steel plates, which would not become popular until the 14th century and still not available to most ordinary soldiers. Com on guys, you should be reading more historical records and give references : Lets see how arrows performed against a ''lowly'' mail There are many contemporary accounts that demonstrate the effectiveness of mail against arrows. During the Siege of Amida (359 AD), Ammianus Marcellinus described Roman archers attacking the Persians: The Persian infantry found it hard to avoid the arrows shot from the walls by the artillery, and took open order and since almost no kind of dart failed to find its mark, even the mail-clad horsemen were checked and gave ground1 During the 3rd Crusade, Bahā'al-Dīn, Saladin's biographer, wrote that the Norman crusaders were: ...drawn up in front of the cavalry, stood firm as a wall, and every foot-soldier wore a vest of thick felt and a coat of mail so dense and strong that our arrows made no impression on them... I saw some with from one to ten arrows sticking in them, and still advancing at their ordinary pace without leaving the ranks.2 Odo of Deuil wrote about King Louis VII in an engagement during the 2nd Crusade. After losing his bodyguard he was forced to flee the enemy by scaling a rock face: The enemy climbed after, in order to capture him, and the more distant rabble shot arrows at him. But by the will of God his armour3 protected him from the arrows.4 So please, when you state some '' historical facts'' know what you talk about, other may end up spreading ignorance. Armour did offer protection against many weapons, including ranged weaponry. An armour may not be ''proof'' against all, but did it offer some protection ? The answer is a most definitive yes. 1 Ammianus Marcellinus, The Siege of Amida, Bk 1, Ch VII. Trans. J. Rolfe (London: 1935) 2 Bahā'al-Dīn, "The Life of Saladin" (Ch. CXVII), in What Befell Sultan Yusuf, by Abu el-Mehasan Yusef ibn-Rafi ibn-Temun el-Asadi 3 Berry actually uses the word cuirass in her translation but in the original latin the word is lorica which more accurately translates simply as "armour." A mail hauberk is the most likely form of armour worn by Louis, not a plate cuirass 4 Odo of Deuil, The Journey of Louis VII to the East, (Bk 6). trans. V.G. Berry, (New York: Columbia University Press. 1948)

My experience with DA:O was somewhat different, my bowman was a really good asset against enemies mages. One more important fact about real life, swords are a one-hit-kill, wait a minute here... almost any weapon is a one hit kill. Some weapons are designed to hurt or defend with non-lethal damge, but the vast majority of them are very lethal. You don't have to be a hunter of grizzly bear to know that fact. But P:E doesn't aim for realistic combat (I don't think I'm wrong with this statement). So I don't know why bows should try to mimic real life while swords are not.

Your design idea has a major flaw, you can't design an unarmored character with low hp that is hard to hit yet can menage to survive on the battlefield because of cunning and exceptional evasion skills. This means that having a tougher armor and more hp is the only choice. This is somewhat way more limiting than having two factors that reduce the damage intake : Evasion, and Armor. It give players more freedom about designing their character and it add another layer to tactical gameplay. Heavy weaponry is best used against heavy armored because of low evasion, and lighter weaponry is best against lightly armored character who are harder to hit.

Just one small thing, it would be awesome to see another option than goodbye to break the dialog. Maybe something like : 4. ''I was just passing by, I'll let you know if I need anything, for now I'll just hang around.'' Osmaer - ''No problems traveller, I'll be there if you need me. Have a good day !'' I always thought conversations were closing in a strange way in most cRPG.

How do you think every cRPG handle their hit and damage ? I f you can find any another way than some ''randomness'' tell me okay.

IIRC the plan was for there to be a cooldown on each spell level (NOT on each spell), similar to the Recharge Magic variant from Unearthed Arcana, with the cooldown decreasing as you went up in level. Then at some point they dumped this system and replaced it with a standard spells/day system, for some reason. If I had a system to make, I would do an unlimited casting system. In my view of Wizards, casting is a skill (but it's not my game nor my world so I accept any views). Spell of a high-power beign somewhat risky to cast, this way a Wizard might just have the perfect spell, where the risk are well worth the effects. Sometimes the risks may as well be helpfull in some situations.

I have no problems with situations like this IF and ONLY IF the game has a decent way to retreat and then come back later and better prepared. In fact, this is something missing in most game. Some encounters should be failed, that is when you run and think about an alternative, sneaking past that invincible golem, making him fall to his death in a trap you disarmed sooner in the dungeon. Endless possibilities, if many encounters happenend in a similar fashion,

I don't know if it's true book bashing or just a term used to describe the unleash of raw magical energy emaning from your source of power (in this case a book) to smash your enemies. I hope it's the later.

Wands ? Who uses wands anyway, Harry Potter ? I would like to see staff used for a Wizard (wands are for sissies ) that would enhance his spell casting in the same way a Warrior weild a sword to enhance his fighting prowess. The idea about the added effects is great ! Some swords may actually have a similar effect. For the magic system, I think that low power spells should have unlimited uses and higher power spells should be limited. As you grow in levels, higher power spells could gradually become unlimited.

Like I said, english isn't my first language so I may as well not have explained myself in a very clear way.

I have to tell you Lephys, I do like the discussions we have, you share some good insights and thinking. We may have different views on some subjects but it always lead to some good. Most of the time I do think our different views are more of a ''it's hard to explain everything'' than actual so much different opinions.

That's a bit hard to explain he he, English not being my first language doesn't help either But well... the fraction is more of a way to plan the damage ranges and overall power of the players than an actual fraction. For example if you have around 100 hp, I expect someone of a similar power level to do around 6 - 8 damage when he hit you with a graze and maybe 9 - 12 with a standard hit. Not very important anyway he he

This is a very good idea, and maybe someday you can learn the recipe from a goblin shaman you managed to capture and torture until he tells you. Of course you had to hire someone who does speak gobelin beforehand.

Would you really still feel like you are managing your battles if 5 of the 6 characters were just executing a script (even if you made that script) ? If yes, why not write a script for all 6 characters ? In fact, I would love that, as long as I keep control just in case something go wrong. I'd feel like a general having well planed his battle. But yes to answer your question I would still feel like managing my party. But that's me, I understand this style of play isn't for everyone. In fact I see it a bit like this. You plan the battles ahead so your soldiers know the baselines of how to react, but then, in the middle of the fight, you shout some orders at your soldiers because well... battles are chaotic and not everything may go as planned. Of course, I prefer still fully playing my main character, a bit like a general who wants to be on the front line.

I said that I didn't cared about how they want to make the battles menageables for 6 characters. If they can think of a way, thats fine with me ! A good AI that you can customize to your exact needs combined with a quick way to adapt or do special things might do the trick. Of course, nothing beat the pause system for now but I do have an open mind. What I mean, Is that it's not the pause system I want. It's control over the battlefield. If I have that, I don't care about how it's done. For example : I played DA:O on the hardest difficulty never pausing the entire game (unless I really had to pee), switching characters only to adapt to situations. I agree that this was an easy game, but anyhow. This was menageable enough to control 4 characters with no pause. That's cause DAO was a shallow RPG, try and play BG or IWD without pausing and see how you fare Played both games, but you have to admit that the NPC AI is almost absent. If you could program your allies to protect one another, to have your cleric cast heal when a character is low on health or buff and debuff when you fight a harder battle or have your mage cast miscast magic or dispel magic on ennemy spellcaster. It may have been possible. I don't say one or the other system is better, and I don't care as long as I can menage my battles.

I said that I didn't cared about how they want to make the battles menageables for 6 characters. If they can think of a way, thats fine with me ! A good AI that you can customize to your exact needs combined with a quick way to adapt or do special things might do the trick. Of course, nothing beat the pause system for now but I do have an open mind. What I mean, Is that it's not the pause system I want. It's control over the battlefield. If I have that, I don't care about how it's done. For example : I played DA:O on the hardest difficulty never pausing the entire game (unless I really had to pee), switching characters only to adapt to situations. I agree that this was an easy game, but anyhow. This was menageable enough to control 4 characters with no pause.

Also, I don't know how to feel about boost ''effects'', I think it's a generic and dull aproach. What I like the most are special effects, becoming invisible, flying, shape changing. A good example, you drink a potion of giant strenght, okay this may get in a few extra damage, but it also send your enemies flying a few feets in the air and fall on their back when you strike them even when they block. THIS is a true effect, it's way more interesting than say, I can attack with more precision. A potion of clairvoyance might reveal the whole map, An elixir of love might make an NPC fall in love with you (of course if you can get them to drink it). A potion of eterealness might make you pass throught a wall. Again, there are endless possibilities. Sorry for the double post. I had to share.

Wouldn't removing the pause just make the game into a hack n slash in the vein of Diablo and Titan Quest? Just with more than 1 character? You wouldn't be able to control them all so well, unless they were controlled by the AI, but that defeats the purpose of having them besides the banter. Yes, I agree that IE games had horrible combat and I also agree that we shouldn't blindly copy everything from them, but how would you suggest we remove the pause and interface without making it a hack n slash, but worse? I don't think IE games had horrible combat. And it depends on how removing the pause button would alter gameplay. It's hard to think as fast a 6 trained characters, so I guess that unless you have 6 players, the next best thing is having a pause button so you can think about how to adapt to the battlefield. The thing is, unless you can customise the AI to great depth, you can't possibly chose for example a spell on the menu as fast as your brain know you might need to use this particular spell. Hack and slash (IMHO) is not only the fact that battles are real time or not. It's the minimalist approach to character developement, npc's interactions and simpllistic (I dare to say repetitive) combat that make a game Hack n Slash. A tactical rpg on the other side is when you have more time to handle the tasks and where the choices you make really impact on how the situation unfold. Of course those are only terms we created to separate one genre from another. The truth is, nothing is exclusively one OR the other, there are many nuances. A Hack and Slash game may have a lot of npc interactions and a deep character developpement, while a tactical rpg might be real time with repetitive battles. What most important is what we want P:E to be, for me this is what I want : - A well writen story in a world interesting enough so I want to learn more about it - Detailed character customisations and classes that feel different from one another - Good 2d isometric graphics - A tactical approach to battle that make them challenging and interesting to play - A rewarding experience to explore and many things to do outside combat - A game simple to play and hard to master If I get that, I don't care about how they make the menu, or if a pause system is present or not, or even if it feels that much like an IE game.

IE game not difficult ? Am I the only one who think the last battle in Baldur's Gate : ToB was one of the hardest battle I ever had ? I agree that most RPG today are WAY to easy, but IMHO IE games with the core rules settings were just perfect. Unless you re rolled 100 times your char and made sure you gained full HP every levels. And, this or using the console to cheat is not much different.

I have mixed feelings about consumables, most of the time I end up never using them and packing them in my stock just in case. One cool and different way to do them for a change would be to make them unique so you can't get the same effect from anything else. Of course to make that even more fun, you should be able to craft them, let's think of them as a magic effect you need to prepare. Since there is a cost (ingredients) the effects should last longer than conventional spells. I think that if consumables exists, it should be something of it's own nature. As much different as Wizard magic is from Cleric.

It depends, I don't think sneaking should be so different. Sneaking is an action, as much as an attack is an action. How the chances of success are handled is what makes this action different. Sneaking is affected by distance, gear, sight etc. While attacking is affected by ground, position, defnse etc. On that 1/15th, 1/10th and 1/5th on the damge thing, I gave this example for characters of a similar level of skill and of course similar weapon vs armor values. If for exemple your char have a light armor and your opponent have a heavy weapon, you would receive more damage (but on the other hand you might as well be a bit better a dodging). Also 1/15th of damage is not irrevelent at all. Think of this situation, you face 6 critters that have a very hard time to hit you, but they keep beign able to hit you with grazes hit. Since your armor is better than their weapons they only do about 1/20th damage per graze.On the other hand you are able to kill 1 of them per round. Let's see how it goes : On the first round 5 of them hit (graze) you while you kill one. Your life is (15/20), next round you kill another and get hit 4 times (life 11/20). Next round you kill another but one does a critical for 3 points and you get grazed by 2 other (life 6/20th). Another round and you get hit two times while dispatching another critter (life 4/20th). You behead another critter while geting hit by a normal hit that does 2 points (life 2/20) The last critter lose moral and flee, you are somewhat happy because a lucky shot just before your attack would have meant your end. It's not that difficult to add or remove situational modifier in combat. For example, if you are cornered, you lose half your dodge bonus, if you are more agressive, you may be able to hit more frequently, at the cost of receiving more damage if you get hit. The possibilities are endless, as long as you make the game engine capable of seeying theses situations. Just a quick example, in Shadowrun returns, when you are close to an object, it provide cover in that direction so you are harder to hit. This cover does not apply if your opponent get a clean sight. A similar system could be use in close quarters. When you are close to an object you may get penalities on your dodge bonus if your opponent attack you from the opposite side because you don't have the possibility to back off. In the log, it would be fun to see the calc like this : its an exampe so I put random numbers. Char1 : attack Enemy1 (Attack 7 + Weapon 2 + situation 0) - (Deflect 8 + Dodge 2 + Situation 1) = Ratio -2 Roll 39% : Graze 8 Dmg

In a fight you are always trying to parry, evade and deflect attacks. This is why I wouldn't want a separate system for parrying, it's silly to think that your character doesn't want to evade all attacks. I do for this reason prefer I higher miss chance, it's way more realistic. I think that one out of 2 attacks should miss, a graze should take out maybe around 1/15th of your HP while a hit would take something around 1/10th and a critical around 1/5th. What that would means in terms of gameplay, is that an encounter between two characters of the same skill level (ajusted by armors vs dmg of course) would take between 15 to 20 attacks on each side to resolve. If an attack is around 1,2 seconds (not a bad lenght for an attack animation) a fight should last somewhere near 20 seconds. It's personal preferences I know, but a hit ratio of 95 % (even when 45 % of them are graze) means your defense is very bad. If you apply the same maths to another skill, lets say sneaking. Sneak skill = Awarness. You get theses chances : 5 % - Alert 45 % - Investigation 45 % - Unaware 5 % - Unaware To me, it seems like a very low chance of alerting someone who his supossed to be as good at detecting as you are sneaking.

From what I've heard, they're going to be rewarding little or no XP for grinding in this game. Most of the XP will come from accomplishing objectives. (But you may miss out on some good loot by avoiding combat.) This makes my day ! I don't know why it hasn't been done before, I'm in favor from 100 % xp from quest only !

The problem with encounter avoidance is that you can get a major experience deficit. While it may not be game breaking, it usually means you'll have very limited fighting capabilities (as well as sneak skills) later in the game,. I remember trying to avoid all combats in Baldur's Gate, while it was mostly possible, fighting Sarevok around level 3 was impossible unless you used much cheeze. By chance I had a few wands of summoning monsters

I think dynamic shadows are the way to go, in the tech video, the shadows apear perfectly moving with the ambient light and day and night cycle. IMHO they already got it far better than your ''quick fix''