josan motierre

I'm not familiar with X-Com or Final Fantasy, so I can't comment on your other points. I like the naming summons thing, and the notion that a summon would be able to be permanent thing, but then you have the whole balancing drama you need to think about as well. The summon couldn't be as powerful and useful as another companion, unless it occupied a "Party slot". That would be interesting, but then the player would have to forgo any conversational dialogue. I can't imagine a story and conversation tree being feasible for a summon that is essentially a fully fledged companion. I doubt Obsidian has the time or the desire to do that. Therefore, the player is losing a bit of story line there. If it was as capable as a companion, but had no dialogue, then that is very easy. The penalty for using it is that is serves exactly has a companion - therefore, you're down a party member as long as it's around. It could be preferable, actually. Golems are nice and quiet, and don't backchat. But... Assuming it didn't occupy a party slot, then it would need to be balanced some other way. There are a few methods for this that are in discussion currently: It would be weaker than a companion and would have a penalty upon the summoner for using it (eg. reserved mana, time limit/duration [heaven forbid this one!], or some other means). Or, as I and Lephy prefer, the summoner himself is actually as weak and helpless thing that needs his minions around just to survive or deal damage. They are his weapons and armour, literally. Depending on its power, it could have a very real chance of turning around and killing you itself (as Mr. Magniloquent advocates)

I think that I understand your proposal better now. It is a good one. I also like how you said that the creatures do not need to be specific. With that in mind, the druid could call for aid and have a random animal (or random group of animals) come to his aid. These animals could be made more believable by making them appropriate to the region the druid casts the spell in. For example, a forest might yield a grizzly bear, giant spiders or a wolf pack whereas a desert might bring forth salamanders or giant scorpions. Perhaps you could clarify something for me: Let's say, for example, a druid called for aid and a pack of wolves came to his side. At what point in the battle would the wolves decide they'd had enough, or that the fight was too costly for them? Furthermore, what action would the wolves take upon reaching this decision?

Precisely. The kind of summoning Mr. Magniloquent describes is only one kind of summoning with a specific focus on D&D style summoning, prevalent in games such as NWN and NWN2 - which is by no means the best variety that has been utilised in games. It has been done better in other games. I honestly think that this summoning problem is something that cannot be properly fixed with one solution. To be done best, it requires different mechanics to properly reflect the nature of the different summons. When it is a D&D style summon where something has been taken and subjugated from another plane of existence, Mr. Magniloquent's methods are good. However that is only one face of a cube we are discussing. There are still five other faces to be addressed. Or alternatively we could just stick with purely D&D style summons and have ALL the problems that previous D&D inspired games have had in the past. Summons that are too weak... A badger that lasts 15 seconds and does no damage... Only one badger can be summoned at once... If Mr. Magniloquent's idea of balancing summons is truly the only solution, then maybe that badger might also have a 15% chance of breaking free and attempting to slay the player. Mr. Magniloquent, I must also apologise if I ever sound too critical of your ideas. I mean no offence. Please, don't let me enter a cave in this game to kill a necromancer who has a vast horde of really cool undead minions, while my sad excuse for a necromancer would have to cope with his one skeleton. A skeleton weaker than any other skeleton in the game, that only hangs around for 20 seconds. Please... not again. We can do better. I think that's a good idea. I think that if you summoned a group of wolves to fight a Balrog, the morale would be quite low and they'd all just run away... but if you summoned them to finish off a group of bandits or a pack of Goblins they'd be ideal. Perhaps this timidity could be partially negated by some other skill the druid has. Furthermore, while a wolf pack is a more powerful group of creatures that you would want to keep alive and use situationally to maintain morale, a swarm of bees is a different story. They are more likely to go berserk with little regard for their own lives. I'm skeptical of how much a damage a bee's sting could inflict upon a Balrog, however. Although, I worry about a morale system like that because it is not simple. It could be that a druid has a quantity of wolves per day that he can summon, a number determined by his prowess as a summoning druid. For example, let's say this number is 10. He can summon 10 wolves, but if one dies he can't get that wolf back for a while. After all, they aren't in numerous quantities in some other plane, nor are they created by him. And while there are probably many wolves in the world, he probably only has the allegiance of one pack. Therefore if he is careless with his wolves, their displeasure is demonstrated by their inability to serve again until they have recuperated. They might also flee from the battle. In other words, these summons might be a resource in themselves.

I do actually like that idea. If a caster creates (not teleports from elsewhere, actually creates) a being that is bound to his lifeforce, it could be that when that creature dies the caster is significantly damaged. For example, if the caster has 125 health and each of his summons "reserves" 25 of his health in order to be maintained, then if he has 5 minions summoned and one of them dies then I think it's actually quite an interesting mechanic if when that creature dies the summoner instantly loses 25 of his health. That means that for every creature destroyed, it directly wounds the summoner. So essentially it could be that Summoning as a whole requires a variety of different methods for different types of summons. I think that is the ideal solution. A. Demons/Powerful Summons For the summoning of unpredictable demons Mr. Magniloquent's idea is very good. The idea that a demon would want to break free from your control and kill you is very plausible and a good way to balance a powerful, yet unpredictable and unwilling, ally. Powerful forms of undead might also be applicable in this category, such as banshees, vampires, liches, wraiths and various other spirits. B. Constructs/Creations When a summoner creates a minion himself from raw materials, it should be 100% loyal to its master but its life had to come from somewhere. Ideally, that would be the caster himself. Whenever a creature created in this manner dies, the master is directly effected. For a weaker summon, he is wounded. For stronger summons, he is perhaps severely or fatally wounded. This is where the summoner pays in blood for every summon... literally. I do believe simple undead creatures fall into this category. Skeletons and zombies, they are mindless vessels. Golems and things which are artificial creations would also fall into this category. These creatures wouldn't be as powerful as those above, but they'd form the reliable bread and butter force. C. Other For the summoning of other creatures where the creature is not subjugated or created, like when a druid summons wolf allies to his aid, perhaps a simple reserve on stamina/mana/whatever like JFOCC suggested is best. These creatures serve of their own will, so not going to turn on you like creatures A. Nor will they damage you upon death like creatures B. Instead the fact that these creatures serve of their own accord is their weakness. Perhaps if a fight begins to turn sour, the wolves will retreat and abandon their druid. They want to help their friend, but won't pay for it with the blood of the whole pack. Perhaps the strong and powerful bear is only willing to help for a short period of time, or only once a day. That is how these creatures could be balanced. What do you all think of that?

That's only one method of balancing it, and I don't think it is a particularly fun or enjoyable one. While it makes sense for powerful demons, it doesn't make sense for other things. Take for instance, a golem. This is a relatively mindless and subserviant construct. Perhaps the golem was made from a mixture of the summoner's blood and a large amount of clay. Its lifeforce depends upon the summoner because it is from the summoner's blood/lifeforce that the creature is derived. It's not going to suddenly turn hostile upon its creator. It's merely a vessel to serve, a weapon to be wielded with the mind. Like any weapon, if the wielder becomes too fatigued to use it will stand idle without orders. A warrior's sword doesn't all of a sudden decide to stab its wielder. Like any weapon, wielding it also has requirements. Like a warrior only has one hand with which to wield a sword, a summoner might only have one golem summoning slot with which to wield his golem. Or perhaps the amount of mana reserved to maintain the summon is the restricting element, and more golems could be made if they were weaker or the summoner had more mana with which to control them. Not all summons are creatures to be dominated. Some serve willingly. Take for instance a Druid and his pack of wolf companions. They have a natural affinity or understanding with each other. The druid doesn't force them to be there, he requests their help. His standing/reputation with nature is represented by his summoning skill, and his gift to nature in return for their services is represented with mana or a spell slot. They won't all of a sudden, because of a rather thoughtless method of balance, decide to attack their master. He has already paid the price for them to be there. It doesn't make sense lorewise, and it isn't fun for the player. No, I'm sorry, but beyond the summoning of demons your method of balance is not applicable.

This is true, but, to be good at summoning, as the Necro, you had to kind of sacrifice your direct-damage capabilities (relative to any other character that wasn't summoning). In other words, you weren't a mega-powerful Necromancer (individually) who now has an army of summoned things. You were a Necromancer who was powerful BECAUSE he had an army of summoned things. If you were still uber-powerful on your own, PLUS the army of summoned things, then something would be wrong. You are absolutely right. A summoner in D2 was only strong while his minions were around, and that's exactly how it should be. D&D does it wrong because they make a wizard that is capable in his own right, and then he gets summons as well. Of course then it will be either overpowered, or the summons are so pathetically weak that they are useless. A wizard that is capable in his own right (able to hurl fireballs and what not) should have weak summons. But a wizard who wants to be a powerful conjurer should be able to sacrifice all of that and get very good summons. That way summoning is fun, powerful, balanced and not a silly gimmick like it is in so many games. Someone who plays as a summoner doesn't want direct attack abilities anyway. I think that for summoning to work best in Project Eternity they need to have a mage sacrifice all his other abilities if he wants good summons. Better still, the summoner should be his own class with summoning related abilities and no, or few/weak, direct attack abilities. Without his creatures to protect him, he should be as helpless in a combat situation as a blind man in a wheelchair - or a warrior with no arms and no armour. That's essentially what the summons should be: the weapons and armour of the conjurer.

I think it's a neat idea that would certainly work, but I also believe it'd serve only as a bandaid to cover up a larger wound. As others have said, I think there are better solutions. Simply designing fights to be more challenging and require the use of potions is a better fix. The trouble often is that you are given many potions and you don't need them, and therefore they are never used and just accumulate. I don't like the whole potion system anyway. By the sounds of things the devs are already thinking of something better than it.

I hope I don't upset anyone with my views, but as a huge fan of summoning in games, I want to share my views on how I think it has been done best. Here's my two cents. Although I absolutely love summoning, I have two pet hates when it comes to summoning in games: 1. Summons with duration. 2. Limits upon how many summons I can have, which don't relate to my power as a wizard. With too many restrictions summoning just isn't fun. Summoners are megalomaniacs and want a pootent army. One or two skeletons is child's play and insulting. I think the very original version of Diablo II, before there were any patches, did it right. You got a new skeleton with every point you invested in the skill. Five points in Summon Skeleton, you got to make 5 Skeletons. Each skeleton still required a corpse to be made, and still cost mana to create. The skeletons weren't limited by some silly number and because you could summon forth a decent army of skeletons you felt like a proper Necromancer. You were limited only by resources (corpses), ability (Summoning skill) and your mental capacity (mana). It wasn't overpowered, because the skeletons were relatively weak and missed a lot. They were tough enough to endure a couple of hits each, but not more. There was a separate skill that increased the strength of the individual skeletons, but you only ever had 1 point to spend each level. So it was always a balance between fewer stronger skeletons, or an abundance of weak skeletons. To complement the skeletons were also ranged skeletons (which hurled bolts of fire, frost, lightning and poison) and various types of Golems which acted as tanks. Unlike the plentiful skeletons, you could only ever have one golem summoned at a time. Investing points in the skill just made the golem stronger. By level twenty or so you had a pretty good little unit: 5 or 6 skeletal mages, 5 or 6 skeletal warriors, and a golem. It was almost perfect, except I always wished for skeletal archers too. Of all the games I've played, no game has done summoning as well as Diablo II did back in 1999 or 2000 when it was released.