Jump to content

Azmodan

Members
  • Content Count

    44
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

41 Excellent

About Azmodan

  • Rank
    (1) Prestidigitator

Profile Information

  • Location
    Melbourne, Australia
  • Interests
    Philosophy, History, RPGs (pen and paper and computer), boardgames, books: Silmarillion, Song of Ice and Fire, Dune, tv shows etc.

Badges

  • Pillars of Eternity Backer Badge
  • Pillars of Eternity Kickstarter Badge
  • Deadfire Backer Badge
  • Deadfire Fig Backer
  1. Had anyone else noted preconceptions in some posters' comments in regard to PoE specifically being a re-implementation of a favoured D&D edition? AD&D was great, especially for Campaign Settings, but rule-wise 3E with some tightened rules from 3.5 was far more accessible, without loss of intricacy. But I don't expect either of these in PoE. If PoE is closer to the GURPS mechanics (like Fallout), I wouldn't see that as a problem, as long as the Campaign Setting is fully fleshed out. Tweaking and re-adjusting class roles and the fight dynamic can happen in Alpha. So what's the point
  2. *chuckle* Imagine dwarves talkin' strine - Crickey! I'm a croc'dile hunna' ... Now git me some ale! Emma chisit? And the Dwarves will be named: "Shezza (Sheredgruin), Bazza (Barragor) and Mik (Mikkelgrumm)", sporting mullets, wearing wife-beaters (sleeveless shirts), shorts and thongs (flip-flops). The cantankerous distrust towards outsiders (a staple of Dwarfdom everywhere), will oscillate, following a few pints, towards a generous "she'll be right, mate" attitude.
  3. Hi Achilles, an excellent grammatical point you made Boreal as related to climate is very particular understanding. There is no "Austral climate" (Austral being antonymous to Boreal) that is used for the same thing but for landmasses in the south or by people living on those landmasses. The reason for this is because, should you refer to a map of Boreal climate ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subarctic_climate ) you will note that this climate is peculiar to the Northern Hemisphere. Not due to a language barrier, but because habitable territory and weather patterns in the Southern Hemi
  4. IndiraLightfoot said: Well spotted, Hiro! Like KaineParker, I much prefer the 3rd ed of D&D, well for PnP especially, but for CRPGs too, I reckon. But for a CRPG, many of the mechanics we see in the 4th ed do fit very nicely this kind of CRPG system proposed here for PE. Hopefully, the roles won't be as clearcut, though, but I hope for the same char development diversity as well, then. All hail 3E! We are unworthy... I believe it had already been argued to death on WotC forums re:4E being inspired by games such as WoW as well as table-top miniatures, rather than traditional
  5. Do you mean no healing spells because Recovery will heal Stamina, not HP? I started to think about the distinction between these as the distinction between temporary constitution damage and Hit point damage in DnD. Again I see where they are going with this, and what led them to this. It makes perfect sense in that Hit Points in DnD are problematic. I would argue that what hit points allege to represent is the character's endurance in a fight, rather than truly reflect fleshy, bloody damage inflicted. Just as I tend to think of an "attack" being a series of hits/parries/deflections etc.,
  6. I look forward to an update about Priests and how these compare to Paladins and Clerics in DnD3E. One great thing 3E introduced was spell conversion (Good and Neutral Clerics converted memorised spell to equal-level Cure spells, Evil to Wounds), which encouraged the creation of more militant Clerics. As for using quasi-WoW jargon to describe the relative combat role of a given class, I'd attribute this to the fact that WoW is a source of colloquialisms. I don't read into it beyond that. I'd expect an RTS developer similarly use terms like zergrush and turtling in relation to issuing a sh
  7. No it doesn't. Yes it does, Stun. Monsters respawn in BG1 wilderness areas. Re update #7 and Tim Cain - and I fully support what he said. And if you want to grind for lewtz, go for it. But you already said: it will be disadvantageous. And re: everything else - if an encounter is set in such a way where the player has to do something different, then its an objective/accomplishment/whatever yada yada ... revisiting examples / comments made 3-4 pages back. Because this thread is beggining to become exhausting, A SOLUTION: Tim Cain said accomplishments, not body count: - Kil
  8. Hi Stun, You read my responses selectively. I already went into detail re: pen and paper DnD. I played it. I also GMed it. Hamster statues. BG1 also had a level cap. Again - my earliest replies - as soon as mage has fireball can grind wilderness respawns for XP. BG1 has infinite respawns in wilderness locations. So yes. I am using the word appropriately. Already answered your last point re: wishful thinking - lewtz are their own reward. If the encounter is designed to award lewtz only, then that is OK. A well-designed encounter system will add an XP-awarding objective: "neutralise"
  9. Hi IndiraLightfoot, , you said: AD&D's "flat" xp rewards didn't encourage grinding random encounters (that would be bad DM-ing). Yes it would. Welcome to wilderness encounters in BG1, where wolves, bears, ogrillions, gibberlings etc respawned ad nauseum. For XPs! These encounters in BG were hand placed in that these monsters were spawning at particular spots on the map. We have evolved past that design. I use the word objective in place of accomplishment, my bad. The accomplishment is to resolve the encounter. Approach 1: You meet 3 trolls, ponies and shorties. You lay wa
  10. Hi Silent Winter, you are correct - I believe that XP for killing should be awarded, when it is in context. Killing without context needs alternative rewards - e.g. lewtz lolololololetc. The best way to look at any encounter that prompts the player to "kill", is to substitute the word with "neutralise". XP thereafter is allocated on the challenge rating of the encounter. Bandit encounters I already dealt with ~3 pages back. I don't see how any of the above negates the appearance of bandit encounters in PoE, random wandering Ogres etc. In PnP, even when exploring the wilderness, players u
  11. Stun, you said: Nonsense. When exploring the wilderness, encountering a pack of the wilderness' inhabitants IS the story. Or an element of it. Why do you think Bioware put a bunch of named-bandit encounters in BG1's wilderness areas? And this goes back to my argument that at what level are wandering monster encounters meaningless? i.e. In BG, you could go back as a high-level party (7 or 8 average) and re-harvest kills against wolves. Because that is the 2nd edition ruleset. In 3rd edition - the XP is no longer at a flat rate, but is relative to your party. I'm fine with the objectiv
  12. Liked your post, but I just want to point out, I dislike the B option as a bonus versus the A option, which is a good sub-objective. Ensuring no civilian deaths means if one of your civs ends up dying, you'd be prone to reload the game and try again (bad). Meanwhile option B simply requires you to find the prisoners; either you find them or you don't, there is no reloading over it. I realize you were just using it as an example, but I wanted to point out that I'm hoping such objectives like A are limited or don't exist in the game. Maybe the story changes because not all of the civili
  13. Hi Stun, The answer is "B". And it is "literally no different", because you just gave a really simplistic example, and then demolished it. This is called a strawman arguement. Why is your example insufficient? Because in GM terms what you described is an enemy encounter in the wilderness. These encounters serve no storytelling purpose beyond presenting a party with an immediate and unimaginative (lazy?) task. "Kill some ogres". I GM for a party of 12-14 level players, and I happily follow the rules - so if they are travelling through the wilderness, I roll their encounters. What chal
  14. Hi Stun! 1) Prove it - as soon as the game is in alpha, I'll send you a screenshot 2) Spider venom sacks - in Neverwinter Nights spiders drop them 3) So? -- I just thought that your multiple choice was somewhat poor... had a wiff of the strawman to it. So I remedied what I considered an oversight to include the greatest example of a game developer rewarding accomplishments rather than body count. I'm soooo mega excited about all the stuff in Update #7, #14, #32 and significantly in #39! W00000t :D The only thing I'm missing out on right this second, is a "kirby doing c
  15. 1) no xp for kills in PoE. 2) run away like I said 3) Most people in this thread defending PoE's skill check are saying "Speech>10 = win" is a terrible design. Especially talking your way out of a random encounter. 4) Waste of spells. I'd rather run away. 5) Again waste of spells (see 4) or charm talking is a terrible design (see 3) 6) I'd rather run away and save my money. Hi Hiro! 1) You kill them, the game does a check when you exit the area. Enemies dead = 100% then you get 100% of XP allocation. 2) Sneak away is what I said. That requires skill. And resolves an encounter.
×
×
  • Create New...