Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ZornWO

  1. What I was looking for in this update was a way to add in some intricacy and strategy on top of the raw tactics - in order to make up for having no prebuffing (which is understandable), no sequencers and no contingencies (which is really disappointing). Having lots of spells and filling a grimoire w/ them adds a touch of that back in but doesn't really fix the problem. I guess SCS has spoiled me utterly. The players that Josh Sawyer calls the "Rommels" (not the greatest name there lol) get maybe one or two rpgs a decade, if even that much. Players like that playtester Josh has cited a coup
  2. I totally support ppl expressing their subjective dislike of SCS. It's totally valid to say one didn't enjoy SCS. But it kills me to see this unfair criticism that it isn't strategic or it's somehow cheesy when DavidW put years of thought and hard work into making it strategic and into heavily reducing the cheese in the game. He put a lot of effort into keeping a consistent ruleset for players and opponents, closing off some of the broken nonsense like Cloudkilling enemies offscreen, and by avoiding Weimer Tactics-style "gotchas." He created a bunch of code so the AI can detect what yo
  3. Just to piggyback on the AI question, but will there be any randomization to enemy types or their abilities? There's a mod to BG2 (SCS) that randomizes wizards' spell books from a set of handcrafted spell books each time you install, and so I only ever play on fresh installs. Also, will there be any classes that have sequencer/contingency type spells? That's a huge thing for me. I was looking at the art for scripted interactions; are they in an in-world style, i.e., are they how Dyrwoodians (sp?) or whoever illustrate manuscripts?
  4. Alright, the comment's two weeks old, and sorry for dumping yet again on DA, but this point's a huge pet peeve of mine. Having several ways to build classes up is a great thing, but DA:O did it badly. I beat the game on the hardest difficulty setting, w/ a house rule against any potion use (health and lyrium), paying virtually no thought to my ability and spell picks apart from some healing spells. It's not that the game was too easy, it's that it was too simple (though parts were too easy too). Somehow "tactics" has come to mean "never having to think much ahead," and that's terrible.
  5. Stasis_Sword's requests seem pretty elementary to me, expect perhaps the "nerfed forms" request if the druid forms don't mimic actual creatures in the world. "Unlocking abilities over time" seems like an improvement over IE shapeshifting. If it's of interest, the BG1/2 spider form is useful against spellcasters since the several rounds of poison damage disrupt their casting. It's also better against enemies that are prone to going invisible etc.
  6. Apologies if it's a duplicate request, but -- It'd be really great if you could talk to shopkeeps over the sales counter, or bartenders over the bar, rather than having to walk around to their side like in the IE games. It's probably not worth too many "zots" if that's what it'd take, but it feels a little silly talking to Barkis in the Smoldering Corpse on his side of the bar
  7. It seemed as if TC there was saying that fire could create a status effect, being set aflame or the like, no? The wiki pg on defense mentions, "Fortitude (FOR): Represents a character's endurance to "body system attacks" such as poison or disease. It is based on Might and Constitution." It's fairly surprising there's no poison dmg, but it's probably not terrible that way.
  8. It's really disappointing there won't be new stretch goals. (What a way to get a sense of what the promancers are feeling.) Druid & chanter companions that have dialog would've been very welcome; the wiki on companions doesn't even mention a fighter. Plus, BG2 had a dearth of wilderness. Valorian says it has 5 wilderness areas, but it's not clear what that's counting. There are the 3 that unlock when you exit the Underdark, plus a 4th if you count the UD exit area itself (which shouldn't count, really). Maybe if you count the druid grove and the Umar temple ruins? Overall, good
  9. Ofc it's perfectly fine to disagree only in part. The issue was that I posted abt my interest in all these different kinds of tradeoffs, and your response was to enlighten me that tradeoffs don't all have to be one kind of thing. On top of a more general sense your replies tend to be... unresponsive to the topics discussed, and it creates an impression you don't give attention or thought to the posts you reply to. My schedule's far too hectic to view ignoring other ppl as "productive discussion." Even here, in response to a passage suggesting you didn't consider an earlier post's points, y
  10. Well, given my hard-earned pessimism regarding game series that name-drop BG and promise "tactical" combat, hopefully Obsidian can make that 2-0 ftw.
  11. To be fair, I suspect that passage was referring to my post, which explicitly stated I wasn't that into summoning. Meaning that, as I said, in BG2 especially except for Mordy Swords or Planetars (which were very OP), the summoning spells are heavily overrated imo for most of the game - and I'd love a game where the summoning system was more interesting/complex, and again, there was a lot of great discussion in the thread which generated some thought. Though, if someone's aim is to have a pure summoner, especially a solo one, then I can see why having a risk to some summoning spells that they
  12. Yes, but I was curious about what the specifics were. I'm asking b/c our sense of how IE combat plays is extremely different, especially when you say things like "I don't want to win combat because I had more positive effects on my party than the enemy did, and/or countered their dispels before they could counter my buffs, etc." Sorry we still disagree, but my overwhelming impression from many, many of your posts is that you dislike managing risks ex ante; you only ever seem to want determinism or pure ex post reaction. But that eliminates wholesale a source of complications and continge
  13. I'm not bothered by it. I thought the dev's were trying to keep away from this sort of stuff? The reloading to get a better outcome? The reload to get your death spell off, a successful pick pocket, to do 'anything else better' type outcome? Wow, I thought that was just for a particular spell or two? Are they really examining every little mechanic for how it affects that issue? I don't get it. It's a single-player game. If some ppl save-scum I don't see why the game should nanny them. It starts to impact no-reload play.
  14. Lephys, I'm curious, were there any specifics in IE combat that you liked? In terms of buff stacks, the main thing (hardly the only thing) I like about it is that it creates "stacks" of different, often challenging tradeoffs both in spell selection and w/in combat (both offensively and defensively), far more extensively than any other combat system I've tried. If you change some of your spell picks, it creates cascades of implications for what else you'd want to pick (even if you just restrict attention to "viable" spells (e.g. no infravision)). Combat against enemy mages is extremely diver
  15. Meh. Why should no-reloaders pay for the save-scummers' sins? If that's what they want to do, why does it bother you?
  16. There's no disagreement here! It's not a criticism of the established names at all (not even "monk", which obv they should use rather than my name for it). It's just for personalization/variety. Plus curiosity to see what other ppl associate w/ the classes. Nor is the post a veiled request for the option in-game (bells-and-whistles stuff shouldn't preoccupy devs that much). Surely though it'd be great to have the text files sufficiently editable/moddable that it'd be no trouble to change something so small. Besides, a Dave class opens up the possibility of having the Dave Dave.
  17. I wasn't a fan of the hard cap on summons b/c it felt too "artificial". Maybe instead, you could have the risk of a summons going beserk start out very small for the first one, like 5% or something tiny, only to go up and up w/ ea. summon w/in a battle? ~~~~ Btw, thanks for the response, JS. edit: It's worth mentioning, it makes a ton of sense to give chanters a lot of summons now that you say it.
  18. I'm so late to the party it's the after-after party! I'm not even a fan of summoning spells generally but the thread has some great discussion. I'd agree with some other posters that it'd work well to balance summoning by introducing a risk the summon would rebel. Having a summoner pull a lost soul (which I'd guess is the PoE route) into material form and subvert it to the summoner's will immediately suggests a mechanic of it going beserk or such. It strikes me as the obvious way to balance it, and hopefully it's the primary mechanic for doing so. It'd also open the door for metamagic
  19. On another thread, a poster suggested the option of letting players rename classes. I thought it might be interesting to see what custom names people would pick. Warrior monks can be really interesting. Tendai Buddhism had an army of warrior monks, and the idea of Buddhist monk fighters has an appealing paradoxical air. But I can't shake the association of "monk" with "peaceful monastery dweller," so I'd rename them. Perhaps "hermetist," since there's something to their mechanic that fits one definition, "impervious to external influence", though there's no real connection to hermetici
  20. If it's helpful - in combat, wizard casting will be very similar to BG2 sorcerer casting like others have said. You'll have a certain number of castings for each spell level (unless the level's castable at will), and each cast can be of any spell of the spell level that's in the grimoire. The wiki says that each grimoire can hold four spells per level, and outside combat you can fill with any spell the wizard knows. Josh Sawyer calls these grimoire slots. Grimoire switching is essentially a cooldown mechanic that will swap out the spells in these spell slots but (what's not mentioned yet u
  21. I sympathize strongly with the broad sentiment. I really dislike it when fantasy worlds ape the real world too closely. Where that line lies is always subjective, but it starts to feel unimaginative, and it reaches a point where I'd rather a story just be in the real world plus some fantasy elements like how they did with Darklands. (Even this has exceptions - Eisenwald sounds like it might work out, last I heard.) As a result, I'm usually unsympathetic to arguments that such-and-such couldn't work in the real world. Here though the characters will be really tiny, so having real-world
  22. Nonek, you're freaking me out a little ^_^ When the devs say there's no prebuffing, are they including trap laying, or just defensive spells with duration? You're kind of "buffing" an area with traps, but that's really not how I understood the term. This part of IE combat is one of the things that gave it such a strategic dimension as well. Yeah, it might bear clarifying that it's not really speculative to say that a system with triggers and contingencies can retain the feel of IE combat. The SCS mod had three different options for enemy mages' prebuffing. I've tried eac
  23. I'd love the ability to rename classes easily, even if it were just through editable text files/modding.
  24. You don't need pre-buffing to duplicate BG2-style mage combat. When I'd heard they were eliminating prebuffing, I had expected a system of buffs together with a wide assortment of spell triggers and contingencies. It wouldn't be anymore meta-gamey than merely preparing your mage book, which we know the devs have adopted for PoE mages. Sustained, strong buffs are essential for creating IE-style mage combat and those wonderful mage duels, and for avoiding Dragon Age-style mage garbage. Mr. Magniloquent's suggestion of a cap on sustained spells is an interesting one (very imaginative!)
  • Create New...