[Common pitfalls of CRPG games to avoid]

Telling me to look for someone "in Baldur's Gate" is like telling me to look for someone "in New York." Except worse, ecause there isn't a phone book, there aren't streets with names, and there aren't any signs telling me where the hell I am.

 

It could be said, then, that Baldur's Gate is where the streets have no name!

 

Seriously though, I'm totally with you on that one. I like the fact that handholding, quest markers, etc, have been done away with, but that does mean that the quests have to work. If you're tasked to find somebody in a big city, there needs to be a way to locate that person. You should be able to ask people if they know whereabouts he/she might be - at least which district he's in. We need something to work with.

 

Also agree on the "trapped with a foe you can't hope to defeat" thing. It's okay to have such situations as long as there's some kind of fore-warning that gives you a chance to prepare before you trap yourself, because nothing's more frustrating than having to go back to a 3 month old save because your only other save is past the Point of No Return in a dungeon you physically can't finish because you forgot to get the Sword of Plot Device Slaying from John Smith's Plot Convenient Weapons Emporium.

[Armour & weapon designs (part V).]

 

That would require game designers to know and care about weapon properties and blade mechanics and all that. Most games don't even bother with physics. But yeah, it's a cool niche.

 

Considering that the current wiki lists many arms and armour with their actual historic names, rather than their popular D&D derived names, I think there's a good chance that Obsidian are at least considering that.

 

I respect the guy's personal standpoint on what he wants to see, but as he graciously points out, it's just personal preference. For me, it depends how high your fantasy is. In Mount and Blade, I would want to see relatively realistic weaponry because the setting and mechanics encourage it. In Final Fantasy VII (Yes, yes... Generic jrpg disclaimer, etc) I am happy to see bizarre and outlandish weaponary that would be functionally useless because, frankly, after a guy with a sword beats two guys with guns in the opening minute, my disbelief has been suspended.

 

True, it does depend on the setting. For me, games with Final Fantasy style graphics don't work. Obviously they work for some, and that's fine. But...I dunno, I'd say Baldur's Gate 1 was also somewhere in the middle, in terms of magical content, and their graphics still looked quite reasonable (with the possible exception of Sarevok's armour - it's okay to have armour like that but it's got to come with limitations, and huge blades on your pauldrons is going to severely limit one's agility, especially when combined with enormous ram horns on the helmet!   ).

 

I actually prefer low magic settings, tbh, for the same reason. I'm a fan of Tolkienesque fantasy, and for things to work for me, magic has to be a majorly big deal that only a few people in the world know how to do, not something that every man and his dog can throw around at will.

 

 

That's why the best magic systems (imo) are actually worked into the rest of nature/physics, instead of just arbitrarily separate from it.

 

This was the case in Runequest. Although I didn't really like the bronze age setting, or the fact that everyone can do magic (who needs a weaponsmith? I can repair my weapons with a magic spell that everybody in the world knows!), I did like the way magic works with bronze but not with iron weapons/armour. But then, I'm one of those weird types that actually finds certain limitations interesting.

[Josh Sawyer on dealing with grognards]

That's kind of the problem behind most issues with modern games, if you ask me. It's not exclusive to dialog.

 

"Let's make an RPG for people who don't like RPGs! 8D!"

"Let's make a tactical shooter for people who don't like tactics!"

 

Etc.

 

Then, the game has an inherent conflict with itself, right out of the gate.

 

Yep. The biggest problem with modern games is that they try too hard to appeal to the widest audience possible, and most of the time they treat that audience as stupid.

 

I don't think it's a bad thing to write a game for a niche audience, as long as you're fairly confident that that audience is large enough to generate enough revenue to at least cover your expenses. So what if people who loved Skyrim don't like this game? They don't have to play it, they have other games that they can play instead...that's the nice thing about the gaming market. There are games around that appeal to all sorts, and almost everybody can find something that they like.

[Armour & weapon designs (part V).]

 

Interesting v-blog about fantasy weapons, the general opinion of which I generally hold to.  

[What is Pillars of Eternity's approach towards skill checks that the player CAN'T pass yet?]

Perhaps, but there's a difference between "mechanics that resist a potential exploit" and "ramping the difficulty factor to compensate for that exploit". The former I don't mind. The latter I do.

 

Besides, is it really so important to make it so that there's a constant need to replace lockpicks, or stock up on far more than you could ever carry, just to prevent people from reloading every time their picks break? If people want to quicksave every time they attempt to pick a lock, and quickload if their picks do break, then as far as I'm concerned, that's their choice. I don't mind allowing people the option to play like that if they so choose. What I don't like is being forced to play like that myself.

 

That said, I'm not opposed to save scum resistant mechanics, but it depends on how it's done. Ideally, it should be in a relatively unobtrusive way that would not impact the style of play of people who don't use savescummy methods. Having an automatic success (provided you have the skill to do it) when not in combat/pushed for time would work. Forcing people to carry 1000 lockpicks because they break after 5 uses would not (well, it would, but it'd also annoy people).

[What is Pillars of Eternity's approach towards skill checks that the player CAN'T pass yet?]

 

wrt lockpicks: I really didn't like that in NWN. Lockpicks shouldn't be single-use items, and to my knowledge, they don't break that easily. At most, they should only break if you crit-fail (or whatever the equivalent is here).

 

Unfortunately, there's really no way to make lockpicking a non-savescummy mechanic without this break from realism.

 

I mean, crit-fail? Why should I ever crit-fail? Reload!

 

 

Meh, if people want to save before they pick every single lock, and save after each one, and reload if they fail, then that's their choice.

 

Save/reload mechanics isn't something that the difficulty design generally has to compensate for, therefore I don't care if people do it, because if I decide not to save before every lock and accept it if I lose a set of picks on occasion, I can easily do so.

[What is Pillars of Eternity's approach towards skill checks that the player CAN'T pass yet?]

As long as it's not "everything scales to you so no matter what level you are, all skill checks you ever meet will be passable", I don't mind.

 

I hated that system in Oblivion (I know that's monsters and not skill checks but the same logic applies). I'd much rather areas be designed so that you have to be a certain level to stand a chance - below that and you'll struggle, above that and you'll waltz through. The dreaded thief's gauntlet that nobody has ever successfully gotten through alive, even though the best thieves in the world have attempted it, should be so difficult that your level 1 thief won't have a chance, but if he levels up to an appropriate level then he might.

 

wrt lockpicks: I really didn't like that in NWN. Lockpicks shouldn't be single-use items, and to my knowledge, they don't break that easily. At most, they should only break if you crit-fail (or whatever the equivalent is here).

[Another Icewind Dale kickstarter?]

 

Will we have another Icewind Dale game? Thing is I like the combat mechanics of tactical isometric pause & play strategy games. Bravo to Bio/ex Black Isle team for creating this new genre.

 

There's a KS game like Tornent which emphasizes heavily on dialogue. PoE is striking a balance.

 

I wished to see a more heavier focused combat oriented game which has dialogue & story but a more heavier combat related rule-based game?

 

Thanks!. I will still play both PoE & Torment though.

They didn't create a genre, RPGs were around long before BioWare or Interplay.

 

RPGs may have been around, but I'm pretty sure those types of RPGs weren't - highly story-driven, companions that reacted to what you did, a large emphasis on exploration with hundreds of side-quests, seamless transition from exploration into tactical combat...these things weren't generally done in RPGs previously, and aren't generally done now either.

 

People often mock Baldur's Gate fans for our rose-tinted glasses, but the fact is, there's a reason why that game was considered such a classic, and there's a reason why nothing made since then has managed to capture us in quite the same way.

[Game Mechanics etc.]

So much talk about 'balance' on this forum...has everyone gone True Neutral on me, or have I wandered into a druid's grove? (a D&D druid, that is, not a real life ancient Briton druid)

 

I personally hope it's not balanced. I hope the fighter totally outclasses everyone in the field of combat, and that nobody can hope to match a fighter in a straight up fight, apart from another fighter. I don't want a lightly armoured thief with a rapier standing toe to toe with a knight in full harness and expecting to survive.

[Level cap and pacing]

I've come to the conclusion over time that the best system of leveling is to have no leveling at all. With unchanging HP numbers characters could learn talents that increase tactical depth rather than increasing raw damage output. This, among other things:

 

- eliminates HP bloat

 

- eliminates the need for tier upon tier of better equipment

 

- eliminates any difficulties of scaling to high levels

 

- abilities, equipment, and monsters never become obsolete

 

- eliminates problems of early levels being disproportionately unforgiving due to low HP

 

- campaigns can be extended almost infinitely without becoming ridiculous

 

- content can be added retroactively to the beginning or middle of a campaign (eg. mods) without skewing the balance of later sections

 

- much easier to create, open, non-linear worlds

 

- a low experience character is still useful in a high-experience party, instead of missing 95% of the time and failing every skill check

 

- a high-experience character in a low-experience party doesn't break the game

 

- static, predictable HP numbers means better overall balance

 

- a god will still be godly no matter how many goblins you defeat

 

- increases in power can be more directly linked with the game world, rather than arbitrarily spaced level ups triggered on random kills. For instance, finding a tome somewhere and learning a new spell from it, as opposed to just suddenly becoming better at magic after killing a wolf

 

 

I would never suggest to remove leveling from PoE, it just... would never be accepted. But i do think that certain types of RPG-like games will (very slowly) move in this direction over time. Ironically, the rest of the world will probably continue moving in the opposite direction, with leveling pervading everything. Especially with the increasing prevalence of free-to-play* games, coupled with the corporate gaming psychology machine having folded the concept of leveling into the cynical "addiction reward loop".

 

I do agree to some extent, actually. There are two main problems with the "levelling up" mechanic:

 

1) hitpoint bloat (as you already stated), however this can be reduced. If you only gained between 1 and 3 hitpoints every time you level up, you'd still get "tougher", so to speak, but not ridiculously so. In fact - and I realise that I may be causing a rift in the space-time continuum by saying this - this is one thing that 4th edition got about right!!   Except you still started with too much HP so as to make early encounters not much of a threat. Part of the fun in BG, in my opinion, was the risk of you getting one-shotted, and the fact that almost all wounds were significant (not like in Dragon Age, where you can shrug off everything until you get to half HP).

 

2) people expect something every time they level up, otherwise they feel cheated. This creates the problem of handing out abilities to the point where they become too numerous to be meaningful. A continuous increase in attack bonus will result in such a ridiculous power disparity between new and veteran characters, and unless defence increases equally proportionally, you'd get to the point where things quite literally never miss, because they're adding 15-20 to each D20 roll, or whatever. A reduced to-hit bonus progression would help this (D&D5e has the right idea here - I think the maximum you can ever get is +5!). Maybe, if combined with a steady increase in defence and damage potential, it might help characters to maintain a steady rate of improvement without causing balance problems at higher levels.

 

Also, there's a Neverwinter Nights 2 server that has an interesting system: once you get to level 6, you gain no more levels, but instead gain additional feats as you level up. Not that I'm suggesting we do this (really, there's no need when Obsidian can pretty much write the levelling system from scratch), but it also helps get rid of HP and AB bloat while still allowing players to feel that they've gotten something in return for their hard work and efforts.

[Level cap and pacing]

Personally, I'm hoping for a much slower pacing, and being only able to hit the level cap if you, literally, do absolutely everything possible. I often feel that modern RPGs level you far too quickly, and require you to do very little to level up, which IMO, diminishes the sense of achievement when you do level up.

 

Take the first Neverwinter Nights, for example: by the time you finished the tutorial you were already level 3. Compare that with Baldur's Gate, where you were likely navigating the treacherous corridors of Nashkel's mines while still at "I die as soon as you sneeze on me" level. In my opinion, this increased the level of danger throughout the campaign, and made gaining a level really something to be cherished.

 

I realise that I'm probably alone in this, and the majority don't want levelling to be that slow, but...maybe some middle ground?

 

Also, I have one other request when it comes to levelling: I would prefer it if they don't have us all level at exactly the same rate all the time. I'd much rather have characters levelling sporadically, and I prefer it when everyone's on a different level, and with different amounts of XP. Having everyone always level up simultaneously feels too contrived and artificial, and results in much longer levelling sessions as you have to go through each person all at once. I'm guessing all classes will level at the same XP amounts, but it'd be better if all characters didn't always have exactly the same amount of XP (even if they haven't done anything). XP needs to be earned, not given out because it's convenient, and if you leave Mr Level 1 sitting in a tavern for most of the game, he shouldn't suddenly have the same level of competence as everybody else as soon as you invite him along. I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't mind a bit of a level disparity between characters at all.

 

After all, I wouldn't be struggling to find a job if I could join any organisation and instantly become as competent as the people who have worked there for years. XD

[Game Mechanics etc.]

Reading the forums, it strikes me that there are a lot of people scared and resistant to any change, but if something can be improved, surely go for it? Pen & paper and video games are, after all, completely different; why restrict a video to pen and paper drawbacks? Nostalgia is all well and good, but there have always been numerous fundamental flaws in any D&D edition, so for me one of the best things about this game will probably be the fact it isn't limited to replicating a flawed system. And if some mechanic does turnout to be dodgy, it can be altered later, so it isn't the end of the world.

 

I don't think it's so much "scared and resistant to change", but more "scared that it might end up being yet another dull, bland action RPG". I hated Diablo, and WoW, and Dragon Age 2, and Dungeon Siege. The fact that there does seem to be a scarily high emphasis on combat, and the fact that they're using D&D4e as part of their inspiration, doesn't help alleviate any fears in that regard.

 

Also, it's not exactly 'change' if it's going to be like every other RPG currently on the market...what would be 'change' is if they made it into an actual roleplaying game - you know, the type where how you present yourself and how you interact with NPCs is just as important as which combat abilities you choose!

[Class abilities: ADnD vs DnD4]

I see what you're saying, but personally, I think the fact that there are some situations that certain classes simply can't deal with (while other classes are amazing at it) helps to make the classes more unique and interesting. As long as they're not overdone, that is. Obviously you don't want an entire game full of things that the rogue can't do anything against, but the odd level where suddenly a rogue's sneak attack ability (assuming he has one) is useless would throw the player a bit, and make him adapt his tactics.

 

We could get to a situation where there are some skellies, and the rogue's all "Oh my god, I hate fighting the dead!", then the cleric's all "Why? It's easy! Watch..." and wipes them out with a Turn Undead spell, but then we get to some traps, and the rogue's all "Woah! Everyone stop! There's a trap! Just give me a moment, I'll deal with it.". To me, that creates an interesting party dynamic which you wouldn't get if you could always deal with just about any situation the same way.

 

Having encounters where your usual tactics don't work, and suddenly you have to change tactics, can make things more interesting. If every fight is just a matter of choosing which abilities to perform, and the only variation is "this Sneak Attack ability doesn't work here, so I'll use the Very Good at Killing Undead ability instead! But this next fight is completely different...I have to use the Very Good at Killing Constructs ability!", there's very little variation. During my short time playing WoW (I hated it btw - I played as a rogue and got bored with the lack of roguish elements in the game), every enemy I faced might as well have been the same, for all the things they could do, and the same tactic was employed in every single fight: wait while the tank runs in, then get into flanking position and keep hitting the "do lots of damage" button.

 

So I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing if a character's "threshold of usefulness" drops to 0 for a short period in the game, as long as it isn't overdone, and the character can still spend a significant portion of the game being useful. Even so, he could find other ways to be useful that the developers haven't hard-coded into the game. You never know.

[Too combat-focused?]

I like how IWD2 handled the survival skill. Rangers and druids could use "Wilderness Lore" or whatever it was, on a new area, to discover what kinds of monsters could be found in the vicinity, and information like that.

 

I didn't like how it was done in NWN2 or DA:O, where you magically knew the location of every enemy on the map, even if you haven't explored that area yet. I wouldn't mind having a similar system, but it must have a much lower radius, and not be like a radar.

 

I also liked the SoZ dialogue system, where you could choose who does the talking, if you get asked something which would logically cause one of your companions to butt in with an appropriate response.

[Class abilities: ADnD vs DnD4]

It's not so much about "my paladin is better than your rogue" as it is about the rogue not being able to do anything when undead show up, or the paladin not being able to do anything when there's a trap. The issue isn't optimality, but usefulness. Obviously some characters should be better in some situations, and that's okay. In fact that's the way it should be. But every character needs to be at least useful in every common situation, and you need at least some degree of balance to accomplish that.

 

 

What do you mean, "can't do anything"? The only thing that rogues don't get when undead show up is their sneak attack bonus, meaning they have to fight like everbody else. They don't become useless, they just lose a huge advantage. This was never a problem in Baldur's Gate.

 

Also, bear in mind that the adventure is designed for a party, not a solo character. There should be situations which certain party members can't deal with, and have to rely on other party members. I can see why people consider this a problem in multiplayer (though I myself don't get bored if the spotlight isn't on me 100% of the time ), but in a single player game where you're playing all of the characters, why is it a problem if one of the characters you control can't deal with something?

 

 

Also, as much as it isn't supposed to be a competition, it's really frustrating to be obviously second-string. As is always the case for non-spellcasters in 3E after about 5th level, and for thieves in earlier editions. Fourth eliminates this problem, at the cost of differentiation, as noted before.

 

That's true, this was a problem in 3rd edition. Casters became too powerful too soon, and with 3rd edition's multiclassing system, it became very easy for someone who knew what they were doing to create a build that could, literally, stomp over just about anything with almost no risk to themselves. In fact, I never liked how one could multi-class to wizard, and suddenly have the ability to do what supposedly took the wizard a lifetime of study, because he was "looking over his shoulder" for the past few weeks, and would be in favour of some requirements to multiclass.

 

But if the alternative is "everyone can do everything equally well (they just have a different word before the thing that they do) and no party member is required for any reason", I'll take the earlier version any day of the week. I like to consider the classes as people who have all kinds of varying backgrounds, histories and skills, not just weapons platforms, and D&D4e made it very difficult to do this.

 

 

(Granted, if actually offered the choice in real life, I would take Pathfinder and use it as a starting point, but that's because I find Paizo's lore much more interesting than 4E-era D&D's, and also because Paizo just seems like a much cooler company to work with.)

 

Somebody needs to do this!! :D

[Class abilities: ADnD vs DnD4]

I've always thought that D&D should be viewed as an example of what not to emulate in a game system, really. If it lacks balance then it's of no value so long as you follow the Tao.

 

That really depends on what you're trying to do, though. It worked for Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale, but PVP was never the purpose of those games. Or D&D, for that matter. So 'balance' was never really on the agenda. The idea of D&D was never "my level 3 pally can totally pwn your level 4 rogue!", but more "okay, your pally can beat my rogue in a straight up fight, but just try getting through all of those traps without my help.".

[Class abilities: ADnD vs DnD4]

 

And while you're joking, there is some truth to it. It's not outside the realm of possibility that 4e, plus the recession, could be what causes the eventual collapse the RPG portion of WotC.

 

Possible. According to my local RPG shop, D&D4e has more or less stopped selling. The only thing that really sells atm is Pathfinder.

 

I think the biggest problem is that, whenever they release a new one, they completely stop all old product lines, meaning people can't continue playing the old version. They either have to play the new version, or they can't get any new content. So when a 3rd party like Paizo steps in, and starts releasing content that's compatible with the older versions, people tend to buy from them instead. So...yeah, if WotC doesn't do something incredible with D&D5e, they could well lose the RPG section.

[Class abilities: ADnD vs DnD4]

In the choice between diversification (2nd ed) and balance (4th ed) I much prefer diversification. Not all classes need to be equal, since D&D as we know is supposed to be a cooperative game. What needs to be balanced is the NPCs vs the party. There's no reason why mage PCs vs fighter PCs should be equal since you're not doing PvP. For an MMO you obviously want balance over diversification, but that's not here nor there.

 

This exactly. Personally, I've never had a problem with not being able to be 100% involved 100% of the time. I've always seen it as a cooperative game, where no one person can do everything, and the group has to work together to overcome obstacles. If everyone can sneak, pick locks, and disable traps as well as the rogue, why bother with a rogue? If everyone can fight as well as a dedicated fighter, why bother with a fighter, when a rogue can do everything that he can and more? That doesn't mean that the rogue should have no skill in combat whatsoever, but he shouldn't be as good as the dedicated fighter. That's why 3rd edition got it about right...rogues could be effective in combat, but fighters still dominated the battlefield. 2nd edition kind of encouraged people to see the fighter as the "boring, standard base class from which every other class builds upon", but they're supposed to be masters of martial arts.

 

Although this does remind me of something, actually...if a fighter is supposed to have been a guardsman, or from similar backgrounds, doesn't this mean that they should at least have spot/perception skills? They're not going to be very good guards if anyone can sneak past them.

 

Anyway, miniature skirmish games are fine - I even play a few of them from time to time - but they're not really the same thing. RPGs have gone beyond the point where you simply hack your way into a dungeon, kill everything in your path, and make your way out with lots of loot. There's a lot more emphasis on intrigue, and "cloak-and-dagger" type scenarios, and people doing things like scouting the battlefield and checking for traps. You don't get that in a game where the sole emphasis is on combat, and any skills you may have outside of combat can more or less be ignored. Imagine trying to scout ahead or check for traps in World of Warcraft...not gonna happen!  

 

Also, for the record, I may joke about how D&D4e is the worst thing to happen to roleplaying games and will be the death of WotC, and how that game shall henceforth be referred to as "the RPG that must not be named", and how it's a shame WotC never made any RPGs after 3rd edition, but that's just my classic British humour. I know there are people who enjoy it, and that's fine. It's just not to my taste.

[Too combat-focused?]

From the wiki:

 

 

Rogues gain a starting skill bonus to Mechanics and Stealth and are the only class to get a bonus to both of those skills.

 

So we know that at least stealth and mechanics are in the game, and that rogues are likely to be particularly good at those skills.

 

The other skills that have so far been announced: survival (which rangers get as well as stealth), lore, and athletics.

 

It has also been announced that there are four types of skills: learning skills, travelling skills, item skills, and companion skills. Again, little information on specifics so far, but we at least know that there are likely to be a few skills in the game.

[Class abilities: ADnD vs DnD4]

 

At high levels, 3.5E in particular did suffer from hit-point bloat and both 3.5 & pathfinder became very 'math-y' in combat. Turns could take a long time with people trying to calculate every variable in their favour before rolling a dice (which frequently became a player hoping "please not a 1" as anything else would do).

 

Yep, definitely. Most D20 based games suffer from this, as players try their hardest to optimise everything they have at their disposal. It became a session of "okay, I have an attack roll of +8, but your Bless spell gives me extra, which stacks with your Bard Song, your Aura of Leetness and my specially crafted Amulet of Uber Pwnage, which means I'm adding 25 to this!" :D

 

But yeah, D&D and Pathfinder both break down at about level 9 onwards. Up to around level 6 is generally still playable, with level 8 characters being truly epic, but once too many characters get beyond level 8 then it gets silly, IMO. Of course, some people like the higher level style of play, and that's fine...it just doesn't work for me.

 

My personal favourite system is the Warhammer 2nd edition system. You didn't have classes but "careers", the first of which is what you spent your life doing (which can be anything from "nobleman" to "gutter rat" - typically people would roll for their first career which would result in a far more interesting mix than if everyone chose the ideal one for their build), but due to the way advances worked, you could never reach a point at which you become ridiculously powerful and immune to everything, like you can in D&D. Even at high levels, a low level character can still potentially hurt you...in D&D there's no way a low level character can ever hope to do more to a high level character than sting him slightly.

 

Of course, I know that this game isn't going to be done with the Warhammer system...I'm just pointing out that it's currently my favourite tabletop system out there (and that I wish somebody would do a CRPG based on the system - I'd do one myself if I had any ability at programming whatsoever!! )

[Class and Race of your main toon. Poll.]

Human ranger - my favourite character to play!!

[Class abilities: ADnD vs DnD4]

Personally, I never found fighters "boring", but I totally agree with 4th edition. I hated that particular incarnation of D&D, and felt that it destroyed a lot of what D&D was about. It turned it from a roleplaying game into a miniature skirmish game. I also agree that each class should have its place, and not always be geared towards maximum combat potential. If you want to stand at the front and hit things, you shouldn't be playing a rogue - you wouldn't expect a fighter to sneak into a tower, disarming traps and picking the advanced locks, so why would you expect a rogue to operate as well in combat as a fighter can?

 

However, it seems to me that you missed out the version which might have suited you better: 3.5 edition (or Pathfinder, which is similar, and has pretty much replaced 3rd edition). That had the right idea with fighters.

 

You could attack normally, as you do in 2nd edition, but you also had feats that you could choose from. All classes get one every 3 levels but some classes get extra feats granted to them at certain levels, or can choose bonus feats. Fighters got a lot of bonus combat feats, making them the best at this (though everyone could do at least some of it). Amongst the combat feats people could choose from are:

 

Power attack - choose to, instead of attacking normally, sacrifice accuracy for damage (you could drop up to 5 from your attack bonus and add it to damage if you hit)

Expertise - choose to sacrifice accuracy for defence (drop up to 5 from your attack bonus and add it to your AC until your next turn)

Disarm - an attack that does no damage, but has a chance to disarm your opponent

Trip - an attack that does no damage but has a chance to throw your opponent to the floor

Bull rush - an attack that does no damage but can drive your opponent back

Sunder - an attack that targets an opponent's weapon, and tries to break it

Shield bash - an attack with your shield that does...something cool, but you lose your shield bonus to AC until your next turn

 

They could also get passive feats which increased their defence/attack/certain things that they could do.

 

Bowmen had Rapid Shot, which let them shoot one additional time, but with slightly reduced accuracy on all attacks. They could also get something which reduced penalties for close or long range archery.

 

There were also feats that granted you the ability to use two weapons, that let you run faster, that let you move around in combat without suffering opportunity attacks...the list of feats was ridiculously large, and anyone could take them as long as they met the prerequisites, which could lead to a lot of unique and interesting builds. It could also lead to some cheesy, uber-optimised powerbuilds as well, but I guess that's always going to happen.

 

So my advice is: check out Pathfinder, if you can get your hands on a copy.

[Ammunition]

Also, from the Wiki:

 

It's likely that bows can fire bodkin arrows for piercing damage and broadhead arrows for slashing damage.

 

So either there isn't a "basic arrow" as such, or there is a standard hunting arrow (or sth similar), which is cheap, but those two war arrows are better.

 

If the latter, and if the hunting arrow is infinite, can the war arrows at least be finite? ;-)  

[Too combat-focused?]

My assumption is that they simply haven't released as much detail about other skills/abilities yet - at least I hope this is the case because, like the OP, I don't like the modern "it's all about combat!" method.

 

I also don't like high body counts, because it makes the game far too unbelievable for my liking (so, the six of you just killed a thousand goblins with barely a scratch to show for it...yeah, why are people scared of goblins again?).

[Ammunition]

Might a present a comparison?

 

Imagine if you had to have something in your inventory in order to swing your sword, as a typical melee Fighter. You've decided "My character is going to be a swordsman." But, you need sword "ammo." You're just going to buy the crap out of it, right? Because, what good is the super-great micromanagement aspect of accounting for all that sword ammo if you are in a battle and run out of sword ammo and cannot swing your sword? Forget about the 30+ abilities/attacks you're going to be able to perform at some point throughout the game... you can't even make a basic attack, because your sword's out of ammo.

 

But the difference with that is: with that scenario, there is no other possible attack that you can do if you run out of "melee weapon ammo", so you're helpless. Archers can still draw a weapon and engage in melee combat if they run out of arrows, it's not like they're completely helpless without their bows.

 

In fact, I wish they'd bring back penalties for shooting into a melee - or at least make it really difficult to use a bow while in melee yourself - but I doubt that'll happen.

 

To me, things like losing weapons (due to disarming, or weapon breakages, or whatever), and the chance of running out of arrows, and having to swap weapons if the situation changes so that you can't use your best one, are just part of the game, and something you should have to prepare for.

 

But anyway, I've made my position on this clear, and I don't think continued discussion is going to change anybody's mind, so I'll stop labouring the point now. ;-)  If they give archers infinite arrows, I will be very disappointed.

 

eta: for me, infinite arrows is up there with regenerating health and quest markers, in the list of things that spoil RPGs for me.