ramza Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 There are more news on Sawyer's blog: http://the-black-hound.com/blog/ And in an RPGcodex thread: http://www.rpgcodex.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=28749 One question though: Sawyer mentions that the module will be approximately 10 hours long. Is that how long the original TBH was supposed to be? Are story elements and NPCs being left out? "Ooo, squirrels, Boo! I know I saw them! Quick, throw nuts!" -Minsc "I am a well-known racist in the Realms! Elves? Dwarves? Ha! Kill'em all! Humans rule! -Me Volourn will never grow up, he's like the Black Peter Pan, here to tell you that it might be great to always be a child, but everybody around is gonna hate it.
Sammael Posted January 20, 2009 Author Posted January 20, 2009 IIRC, TBH was originally supposed to be between 25 and 40 hours of playtime. Of course things will be left out - we cannot expect Sawyer to create the same game which had a whole team of devs behind it. Hopefully, once the core game is done, he will find the time to add additional content incrementally. There are no doors in Jefferson that are "special game locked" doors. There are no characters in that game that you can kill that will result in the game ending prematurely.
taks Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 he's mentioned elsewhere, maybe even in this painfully long thread, that he's actually doing it in chapters/modules, so the first bit he's releasing isn't the whole thing. in fact, it might even be within the last few pages. taks comrade taks... just because.
Dagon Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 Hey Josh I just read your blog about Damage Reduction and new feats and it sounds cool. I've got the question to you, is it possible to make a Turn Based combat on NWN2 engine?
kirottu Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 I've got the question to you, is it possible to make a Turn Based combat on NWN2 engine? NWN engine is turn based in it This post is not to be enjoyed, discussed, or referenced on company time.
Dagon Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 Sorry for my bad english today Anyway you guys would agree that it would be nice to have TBC in The Black Hound?
Starwars Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 It would take a lot to turn it into turnbased I believe. With the recent script additions you can make an auto-pause system ala BG, where it pauses each round but everyone still take their turns at once. If you go into turnbased you'd have to figure out how to create a queue for people to act in, some way to visualize and calculate how far your current character can move in a turn. How to handle inventory, using potions etc etc. I wouldn't hold my breath. Listen to my home-made recordings (some original songs, some not): http://www.youtube.c...low=grid&view=0
Sammael Posted January 21, 2009 Author Posted January 21, 2009 he's mentioned elsewhere, maybe even in this painfully long thread, that he's actually doing it in chapters/modules, so the first bit he's releasing isn't the whole thing. in fact, it might even be within the last few pages. taks I spent an hour last night searching for such a post, but couldn't find it. Josh, care to comment again on this? There are no doors in Jefferson that are "special game locked" doors. There are no characters in that game that you can kill that will result in the game ending prematurely.
Tigranes Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 There would be no point making it TBC. NWN2 was built with RTwP in mind, and you can't just go *snap* and make it turn-based and expect everything to stay balanced and well. There is no reason for TBH to go through the effort to become turn-based, IMO. Let's Play: Icewind Dale Ironman (Complete) Let's Play: Icewind Dale II Ironman (Complete) Let's Play: Divinity II (Complete) Let's Play: Baldur's Gate Trilogy Ironman - BG1 (Complete) Let's Play: Baldur's Gate Trilogy Ironman - BG2 (In Progress)
Darth InSidious Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 (edited) This is pure speculation, but you might be able to limit the number of actions per round with a master heartbeat script (you could just #include at the start of each unique heartbeat script, I'd imagine), and keep pausing each time the script fires (IIRC, every 6 seconds). At a guess, you'd need to work out which character goes first in each round (by AC roll? I'm not good on DnD mechanics...), and then try to fire the attacks in sequence, although I'm at a loss as to how to force that to happen... There are other problems, though, since NWScript doesn't tend to like sequences of actions very well, and trying to create finely timed sets of actions with it is a mug's game at best... but perhaps it's been fixed somewhat in NWN2. Edited January 21, 2009 by Darth InSidious This particularly rapid, unintelligible patter isn't generally heard, and if it is, it doesn't matter.
J.E. Sawyer Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 Not going to go to turn-based combat for TBH. Sorry, folks. twitter tyme
taks Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 I spent an hour last night searching for such a post, but couldn't find it. Josh, care to comment again on this? great. figures it's not easy to find. i really don't remember where i recall hearing it, btw. sorry. maybe i was dreaming... taks comrade taks... just because.
Musopticon? Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 At a guess, you'd need to work out which character goes first in each round (by AC roll? I'm not good on DnD mechanics...), and then try to fire the attacks in sequence, although I'm at a loss as to how to force that to happen... The original pnp mechanic is to force an initiative roll, which is 1d20 + Dex modifier + any external bonuses(Improved Initiative, etc). I don't know if Initiative is even featured in NWN. Naturally, that wouldn't matter, since you always fail an Initiative roll anyway. There's just so many numbers under 10. kirottu said: I was raised by polar bears. I had to fight against blood thirsty wolves and rabid penguins to get my food. Those who were too weak to survive were sent to Sweden. It has made me the man I am today. A man who craves furry hentai. So let us go and embrace the rustling smells of unseen worlds
Pope Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 (edited) Blog update! I actually thought the new base classes were a good addition. Especially the divine spellcasters. If the arcane spellcasters get a spontaneous caster, why shouln't divine ones? Spell memorization is so tabletop. But ideally for me the system would only have about 4 base classes (warrior-type, rogue-type, healer-type, magic-type), with all specializations coming from feats. Edited January 22, 2009 by Pope
taks Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 uh, what's so different about the base classes now vs. regular nwn2? i'm not seeing the distinction in his post... taks comrade taks... just because.
J.E. Sawyer Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 Blog update! I actually thought the new base classes were a good addition. Especially the divine spellcasters. If the arcane spellcasters get a spontaneous caster, why shouln't divine ones? Spell memorization is so tabletop. One might ask why clerics, druids, wizards, et al. don't just operate like that by default! twitter tyme
Aristes Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 You would have all casters be spointaneous? Wait, that sounded like I was incredulous, which I'm not! I'm just curious. It's a completely neutral question. The only downside is that spontaneous casting is the big claim to fame for sorcerors. What happens to the dynamic if that changes. Otherwise, even on tabletop, it might not be a bad idea.
Pope Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 uh, what's so different about the base classes now vs. regular nwn2? i'm not seeing the distinction in his post... taks the absence of Warlock, Spirit Shaman, Favored Soul and Swashbuckler Blog update! I actually thought the new base classes were a good addition. Especially the divine spellcasters. If the arcane spellcasters get a spontaneous caster, why shouln't divine ones? Spell memorization is so tabletop. One might ask why clerics, druids, wizards, et al. don't just operate like that by default! True. You would have all casters be spointaneous? Wait, that sounded like I was incredulous, which I'm not! I'm just curious. It's a completely neutral question. The only downside is that spontaneous casting is the big claim to fame for sorcerors. What happens to the dynamic if that changes. Otherwise, even on tabletop, it might not be a bad idea. Then ditch the Wizard class.
Monte Carlo Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 There should be no organic spell-using classes, they should all be purchased as feats by any class that meets the prerequisite statistics (i.e. INT-based magic, WIS-based magic and CHA-based magic). Discuss. Cheers MC
Pope Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 There should be no organic spell-using classes, they should all be purchased as feats by any class that meets the prerequisite statistics (i.e. INT-based magic, WIS-based magic and CHA-based magic). Discuss. Cheers MC That's interesting, and somewhat along my lines of thought. What base classes would you include besides fighter then?
Gfted1 Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 Thats one of the things I hated about 3.5, everyone could be a god at everything. Whats the point of classes? All abilities could be feat based too. "I'm your biggest fan, Ill follow you until you love me, Papa"
Monte Carlo Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 To be honest, I was thinking about RuneQuest, my favourite ever pen & paper RPG (which was classless). Anybody could use 'Battle Magic' which were like hexes or curses that gave modest benefits or penalties (it was a pretty low-magic game). Characters could buy Battle Magic if they could find someone to teach it to them (it was mana-styled, based on a stat called Power. Ability scores were in the 3-18 range like D&D so an average stat was 11-12... you could cast two or three half-decent spells from your own stats. You could use power crystals and so on to boost this). Then there was Rune Magic, analagous to divine magic in D&D that higher-powered characters could access via joining religions (or 'cults', which I suppose in 1978 wasn't such a perjorative term). I'm seeing Battle Magic as Feats and access to Rune Magic as Prestige Class abilities. For D&D a la NWN2? My base classes would be rogue, barbarian and fighter. Period. And I'd give them all access to all skills, just with a weighted point-buy based on class. Becoming a cleric or wizard then becomes a real test of character development that you could meaningfully blend with other skills and abilities. OK, your rogue is going to concentrate on perhaps more dialogue / negotiation and your warrior on bashing things but inbetween those poles you could do anything else where magic was concerned. A favourite RQ character was a dim but quite wise and very charismatic tribal warrior / thief. He used tribal battle magic only to enhance his stealth and combat skills, rather than rain down fireballs and summon demons. It fitted the setting, I guess D&D is the high magic opposite :: shrug :: Cheers MC
Enoch Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 I always felt that Sorcerors made no sense at all. D&D magic was always strangely arbitrary, with the spells being so particular and heavy on little details like material components, casting times, durations, areas of effect, etc. I attributed this to magic being a force that nobody really understood, but that could be manipulated in particular ways only if one followed certain time-honored formulae exactly (i.e., spells). Conceptually, there is nothing wrong with intuitive spellcasting in this environment, but there is also no logic behind the manifestation of this intuitive spellcasting having the exact same effects as the arcane formulae that underly INT-based spellcasting. Sure, it makes sense that a Wizard, following a recipe devised ages ago, can only produce a Fireball that is exactly 30' in diameter-- no more or less-- because that's what that particular recipe does, and nobody really understands the underlying theory enough to modify it without major research and experimentation. But why should a spellcaster whose connection to the arcane is purely intuitive suffer the same limitation? IMO, on a conceptual level, the Warlock is a better model for an intuitive spellcasting class. (The song-based abilities of Bards, as well.)
Pope Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 Josh, you mentioned multiclassing for spellcasters being problematic in 3/3.5E. How would you solve this?
Sammael Posted January 23, 2009 Author Posted January 23, 2009 (edited) Josh, you mentioned multiclassing for spellcasters being problematic in 3/3.5E. How would you solve this? IMO, there is no good way other that to rewrite the system. I have a feat-based solution, but it's too costly under the default 3.5 rules (one feat every 3 levels). It goes something like this: Practiced Spellcaster Prerequisite: Ability to cast spells Benefit: Choose one of your classes which grants spellcasting ability. Your spellcasting ability is improved as if you took another level in that class. You may gain new spells and new slots, depending on your class description, and your caster level increases. Your spellcasting ability may not exceed your character level. Special: You may take this feat multiple times. So, if you took an evenly multiclassed Fighter 10/Wizard 10 (for example), and assigned all feat slots to Practiced Spellcaster, you would end up with a character that has the fighting ability of a 15th level fighter (roughly) and spellcasting ability of a 16th level wizard (roughly). It doesn't work as well for spellcasters with multiple spellcasting classes. Frex, A Cleric 10/Wizard 10 would end up being effectively a cleric 13/wizard 13. Better than what is normally available, but still not as good as... *shudder* ... Mystic Theurge, and at the cost of feats. Under my reworked d20 system, there is an array of Practiced X feats which let you pick and choose class abilities, and you get a 1/2 level bonus to all skills (and spellcasting is vaguely skill based). For example: Practiced Arcanist Prerequisite: Character level 5, Arcana 1, Benefit: You learn one mage spell of your choice, which you can use once per day. The level of spell must not exceed your Arcana rating. Special: You may take this feat multiple times. Each time you take this feat, you can either choose a different spell or gain another daily use of an already known spell. Arcana mentioned above is a replacement for Knowledge (Arcana) and a key skill for the Mage class, which is a combination of Wizard and Sorcerer. Under my revised system, you get feats every even level, and they are generally nowhere near as exciting as they used to be under 3.5 (exciting abilities are all moved to class features). Thus, under this system, you could have a Fighter 10/Mage 10 who maxed Arcana (10 ranks of Arcana @ level 19), which would enable him to have full progression of a 10th level Mage (i.e. spells of up to 5th level), plus at least 1 spell per day for spell levels 6-10. You'd be weaker than a full Mage (who gains up to 4 slots of each spell level), but you could "keep up" in terms of relative power, since you would have access to the most powerful spells. Edited January 23, 2009 by Sammael There are no doors in Jefferson that are "special game locked" doors. There are no characters in that game that you can kill that will result in the game ending prematurely.
Recommended Posts