The Black Hound FAQ

[Xard]

In very first hours of gameplay that is little bit too much.

 

It wouldn't be problem later on game, but in the very beginning of game with battle that hard? Uh, no thanks.

[Sand]

Hard? Hard?!?!?! Using the improved AI which allows this the difficulty level was just right. It actually forces the player to think strategically so that he or she is forced to utilize the starting party's full capabilities intelligently instead of barreling through nonchalantly.

[Xard]

Keyphrase here is very beginning of game. I have no problems with challening difficulty, but very first battles in games tend to be cakewalk.

 

That kind of challenge would scare many away

[Tale]

Why not? Three enlarged dark dwarves rushing your rather weak looking halfling wizard... and getting their butts stomped is always fun.

Anything where the Halfling is not utterly destroyed is a horrible event.

[Sand]

I think the first battles need to be as challenging as the last battles. Give it some consistency.

[Xard]

I started liking halflings after I learned about Belkar

 

edit: That heart gave too much homosexual vibes to the post

Edited July 5, 2007 by Xard

[Tale]

I started liking halflings after I learned about Belkar

 

edit: That heart gave too much homosexual vibes to the post

Play Overlord, it's a more genuine representation of Halflings.

[Ellester]

Keyphrase here is very beginning of game. I have no problems with challening difficulty, but very first battles in games tend to be cakewalk.

 

That kind of challenge would scare many away

I have to admit hard early battles would scare away a lot of people. You always gotta warm up a little with some small fights before they throw the gauntlet at you.

 

And, the only good halfling is a dead halfling.

[Spider]

I think the first battles need to be as challenging as the last battles. Give it some consistency.

 

So you're saying you want every fight to be as challenging as the next? You do realize this requires a very streamlined game (ie no variations in character levels) or monster level scaling right?

[Cantousent]

That much consistency isn't just bad CRPG. It's bad RPG. There have to be some lulls between battles and not all battles should be the same. That doesn't just mean degree of difficulty, but also in terms of types of battles.

[Llyranor]

Is that why you were trying to kill us in every battle when we were PnPing? Jerk.

[Jorian Drake]

???

[Cantousent]

Is that why you were trying to kill us in every battle when we were PnPing? Jerk.

 

At least I didn't throw my friend to his certain death.

[Musopticon?]

Right, the vine monster.

[Sand]

That much consistency isn't just bad CRPG. It's bad RPG. There have to be some lulls between battles and not all battles should be the same. That doesn't just mean degree of difficulty, but also in terms of types of battles.

 

Well, duh. I mostly run story based PnP with very few fights, but when there is a fight it is as deadly as realistically possible given the rules system used. Such as if I am going to have a hostile Duergar in the encounter he is going to use his full capabilities to kill his adversay, or to run away if the fight turns against him. Duergar have a number of special abilities and they would have used them in that fight. If Obsidian didn't want the duergar to use their abiliities then they should not have used duergar. Goblins or kobolds would have been a better choice as fodder for the githyanki and the bladelings, but Obsidian choose Duergar therefore the Duergar should have used their full strength and potential otherwise that is just piss poor design.

 

Of course some battles can be planned to be the most difficult fight for the PCs lives until a PC makes up a brilliant plan and gets a lucky critical in the first round. Let the die land where it may, you know.

Edited July 6, 2007 by Sand

[Tale]

I'm still curious as to why they dropped Sverf from that encounter.

[Xard]

potential otherwise that is just piss poor design.

 

It was

[Brannart]

I'm moving at the end of the week, then hopefully the Year of the Hound can begin in earnest.

 

A year?

 

Oh well I have already been waiting since 2003

[Attalus]

Bookmarked.

Likewise. *much applause*

[Oerwinde]

Bookmarked.

Likewise. *much applause*

[Dragon Lord Jones]

lol nice card well played

 

it's been a few months now Josh, any advancement on your side project here ? ... We all know you're busy but an update would be nice.

Edited October 11, 2007 by Dragon Lord Jones

[J.E. Sawyer]

Very little progress. A fair amount of documentation written but not a lot of real in-toolset work done. MotB is out now, so I should be able to start focusing more time on it and taking advantage of all the new available assets.

 

One thing I can talk about is how I'm changing the standard weapon and armor options. I've long been in favor of armor as damage reduction. Each type of armor within a weight category (light, medium, heavy) grants good DR against one or two damage types (slashing, piercing, crushing) and weak DR against the remainder. All have an attendant penalty to "AC" (which won't actually be called AC, but it's basically your ability to dodge blows) that's based off of the category. Heavier armor makes you easier to hit but protects against increasing amounts of damage. And depending on the situation, some light armor is as good at protecting against their "strong" armor type as heavy armors are against a "weak" type, but with a lesser "AC" penalty. So I believe it will result in more interesting choices for armor. None of the base armor types are inherently superior in a given situation, though the heavier armor types are inherently superior across a broad spectrum of encounters. And that's by design. You earn feats that unlock heavier armors. Therefore, heavier armors should be broadly better than lighter armors. That's how I view it anyway.

 

Weapons are also recategorized. There are actually more categories now, but feats never focus on individual weapons, only categories. So you'd never take Weapon Focus: Longsword. Instead you'd take Weapon Focus: Advanced Slashing Weapons. The categories are Simple, Advanced Slashing, Advanced Piercing, Advanced Crushing, Advanced Ranged, and Advanced Unarmed. Damage type always directly correlates to a trade off between base damage, crit multiplier, and crit range. So slashing weapons always do the most damage and have the lowest (x2) multiplier. Piercing weapons do the least damage and have the highest (x4) multiplier. Crushing weapons are in the middle. And then within each category, the more base damage a weapon does, the lower its crit range is. So misericords do very low (1-3) damage, but they have an 18-20 crit range. There is a tendency toward this in D&D, but I am making the trade-offs very clear and distinct.

 

Advanced weapons always do higher damage than their "lesser" simple equivalents and they always have an additional special feature that's automatically built into the weapon. Flails have an inherent attack bonus. Sabres can cause bleeding wounds. Mauls have a large knockdown bonus. And as you might be able to tell, I'm adding in some weapons that aren't in core D&D: misericords, main-gauches, sabres, hurlbats, and a few others. In part because they're just cool weapons, but also because they can help fill niches in each of the categories.

[Enoch]

Awesome. I didn't realize that you'd be getting so deep into wholesale rule changes. AC/DR and weapon categories are a few of the things in D&D that need some serious fixing, so it's great to see that you'll be taking them on.

[mkreku]

The funny thing is that Sawyer is moving away from the cumbersome D&D with his changes and is approaching.. Gothic 3 (character development-wise..)!

 

I LIKE!

[ramza]

Nice read! I am really looking forward to this...