Should the player char be able to become more powerful than the most powerful NPCs?

[BasaltineBadger]

No he should not. It's absurd that a guy who started adventuring 2 years ago is suddenly more powerful than some legendary immortal warrior-king from outer space.

[TrashMan]

The PC should not ascend to ridiculous level of power unless there's a compelling story reason for it. But I'd prefer it if that wouldn't happen.

 

I suggest the following to keep the PCs power somewhat realistic and in line:

 

- increase attributes on level-up sparingly (DA: O, as good as it was in some aspects, gave you a ridiculous amount of attribute points which was bad)

- increase hitpoints only if the governing attribute (usually constitution) is increased or an appropriate passive skill is taken

- realistic progression in weapon and armor quality - no stuff like a low quality sword doing 5-10 damage and a high level one 60-90

- increase the PC's power by allowing them to learn better combat maneuvers and skills

 

In the end, I want the feeling that an experienced PC is a veteran with an edge, not some inexplicably unkillable tank that mows down entire armies.

 

Agreed.

With everything.

10000000000000000000000000000%

 

The DA:O attribute system was stupid and pointless.

Points were hadned like cand,y and each point has practicly no impact. Also, the stats were jsut lookign redicolous. You were supposed to be above-average when starting the game (str 16) and end up with 80 str? What? WHAT?

[Jarmo]

The problem with realistic hitpoints, though, is the unrealistic nature of magic.

 

If a beginning character has, say 10 HP and a high level character 20 HP,

it pretty much either means a spellcaster can kill anything just like that,

or that wizards don't get offensive spells. (and I'd be fine with that)

 

Just think what kind of spells you can give to a high level caster,

if all high level characters can be killed the same as low level ones.

 

Makes sense in all kinds of ways, but makes the game a monster to balance.

[TrashMan]

Jarmo, you lack immagination.

 

In D&D terms, think of characters having 10HP per CON point. Your low-lvl characters are not so squshy anymore.

 

Of course, starting wizards would get more starting spells (and spells would be re-balanced damage-wise too).

 

Now either you can go the route of scaling that magic missile so the damage goes up (so a first lvl mage can still heavily wound a starting opponent with magic missile), or increase spell number.

In other words, magic missiele does low damage but you can cast a lot of them, or magic missile does like..50 damage and with two you can fell a typical brigand...assuming they have like 100 HP

 

You wizzard is suddeny not so squishy anymore OR usueless at low levels.

 

Pretty much the starting experience is more similar to mid D&D.

Edited October 1, 2012 by TrashMan

[Adhin]

I'mma go with what Trashman said, more or less. I prefer a system that, generally speaking, your improvement comes from how much you know and how much you can generally take on at once but ultimately things you where dealing with at lvl 1 can stillt ake you out, given they have the numbers (and it makes sense). I mean the idea a rats any kind of actual enemy outside of them brain psionic rats in PST always seems kinda silly.

 

For that I prefer actually non-scaling HP. Everyone has the same base general HP, it changes due to stats and perhaps some kinda class-archtype. Can't remember where I posted this but in something I was working on (or technically still am) Basic setup was 150hp for say a priest or general class-like character. Warriors where 200, Mages where 100. Also had a low-regenerating mana system in place so mage/warrior was reversed in that total but we dunno what they're going with in that.

 

Anyway point is, HP never scales up other then via a constition, stamina or vitality stat, whatever it ends up being called. This allows you to still make a very beefy, tanky character that has an 'easier' time dealing with bigger enemies or groups of enemies but generally speaking what the difference from lvl 1 to 30 is literally just 'what you know' and other stuff increase such as chance to hit. Getting better armor, being more aware of stuff and having an easier time evading attacks as a consequence of that.

 

Ultimately I think some kind of HP growth for everyone can, and does make sense as you'd get more use to pain and just dealing with wounds after awhile of constant combat. But some games just take it to an extreme. A lot of that in DnD is due to Constition giving HP value on a per-lvl basis. Got 30 Con? Great that's +10 hp per lvl! When, I think DAO did that, actually. Con was just static HP boosts but you still gained some HP per lvl.

 

Anyway... less scaling in survival stuff, more emphasis on stats over lvl in relation to that stuff. Make it more about what skills you know and can use vs just quadding dmg and getting 100x the hp you had at lvl 1.

 

-edit-

I can also say with some authority being involved with a HP system like that. It works out extremely well, and some stuff in number still remain a huge threat down the road. Granted most of those can be taken out with a well times fireball but that kind of thing is to be expected. Just an example of a character knowing something from experience they didn't know back when they had to fight them at lower lvls. I do actally use the +10 per con, base hp of about 100-200 (depending on class). Low lvls plays like lvl 10-ish DnD, 20+ plays bit more simular minus some chars getting the 800+ hp you could get in DnD from over 20 heh. Think my Barbarian at 20 had like 600 or something in 3E rules, was kinda crazy. But in either case, going from 300 (20 con, 200 base hp) to 600 is MUCh less of a jump in numbers then PnP where it would of been 17 hp vs 600. Thats a giant HP different, absolutely 'massive'.

 

And as Trashman said, it just means the lower lvl stuff is balanced more around like what DnD is mid lvl.. works out great.

Edited October 1, 2012 by Adhin

[Amentep]

Generally I support the idea that anything the PC can do an NPC should be able to do (and vice versa).

[Jarmo]

Well TrashMan, now you're just upping HP again, but it doesn't really change the equation.

 

If typical brigand has about 100HP, then the high level warrior should have... 200?

So he'll be instantly killed when facing 4-6 first level mages each snapping him with 50HP missiles.

 

I'm sure this could be balanced out somehow, but there's been RPG's for some 40 years or so,

and I don't know of a single one that'd have this covered in a satisfactory manner.

 

RuneQuest was pretty neat, but it went the way of having almost no damaging attack spells,

almost everything was just for fighters to buff themselves.

 

And I'll have to add.. I basically agree. I'm just unsure such a system could be properly balanced.

 

--

Dragonlance novels highlighted the problem. They somewhat made fighters and rogues and everything

behave realistically... but still had mages keep all the spells. Meaning nobody could do anything of

consequence but mages. (not saying the novels had game mechanics).

Edited October 1, 2012 by Jarmo

[TrashMan]

Well TrashMan, now you're just upping HP again, but it doesn't really change the equation.

 

If typical brigand has about 100HP, then the high level warrior should have... 200?

So he'll be instantly killed when facing 4-6 first level mages each snapping him with 50HP missiles.

 

 

I fail to see the problem there.

 

You seem to think that low-level characters should be wusses...and that mages should be too.

A mage, regardless of level, should be a formidable opponent.

Especially when there's 6 of them. Mages should be terrifying opponents.

 

 

You know the problem with D&D? You low-level party is making camp when you are suddenly attacked by 3 lvl 1 wizards.

*cue party laughing*

 

Basicly this scenario here:

http://spoonyexperim...eaping-wizards/

 

That should never happen.

 

 

Also, against magic missiles there's thing like SHIELDS and resistances and stuff.

 

 

It's not really that much different from simply starting the game at 10th level, and having a MUCH lower level progression curve.

 

 

I'm sure this could be balanced out somehow, but there's been RPG's for some 40 years or so,

and I don't know of a single one that'd have this covered in a satisfactory manner.

 

Not a problem actually.

There have been gems without HP inflation and games without levels. And they had good gameplay and the player could feel like badass (take for instance Splinter Cell.. or Jagged Alliance 2). You don't necessarily have to look for inspiration among strict RPG's only you know...

[Jarmo]

If typical brigand has about 100HP, then the high level warrior should have... 200?

So he'll be instantly killed when facing 4-6 first level mages each snapping him with 50HP missiles.

 

 

I fail to see the problem there.

....

It's not really that much different from simply starting the game at 10th level, and having a MUCH lower level progression curve.

.....

 

Well.. I think we'll have to disagree on this.

 

 

There have been gems without HP inflation and games without levels. And they had good gameplay and the player could feel like badass (take for instance Splinter Cell.. or Jagged Alliance 2). You don't necessarily have to look for inspiration among strict RPG's only you know...

 

But I'll just add anyway, I'd rule Splinter Cell totally out. It's a sneaky game where you're not even supposed to fight but sneak about?

 

JA2.. would be a fine example and I'd really love seeing a fantasy RPG done like that.

But you're pretty much expected to have casualties there and then get new recruits and go with them instead.

In Eternity you have a very limited pool of companions and having them die left and right would sort of ruin everything.

 

... and I guess that wouldn't be a problem either, except to me it would be an excercise in constant reloading and not fun.

[Tuco Benedicto]

This is what difficulty levels are for.

 

Find normal too easy, try hard, find hard too easy, try extreme.

If your progressing system is deeply flawed in principle, no amount of rushed "tweaks" to adjust the difficulty setting can make it reasonable or interesting.

 

Personally I'm all for systems with a horizontal growth instead of a vertical one. Your character becomes more lethal, versatile and experienced, as it's supposed to be, but he can still be killed by low level enemies if he doesn't even try to defend himself or if he acts poorly.

Exponential growth is the worst offender. The idea that a character can go from 60 hp to 9000, for instance, is so stupid.

 

Games that nailed very well that principle, "Of course you are becoming more powerful and experienced in a noticeable way, but you still are potentially very vulnerable", are Mount & Blade and Dark Souls, just to name a few.

Or Darklands, if we are talking about party based games.

Edited October 1, 2012 by Tuco Benedicto

[TrashMan]

But I'll just add anyway, I'd rule Splinter Cell totally out. It's a sneaky game where you're not even supposed to fight but sneak about?

 

You miss the point. The point is that you felt more powerfull and more badass, even tough not a single stat increased.

You - as a player- learned to use Sams skills better and Sam got more skills ad better equipment.

[Darth Trethon]

Yes, absolutely, Skyrim has the right idea and I think Obsidian should take it a step forward.....grant the player character godhood by tying leveling up for the final time with a story event where the player character transcends mortality and attains a great deal of powers appropriate for the new status.

[Tuco Benedicto]

Yes, absolutely, Skyrim has the right idea and I think Obsidian should take it a step forward.....grant the player character godhood by tying leveling up for the final time with a story event where the player character transcends mortality and attains a great deal of powers appropriate for the new status.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fJSxbVSKLw

[Shadenuat]

No, but player AND his five party members probably should, to the point that they can take "that dragon", or "that wizard", if they separate those from their minions.

Edited October 1, 2012 by Shadenuat

[Hypevosa]

Remember that not everyone will utilize 5 party members. This is why I think that the exp system should just allow it so a solo adventurer could feasibly reach equal status with the most powerful NPC, where tactics and luck would be the deciding factor in their battle. Adventuring with others would divide that exp pool and make it so you as a combined party were powerful enough.

[SanguineAngel]

Remember that not everyone will utilize 5 party members. This is why I think that the exp system should just allow it so a solo adventurer could feasibly reach equal status with the most powerful NPC, where tactics and luck would be the deciding factor in their battle. Adventuring with others would divide that exp pool and make it so you as a combined party were powerful enough.

 

I would tackle it very differently. I would scale encounters based on party size or calculated combat strength. (this can obviously been altered using the difficulty options that have already been discussed in the official updates). Additionally, I would want to encourage a solo player to tray and think their way out of overwhelming situations. I mean, if you've chosen to go it alone you have to expect to be weaker and so be forced to avoid some situations. There would be an overlapping balance between these two solutions

[Hypevosa]

Remember that not everyone will utilize 5 party members. This is why I think that the exp system should just allow it so a solo adventurer could feasibly reach equal status with the most powerful NPC, where tactics and luck would be the deciding factor in their battle. Adventuring with others would divide that exp pool and make it so you as a combined party were powerful enough.

 

I would tackle it very differently. I would scale encounters based on party size or calculated combat strength. (this can obviously been altered using the difficulty options that have already been discussed in the official updates). Additionally, I would want to encourage a solo player to tray and think their way out of overwhelming situations. I mean, if you've chosen to go it alone you have to expect to be weaker and so be forced to avoid some situations. There would be an overlapping balance between these two solutions

 

See, I've never been one for dev ex machina where you save the player from their pride/stupidity by decreasing encounters based on party size and things like that. I mean, except in instances where someone specifically is hiring mercenaries to kill your party, why would those who oppose you alter in force depending on how many people you had? That would also mean nerfing the rival NPC's stats for no reason. It's like that flaw in oblivion where you can go anywhere you want since the world levels up right along side you. It's more just a design principle of mine though...

[SanguineAngel]

Remember that not everyone will utilize 5 party members. This is why I think that the exp system should just allow it so a solo adventurer could feasibly reach equal status with the most powerful NPC, where tactics and luck would be the deciding factor in their battle. Adventuring with others would divide that exp pool and make it so you as a combined party were powerful enough.

 

I would tackle it very differently. I would scale encounters based on party size or calculated combat strength. (this can obviously been altered using the difficulty options that have already been discussed in the official updates). Additionally, I would want to encourage a solo player to tray and think their way out of overwhelming situations. I mean, if you've chosen to go it alone you have to expect to be weaker and so be forced to avoid some situations. There would be an overlapping balance between these two solutions

 

See, I've never been one for dev ex machina where you save the player from their pride/stupidity by decreasing encounters based on party size and things like that. I mean, except in instances where someone specifically is hiring mercenaries to kill your party, why would those who oppose you alter in force depending on how many people you had? That would also mean nerfing the rival NPC's stats for no reason. It's like that flaw in oblivion where you can go anywhere you want since the world levels up right along side you. It's more just a design principle of mine though...

 

It's more a case of scaling the game to fit the capabilities of the player party to a reasonable degree. In the context of the game, the player won't know what they're facing until they face it, so it's academic whether the mob they face might have been larger if there were more in the party, the player or player character doesn't have that knowledge. Encounters would still be bound to certain levels of difficulty (such as level)

 

Remember there's a similar mechanic in ToEE that Sawyer discussed where difficulty level determined the number of enemies the player faced. Then there's the mode where you can face ALL the enemies in an encounter collectively (easy, medium & hard combined)... It's not to say that I would want to see the game be the same difficulty for 1 as for 6 but it is a way of balancing it to produce a reasonable challenge.

 

This wouldn't suddenly mean the world levels up with you and you couldn't now mysteriously face anyone any time.

Edited October 1, 2012 by SanguineAngel

[Hypevosa]

Well, why can't we just let the player find out on their own though? Unless this is something where a player is unable to run from fights or is unable to discern how formidable his foes are, the player learning to just pick their battles should be fine until they've leveled high enough on their own. Why is it a bad idea to look at the strongest NPC and go "ok, so a player who is soloing would need to reach level X to have nearly equivalent stats, and they'll find as good gear on their own" and then make that level attainable through solo play?

 

I'd argue the purpose of someone soloing is largely a power trip - if you cannot actually beat the strongest NPC with your character by the end of the journey without cheesing the fight somehow, like abusing magical items, that kinda sucks... doesn't it?

[SanguineAngel]

Well, why can't we just let the player find out on their own though? Unless this is something where a player is unable to run from fights or is unable to discern how formidable his foes are, the player learning to just pick their battles should be fine until they've leveled high enough on their own. Why is it a bad idea to look at the strongest NPC and go "ok, so a player who is soloing would need to reach level X to have nearly equivalent stats, and they'll find as good gear on their own" and then make that level attainable through solo play?

 

I'd argue the purpose of someone soloing is largely a power trip - if you cannot actually beat the strongest NPC with your character by the end of the journey without cheesing the fight somehow, like abusing magical items, that kinda sucks... doesn't it?

 

Yes. Which is why I propose the balancing situation - remember that you're proposing that you allow characters to become extremely powerful in order to allow soloing. My thought is that you don't need to do that

[Hypevosa]

I understand, but to me your means are (essentially) the devs cheesing the game for the player. While we agree on the ends, its the means of getting there I have quarrels with - again, it's just a design principle I am upholding: having a constant world that lives outside the player's gaming choices once they have chosen a difficulty. It's harder to make that way, but for me the authenticity is worth it.

[lobotomy42]

I don't have a direct answer to the question. It depends on how powerful the most powerful NPC is. I don't think the PC should become as powerful as a minor god, but I do believe in a sense of progression. If I've been playing for 20 hours and levelling, I do not want my character to die fighting a rat. On the other hand, I definitely, definitely do not want level scaling. If I wander into a dangerous area with creatures higher-level than me, I should expect to die pretty quickly, or get the hell out.

 

At the moment, I don't particularly care about how the stats are structured - they are just a numeric abstraction of the fictional combat, so I'm not sure there is even a way to judge if a given number is "good" or "realistic" without knowing the whole combat system and what those numbers are supposed to represent.

[PsychoBlonde]

I would turn this around . . . how did those "most powerful NPC's" get to be what they are? And why should you NOT be able to at least do the same?

 

You could argue that some of the power of those "most powerful NPC's" comes from stuff that the PC probably doesn't have the time or opportunity to accumulate on that scale--land, followers, wealth, armies . . . in which case you probably shouldn't be able to take down their ENTIRE ESTABLISHMENT. Okay. I will buy that. But Mano e Mano there's no reason why you shouldn't EVER be able to give them a run for their money.

 

Granted, if their power comes from them being different in KIND from the PC instead of just different in DEGREE (like, they're a dragon and you're human, or they're a god and you're human, etc.), I'd buy that too. But if they're just another member of a player race(Elminster, Drizz't), all bets are off.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

As per usual, I humbly suggest that we do take a leaf out of the most sacred book of Arcanum. That game, though it did allow your character to increase massively in power, often made you choose between what kind of power you got, as you only got one character point a level, and couldn't get attribute and skill increases both. While your ability in all areas did increase greatly, there ended up being a significant tradeoff between offensive and defensive power. For example, my Technologist character, by the late game, could confidently rip most anything apart at a distance with her trusty elephant gun, but was still quite vulnerable if powerful or many enemies got up close. While there was a feeling of being more powerful than most enemies, being mobbed by smaller ones or torn apart by bigger ones was still a worry - in my experience, nothing would withstand constant pounding, friend or foe. Or the epic level 3.5 D&D campaign I ran, where the party, while definitely far superior, was still threatened by enemies five or so levels below - our absent-minded lvl 25 elf sorcerer frequently found herself killed by lvl 18 Assassins.

 

Returning to the original question, I definitely think we should be able to at least reach equal terms with all significant active NPCs within the game in terms of personal power. Or at least the `normal` ones. We should be able to win the duel with the evil general, or have the party slay the dragon king, albeit with difficulty. The only things that should be able to curb-stomp the PCs should be the Gods (which I gather rarely turn up to personally do some smiting), the Sealed Evils inna Can (because keeping the Can sealed is probably the objective), and suchlike. That, or wave upon wave of mooks. Incidentally, I'd like it if, should the party get curb-stomped, that we actually get a chance to play that and feel `legitimately` curb-stomped: for example, losing the fight with Ser Cauthrien and her battalion of soldiers at Howe's estate in DAO didn't feel too bad (not least because it was theoretically possible to win). `Losing` to Kai Leng on Thessia in ME3 was the second most annoying part of the game, because he hadn't come with some significant advantage and `won` through a cutscene, beating me only because THE PLOT DEMANDS IT!.

 

TL, DR: Characters should become visibly much more powerful but still feel vulnerable. Should be able to equal most major NPCs. No Cutscene Curb-stomps.

[moridin84]

This topic has kinda de-railed into a mixture of topics.Fun I guess.

 

1) Should a PC be more powerful then the most powerful NPC? - Story

Probably not, it does depend on the story and what exactly your character is supposed to be.

 

2) Should a PC be more powerful then the most powerful NPC? - Game play

This is simply a matter of game balancing at higher levels. That said, if you end up being ridiculously over levelled, I don't know what exactly you'd expect. Depends on how far you can go with level scaling.

 

3) Power level curve.

Personally I think that the bandits you had trouble in the first hour of the game should be completely and utterly trivial 20 hours into the game. One of the main things that happen in the RPGs, is character progress. Both from a story and a game play perspective.

 

Whether the power level curve is linear or exponential? Probably based on however the character is supposed to feel, based on the story.

 

4) Level scaling

Simply put... this is basically a requirement. It was done quite badly at first but developers seem to be getting the hang of it.

 

The reason why this is a needed is because it lets people do content in whatever order they like. They aren't forced to go from area A (levels 1-10) to area B (levels 10-20) to etc. Regardless of what order they do the areas and how many side quests they have done, the content is still challenging.

 

That's the idea behind it.

Edited October 1, 2012 by moridin84