Project Eternity Update #36: Off to our elfhomes, but first...

[J.E. Sawyer]

Capital-A Abilities are always class-specific. Talents are a mix of class-specific and class-neutral abilities. Some Talents will be open to anyone but unlock earlier for characters of certain classes, races, or cultures. Outside of class restrictions, it will be rare for Talents to have strict prerequisites that do not eventually open up to all characters of a certain level. E.g. Alteration School Specialization will never open for non-wizards because it specifically augments wizard spells. Weapon Specialization will likely be available to Fighters at low levels with certain specializations opening early to characters of any class who are elves, Aedyrans, etc. Then at a higher level, Weapon Specialization will be available to characters of any class as long as they meet the level requirement.

[Hormalakh]

AWESOME! Thanks for answering.

 

Edit: I really like this new way of skill/talent/ability customization. I finally understand what you meant about IWD2-ish but not so extreme. It basically allows us to go down several different paths without forcing any decisions upon us. I never thought to "customize" Alteration spells for wizards, for example, or allow culture/race specific abilities further down the line. Most RPGs only make race matter at the beginning of character customization and that's it for that. This way is much better. It's great. Can't wait!

Edited December 20, 2012 by Hormalakh

[lolaldanee]

Capital-A Abilities are always class-specific. Talents are a mix of class-specific and class-neutral abilities. Some Talents will be open to anyone but unlock earlier for characters of certain classes, races, or cultures. Outside of class restrictions, it will be rare for Talents to have strict prerequisites that do not eventually open up to all characters of a certain level. E.g. Alteration School Specialization will never open for non-wizards because it specifically augments wizard spells. Weapon Specialization will likely be available to Fighters at low levels with certain specializations opening early to characters of any class who are elves, Aedyrans, etc. Then at a higher level, Weapon Specialization will be available to characters of any class as long as they meet the level requirement.

 

sounds really good in general, but:

if for example magic can not be learned by any other class than mages, we really need multiclassing, please mr. sawyer, sir, i beg ye

[rjshae]

The multi-classing system from D&D 3.5e never made much sense from a logistical standpoint. A Wizard spends years learning the rudiments of his craft, yet a barbarian could suddenly multi-class as a Wizard? It seems like there should be more of a hurdle. I'm kind of okay with not having multi-classing in that form. (Plus multi-classing as a Wizard is kinda sucky anyway in D&D, unless you PrC.)

Edited December 20, 2012 by rjshae

[Monte Carlo]

If t he system Josh describes is done right there will be negligible need for multi-classing, although I take your point about spell-casting.

 

But if you want a warrior-mage type character it looks like you will be able to build one, using mage as the base class.

 

Josh, in percentage terms how much can you "bend" your core class away from it's archetype? For example if I want a very aggressive melee rogue who isn't a light-fighter warrior do I need to take rogue and go 60/40 (sixty roguish / 40 skills and talents towards fighting) ?

 

Sorry if my question doesn't make much sense, but I'm sure you'll figure it out.

[Sacred_Path]

If t he system Josh describes is done right there will be negligible need for multi-classing, although I take your point about spell-casting.

 

But if you want a warrior-mage type character it looks like you will be able to build one, using mage as the base class.

 

This.

 

It's ok if you have to spend a little time and thought building a mage character with stats and perks that make him more functional in combat rather than "I'll take three levels of fighter! Wee!".

[tohw]

 

Rogue

• Escape - The rogue may hop a short distance away and all hostiles lose him or her as a direct target for 3 seconds. After the 3 seconds are up, enemies can target the rogue normally.
  

 

 

Just a small thing, I really enjoyed reading this, really hungry for more character details, as that in many ways is what i enjoy most out of RPGs.

 

The above skills though, feels somewhat unclear, not necessarily in function, but in believability and visual representation. Seeing a character "hop" away and cause enemies to magically lose them as targets will not be convincing to me.

Something more along the lines of "smoke bomb" would have the exact same effect, but would also be very clear to the player WHY exactly the enemy actually lost the rogue as a target. I know it's a small thing, but when things don't make sense it just breaks the immersion a little for me... couldn't help myself.

Personally if I was an evil orc fighting a rogue that "hopped"(or rolled, cartwheeled or even turned around and sprinted) away from me due to taking too much damage, I would chase him down and kill him, it makes little sense that simply moving away would cause anyone to lose a target... especially the one you are currently fighting.

If there was a cloud of smoke obscuring the rogue as he/she moved away though, that would make perfect sense. As not even an angry orc would want to wade headlong into a cloud and possibly be poisoned or backstabbed by the sneaky rogue.

Guess in this case, for me, it's just a matter of what flavor you put on it.

 

With the way your skillsystem seems to work, spells being X uses then rest and so on, this ability could imo also be like that. You buy it, starts with 2 uses per rest, then as you level up you can get more if you specialise, or perhaps through equipment that give more "pockets" to carry bombs in. Just a thought, it would force you to make a conscious choice whether it's worth it or not, maybe the next fight will be way worse? Instead of having it cost a regenerating resource which will make it a far less important choice.

 

Anyaway, just some thoughts that popped out when reading this. Good stuff though, thanks for the details and have a merry christmas and a happy new year!

[Sacred_Path]

One question about wizards, if they can spam an AoE attack with a wand, why would you ever want them to swing a sword?

[J.E. Sawyer]

Implements and Blasts are not particularly powerful per-shot. They have two advantages: range and area of effect. If you want to hit a single character hard without casting a limited-resource spell, don't use an implement. Put a sword, spear, or mace in your hand, march up to the front line, and start melee-ing.

 

Some wizard spells are short range and very powerful, but that puts in you in close contact with enemies. Players who want to focus on this type of spellcasting may want to use a good melee weapon instead of falling back with implements/Blasts.

[rjshae]

Blasts might be a good way to disrupt an enemy spell caster though(?).

[Game_Exile]

Worst is when the active ability express comes to realtime/pause RPGs. Dragon Age Origins being a prime example, I find that I spend most of the battle paused, which in turn causes severe pacing problems. ESPECIALLY if I can't queue up abilities. The solution to this problem was a primitive if/then list with which you can "program" conditional behaviors onto your minions. DAO even thought it would be fun to make these programmed behaviors tie into a skill progression allowing you to program even more conditions. Ick.

The biggest problem I have with the way combat looks right now is the unlimited pausing. Pausing should be limited by cost, possible frequency, or a combination of both, along with limited duration. At least there should be a reasonably balanced difficulty mode that includes this. With unlimited pausing, players who are always looking for the best possible outcome in combat are going to wind up with "pacing problems" any way you cut it. And maybe commands issued during pause should cost a little bit extra? There could be story affects connected to pause, like going into 'ultra synergy mode' or some ****, and you could have stuff like leadership or synergy stats connected to it (and these things could show up in the story outside of combat as well).

 

It would probably be appropriate, as Jon had mentioned, for players to activate(?) abilities less on certain classes like fighters. In BG2 for example, there are lots of "active" abilites that just add effects to standard fighter actions like making them move faster, hit harder, stun on hit, etc. I'd just like to see more emphasis on spatial calculations and visual effects in combat, where more of the significant stuff that is happening in combat shows up in the playing field. Combat should be more action oriented, meaning the player should have to react more to what is happening as it happens. The solution to every combat encounter shouldn't always be clear at the start of battle, and there should be some game changing abilities or tactics from enemies that require some defensive maneuvers and improvisation from players.

 

If only there would at least be a well balanced difficulty mode where the player would need to use all the game's resources and abilities properly in order to win.

[entrerix]

will weapons like short spears/javelines have an option to be both thrown and useable as a melee weapon? would it be a toggle on the item or do you envision them as two seperate equippable weapons (ie, short spears are melee only, and javelines are ranged only)?

[Hormalakh]

I've noticed that Project Eternity is implementing many mechanics that make resting/camping a significant "thing." For example, limiting camp sites, allowing health restoration only during resting, restoring magic spells, and now accessing the "stash" inventory. I've looked at how Darklands handles camping/resting as a mechanic and I've got to say that it seems more interesting than IE games and is a more engaging way of rest/repair. Any hope that you guys might consider implementing it this way? Thanks in advance.

 

Edited December 21, 2012 by Hormalakh

[Brasidas]

Thanks for the update, Josh. Oh, and thanks for your patience with us as well. Who knew resolutions could be both confusing and emotional?

 

I'm still thinking about the best way to handle weapons that traditionally have mixed roles in combat (e.g. polearms, military/war hammers).

 

This seems like a tough question. What's the purpose of mixed role weapon in a DT system? When considering the poleax, versatility springs to mind as an obvious benefit; however, multiple weapon sets make this trivial, especially if switching weapons is instantaneous. A lower experience point cost for proficiency? The character would need to learn only one skill, as opposed to three, to be effective against all armor types. Perhaps special abilities? Spears control area with their reach, hammers stun, and axes are devastating against unprotected flesh, but a poleax can do all three without wasting a cooldown to switch weapons.

Edited December 21, 2012 by Brasidas

[tdent]

Your classes make me feel like you have a melee tank, a ranged healer, a squishy melee dps who can escape the fight at will, and a ranged caster dps.

 

None of these interest me particularly. Please include more options, like straight up melee dps, ranged physical dps, etc

 

While combat really isn't the focus of your game and won't be the focus of my playthrough, at the least I'd like to be 'okay' :|

 

I'm guessing you didn't read the other Kickstarter updates. These are only the four core classes. There are... a whole bunch of other classes too. Not to mention specialization options for each. So go forth and read! Although Obsidian hasn't detailed several of the other classes just yet.

 

(Wait, combat isn't the focus of PE? I think you really completely missed the Kickstarter, then. The IWD series was all combat. PE is supposed to be a complete trifecta with plenty of good combat along with the narrative and questing.)

 

Actually... uh... I kinda read em off an on >.>

 

As long as it isn't just these 4 I'm happy.

[J.E. Sawyer]

All this is to say, please be mindful of bloat on active abilities!

We are. Wizards will have among the most and fighters among the fewest, not because they "should", but because that's how we're choosing to design them. Among fighter abilities, many are modal, like 3E/3.5 Power Attack, so their strong tendency will be toward lower maintenance overall, but there will still be a range. Similarly, while wizards can select Talents that are more on the passive side, all of their spells are active abilities. You effectively can't play a fully passive wizard, only various flavors of active.

[Gyor]

It'd be neat if Christmas elves of some sort were a subrace of elves.

 

Anyways sounds cool.

 

I like the baseline abilities for these four classes.

 

I'm curious how often Priests can use recovery, is it encounter, at will? Recovery could use a cooler name, maybe blessing, or Faith Healing.

 

Sacred Circle sounds like the priests passive ability, but a cool one.

 

Not sure how a Priests diety choice effects things.

 

Wizard blasts remind me of the 3e warlock.

 

Rogues sound cool.

 

I also love the invetory system.

[Archmage Silver]

@Josh

About priests - if there are no "miraculous" healing abilities or spells (i.e. instant heals and resurrection), do you intend to add more variety to the priest's spell list to keep them from being completely outperformed by other caster classes in combat? Or will the priests have access to more melee abilities than the "glass cannon" casters?

[rjshae]

Worst is when the active ability express comes to realtime/pause RPGs. Dragon Age Origins being a prime example, I find that I spend most of the battle paused, which in turn causes severe pacing problems. ESPECIALLY if I can't queue up abilities. The solution to this problem was a primitive if/then list with which you can "program" conditional behaviors onto your minions. DAO even thought it would be fun to make these programmed behaviors tie into a skill progression allowing you to program even more conditions. Ick.

The biggest problem I have with the way combat looks right now is the unlimited pausing. Pausing should be limited by cost, possible frequency, or a combination of both, along with limited duration. At least there should be a reasonably balanced difficulty mode that includes this. With unlimited pausing, players who are always looking for the best possible outcome in combat are going to wind up with "pacing problems" any way you cut it. And maybe commands issued during pause should cost a little bit extra? There could be story affects connected to pause, like going into 'ultra synergy mode' or some ****, and you could have stuff like leadership or synergy stats connected to it (and these things could show up in the story outside of combat as well).

Seriously? No thanks. Having a governor on the pause button would ruin the experience for me. Better AI is the answer.

Edited December 21, 2012 by rjshae

[Gumbercules]

I really liked this update. As long as both extremes and the stuff in between are balanced, the ability to build passive buff-based or active ability-based non-caster party members sounds great. The division between different types of equipment storage sounds convenient yet strategic as well.

 

Put me down as someone who hates the idea of limiting pauses. If it's just an option that I can ignore, fine, but if it's mandatory and tied to the story, yuck!

[Game_Exile]

Seriously? No thanks. Having a governor on the pause button would ruin the experience for me. Better AI is the answer.

How would putting some cost or limit on pausing ruin anything? There should be some mechanic in place that would encourage players to think about things and commit to certain tactics, and some penalty for overreacting to every wrinkle that appears. If the cost isn't competence or effort from the player then it should be hard resources, like an extra stamina cost for pausing the game and issuing commands during pause. I frankly don't understand what this ruins, other than the prospect of having really easygoing combat or needing to make really elaborate and precise calculations during combat. Please senoir, explain to me what part of your "experience" you will be missing.

[Gumbercules]

How would putting some cost or limit on pausing ruin anything? There should be some mechanic in place that would encourage players to think about things and commit to certain tactics, and some penalty for overreacting to every wrinkle that appears. If the cost isn't competence or effort from the player then it should be hard resources, like an extra stamina cost for pausing the game and issuing commands during pause. I frankly don't understand what this ruins, other than the prospect of having really easygoing combat or needing to make really elaborate and precise calculations during combat. Please senoir, explain to me what part of your "experience" you will be missing.

 

There already is a cost: if you pause the game too often, you'll be wasting real-life time that you don't need to waste, and you'll have a duller, less fun time than if you only pause when necessary. Unless of course you actually enjoy pausing every two seconds, in which case why should anyone stop you?

[Ieo]

The biggest problem I have with the way combat looks right now is the unlimited pausing. Pausing should be limited by cost, possible frequency, or a combination of both, along with limited duration. At least there should be a reasonably balanced difficulty mode that includes this. With unlimited pausing, players who are always looking for the best possible outcome in combat are going to wind up with "pacing problems" any way you cut it. And maybe commands issued during pause should cost a little bit extra? There could be story affects connected to pause, like going into 'ultra synergy mode' or some ****, and you could have stuff like leadership or synergy stats connected to it (and these things could show up in the story outside of combat as well).

 

You're clearly in the wrong forum and, well.... are a bit wrong in the head when you claim "overuse" of a basic mechanism will ruin someone else's game experience from their own point of view. And there isn't even a balance argument at all. This is the exact same illogic used by a very small minority who say players shouldn't be allowed to save whenever and wherever and however many times they want "otherwise they will omg abuse it and ruin their own play experience even though they won't realize it!"

 

Project Eternity is not for you. Nor did you play the Infinity Engine games (or if you did, probably didn't like them). Pausing was one of the few fundamental mechanisms mentioned in the Kickstarter and for this genre of game; good luck convincing Obsidian that it should be removed or severely hampered after all they've stated about pause being a core function of PE tactical gaming, player choice, and the presence of many auto-pause features.

 

If someone wants to "waste his own time" to reload 30 times, that's his prerogative.

If someone wants to enable every single auto-pause option and smack the spacebar once every four seconds, that's his prerogative.

 

Stick to your own little corner of the basement, ye who believe so strongly that your personal preferences in gameplay is the only possible and correct one.

 

Seriously.... pause?

Edited December 21, 2012 by Ieo

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Would it be possible to choose starting abilities from a list? For example, could a Priest select something other than Sacred Circle at first level?

 

Also do you intend to have classes progress certain metrics(like base attack bonus or hp) differently?

Edited December 21, 2012 by KaineParker

[rjshae]

Possible loophole: if two priests are standing within each other's Sacred Circle, they would both gain the accuracy benefit. I guess that's a reason for priests to work together.