Update #39: Non-Core Classes, Cooldowns, Attack Resolution, Damage vs. Armor and a Tileset!

[ZGM]

What's the lore reason for rangers and their companions having such a close link? Are their souls dependent on each other, or do relationships not affect souls to that degree? Will we see examples of soul bonding (if that is the case) like this outside of rangers and their pets?

[Hormalakh]

You mentioned the movie Scanners as an inspiration for the ciphers. I'm wondering if any of you have read the book that inspired Scanners: William S. Burrough's novel Naked Lunch. If not, I recommend it. It's not about psychics (except for a chapter about "senders") but it's an interesting read nonetheless!

Edited January 23, 2013 by Hormalakh

[Badmojo]

One gripe in the video is the resting to use certain skills, we might as well call it mandatory resting since its the only way to heal except from some very rare healing items/abilities.  Honestly I would prefer cooldowns to resting just so we can keep the momentum going.  I suspect this is just an escuse to have some ingame event like having dream visions from gods/souls, or use it to move time forward or something.  Otherwise I cannot see the point of forcing rest on the characters.

 

These videos are nice, but I would like to learn more about the world and its beings itself, a little lore video would be nice.

[C2B]

Loving the beard

[Sensuki]

The Damage / Armor system now sounds a lot like Warcraft 3 vanilla (Normal, Piercing, Siege vs Light, Medium, Heavy armor)

The rule of three is good and has proven to work very well for games like Starcraft. So I'm liking that change.

All of the explained mechanics seem very good, I've got no problems with any of those.

Mm okay. I just hope whatever quickslot/weapon swap functionality will be kinda forgiving; I certainly wouldn't want to see something along the lines of the extreme DDO scenario, but so long as there aren't any/many instances of outright immunity, sounds good to me.

Onward!

In a previous forum post either here or on somethingawful (cannot remember), Josh said there will be an animation (delay) between switching weapons. So think like in Counter-Strike you quickswitch between AWP and deagle and it takes time before you can shoot ... yeah like that.

I would like the Grimoire to at least double as a weapon so you can phonebook people for 1 damage, even if just for the comical factor.

Would a ranger have to have an animal companion? I'm curious as to whether or not the bond with the animal and ranger is so close, that if the animal died, the ranger would die as well. Hopefully it would just entail a hit on the health as opposed to a kill.

 

 

I am assuming that if your animal companion gets caught and starts getting hit, shared health and stamina pool means exactly what it says it does. So if you and/or your animal companion are hit for enough stamina or health damage that your combined pool reaches 0, you are knocked out or maimed/dead (both of you).

Oh yeah in the screenshot, I'm not liking the blue circles around companions, I'd prefer if it was more like Baldur's Gate where it's just two shades of green - as I have said in my selection circle thread. BG had the best selection circles. Or if the default is going to be blue, I would like to be able to change them to the legacy colors

 

But yeah WIP.

Edited January 23, 2013 by Sensuki

[DakkonZerth]

Love these updates! Thanks for toiling away for us.  I cringe when I hear that system isn't obvious to people.  I say keep it complex.  What I always loved about Fallout 2 was how armor worked.  You knew, just by looking at your character and his various armor upgrades, that he was becoming harder to hurt, BUT, IF you wanted to get really in depth, you had to "decypher" the values in the inventory screen.  I liked that, and I would like Project Eternity to be similar.  I don't need things to be obvious to me.  I'll figure it out.  PS I love the tease at the beggining

[Rary the Traitor]

Why are you copying D&D so shamelesly?

 

 

[Xaquin]

I'm really loving seeing all the bits and pieces going into the game.  This is really cool.  I really hope you make Monk's hand-to-hand actually work.  Previous games (including D&D) made it so...ugh.  The pen-and-paper game of Shadowrun did it right with "Physical Adepts" which were mages that boosted their bodies with magic to make them all into Bruce Lee's.  That's the kind of hand weapon action I want to see from my monk.  If you are going to have a monk that doesn't use hand-to-hand because they suck and can't compare to a simple dagger+1, what's the point?  Might as well have a cleric or a fighter.  Anyway, point being, please invest some thought into the mechanics of a monk that fights hand-to-hand because the visual could be awesome and who doesn't want to play a Bruce Lee type character that takes down dragons with his fists?  Thanks!

[Valsuelm]

I just want to say I got an email with this update in it!

 

Super awesome that is!

 

 

[Tamerlane]

You mentioned the movie Scanners as an inspiration for the ciphers. I'm wondering if any of you have read the book that inspired Scanners: William S. Burrough's novel Naked Lunch. If not, I recommend it. It's not about psychics (except for a chapter about "senders") but it's an interesting read nonetheless!

 

Wait, what? Naked Lunch inspired the David Cronenberg movie "Scanners"? I... uh... I thought it inspired the David Cronenberg movie "Naked Lunch"?

[O.DOGG]

Interesting update, thanks! I find the idea of the ciphers focusing their powers really interesting. Looking forward to the next update.

[Ieo]

Why are you copying D&D so shamelesly?

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/62924-sawyerism-distilled-an-interview-with-josh-sawyer-at-iron-tower-studio/

[Somna]

I wonder how many people are going to make a chanter named Dovahkiin now? =X

[Falkon Swiftblade]

Nice update Josh! Classes sound interesting, and mechanics sound solid so far. Few things not as impressive though, primarily the scale of the heros seem about 15%-20% too small. I know its a work in progress, but I couldn't distinguish Jack from Jill and there's not much detail to see in the hero model. (I was hoping for a modern day game you guys might have adressed stuff like that.) Are there gonna be any little races? Also the scale of the tile sets seem a bit claustrophobic for a group of six plus monsters in that space. Maybe the encounters are not too many though? I'm kinda worried how the ui or hud will work with that as well because it looks like a single pop up or loot box would be as big as the player and you may lose hierarchy and legibility trying to read. Oh speaking of legibility, can ya guys have a wee bit of negative space in between lines so our eyes don't get too tired from straining to read like some of the old IE games did?

Edited January 23, 2013 by Falkon Swiftblade

[Sacred_Path]

Oh boy, ranger animal companions/ shapeshifting druids/ sprinting barbarians. I hope there are more unique things coming up.

[Faerunner]

This all sounds so interesting. I've always wondered about the work that goes behind games, so seeing all these updates and sneak-peeks is fascinating!

 

I'm particularly interested in the nature classes. Shapeshifting and animal companions are my favorite parts of being druids and rangers, so it's nice to see them stand out here. For rangers though, even though we'll be close to our animal companions game-wise, I hope we can be close to them roleplay-wise too. As in, I hope we can interact with them, the way we could do for animal companions for NWN1 or the Mabari War Hound for DA:O. For druids, I hope each animal form has rather unique (and useful) abilities, so they don't end up being "different forms of fighter" as discussed in the Druid thread.

 

The combat seems pretty straight-forward but effective. I like the idea of some weapons doing better damage against different types of armor and spells against different levels of mental or spiritual fortitude (or willpower, what have you). It seems like it's rather easy to memorize but keeps players alert while they play. Could just be me, but I still like it.

 

Can't wait to hear more. ^^

[Monte Carlo]

Oh boy, ranger animal companions/ shapeshifting druids/ sprinting barbarians. I hope there are more unique things coming up.

 

It's based on IE games. They said so on Day One. I doubt there will be clowns with deadly fruit-launching abilities or psionic pastry-chefs who can bend space and pastry.

[Sensuki]

double post.

Edited January 23, 2013 by Sensuki

[Sacred_Path]

 

 

Oh boy, ranger animal companions/ shapeshifting druids/ sprinting barbarians. I hope there are more unique things coming up.

 

It's based on IE games. They said so on Day One. I doubt there will be clowns with deadly fruit-launching abilities or psionic pastry-chefs who can bend space and pastry.

 

 

 

But it's an original IP. Reason enough to be more creative, esp. since they want to establish this setting for sequels. None of those 3 examples makes so much conceptual sense that it'd need to be in there. Why can druids change into bugbears at will? ****s and giggles, probably.

 

That said it's ok they chose abilities of which they know how they work out, balance wise.

[VVolfsong]

 

• Druids can Shapeshift into animal forms, gaining natural -- and some supernatural -- abilities associated with those creatures.

 

Quick question on how you plan for the Druid's shapeshifting to work: Will the different animal forms all be viable/have uses throughout the game, or will the different forms be more linear upgrades, so that for example once you've unlocked Bear, you'll never really want to use Wolf again?

 

The latter is more in line with D&D, but I think it would be nice if the different forms gave different bonuses and catered to different playstyles instead of becoming obsolete as you progress.

[Sensuki]

How do I get the quote paste to show the BBcode again? I hate how it's gone, quote pastes no longer work.

 

Few things not as impressive though, primarily the scale of the heros seem about 15%-20% too small. I know its a work in progress, but I couldn't distinguish Jack from Jill and there's not much detail to see in the hero model. (I was hoping for a modern day game you guys might have adressed stuff like that.) Are there gonna be any little races? Also the scale of the tile sets seem a bit claustrophobic for a group of six plus monsters in that space. Maybe the encounters are not too many though? I'm kinda worried how the ui or hud will work with that as well because it looks like a single pop up or loot box would be as big as the player and you may lose hierarchy and legibility trying to read. Oh speaking of legibility, can ya guys have a wee bit of negative space in between lines so our eyes don't get too tired from straining to read like some of the old IE games did?

 

 

Okay, so you see this here - this is the In-Game example.

 

Get a program such as Irfanview and blow that up to your desktop resolution.

 

And you get this (very sorry for the poor quality )

 

 

The tile size is probably about right, but the character size is more like running the widescreen mod. But yeah it's a work in progress.

 

This is a combat testing module by the way. That's why they're using 6 of the same character module.

 

Also that's a large dungeon, not big enough for a Dragon but you could easily fit a few Otyugh's in there and have plenty of room.

Edited January 23, 2013 by Sensuki

[Sensuki]

 

 

Oh boy, ranger animal companions/ shapeshifting druids/ sprinting barbarians. I hope there are more unique things coming up.

 

It's based on IE games. They said so on Day One. I doubt there will be clowns with deadly fruit-launching abilities or psionic pastry-chefs who can bend space and pastry.

 

 

But it's an original IP. Reason enough to be more creative, esp. since they want to establish this setting for sequels. None of those 3 examples makes so much conceptual sense that it'd need to be in there. Why can druids change into bugbears at will? ****s and giggles, probably.

 

That said it's ok they chose abilities of which they know how they work out, balance wise.

 

For the Ranger, the mechanics are different. In what game does the Ranger and Animal Companion share the same health pool? None that I know of - I really like that choice, it's the same but different.

 

In both examples with the Wizard and Ranger they are making the familiar and animal companion way more useful, which is great. Shapeshifting is one thing that pretty much no game has done right  for combat purposes at least (including P&P), so I'm also interested in seeing how they do that.

 

As for the Barbarian, the first thing you would expect from a Barbarian is the "Rage" ability. They didn't address the Rage ability in this update (if there is one) and gave us a more balanced take on just simple bonus movement speed.

[Sedrefilos]

Great update! I'm very excited about all these. The non-basic classes sound very intriguing. "Classic" but with an original feel into them.

Moar "meaty" updates plz

 

[Kissamies]

So I guess the animal companion is a core class feature for Rangers. Not a big fan of that, though I must admit that the implementation fits the whole soul lore perfectly. The Chanter seems interesting, though.

[Osvir]

I'm sure they've thought it out a lot more than I have, being the development team and all, but Rangers and their pets sharing both Stamina AND Health seems a bit much.

 

With the established "dual-health" system, what if they each had their own Stamina, but they shared Health?

 

Ultimately, damage to one always affects damage to the other, but, at the same time, you don't collapse in battle purely because your animal friend got double-teamed for a few seconds.

 

Same-stamina just sounds like a LOT of rigorous multi-tasking just to effectively control "one" character.

 

I thought the same thing. Sharing [Health] sounds about right, but sharing [stamina]? If [stamina] determines "Action", then I can kind of get it. If the Wolf companion dies, it'd be heartbreaking for the Ranger. Thus [Health].... or vice versa, sharing [stamina] but having their own [Health], because....

 

[Morale] of course! Maybe doesn't even have to share the same pools, but if the animal Companion dies, the Ranger becomes sad and can't amount to anything in the current fight.

 

Likewise, "Ranger = Beastmaster"? I do like that, if it is innovative and a new form of it (and not Warcraft 3: TFT Beastmaster). A Ranger-Master, a P:E-Master.

 

Hawk = Whistle and you get a Hawk you get to control for a limited amount of time, checking the forest ahead of you. And if you get into a nasty bandit place, they might (might!) shoot it down and cook it. 

 

I think something to consider, that I think Obs is considering, is the power of having an animal companion+Ranged combat. It is very powerful for an already powerful class. Ranged combat is very strong in many games. Adding in a "Beast" to an already strong class, phew. I am not against it, I've been advocating it after all.

 

Maybe the Ranger either has to focus his Soul into controlling the animal, or focusing his Soul into Ranged combat. In this way, you'd choose to attack with the animal or the bow.

 

1. Attack with Animal

2. Enemy reacts

3. Enemy turn (Attack animal)

4. Animal reacts (block/dodge w/e)

5. Attack with Bow

6. Enemy reacts

7. Enemy turn (Attack animal)

 

However, don't know how pretty it would look, skipping a turn for the animal like that.

 

Adding an animal to the Ranger gives them both Long-Range and Close-Range combat at once. Which I think can become a rather big "Powerhouse" build (as it can get). I'm advocating for that the Ranger himself/herself as a Beastmaster gets a "Whip" and must be up close. Perhaps being able to "Whip" the animal so it gets extra bonuses (Perhaps there could be some sort of "Animal Morale" and/or "Animal Reputation" for doing that though..).

 

Animal mechanics! Lots of stuff to think about there.

 

Grimoire

Switching out Grimoire's in the inventory in the battle resets all cooldowns? Or wouldn't it be better if the Wizard takes a personal breather (and the Grimoire has nothing to do with cooldowns). So if you've cast a spell from GrimOne, switching to GrimTwo would still have cooldown for the Wizard. However, if you haven't cast a Spell, you'd be able to switch and throw spells instantly, kind of like that would be a good way me thinks. Otherwise you could just:

 

Throw spell GrimOne

switch

Throw spell GrimTwo

 

^That is the bad example.

 

Throw spell GrimOne

switch (+Cooldown)

Wait for Wizard CD for GrimTwo

Throw spell GrimTwo

 

^That is the good example.

 

or:

 

Don't throw spell GrimOne

switch

Throw spell GrimTwo

 

Can we name our own Grimoires? Can we edit the spell descriptions? Can you "turn off" (Options Menu/Start Game Options) spell descriptions and write them yourself? Don't get me wrong, I love the spell descriptions in the IE games. Playing the very first M&M (Might & Magic) and learning what spells do (by trial-and-error) really was a great feeling. The spells became significantly more personal, having the spell descriptions on a piece of paper beside me.

 

However! Instead of bringing out pen & paper, the spell descriptions in-game could just be "Blank" during this "Option" and you get to flesh it out yourself.

 

How does Grimoire's grow? Do they get visual changes depending on how you upgrade them?

 

* A Grimoire with lots of Fire Spells = Gets an artistic touch and looks like it's burning (In the Inventory, it doesn't need to look too fancy on screen-in-battle, all that needs to develop is the inventory item graphic, for simplicity).

* A Grimoire with lots of Necromancy = Transforms into a bone tome, with bones surrounding the cover, a PS:T skull on top of it or whatnot.

 

And for a Lore logistics question:

What are the differences between Soul Manipulation, Magic & Necromancy?