I hope the mechanics are more flexible than BG

[cython]

My only request is that the game mechanics to be flexible enough! What do I mean by that. 

 

In BG series a wizard could not even hold a sword or a bow. Of course there were ways to go around this but the penalties were too steep, e.g., for an elf it should only possible as fighter/mage. 

 

One of the reasons I loved IW2 was that they had 3E rules that allowed to use any weapon you wanted. Imagine a female elf wizard with a great axe (I mean you could spend the feats to actually hold the weapon without penalties)... now of course she would be never as good as a half-orc fighter but that is not the point; it is afterall an role-playing game, right?

 

So my only request is that the game mechanics are flexible (or not too restrictive)!

 

@ community: Also please share your thoughts in case you disagree or agree. 

[centurionofprix]

I get the impression they will be, in Eternity.

[Lephys]

Yeah, they've already mentioned that any class can use any armor/weapons they want. Wizards can wear heavy armor and wield greataxes (as per your example), and Monks can even use all manner of weapons. I don't think you have anything to worry about,

[JR.9613]

Although it is nice to not have (as many?, if any at all) equipment restrictions, those aren't my biggest concerns.

I am sure it is just me, but I hope that other game mechanics aren't left too similar to the IE games if they don't need to be or can be improved. What I mean is that I don't want some aspects of the game to be left the same just because it saves time and money and have it be justified because of the (possible?) excuse that P:E is meant to be like the IE games...

 

Like I said; I am probably thinking too hard and shouldn't worry, but who knows.

[Lephys]

I'm not sure I understand what your actual biggest concerns are, specifically, then.

 

Are you meaning that, even if they can simply use the equipment, it's much the same if they can't be proficient with it? Because, while they're not using the exact D&D system, I believe they are going to emulate the structure of general feats (they're called "talents" in P:E). I'm pretty sure if you want to make your Wizard skilled with a Greataxe and Plate armor, he can be. But, the Warrior will still get very warriory things that the Wizard can't get. In other words, you can't make a Wizard character and just build him to BE exactly like the Warrior class (what would be the point in distinct classes at that point?). But, he's not destined to suck with all manner of weapons and armor, and melee combat, for that matter, simply because he is a Wizard. However, a Wizard who focuses solely on magical things and DOES suck with melee weapons and armor is definitely going to be much more magically potent and versatile than one who focuses lots of effort on melee prowess and armor proficiency.

[JR.9613]

My biggest concern is the possible lack of innovation under the excuse that P:E is meant to be like the IE games.

The flip side of that is that I'm not sure what my specific concerns are (not all of them at least) and innovation for the sake of "being different" isn't necessary either, which is why I said that I am most likely thinking too hard. 

 

In the end, I don't think it will be a problem, but it is something I am worried about.

Edited June 15, 2013 by JR.9613

[Lephys]

Well, to put it concisely... when their updates have a decent number of folk complaining "I thought this was supposed to be like the IE games!", I think you can rest assured there's sufficient innovation going on.

 

(For what it's worth, I honestly believe those complaints are a bit of an overreaction to the good kind of innovation we want to see, while P:E is keeping the actual spirit and style of IE games that's so important. Just because a new model of car comes with a CD-player instead of a tape deck doesn't mean it's straying from the design of the original. 8P)

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Well, to put it concisely... when their updates have a decent number of folk complaining "I thought this was supposed to be like the IE games!", I think you can rest assured there's sufficient innovation going on. (For what it's worth, I honestly believe those complaints are a bit of an overreaction to the good kind of innovation we want to see, while P:E is keeping the actual spirit and style of IE games that's so important. Just because a new model of car comes with a CD-player instead of a tape deck doesn't mean it's straying from the design of the original. 8P)

QFT. If anything, PE seems to be correcting the biggest flaws of the IE games, which are the D&D mechanics translated to RTwP. IMO designing mechanics from the ground up makes more sense than adapting mechanics designed for another medium.

[teknoman2]

Yeah, they've already mentioned that any class can use any armor/weapons they want. Wizards can wear heavy armor and wield greataxes (as per your example), and Monks can even use all manner of weapons. I don't think you have anything to worry about,

of course certain types of equipment on certain classes will have some advantages.

a mage wearing light or no armor, will cast faster while having less protection (just an example)...  the mage with plate mail will need more time for each spell but will be able to keep casting while under attack.

or the monk as they explained, can take a greatsword and go chop heads conan style, but wont be able to use the special skills meant for unarmed attacks. of course these special skills wont always be the best solution. a skill that requires you to hit someone in the head to stun them, wont work if you fight a giant, so it is quite obvious that you should use a weapon for that

[Zed]

I like arbritary class restrictions like "gnomes can't use big weapons", "clerics can only use bludgeoning weapons". Why? Otherwise I feel like the choice of items is too streamlined. Simply pick whatever has the highest numbers. Also, I feel like penalties like "can't use x items" add to the characterization.

[Prometheus]

or the monk as they explained, can take a greatsword and go chop heads conan style, but wont be able to use the special skills meant for unarmed attacks. of course these special skills wont always be the best solution. a skill that requires you to hit someone in the head to stun them, wont work if you fight a giant, so it is quite obvious that you should use a weapon for that

 A monk can use his special skills with weapons (see quote below). The advantage if they fight unarmed is that fists are fast weapons and many of their special attack will last for a duration. Slower weapons and heavy armor will decrease the applications of those special attacks.

 

Monks' unarmed damage does increase as part of their Transcendent Suffering class ability.  This makes their attacks competitive with other fast melee weapons, but their raw damage is nowhere near as high as something like a longsword or a maul.  When fighting heavily armored opponents, monks can benefit from using other melee weapons (their special attacks still work with them).

Edited June 16, 2013 by Prometheus

[sarkthas]

I like arbritary class restrictions like "gnomes can't use big weapons", "clerics can only use bludgeoning weapons". Why? Otherwise I feel like the choice of items is too streamlined. Simply pick whatever has the highest numbers. Also, I feel like penalties like "can't use x items" add to the characterization.

 

Yeah I feel it adds to each individuals classes strengths and weaknesses. So I actually liked those restrictions in place, but I'm not sure how good it is technically for gameplay balance.

 

I can't help but feel it's the wrong mindset to have, but ah well..

[JR.9613]

I like arbritary class restrictions like "gnomes can't use big weapons", "clerics can only use bludgeoning weapons". Why? Otherwise I feel like the choice of items is too streamlined. Simply pick whatever has the highest numbers. Also, I feel like penalties like "can't use x items" add to the characterization.

 

I understand what you mean, but I don't think that those restrictions should be mandatory. I think something like TES: Daggerfall's character creation would be good, where you can choose certain advantages or disadvantages that increase or decrease XP needed to level up. The bonuses or consequences of those disadvantages/advantages could be something other than needing more XP, of course...

 

6:34 into the video is where it starts, if you don't know what I am talking about. You can see the dagger on the side increase and decrease as he choose the different bonuses.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-gyH9n-8Ck[/media]

 

There are flaws with this system (choosing weaknesses that your race is immune to), but nothing that couldn't be fixed. 

[Lephys]

Regarding the "arbitrary" class restrictions... I think the better way to go is simply to make sure there each class is robust enough to react to various build choices in different ways. As Josh Sawyer put it in update #29:

 

 

• Disassociate armor value from class type in favor of different build types. E.g. a wizard can wear heavy armor and be a different type of wizard instead of just "a wizard who is bad".

 

In other words, heavy armor fits into the Wizard's deck of cards in a different way than it fits into a Warrior's, because a Wizard has different abilities and factors to consider, already, than a Warrior does. So, there's not really a need to say "Meh, unless you're a Warrior, you can't wear heavy armor." Better to say "Well, it's going to cost you something to wear heavy armor, but if you want to take that hit, and you can find a clever way to build around that, then more power to you," and simply provide a robust enough class/build/customization system to actually support a variety of viable formulas for different classes.

 

Even though D&D's ruleset let Wizards wear heavy armor (at least as of 3rd Ed, I believe, if not sooner), they still had that "Of course, your spells are gonna start failing left and right" clause thrown in. Spell failure literally isn't even a factor for non-casters,, so heavy armor was pure good for a Warrior, and a little good + a bit bad for an arcane caster (mainly Wizards, since we all know bards aren't real people. )

 

So, yeah, now, the fact that you CAN have a Wizard with good armor means that's yet another wrench you can throw into the enemy's battle plans. The norm is for Wizards' raw, ranged power and utility to be directly balanced by their extreme squishiness. But, you can actually sacrifice just one factor of your power (like casting speed, as it seems you will be doing with heavy armor in P:E, at least) for a boost to melee resilience. So "OMG, DON'T EVER LET ANY PEBBLES STRIKE MY WIZARD!" doesn't have to be an automatic concern just because you have a Wizard. To use D&D terms, maybe now your Wizard can use touch spells against certain opponents against whom a melee-range spell attempt would've been suicide. Is that worth slower cast times? You decide. Either way isn't inherently, purely negative. It's simply a tradeoff.

[eschaton]

So, yeah, now, the fact that you CAN have a Wizard with good armor means that's yet another wrench you can throw into the enemy's battle plans. The norm is for Wizards' raw, ranged power and utility to be directly balanced by their extreme squishiness. But, you can actually sacrifice just one factor of your power (like casting speed, as it seems you will be doing with heavy armor in P:E, at least) for a boost to melee resilience. So "OMG, DON'T EVER LET ANY PEBBLES STRIKE MY WIZARD!" doesn't have to be an automatic concern just because you have a Wizard. To use D&D terms, maybe now your Wizard can use touch spells against certain opponents against whom a melee-range spell attempt would've been suicide. Is that worth slower cast times? You decide. Either way isn't inherently, purely negative. It's simply a tradeoff.

 

I'd see the tradeoff for an armored mage being they'd need to invest in say a high strength in order to wear heavy armor.  Which in turn might give them less (presuming we're talking a D&D like system) points to intelligence, and slightly lower spellcasting ability overall.  

 

Of course, this raises a different issue.  Say you have a comparably high-strength wizard, who wears armor and wields melee weapons.  In what way, at that point, is a plain-Jane fighter with the same stats superior?  The fighter may have access to some feats/skills that the mage does not, but the mage may also have buffs which more than cancel out the difference.

 

This sort of shows why class restrictions are often used.  All you need to do, if you have a class-restricted system, is design each class, and make sure it's balanced with the other classes.  In contrast, if you provide crossover of abilities between the classes, you need to ensure that there are no secondary builds of one class which render a second class irrelevant.  And if you resort to special skills/feats (which I think you'd need to) you're still using the restriction system.  Better, IMHIO, to either go whole hog or go classless.  

[teknoman2]

I like arbritary class restrictions like "gnomes can't use big weapons", "clerics can only use bludgeoning weapons". Why? Otherwise I feel like the choice of items is too streamlined. Simply pick whatever has the highest numbers. Also, I feel like penalties like "can't use x items" add to the characterization.

i prefer logical restrictions.

a gnome can not use a greatsword. it's impossible considering the blade is 3 times his size, unless it is a gnome from crypton

an ogre can't use a dagger, cause it's like a toothpick compared to the size of his hand.

but i dont see why a priest should not be able to use a sword or an axe

[Lephys]

I'd see the tradeoff for an armored mage being they'd need to invest in say a high strength in order to wear heavy armor.  Which in turn might give them less (presuming we're talking a D&D like system) points to intelligence, and slightly lower spellcasting ability overall.

That's actually an excellent example. See, I'd rather see effects of the heavy armor upon the Wizard be based upon whatever Strength value he has, rather than arbitrarily saying "You can't even use heavy armor less effectively with a lower Strength... you must have at least X Strength just to use it, and then you're STILL going to suck way worse than a Warrior with it."

 

Basically, you have the choice of putting points into Strength (to reduce the effects of the armor's weight and movement impedance, which in P:E seems to mainly be action speed) at the cost of not-putting those points into, say, Intelligence (increasing the overall effectiveness of your spells and/or your ability to cast certain higher tiers of them, perhaps). OR you have the choice of putting those points into Intelligence, and being more limited in action speed by the heavy armor.

 

That, of course, is just an example. The idea of the difference between methods, and the versatility provided. I'm not suggesting that the specifics of that example totally work perfectly in the context of the rest of the game's design.

[Infinitron]

I think part of the charm of arbitrary restrictions, although we may be loathe to admit it, is that they actually simplify things for the player. When you find a sword in AD&D, you immediately know your cleric and your mage aren't ever going to use the thing. It's one less thing that you need to think about when you optimally distribute your equipment.

[Lephys]

I think part of the charm of arbitrary restrictions, although we may be loathe to admit it, is that they actually simplify things for the player. When you find a sword in AD&D, you immediately know your cleric and your mage aren't ever going to use the thing. It's one less thing that you need to think about when you optimally distribute your equipment.

Until your Wizard runs completely out of spells, and there's only one remaining, badly-wounded foe, and you're allowed to attack it with your piddly, unarmed Wizard, but heaven forbid he be holding a 3-lb piece of metal when he tries to swing his arm at the enemy... Then it just makes you make the Jackie Chan Meme Face.

 

I'd rather have a -10 to all my rolls with a sword and still be capable of holding and swinging it, as a Wizard (for example), than to have some divine force prevent my hand from grasping a sword hilt.

Edited June 17, 2013 by Lephys

[Sarex]

 

I think part of the charm of arbitrary restrictions, although we may be loathe to admit it, is that they actually simplify things for the player. When you find a sword in AD&D, you immediately know your cleric and your mage aren't ever going to use the thing. It's one less thing that you need to think about when you optimally distribute your equipment.

Until your Wizard runs completely out of spells, and there's only one remaining, badly-wounded foe, and you're allowed to attack it with your piddly, unarmed Wizard, but heaven forbid he be holding a 3-lb piece of metal when he tries to swing his arm at the enemy... Then it just makes you make the Jackie Chan Meme Face.

 

I'd rather have a -10 to all my rolls with a sword and still be capable of holding and swinging it, as a Wizard (for example), than to have some divine force prevent my hand from grasping a sword hilt.

 

 

Wait, wizards could hold quarterstaff, slings, light crossbows, short bows. My wizards killed dragons with +5 bullets/arrows.

Edited June 18, 2013 by Sarex

[Infinitron]

Mages could not use light crossbows and short bows in AD&D.

[Sarex]

Could be, I never had a vanilla mage in my party.

[Lephys]

Wait, wizards could hold quarterstaff, slings, light crossbows, short bows. My wizards killed dragons with +5 bullets/arrows.

I'm sorry... I forgot to add "your quarterstaff broke" or "you got disarmed and your weapon was thrown across the room." Take your pick of reasons. You know what? Since that example failed, let's change it from killing something to cutting someone free from bindings. "Don't worry! I'll just use my sling!" doesn't quite cut it. How hard would that person be squirming furiously at your Wizard, screaming "DUDE! JUST PICK UP THAT SHARPENED PIECE OF METAL AND CUT THESE BINDINGS!"

 

While you're standing there hissing and screaming "IT BURRRNS USSSSSS!!!", and recommending that he remain calm for the next 8 hours while you prepare the spell Animate Rope.

 

Is that better? I can keep covering bases, if I need to.

[Sarex]

I'm sorry... I forgot to add "your quarterstaff broke" or "you got disarmed and your weapon was thrown across the room." Take your pick of reasons. You know what? Since that example failed, let's change it from killing something to cutting someone free from bindings. "Don't worry! I'll just use my sling!" doesn't quite cut it. How hard would that person be squirming furiously at your Wizard, screaming "DUDE! JUST PICK UP THAT SHARPENED PIECE OF METAL AND CUT THESE BINDINGS!"

 

While you're standing there hissing and screaming "IT BURRRNS USSSSSS!!!", and recommending that he remain calm for the next 8 hours while you prepare the spell Animate Rope.

 

Is that better? I can keep covering bases, if I need to.

 

 

OK, OK, I give, uncle.

[Bloody Hypocrite]

I agree that there shouldn't be any hard restrictions on any class using a particular item, they should just be inept if they don't have training with it.

Edited June 19, 2013 by Bloody Hypocrite