How much stronger should you become when levelling up?

[decado]

Can someone please provide an example where in the IE games of yore, the inspiration for PE, there are HP sponge enemies and where you never have to use skills or talents to win battles?

 

Yeah, I would like to know this as well.  As far as I can remember, and just using BGII as an example, there was never a point in the game where I felt like I could rush in and be stupid, especially if playing it on "Core Rules" or higher.  There were easy fights of course, but they were never a trend.  I felt the game scaled quite well, difficulty-wise.  If Obsidian is using BGII as a model for difficulty, I would be perfectly happy.

Edited July 1, 2013 by decado

[Lephys]

 

Can someone please provide an example where in the IE games of yore, the inspiration for PE, there are HP sponge enemies and where you never have to use skills or talents to win battles?

 

Yeah, I would like to know this as well.  As far as I can remember, and just using BGII as an example, there was never a point in the game where I felt like I could rush in and be stupid, especially if playing it on "Core Rules" or higher.  There were easy fights of course, but they were never a trend.  I felt the game scaled quite well, difficulty-wise.  If Obsidian is using BGII as a model for difficulty, I would be perfectly happy.

 

I think the "hp sponge" thing is probably more a reference to the idea that tougher enemies simply do more damage and have more HP, and that you're able to take them on when you're tougher purely because YOU deal more damage (to compensate for their higher HP) and take more punishment (to compensate for their higher damage output). The exact same thing can be accomplished by allowing your capability/effectiveness to fluctuate, relative to the capability/effectiveness of your opponent, as opposed to your respective power ratings.

 

That has nothing to do with some things being more powerful than other things, be it opponent or party member.

 

I also understand that some amount of power increase (especially when we're dealing with things like soul-power) aren't out of the question. The point is that power/defense increase isn't the sole means of representing your characters' improvement over time, or the increase in threat amongst your foes.

[Lephys]

I also understand that some amount of power increase (especially when we're dealing with things like soul-power) aren't out of the question.

Isn't*. Sorry... that bugged me that I made such a horrible typo...

[Prometheus]

I think I will post this in this thread. You won't get many skill points when leveling up. source

 

 

Rope kid, since you've divorced skills from combat ability how many skills can a character expect to keep maxed? So could a rogue have maximum levels in mechanics and stealth? Also is there a complete list of skills anywhere?

We haven't published a full list of skills. Characters probably won't have multiple skills maxed, but can have two skills high. A character could have both Stealth and Mechanics high.

 

I'm a bit surprised, that you probably can only max one skill.

[Lephys]

*shrug*... it worked kinda like that in Fallout. You could probably max a couple of skills. Maybe 3 or 4, out of, what... 15 or 16? I can't remember how many there were in the original Fallout games.

 

Anywho, rest assured that it's just an estimate, and it'll be adjusted as needed, based on the results of testing.

 

Hence the "probably won't have multiple skills maxed," etc. Josh Sawyer isn't one to just straight-up decide what works and what doesn't without testing his hypothesis.

[mcmanusaur]

I'm further suggesting the fantasy game champion should have way higher level of capability than the best human in real life.

 

Urgh... I would have hoped that we had played enough exceptionally extraordinary fantasy genre-ified superhero characters that the novelty of this would have worn off by now... Does consistently playing unrealistically powerful characters really provide such a never-ending source of gratification for most players?

[JFSOCC]

am I the only one who was hoping to see many non-wombat skills?

I guess it requires a level of creativity which detracts from having structure and scope. But I loved the many different ways to solve challenges you had in Quest for Glory 5 because there were such diverse skills and classes.

And I thought it was cool you couldn't do everything. With a limited skill pool it'll be fairly easy to get most of them high in your party.

[mstark]

Personally? Very little. In terms of raw stats increases.

 

I don't wanna see a HP inflation. No extra HP per level. Only if you spend attributes on CON or feats.

But skills? Yes.

 

The problem with your question is that "strong" is subjective. What is ones "image" of power?

Traditionally it has all been about pumping NUMBERS and getting higher NUMBERS so your NUMBERS are bigger than your opponents NUMBERS.

 

To me that is a very shallow portraly of power. Given that skills/feats increase the tactical applications of a character and his potency in combat, I really don't see the need to overdo it with stats.

 

In other words, tiny increases. I wanna feel more pwoerfull becuase the character is more SKILLED, not because he now has 10000 HP.

This.

 

I want a relatively flat "power curve" in terms of pure number development, but I'd like new ways of dealing with more difficult situations, similar to the Baldur's Gate series. Though I wouldn't like the power to reach Throne of Bhaal levels. Even in ToB, where you grew to near enough godlike strength, it was due to your ability to deal with situations based on new abilities & experience, rather than inflated damage output and health pool.

 

I remember restarting BG2 after finishing ToB and importing my lvl 40 assassin, and struggling in Irenicus' dungeon when trying to steamroll it solo without properly preparing for each separate encounter. That's how it should be.

 

And guys, please, don't even compare a proper cRPG to an ARPG like Diablo, Torchlight, Path of Exile, and other various incarnations of the genre. I love these games, too, but I don't think there's much, if anything, that should influence the development of Project Eternity in any of them. It's a completely different genre.

Edited July 10, 2013 by mstark

[Jarmo]

This.

 

I want a relatively flat "power curve" in terms of pure number development, but I'd like new ways of dealing with more difficult situations, similar to the Baldur's Gate series. 

 

 

But in BG series 10th level char had about 10 times as much HP as a 1st level character.

Which is nothing like what TrashMan wants, assuming I understood him correctly.

 

But to maximise my understanding:

 

If we assume a first level fighter has 10 hit points and can do maximum of 10 points of damage, per round, with his chosen weapon.

Then how many HP's should he have on 10th level and how much damage should he be able to do, per round.

 

I'd be happy with a power curve that'd give 1HP per level, and many skills.

So my answer would be:

 

A 10th level fighter would have 20 HP, (30 if he'd go all out building durability) 

He'd be able to do 3 strikes, each doing up to maybe 20 points of damage. (or maybe a sweeping strike that'd do up to 10 points of damage to up to 10 opponents, or something)

 

And then there'd be bonuses that come from (magic) weapons and armor and items.

[mstark]

True that.

 

I mainly had BG2 in mind, where you, depending on character, roughly double your HP pool throughout the game, unless my memory fails me completely.

[Sensuki]

I mainly had BG2 in mind, where you, depending on character, roughly double your HP pool throughout the game, unless my memory fails me completely.

Depends on the character. I think (but can't be certain) that it's level 8 or level 9 where you get your last full hit dice worth of HP, after that it becomes a fractional value + CON bonus

 

I usually used the mods that gave you & monsters max hp per level.

Edited July 10, 2013 by Sensuki

[Sylvius the Mad]

Power increases should be sufficient such that it is necessary to re-learn how to play effectively with each new advancement.  As such, I think each character should level up roughly once per 5-10 hours of gameplay (BG's rate - 80 hour game, 8 levels).

[Lephys]

The rate at which you improve as an "adventurer" as opposed to the commonfolk is already significantly greater (albeit abstracted). There's no need for semi-phenomenal cosmic powers on top of that.

 

Going from "I kinda know how to not die against someone with a sword" to "I'm one of the toughest opponents with a sword you'll ever face, in the entire world" is plenty good. I don't need "And also I can level villages with a sneeze" thrown in.

 

As for the HP thing, I agree that the amount of inflation we tend to see serves no other purpose than to make people feel good, 'cause big numbers and stuff. It's not so much that we need to make sure HP never increases. It's an abstraction. So, whether you increase HP a bit, or reduce incoming damage a bit, you're representing the same thing. And I think some amount of natural HP gain/toughness increase is okay (though not at all necessary). But, most of your improvement needs to come from your damage avoidance and mitigation capabilities. Not your ability to just take damage and laugh at it.

 

A huge boulder falling atop you should be less of a threat now because you're able to stop/avoid it so much more easily. Not because your skin has developed an immunity to boulders.

[TrashMan]

Immunity to boulders. Epic levl skil..

 

Personally, I feel that the HP difference between LVL1 and max LVL  - if there is HP gain per level - should be no more than double.

 

Otherwise, I'd say no HP gain AT ALL, unless if attribute points are spent on CON or a toughness feat is taken.

[mstark]

When looking at BG2 (DnD), I think a lot of the characters' toughness and survivability comes from their equipment. Most end game BG2 characters are absolutely useless if you un-equip all their loot, they'll die to a few sword swings, or fall to any kind of spell (bar a few exceptions depending on selected skills). Aside from a larger HP pool, a naked warrior is more or less just as weak as a naked wizard.

 

The nice thing is that the loot, while awesome, isn't incredibly overpowered either. Your character is just about as tough as you could expect it to be while wearing a full plate mail, or at least I feel  that way.

 

Approach a sword naked -> get sliced to pieces regardless of level (unless you're a monk in PE)

Approach a sword in full plate mail -> survive just a bit longer

 

I also agree that HP gain between lvl1 and max shouldn't be more than double, I could live with a system that gives no HP gain at all, but I have a weakness for seeing numbers increase, inflated or not .

Edited July 11, 2013 by mstark

[Lephys]

^ That's actually a really good test.

 

Strip your person naked, and see how well they fare in combat. If they still just laugh at 10 people attacking them (not talking about fights in which your abilities allow you to annihilate all foes from a distancein one blow, or otherwise avoid incoming attacks all-together), then there's probably something wrong. At the very least, if your character is THAT capable at naturally mitigating/absorbing incoming damage, then armor is redundant.

 

"Your naked character actually now has 700HP instead of 100, and a base damage resistance of 15 instead of 3. So now, we've upped the enemies' damage and HPs to keep them on par with you. But wait! You can also have equipment, which increases YOUR damage and toughness by even more. So let's make yet ANOTHER adjustment to the foes to make sure they're still within a decent challenge range in comparison to your own abilities."

 

How's about if you're naked, that sword hurts really badly, no matter what? The same sword, that does the same damage.

 

Now, sure, when you start out and are an apprentice Mage or some novice soldier, you might be less generally apt to shrug off damage/concentrate despite taking damage (mage). And abstract mild increases in HP or even toughness, over time, reflect this. But, I think this is reflected even better with something like Stamina (so way to go, P:E!). You got a gash on your abdomen, and you didn't collapse and cease functioning, leaving you there to bleed out. That doesn't mean the gash is less deep, or that you got any less cut by it.

 

Also especially in P:E, thanks to the soul-force aspect, it makes even more sense for that to add an extra layer of reason for HP/toughness to increase. Maybe the strength/conditioning of your ability to tap into your soul makes you even more resilient. In reality, martial arts masters, at the very least, have far greater control over their muscles and such to be able to block attacks that would've normally splintered small trees, escaping with only mild bruising instead of broken ribs. So, it make sense that some kind of intangible force (like soul "strength" or what-have-you) could also be conditioned/developed just like muscle conditioning in martial artists. There's also the aspect of ki (chi?), etc. But, like I said, I've seen scientific tests of martial artists delivering attacks that could easily dent a car, and others stopping them with naught but their muscle-control (not super-giant dudes with 7-feet of muscle to act as a simple mass shield to stop bones and internals from taking the damage).

 

Anywho, the point is, there's reasonable basis for some amount of vague, abstracted toughening to go on, but you don't really need to become some kind of passively unslayable thing simply because you're experienced.

Edited July 13, 2013 by Lephys

[nikolokolus]

If it's a PnP game I've always gravitated to games with "flatter" power curves.  Original D&D or low magic AD&D campaigns where no matter how high a level you are, nobody is immune to a string of unlucky dice rolls in a combat or some clever tactical maneuvering.  As some others have pointed out, it mostly comes down to equipment and the kinds of bonuses and advantages that magical or high quality loot confers.  Hopefully PE will adopt a an old(er) school approach to character power.

 

In short, I want to play a Greek hero, not a Greek demigod.

[anonaccount1251223]

In my opinion the character should get slight bonuses like 2-10% and let equipment and other things effect more so if you find some really amazing gear then you have a good character but if you somehow lose it your back at square 1 with only a few advantages. 

[Jarmo]

 

Going from "I kinda know how to not die against someone with a sword" to "I'm one of the toughest opponents with a sword you'll ever face, in the entire world" is plenty good. I don't need "And also I can level villages with a sneeze" thrown in.

 

 

Pretty much exactly this. With some room to disagree what "one of the toughest opponents" would actually mean.

 

Strip your person naked, and see how well they fare in combat. If they still just laugh at 10 people attacking them (not talking about fights in which your abilities allow you to annihilate all foes from a distancein one blow, or otherwise avoid incoming attacks all-together), then there's probably something wrong. At the very least, if your character is THAT capable at naturally mitigating/absorbing incoming damage, then armor is redundant.

 

This also, though the way game mechanics usually work, a fighter type is is almost helpless without equipment, while a mage loses some bonuses but is still going to be at almost

full strength. Nevermind a druid wildshaping to a naked wyvern or something.

 

Anyway, to me the important bit would be why a warrior character could survive (not laugh off) a fight like that. If it's the D&D 3.x system of "I have 260 HP and they do 1-8 per strike if they hit, then not perfect at all. If it's dodge - punch the lights out of the first assailant - grab sword and shield - block block block - sweeping strikes. Then yeah, sounds like an awesome fight if you survive.

 

 

In my opinion the character should get slight bonuses like 2-10% and let equipment and other things effect more so if you find some really amazing gear then you have a good character but if you somehow lose it your back at square 1 with only a few advantages. 

 

I'm almost a total opposite.

 

If you're an amazing fighter, you should be effective if you're down to a dull sword and a leather shield.

Meaning, you hit 3 times faster than when beginning and you hit 90% of the time, not 30% like before.

 

But yeah, maybe that dull sword doesn't cut through armor like the magic scimitar you had before and

maybe the wool tunic doesn't quite stop the incoming hits like the plate did.

[Lephys]

Pretty much exactly this. With some room to disagree what "one of the toughest opponents" would actually mean.

I think we are in agreeance. "toughest" wasn't the best choice of words, as it tends to imply passive toughness, when I was meaning to refer to skill. "Trickiest" maybe?

 

What I'm thinking is, it's kind of like a martial artist. If a master martial artist's sword breaks, he'll adapt his attacks to the reach, etc., he now has with the broken sword piece. Maybe he'll use the scabbard more in his attacks, or focus more on disarming you, etc. He's masterfully experienced with, essentially, the physics of melee combat. So, even though he "relies" on his equipment, he's not really ineffective just because something's not exactly how he wanted it. Whereas, a more novice person whose sword breaks might be at a MUCH larger disadvantage, as he's relying on a much narrower set of factor values. A smaller "comfort zone," if you will.

 

A masterful typical RPG warrior knows a lot more ways in which to take you down, no matter what the factors, and a lot more ways to mitigate his disadvantages. It's not that his sword strikes are so fast ant potent now that you just can't dodge them (or that, even if you do, the entire left half of your body will disintegrate from the wind of his strike's miss), or that he can just absorb fireballs and regenerate his own flesh on-the-fly. It's that he knows how to make more certain his hits connect (or are effective in furthering his progress toward defeating you, at least) and how to make more certain yours do not. Throw in soul powers, and you've got him having a much more developed power set than a noob. Not purely a progressively more potent one (although that is a minor growth dynamic).

 

In having faced 100 fireballs, instead of 2, he better understands not only how one would need to dodge/mitigate the effects of a fireball on a given battlefield under a given set of circumstances, but also how to best use his own soul power in order to facilitate that mitigation, whether it be speeding himself up to make it to nearby cover, or misdirecting, then pouring it all into a very high leap directly at the caster (maybe a fireball has a longer recovery-after-cast than other spell types, and/or is harder to re-aim on-the-fly than other spells? The veteran Warrior knows these things), or maybe he can focus his soul energies into a short burst of temperature shielding at the right moment to sort of deflect it with his weapon. Heck, maybe if he chooses, he can spend his energy actually "Catching" the fireball with his weapon, and storing it there for a brief period, delivering all that fiery energy right back to the caster in the form of a melee technique.

 

Whatever he can do, it's all still very limited. Whichever option he chooses, he's that much more fatigued, or missing that many more resources. And he can only do so much, even if he's got a bit more endurance than the noobie Warrior.

 

He doesn't need to be more passively capable of shrugging off fireballs to the face. Only much more capable of handling fireballs directed at his face.

Edited July 22, 2013 by Lephys

[JFSOCC]

In having faced 100 fireballs, instead of 2, he better understands not only how one would need to dodge/mitigate the effects of a fireball on a given battlefield under a given set of circumstances, but also how to best use his own soul power in order to facilitate that mitigation, whether it be speeding himself up to make it to nearby cover, or misdirecting, then pouring it all into a very high leap directly at the caster (maybe a fireball has a longer recovery-after-cast than other spell types, and/or is harder to re-aim on-the-fly than other spells? The veteran Warrior knows these things), or maybe he can focus his soul energies into a short burst of temperature shielding at the right moment to sort of deflect it with his weapon. Heck, maybe if he chooses, he can spend his energy actually "Catching" the fireball with his weapon, and storing it there for a brief period, delivering all that fiery energy right back to the caster in the form of a melee technique.

excellent example, though this is a typical example of something I'd leave up to the player. Say a fireball is relatively slow travelling, a noob player won't know it can be avoided, an experienced player will have positioned his team around side tunnels/exits the moment he encountered a firemage, so that they can easily step out of the way.

[forgottenlor]

The problem with the D&D system, or Diablo for example, is that your characters are so weak at level 1. If Characters were to start at 4th level for example, and go up to 13th, the difference would not seem so profound. What if a normal sword strike did 3 dice of damage instead of 1? Then the system would not seem quite as ridiculous. I liked the fallout system. I think your character ended up being maybe 4-5X as powerful not 20X