AD&D COMBAT? or..

[Krom27]

I've been looking around these forums to get some idea on what the combat system and the general conditions of Dungeon crawling will be tailored too and unfortunatly I've not found a clear answer.  Will Project Eternity use a modern version of AD&D rule sets as the greats before it or something completely new and tailored from Obsidian?  Seems to me Wizards of the coast would be more then eager to help suppliment a new project such as this cause table top gaming serves such a select audience.

[Sensuki]

There is some information here

 

http://eternity.gamepedia.com/Main_Page

 

Check Attack Resolution, Melee Engagement, Damage Type.

[teknoman2]

I've been looking around these forums to get some idea on what the combat system and the general conditions of Dungeon crawling will be tailored too and unfortunatly I've not found a clear answer.  Will Project Eternity use a modern version of AD&D rule sets as the greats before it or something completely new and tailored from Obsidian?  Seems to me Wizards of the coast would be more then eager to help suppliment a new project such as this cause table top gaming serves such a select audience.

it will not use DnD and i have an altar dedicated to Josh for that. games that use the DnD system, are the definition of 50-50 (miss-hit) combat that have barely any tactical options to turn the tide more than 55-45 to your advantage

[Krom27]

No, PE will not use D&D, don't know how you didn't find that info though.

It was prolly under the Polish section

[AGX-17]

I've been looking around these forums to get some idea on what the combat system and the general conditions of Dungeon crawling will be tailored too and unfortunatly I've not found a clear answer.  Will Project Eternity use a modern version of AD&D rule sets as the greats before it or something completely new and tailored from Obsidian?  Seems to me Wizards of the coast would be more then eager to help suppliment a new project such as this cause table top gaming serves such a select audience.

The fact that it's an original IP should have made it obvious from the start that it's not a D&D game. Not to mention the fact that many of the updates and announcements, found both on the P:E Kickstarter page (and in backer emails, you're presumably not a backer given the circumstances here,) and in the P:E Updates and Announcements forum ( http://forums.obsidian.net/forum/89-project-eternity-announcements-and-news/ ) have described in a decent amount of depth the game mechanics and to a greater degree, the intent in its design, which is to make a well-balanced system in stark contrast to A/D&D. D&D's main influence on P:E thus far seems to be as a starting point in how not to design/balance gameplay, especially combat, mechanics.

Edited December 8, 2013 by AGX-17

[CaptainMace]

 

you're presumably not a backer given the circumstances here

 

Definetely something important to note, let's be elitist already.

 

To answer the OP, seems that the combat will mostly feel like Dragon Age (or any MMORPG-style game) where all classes have all kind of active and toggle abilities and you gotta manage 6 characters simultaneously if you want to succeed in the toughest setup. Was already pissed by that in DAO, and it only concerned 4 characters (but maybe is it because DAO had a boring story development imo, can't say).

Already fond of abilities names like "shake it off !" for the paladin, really feels like a MMO.

[Mor]

Seems to me Wizards of the coast would be more then eager to help suppliment a new project such as this cause table top gaming serves such a select audience.

I am sure they'll be more then eager to supplement any game, so it would use their trade marked system ($$$)

 

Will Project Eternity use a modern version of AD&D rule sets as the greats before it or something completely new and tailored from Obsidian?

I'd be cautious about any developer using non modified/tailored ruleset form a tabletop game for a video game. In our case, it is my understanding that compared to BG games, we will have less restriction in your character development, and combat will be more tactical i.e. if before only magic wielding char's had to make any meaningful choice, while fighters just hacked it the right direction, now each class will have "magical"(soul) abilities. I have been told that in D&D terms it is more inline with 4th edition then 3rd. (which is IMO great for a video game, unless they mess up the AI) Edited December 9, 2013 by Mor

[teknoman2]

 

 

you're presumably not a backer given the circumstances here

 

Definetely something important to note, let's be elitist already.

 

To answer the OP, seems that the combat will mostly feel like Dragon Age (or any MMORPG-style game) where all classes have all kind of active and toggle abilities and you gotta manage 6 characters simultaneously if you want to succeed in the toughest setup. Was already pissed by that in DAO, and it only concerned 4 characters (but maybe is it because DAO had a boring story development imo, can't say).

Already fond of abilities names like "shake it off !" for the paladin, really feels like a MMO.

 

the only class that did not have any active skills in IE games was the fighter. the paladin had special abilities and spells, the ranger too, the druid - wizard - sorcerer - cleric had the most, the barbarian had 1, the thief had 3 and needed to be positioned properly for the backstab... so yes, classes in the old games did not have all sorts of active abilities 

[CaptainMace]

 

 

 

you're presumably not a backer given the circumstances here

 

Definetely something important to note, let's be elitist already.

 

To answer the OP, seems that the combat will mostly feel like Dragon Age (or any MMORPG-style game) where all classes have all kind of active and toggle abilities and you gotta manage 6 characters simultaneously if you want to succeed in the toughest setup. Was already pissed by that in DAO, and it only concerned 4 characters (but maybe is it because DAO had a boring story development imo, can't say).

Already fond of abilities names like "shake it off !" for the paladin, really feels like a MMO.

 

the only class that did not have any active skills in IE games was the fighter. the paladin had special abilities and spells, the ranger too, the druid - wizard - sorcerer - cleric had the most, the barbarian had 1, the thief had 3 and needed to be positioned properly for the backstab... so yes, classes in the old games did not have all sorts of active abilities 

 

Dunno if you really missed my point or if you wanted to act smart.

 

I note with interest that you consider the fighting system of the IE game and the one from Dragon Age are the same. I although wouldn't consider stealth and spells as abilities because, first, they are not, and also because they can be used out of combat.

 

The fact Paladins have to chose between several aura effect, the fact some classes have alternative ressources (wounds, focus), the fact that barbarians have splash damage all feel like mechanics that suit a multi game where you play a single character (I could come with a lot more skills, like the Fighter ones for example, but you get my point).

 

EDIT : Oh I just read your signature, don't mind my first sentence.

Edited December 9, 2013 by CaptainMace

[neo6874]

 

Seems to me Wizards of the coast would be more then eager to help suppliment a new project such as this cause table top gaming serves such a select audience.

I am sure they'll be more then eager to supplement any game, so it would use their trade marked system ($$$)

 

Will Project Eternity use a modern version of AD&D rule sets as the greats before it or something completely new and tailored from Obsidian?

I'd be cautious about any developer using non modified/tailored ruleset form a tabletop game for a video game. In our case, it is my understanding that compared to BG games, we will have less restriction in your character development, and combat will be more tactical i.e. if before only magic wielding char's had to make any meaningful choice, while fighters just hacked it the right direction, now each class will have "magical"(soul) abilities. I have been told that in D&D terms it is more inline with 4th edition then 3rd. (which is IMO great for a video game, unless they mess up the AI)

 

 

IMO, D&D 4E is "Play WoW with Pen and Paper!" ... yeah, AD&D and 3/3.5E had their share of problems... but I think 4E went very far the "wrong way" for a tabletop game.

 

That said, it's a nice rulebook for if they ever made another FRCS cRPG, since they presumably wouldn't be so hamstrung by trying to make AD&D/3.5E rules fit into a computer game (which is limited by design choices that "have" to be made for a computer -> take out features to hit "3 year old PC capabilities", tweak spells/abilities since the computer can't know when you use [spell] you mean to target the thing that BBEG is holding, and not the ground under him [ or vice versa], etc).

Edited December 9, 2013 by neo6874

[teknoman2]

 

 

 

 

you're presumably not a backer given the circumstances here

 

Definetely something important to note, let's be elitist already.

 

To answer the OP, seems that the combat will mostly feel like Dragon Age (or any MMORPG-style game) where all classes have all kind of active and toggle abilities and you gotta manage 6 characters simultaneously if you want to succeed in the toughest setup. Was already pissed by that in DAO, and it only concerned 4 characters (but maybe is it because DAO had a boring story development imo, can't say).

Already fond of abilities names like "shake it off !" for the paladin, really feels like a MMO.

 

the only class that did not have any active skills in IE games was the fighter. the paladin had special abilities and spells, the ranger too, the druid - wizard - sorcerer - cleric had the most, the barbarian had 1, the thief had 3 and needed to be positioned properly for the backstab... so yes, classes in the old games did not have all sorts of active abilities 

 

Dunno if you really missed my point or if you wanted to act smart.

 

I note with interest that you consider the fighting system of the IE game and the one from Dragon Age are the same. I although wouldn't consider stealth and spells as abilities because, first, they are not, and also because they can be used out of combat.

 

The fact Paladins have to chose between several aura effect, the fact some classes have alternative ressources (wounds, focus), the fact that barbarians have splash damage all feel like mechanics that suit a multi game where you play a single character (I could come with a lot more skills, like the Fighter ones for example, but you get my point).

 

EDIT : Oh I just read your signature, don't mind my first sentence.

 

i got your point and i dont try to act smart. the thing is that the presence of active and toglable abilities is not something they got from mmos, they existed in all sorts of RPGs already before mmos. also their names or the resource each class needs to use them, is not what differentiates a single player game from a mmo, and it certainly does not define it's value as an RPG. these are combat mechanics and we know nothing about how they work in actual combat, and of course combat may be abundant, but it's not an FPS so the game is not it's combat system

[Mor]

The fact Paladins have to chose between several aura effect, the fact some classes have alternative ressources (wounds, focus), the fact that barbarians have splash damage all feel like mechanics that suit a multi game where you play a single character

Sorry, I don't follow. Why having a different way for various class to access soul magic (like Monks mortification of the flesh, Ciphers meditation, Priests devotion/ritual, or Mages mastery of occult) make this like a non party base multiplayer game mechanic? Edited December 9, 2013 by Mor

[neo6874]

 

The fact Paladins have to chose between several aura effect, the fact some classes have alternative ressources (wounds, focus), the fact that barbarians have splash damage all feel like mechanics that suit a multi game where you play a single character

Sorry, I don't follow. Why having a different way for various class to access soul magic (like Monks mortification of the flesh, Ciphers meditation, Priests devotion/ritual, or Mages mastery of occult) make this like a non party base multiplayer game mechanic?

 

 

 I think he's trying to get at "each class is so different that you're gonna end up in a position where it would be better off being played by 6 humans, than 1 human playing 6 characters".

 

With IWG/BG it wasn't "that bad" since they pull from AD&D, so "Fighter is the tank, mage is the weakling in slot 5 or 6" (with very little variation) and it was pretty easy to pause, see what was going on, figure something out, and unpause.

 

 Maybe it was because I had the console version, but DAO was a lot more of a pain to sort out who was doing what where ... not to mention that "everything" you were given with the characters was always a bit off, because of only three classes*.  Not to mention that nearly every single fight became a "micromanage all the mooks" thing because I couldn't trust that the fighter would go carve his way through baddies while I sat on the mage long enough so he didn't waste a lower mana spell so I could get another fireball (or whatever high-mana spell) off and actually INJURE the baddie... 

 

 

*What I mean is, in AD&D, you can pretty much always expect a fighter to be a decent tank, or a paladin to fall somewhere between a cleric and fighter, or a cleric to be a healing battery but mediocre melee combatant, or a Druid/Ranger to be about as good as a paladin, or a rogue to be indispensable in a dungeon, or a sorcerer/wizard to be about as strong as wet paper (but massive offensive/defensive capabilities if allowed to use them).

[teknoman2]

DAO was much more manageable in the PC version, however it also had friendly fire always on (in consoles it was on only in the highest difficulty)

and let's be honest here. DnD has been used in 6 party based RPGs + expansions (if i dont forget anything and i do not include the first neverwinter) and we have gotten used to it. the original PnP system is made for each player to have 1 character, yet we all played 6 at once and had no problems managing them. so why should we have a problem managing the 6 characters of PE? 

let's put it in another way. how many here play dota or LoL? the first time you use a character there, you read  the skill descriptions. the second time you may take a look if you dont remember something. from the 3rd time you no longer need to read it to know what it does, and not for 1 but for several dozen characters since you do not always play one and you need to know what the others can do in order not to lose. the same goes for PE: you will use a characters skills a few times and then you will just know what they do without having to look

[tajerio]

 

 

The fact Paladins have to chose between several aura effect, the fact some classes have alternative ressources (wounds, focus), the fact that barbarians have splash damage all feel like mechanics that suit a multi game where you play a single character

Sorry, I don't follow. Why having a different way for various class to access soul magic (like Monks mortification of the flesh, Ciphers meditation, Priests devotion/ritual, or Mages mastery of occult) make this like a non party base multiplayer game mechanic?

 

 

 I think he's trying to get at "each class is so different that you're gonna end up in a position where it would be better off being played by 6 humans, than 1 human playing 6 characters".

 

With IWG/BG it wasn't "that bad" since they pull from AD&D, so "Fighter is the tank, mage is the weakling in slot 5 or 6" (with very little variation) and it was pretty easy to pause, see what was going on, figure something out, and unpause.

 

*What I mean is, in AD&D, you can pretty much always expect a fighter to be a decent tank, or a paladin to fall somewhere between a cleric and fighter, or a cleric to be a healing battery but mediocre melee combatant, or a Druid/Ranger to be about as good as a paladin, or a rogue to be indispensable in a dungeon, or a sorcerer/wizard to be about as strong as wet paper (but massive offensive/defensive capabilities if allowed to use them).

 

 

Familiarity breeds boredom in addition to contempt.  I'm happy not knowing what I'm doing at first and having to figure it out, rather than leaning on the crutch of an established system of roles and capabilities.

[rjshae]

A number of the elements of P:E combat may still feel D&D-ish. For example, there are spell levels; the class archetypes are mostly similar to D&D; there are a multitude of weapon types; armor is not piecemeal; you must use a safe rest spot to recover your health, change Wizard spells, and restore certain key abilities; there are a set of  feat-like enhancements that improve your combat capabilities as you advance in level; there are distinct character races with their own unique abilities, &c.

 

Health acts somewhat like hit points. The main combat impact of Stamina is to make individual battles more risky: unlike in D&D, you can't entirely rely on a large pool of HP to survive the non-Boss battles.

Edited December 9, 2013 by rjshae

[CaptainMace]

What I really mean is that, from what we can read from the official wiki page, the Druid class seems to suit its lore in its gameplay (it can shapeshift and cast druid spells) and It's not because it's close to the AD&D druid class (I don't want a D&D system).

The wiki makes a distinction between abilities and spells (seen on the magic wielder classes pages) and all I say is that I don't understand that some abilities (like the paladin's ones) seem to fit more a spell book than an ability set of a character.

And, finally, I never said they ripped off these abilities from multiplayer games, I said they felt a lot like ones you have in multiplayer games. The barbarian rushes in, the paladin has auras, the warrior has a sh*t ton of abilities in fight that usually fit a game where you're playing a single character, for the simple reason that without these, it would be boring (we all, I think, attempted to play multiplayer BG and we could all see how boring it is for any class that doesn't wield magic). All I say, again, is that I don't understand why you would give several auras, for example, to a paladin to chose from if I'm already gonna mannage the cypher, the druid and the chanter. I don't consider that more management is better management.

 

This being said, if there are still people who don't understand that a game isn't just writing or gameplay, but is the combination of both, they probably won't get my point.

WHEREAS, i'm absolutely aware that the soul-related lore can actually perfectly suit all of that (though, I hope it'll be more than a concept like the Force in Star Wars : something nobody really knows about that explain anything and that you gotta accept), but I'm confident, I mean I'm here 'cause I love some Obsidian games I've played (New Vegas is like already classic for me) and I know their writing, even if it can lack originality or such, never disrespect the player involvment in the story.

 

 

*What I mean is, in AD&D, you can pretty much always expect a fighter to be a decent tank, or a paladin to fall somewhere between a cleric and fighter, or a cleric to be a healing battery but mediocre melee combatant, or a Druid/Ranger to be about as good as a paladin, or a rogue to be indispensable in a dungeon, or a sorcerer/wizard to be about as strong as wet paper (but massive offensive/defensive capabilities if allowed to use them).

 

 

And what I mean is that you don't need a ton of activables/toglables/passives-to-chose-from to render that.

Edited December 10, 2013 by CaptainMace

[Tamerlane]

There is truth to the idea that "lots of active abilities for all" makes more sense when you play as one character as opposed to playing as a party. When you have just one character to play as, you need a variety of options to keep things from getting dull. When you have six people at your disposal in a real-time system, tons of active abilities on everyone can just bog things down.

 

But it's also a bit of a necessity. If someone starts up a game of PE and they choose a fighter or a barbarian or a monk or whatever as their PC, they're saying, "I want to play as a baller-tier fighter or barbarian or monk or whatever." They are not saying, "I want a main character I can put on autopilot so I can spend all my time micromanaging my companions!"

 

Some classes are designed to be more passive than others, and from what's been revealed so far, it seems like it falls more-or-less down the old martial/magical lines. But they've also stated many times over that they want to give options for the more passive, auto-pilot classes to be built for a more active, micro-manage-y style of play, which is awesome. I just hope that the inverse of this is true: to keep people from the game from getting gummed up with a billion active abilities, the inherently management-intensive classes have options that let you build them into more passive characters.

[neo6874]

Familiarity breeds boredom in addition to contempt.  I'm happy not knowing what I'm doing at first and having to figure it out, rather than leaning on the crutch of an established system of roles and capabilities.

 

 

It was more at the beginning (Ostagar, and the big fight there; then whatever the first real place I chose after that) that I stumbled with the different classes themselves, because "fighter" didn't necessarily mean "goes toe to toe with the other guy".

 

 

*What I mean is, in AD&D, you can pretty much always expect a fighter to be a decent tank, or a paladin to fall somewhere between a cleric and fighter, or a cleric to be a healing battery but mediocre melee combatant, or a Druid/Ranger to be about as good as a paladin, or a rogue to be indispensable in a dungeon, or a sorcerer/wizard to be about as strong as wet paper (but massive offensive/defensive capabilities if allowed to use them).

 

 

And what I mean is that you don't need a ton of activables/toglables/passives-to-chose-from to render that.

 

Didn't intend to have it come off as "you do need all that management stuff" -- and really the bit of quote you pulled was an expansion of what I meant by saying the DAO classes always felt a bit off.

 

I was trying to get at what Tamerlane said above -- where with DA:O, it felt like I couldn't let my (FIGHTER) companion go on autopilot while I would keep tabs on the mage and theif (my main) who are typically "softer" classes ... 

[CaptainMace]

Yup I see it now, I admit I didn't read the whole message, sorry for that :>

[Stabby Tentacles]

No, PE will not use D&D, don't know how you didn't find that info though.

that's all settled then