|
Basic Chunnel posted:Atari couldn't publish itself out of a paper bag at this point even if it had cash, which it doesn't. It's pretty far from the truth to call that 4th Edition though. Real 4th Edition is tailor made for a direct digital conversion, and Neverwinter is a real-time action game that dumps everything about it except for the ability names.
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2013 12:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 19:11 |
|
|
They're doing a real-time take on Opportunity attacks. Fighters (all melee characters?) project a zone of control as long as the reach of their weapon and anyone moving through is subject to a free attack which roots if it hits. At least that's what I remember. It's all very 4E, which is great.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2013 21:52
|
|
|
Upmarket Mango posted:Except for that big fireball explosion + gibs. Those look pretty janky to be honest. It's cool that there are gibs, I had no idea, but from what it looks like it's just three chunks with some blood particle effects. Seems kinda underwhelming. It'd be super awesome if the fireball explosion looked like an actual explosion, though. I played all the Infinity Engine games in the german version, so I never knew they even had gibs until they showed up again on GoG in the international versions. Frankly they were better looking without them. Can we get a gibs toggle for Pillars of Eternity?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2013 23:20
|
|
|
Captain Oblivious posted:The Skyrim clone part sounds like a bit much. You can do something in the same vein while still being wildly different. They were basically the same game with different stories. There's about a billion ways in which they could have been more different. They weren't just the same genre, they were using the same mechanics.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2013 18:41
|
|
|
Drifter posted:A princess sim but this time you're a wizard-king or a Zulkir of Thay or a Witch of Rashemen. Make it happen, tia. Innsmouth Dating sim. How many generations can you go before your children start to have the Innsmouth-look? Where are you going to get new blood for the town so people actually make it to "wedding day" before defects kill them. Ia! Ia Dagon!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2013 12:17
|
|
|
Sea Otter posted:It's been a long time since rope kid talked about Delta Green. At least, WW2 setting with some Cthulhu elements is not patented, hopefully? Nothing Lovecraft is copyright. A certain dick claimed he had the copyright for decades, then it turned out he didn't and by that time the copyright had run out. Now it's public domain. You can do all your lovecrafting you want for free - and charge for the product. A specific setting based on Lovecraft's stuff might be patented, but as long as you don't specifically make your own setting the same one, even if it has the same elements, you're fine. DatonKallandor fucked around with this message at 14:18 on Dec 15, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2013 14:16
|
|
|
Basic Chunnel posted:superheros are cool and fun to play And very few settings have a power disparity that stark between the player characters and villains and the general population. A fantasy wizard is just a wizard - a superhero is a god compared to the average person. That makes for some interesting situations when the incredibly powerful heroes interact with the ants that are the people they're trying to help.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2013 22:29
|
|
|
Health is the one that's only tapped into if a character goes down right? So if you had enough Constitution or just played well enough you'd never need the bigger health pool from Strength.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2013 16:58
|
|
|
SurrealityCheck posted:I was recently replaying baldurs gate and it struck me as comical that I have never once, in my entire time playing infinity engine games, used a potion. I used to play like that. DnD Online kind of retrained me, because that's a game where consumables are everything (since it uses the non-regenerating health and finite spell system of 3.5 Edition). It expects wizards to pull out scrolls and use them constantly (something you'd never do other DnD games, because scrolls are worth so much money for a one-use item), firing off their limited charge wands at everything and chug various potions whenever the situation demands it. Acid Trap? Acid Protection potion! Jumping Puzzle? Jumping Potion! Hurt after the fight? Health potion. Now I play every game like that which makes the far easier.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2013 19:47
|
|
|
GreatGreen posted:Gotcha. At the very least, I think pots should stack as high as possible in the inventory. They're as much an integral game mechanic as they are just some items you carry around at the cost of space so forcing you to choose between that and how much gear/artifacts/ingredients/widgets you can haul around at a time is really only good for making players groan at the game instead of giving them a fun, meaningful decision to make. I think stacking potions infinitely in the in-combat inventory is completely missing the point. It's basically the difference between Demons Souls healing items and Dark Souls healing items. The former had grind-able, infinite-stack healing - which was fine. But pretty much everyone agreed that the latters fixed-consumable number that replenishes at every checkpoint is far better. I think the intent behind the Strength/Inventory link is to replicate the depth of the Dark Souls mechanic, while also giving players the option to make a character that has more consumable options at the expense of other stats. Think Strength-Rogue, being a Rogue who has a potion and trinket for every situation in his belt. Adaptable because you can switch them out depending on what situation you're going into (thought not once you're actually in the fight itself). While an Intelligence-Rogue is just going to hit incredibly hard, but won't be able to pull as many tricks out of his hat. The infinite out-of-combat/out-of-mission stash solves all the inventory management problems. Edit: Batman is a Strength-Rogue (endless belt of gadgets) and Green Arrow is an Intelligence-Rogue (smaller bag of harder hitting tricks)? DatonKallandor fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Dec 18, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2013 18:44
|
|
|
coffeetable posted:/\/\ Great minds Renaming is hard because those attributes have non-combat uses as well. Just don't listen to the whining and keep it on the current scheme is the best solution. gently caress "but strenght doesn't boost my damage". It's not DnD, learn new terms. It's a small sacrifice for having no dump stats and every single stat being useful for every class.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2013 12:55
|
|
|
Masonity posted:How about int raising minimum damage while strength raises maximum damage? Jesus loving Christ. How about we don't change anything about a system we haven't played yet because we don't like the way a single attribute is named. For fucks sake a naming issue is not cause to change the gameplay of a system none of us have actually played with, and which on paper, and according to the people who have played with it is awesome. "I don't like the damage stat being called Intelligence" is not cause to overhaul the guts of the entire character system, and certainly not cause to call for the system to be overhauled. Attributes influencing stuff you wouldn't expect is what happens when you build something that's supposed to work. Abstraction is good, because it stops a system from becoming stupid by trying to make the by-definition abstract stats "make sense". It's a natural consequence of a well designed system. DatonKallandor fucked around with this message at 18:45 on Dec 19, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2013 18:40
|
|
|
SurrealityCheck posted:Name them in the in game languages! I vote that intelligence is called "Úrf". Your Úrf determines how hard you hit and how well you examine and recall facts in conversation/out-of-combat events.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2013 18:46
|
|
|
uaciaut posted:Also isn't Str increasing BOTH weight capacity + # of weapon slots kind of counter-intuitive. If you have a high str you can carry lots of weapons anyway and swap them in and out, isn't an extra weapon slot or 2 redundant at that point? Strength is Health (the long-term hitpoint pool) and inventory slots (which only matter during combat). So they're both things you'd want every character to have. Which is the point of the whole thing - you want every character to have all the stats. But you can't, so your characters are defined by what they don't have. The Wizard who's fireballs are huge (not a euphemism) but who gets tired after a few battles. The Fighter who's got a giant belt full of awesome poo poo, but who doesn't hit very hard. And the neat thing is those characters would also have out-of-combat uses. That Fighter would be great when it comes to lifting rocks or challenging people to a wrestling match, but he won't win a chess match. DatonKallandor fucked around with this message at 19:30 on Dec 19, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2013 19:27
|
|
|
rope kid posted:A question for anyone reading the thread: if you saw a list of stats presented like this: First list: Might and I'd accept it as part of the system. Second list: Power and I'd accept it as part of the system, but it'd make a little more sense that "Power" affects healing as opposed to "Might" affecting healing. Intelligence is still the most sensible option if you told me up-front that it has to be a damage+healing attribute for all weapon and spell types though. What did you call the stats in Dungeon Siege 2 again? I think I remember being able to live with the names of those. DatonKallandor fucked around with this message at 19:35 on Dec 19, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2013 19:32
|
|
|
uaciaut posted:I'd also think that too much power is centralized around that one stat leaving the others much weaker relative to it. If you don't make Healing and Damage dependent on a single stat you screw characters that can do both - they effectively need to choose between one or the other, making them either healbots that can't damage or classes-with-healing that can't properly use their healing side. Kind of how pre-4th Edition screwed over Paladins and Monks compared to Wizards and Sorcerors because the former needed far more stats at high values to use their poo poo, while the latter only needed one.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2013 19:38
|
|
|
Furism posted:Might and Power here, too. Lord of the Rings Online did some loving awesome poo poo with renaming things that are usually called something else. Making the traditional "hitpoints" Morale was brilliant, because that way they could get the gameplay of a healer into a universe where there aren't dozens of people running that can magically close the gravest of wounds. If anything that should serve as an example that it's perfectly fine to rename to things that are traditionally called something else. People get over it. They get used to it quickly. uaciaut posted:Again though i don't understand what an attribute HAS to govern a single combat stat and why an attribute (or multiple attributes) can't affect multiple combat stats at the same time. It would be so much easier to simply let class kits affect how heavily an attribute affects a stat for THEIR class and modify their effectiveness with feats, etc. Because that's complicated as hell for no benefit other than "my verisimilitude". Splitting stats also hurts hybrid characters. Both ranged/melee, phsyical/caster and damage/healing hybrids are going to exist in Pillars of Eternity, and they'll be significantly worse if damage and healing, ranged and melee or physical and magical attributes are split up - for no benefit. It would also significantly decrease viable build numbers and it seems like one of the goals is to make every kind of character useful with every class. You're supposed to be able to have a Smart Person, a Quick Person, a Strong Person, a Tough Person, a Resolute Person - and each of them can be any class and function. Strong Wizard, Tough Wizard, Smart Wizard - they should all be viable, and the system as described does that. DatonKallandor fucked around with this message at 20:32 on Dec 19, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2013 20:27
|
|
|
GreatGreen posted:You know what? Call the skills anything you want. The biggest hope of this random guy on the internet is that there is minimal overlap between things the player upgrades that affect a character's capabilities in combat and upgrades that affect capabilities out of it. A stat that affects a Paladin's DPS capability shouldn't necessarily also affect his ability to influence people in dialog trees, because these areas are two different areas in a video game and while it's good for the paladin and makes sense in a strict trope sense, it kind of locks out every other class from being an "influential" character, which is the opposite of what you want for an actual Role Playing Game, right? The beauty of the system as described is that there is no Paladin DPS stat. You can in-fact have a Paladin that is exactly what you want him to be in terms of dialogue, and he'll still be effective in combat, but distinct from a Paladin someone else built to do something else in dialogues. The system is different from DnD in that it doesn't force stats on classes. A wizard doesn't have to be smart, and a Paladin doesn't have to be charismatic. What it does do, is lock a certain combat advantage to certain kinds of characters. All smart people will heal better and hit harder, and all tough people will be able to take more hits. But that's not that different to DnD, since intimidating characters were more intimidating if they were strong and vice versa, etc. DatonKallandor fucked around with this message at 20:38 on Dec 19, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2013 20:35
|
|
|
uaciaut posted:More damage will always be the crux of any build, you won't probably look to win fights via maximizing CC duration output (stunning or poisoning them to death), AOE'ing them to death or crit'ing them to death (rng). Tell me more about how my fighter, who's specific shtick is being able to tie up multiple opponents will want damage over toughness or accuracy. Or how my buffer/debuffer is going to want damage over AoE size. Damage is nice, but not every class is always about damage. You can make it about damage - that's the awesome thing about ropekids system - but it doesn't have to be, and for most classes probably won't be. In a Party with a fragile Int Wizard or Int Ranger having a fighter who isn't going for damage is going to lead to more damage in the long run from the party members who are free to pump out sweet deeps because they're being kept save. Seriously 4th Edition is the best comparison here. A party with a CC monster like a Warden or Paladin was far more capable than a pure Rogue Party. DatonKallandor fucked around with this message at 23:08 on Dec 19, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2013 23:04
|
|
|
Captain Oblivious posted:Or Conan. Conan is not an educated man but that does not mean he isn't clever in a very dangerous kind of way. I always thought Conan is more of a Rogue with a Two-Hander instead of dual daggers. He'll ambush you to hit you hard with his giant sword.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2013 00:09
|
|
|
GreatGreen posted:I don't think the real issue here is what the stats are named. The issue I think is that people believe there will be stats that will affect multiple aspects of one character, which will mean non-standard characters will need to dump stat points into attributes they can only get a small benefit from relative to the "standard" classes which will ultimately only serves to gimp characters that don't follow the standard fantasy tropes, and I think that's what people want to avoid. But that's exactly what the system does. No class prefers any stat.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2013 16:44
|
|
|
GreatGreen posted:I don't have a problem with classes preferring stats. It makes sense that Wizards would want to pump whatever gives them more mana and makes their spells hit harder, just like it makes sense for rogues to prefer stats that let them dodge and crit more. What I have a problem with is when games use stat systems that aren't granular enough, such that by pumping, say, the dodging and critting stat (typically called something like Dexterity) the character is suddenly better at being persuasive and charming and has more dialogue options open to him as a result. That's fine for the rogue, but lovely for players who want to make a charming warrior, because now they have to sacrifice some of their combat viability by splitting points between Strength and Dexterity, which they only get the conversational benefits from because dodging is useless to a plate wearing tank. The big thing about the system we've been told about is that you can just not care about what any stat does in-combat because they're all good to have. If you're coming from the Role-playing side, you can make an intelligent anything and you'll get to have that person be Intelligent outside of combat and still work in-combat because every attribute has the same positive bonus for every class. You can just forget about the problem of trying to make a Wizard, but then - because it's a Wizard - being locked into either a smart Wizard who isn't dead weight, or a strong/tough/dexterous/resolute Wizard who sucks in fights. That problem is completely solved by the system they're building. You can make a Charming Warrior, as you put it, and the system they've described will not punish your effectiveness in combat. Most of the changes proposed in this thread would destroy this aspect, which is why they are terrible ideas that Obsidian will hopefully ignore.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2013 18:38
|
|
|
Smol posted:Eh, let's not get ahead of ourselves. The game isn't out yet and nobody of us has played it yet, so saying that it's "completely solved" is a bit premature. As-described it is. If there's bits we haven't been told everything obviously goes out the window.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2013 19:02
|
|
|
I don't remember Alignment having any mechanics impact in 4E, but if it did (was there a Smite Alignment equivalent?) a good a DM would probably rule it as "what this person/creature is like at this moment". So probably really fluid.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2013 19:59
|
|
|
Warmachine posted:A race with an alignment of "Always [X] [Y]" can be assumed to be XY when raised in normal conditions for that race. A drow, orc, demon, red dragon, and the like that grow up among their respective societies will 99.999...% of the time end up evil. It gets fuzzy when you factor in player characters and non-standard upbringings. A red dragon taken by a paladin and cared for from hatchling to adult will probably end up being Lawful Good with a greedy streak. The Dragon thing actually happened in Forgotten Realms. In Myth Drannor (pre-first-destruction) one of the princes found a Red Dragon egg and raised the Dragon as his own. That Dragon could then trigger a "when a Red Dragon with no evil in his heart" spell condition that destroyed the place - proving that the default Red Dragon alignment (evil!) could be beaten by upbringing. I still find it hilarious just how contrived they made that particular Myth Drannor destruction scenario.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2013 23:31
|
|
|
Mr.Pibbleton posted:At the end of the day though people can be complicated and alignment is a very simplified way of looking at morality and I'd like to know how viable a gun based barbarian is. I can't see it working that well. From what we've been told Barbarians are Melee AoE machines. I'm sure they have some non-melee specifc stuff, but I doubt it's enough to be easily playable. But Gun-Chanter? Gun-Cipher? Gun-Wizard? Gun-Paladin? Hell yeah!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2013 20:42
|
|
|
CaptainPsyko posted:Guns being bad against armor and strong against force fields while traditional weapons are vice versa is a start, but I hope we can go further than that, because otherwise it's just a Str/Inventory tax. Shouldn't that the be the opposite? Guns were really good against medieval armor weren't they? Which is why the royalty and knights hated them. Any peasant with a musket could gently caress up your shiny plate/ring mail, at a fraction of the cost and training. Making Pistols something you don't wield, but instead use from a (strenght-scaling-number-of) inventory slot would be neat. That's a way to give direct combat power (but only a fixed amount per engagement) to Strength-based characters.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2013 17:47
|
|
|
SurrealityCheck posted:Yeah, very much depends on the armour. For most of the early history of man-portable firearms, crossbows were significantly more dangerous to a man in armour (and also more dangerous than bows, too). Oh yeah Crossbows were hated too - A Pope even banned them because it really let the poor gently caress up the rich. I wonder if PoE is going to have extra armor penetration for crossbows.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2013 18:37
|
|
|
CaptainPsyko posted:Yeah, this is what I was referring to. The problem with this model is that if the only reason to keep a gun around is because it is a Wizard-Killing Dynamo, it's essentially an inventory tax, just like needing to keep otherwise inferior silver weapons around in case of Surprise Werewolves, which is kind of a waste of a gameplay mechanic. Actually the unlimited out-of-combat-stash and limited-in-combat-inventory is exactly the kind of environment where niche weapons are a good gameplay mechanic. When there is no out-of-combat inventory tax, having to decide between bringing the mage-killer gun or the silver anti-undead sword is awesome - especially when an inventory focused (Strength) Character doesn't have to choose in exchange for missing out on the other attributes. Unless the Mage-Killing Gun and Undead-Killing Sword is literally useless on anything else - that'd just suck and encourage save scumming and looking poo poo up on wikis. DatonKallandor fucked around with this message at 21:35 on Dec 26, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2013 20:11
|
|
|
Might be interesting if the PoE universe had invented guns so quickly, they didn't get to the crossbow stage. Skip straight from Bow to Gunpowder? Certainly would make weapon balancing easier.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2013 02:29
|
|
|
rope kid posted:We're trying to avoid going nuts with special ammo types but we haven't designed them yet. Infinite "base" ammo and limited special ammo always seemed like great way to go whenever a game used it. Having to buy basic ammo for your ranged weapons sucks and is tedious, but loading in that awesome limited supply knock-out shot is awesome. I'd make special ammo un-sellable though - just to make people more likely to use them.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2013 03:20
|
|
|
It does have some hilarious dumb UI decisions though - like forcing players to stay on the same screen even when they're playing coop from different computers. You can hack the game and disable it, but it's stupid that it's the default anyway. There's also some dumb camera decisions and UI issues. The gameplay is solid though, especially the whole power-up mechanic that's very much like EX moves in fighting games.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2014 13:24
|
|
|
rope kid posted:Yes, you will be able to name your games and the saves will be grouped by PC. Additionally, Trial of Iron save games use a metal texture instead of wood. Are you going to do a New Game+ with more awesome items and nastier encounter makeup like in Icewind Dale 2?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2014 11:30
|
|
|
2house2fly posted:I love the non-skill options. I hope all the illustrated scenes have at least one hilariously useless option. Also I hope at least one has the useless-sounding option actually pay off. If they're just rolls there's probably going to be a low percentage chance of the "non-skill" options paying off - if they're skill gates (must have x skill to make the option show up) to make the options show up I expect the non-skill option be always worse than a skill option.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
They have wizards. They have entire cities rules by entire towers full of wizards. It's a setting where (until the dark age of 4th Edition) every backwoods village had at least one temple, with a priest who could, at the very least, cure pretty much any injury short of death. And most villages had at least one cleric who could raise the recently dead. Every big City had several temples, each of which had several priests capable of full on resurrection. Add roving random Druids with the same healing and raising power all over the wilderness and gods who aren't afraid to get their hands dirty and flex their magic muscles. You're worried they don't have enough farming communities to feed everyone? Magic.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
Zore posted:Aragorn used magic, and having super cool magic stuff to back you up has been a hallmark of every myth ever, from Sun Wukong's cloud and infinite staff to Achilles magic abilities and equipment. When does Aragorn use magic? He uses magic items, which everyone else does too, but I can't remember him ever casting anything remotely like a spell. He's a Ranger with good gear - and if you compare him to a DnD Ranger he's a whole lot less magic, since DnD Rangers eventually got to be pocket Druids.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2014 17:30
|
|
|
JanPospisil posted:He literally lays "hands of the King" on Éowyn and Faramir. That's just being all elfy and (in dnd terms) having a high healing skill. Might as well say Calling on Elbereth is a spell, but again it's something anyone could do.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
Pimpmust posted:"The original D&D was published as a boxed set in 1974 and featured only a handful of the elements for which the game is known today: just three character classes (fighting-man, magic-user, and cleric); four races (human, dwarf, elf, and hobbit); only a few monsters; only three alignments (lawful, neutral, and chaotic)." I guess Dungeonmans is closer to the DnD spirit than I thought.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
Mordaedil posted:That site has some very strange articles. I don't see how all Tolkiens Magic Items are subtle. They're all over the place - while only Gandalf knows how to cast spells, everyone else is decked out head to toe in magic equipment. Even the minor Hobbits have Short Swords of Evil-Slaying (from the hill graves) and several people have weapons that magically glow when orks are nearby. They've got chameleon cloaks that take on the colour of the surroundings, straight up healing potions (which they basically use up before they even hit Moria - great rationing there), infinite-length rope (which isn't even that far removed from a bag of holding) and magic star-light-lanterns.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2014 15:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 19:11 |
|
|
CottonWolf posted:I kind of hope they're brought back Seven Dwarves or Defiance. A really dark version of Grimms' is always cool, and Defiance was pitched as a game where Sauron won. I don't actually think it was ever a LotR based game, that was purely illustrative, but it's a really great concept. Fantasy General is set in a world where Sauron won. It was pretty drat incredible, and a great way to up the stakes - when the last freedom fighters rise up they don't get another chance if they gently caress up. Especially when there's no Deus Ex Machina hidden in some ancient ruins and no angelic army waiting to be unleashed by some kind of mcguffin. I really hope whatever the big story objective is in Pillars - it's something the player does himself, not saving someone or something else to do the work.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2014 15:27
|
|