56 réponses à ce sujet

[Kidd]

 

Leoroc wrote...

1 - front loaded character creation: Let us get our hands on a character sheet at creation. Choose our initial talent, and place attribute points.

Yes please. I made a thread a long time ago about my non-gamer friend's thoughts and feelings on DA2, and one of the things that obviously bothered her was that character creation came further into the game. She felt completely dissuaded from making her own looks since she was already used to default Marian Hawke, though we are both sure she would have preferred making her own looks.

Yeah, those are aesthetics, but she already had to choose class right out of the gate as is.

Leoroc wrote...

2 - All attributes should matter for all classes: Sure some more than others, but ending the game with 100s in two stats and 12s in the others is kind of lame. Gear should help with more than jut a class's two primary stats and dump-statting should be discouraged mechanically.

Yes! Yes! This is delicious! ^^

Honestly this bothers me to no end every time I see my attribute screen in the DA games. If 16 Cunning was a lot at level 1 (and it really should be considering that's the requisite for the highest Persuasion skill level), and I put it equal to my Strength, then I'm playing a very smart warrior. After all, she is - according to the stats - just as smart as she is strong, and she's carrying huge two handed swords. Toward the end game though, her strength will be nearing 100 while her cunning probably remains down at 16. Suddenly she doesn't feel like she is "as smart as she is strong" any more, cause there's a ~84 points difference between the two stats.

And dump stats suck. Some may make sense - for instance warriors and rogues may not get much out of levelling Magic and mages have no real use for Strength - but most stats ought to be pretty important to every one. D&D 3rd edition is pretty cool about this.

Every one wants dexterity for the evasion bonus (only fighters who plan on donning huge plate mail may feel differently).

A high constitution leads to an exponentially higher HP number and that's certainly good for any one - whether the tank can tank better or the wizard can actually survive an attack, both are welcome additions.

Without intelligence, the character will not be able to learn much of anything and will be quite the simpleton.

Wisdom is one of those wackier ones, since D&D decides that wisdom is what brings protection from mind-altering magic for semi-arbitrary reasons, but nevertheless every class can benefit from being wise and being able to resist mind control of different kinds is quite cool.

Even the classic dump stat charisma isn't a free dump since your character will be incredibly clumsy in all social events at all times. She will botch deals that should be really easy to make, people will not follow her, it is difficult for her to be taken seriously. Obviously, all classes benefit from a high charisma score.

Now, I know that was D&D and their stats aren't DA's, nor am I of the opinion BioWare should copy D&D. But a line of thought along these lines would be absolutely fantastic! =)

Leoroc wrote...

3 - Races should affect you mechanically: If we get to choose race, or even if it is just our companion's races, certains races should be better than others at certain things (Elves and nature magic, bows, being poor =p) dwarves hardier and more resistant to magic, kossith stronger etc.

Could work, though I'd prefer if the differences are minimal in that case. Mostly cosmetic to feel that they're there than truly relevant. Limiting character concepts and narrowing choice is no good, imho.

Leoroc wrote...

4 - Items should not be class restricted: I mean hard restrictions, no rogue only leathers or warrior only swords. There can be serious disadvantages to a warrior using a staff or a mage wearing platemail to make it not worthwhile, but no outright restriction (other than maybe stats).

Much like =)

[Sir JK]

I'm going to do something crazy here and just ask this question:

Why? What goals would any of that serve (as in, what in-system goals)?

How exactly will the system benefit from a more front loaded character creator? What benefit will there be systemwise to allowing us to place the first few talent points and distribute a handful of attribute points?

Why should all attributes matter for all classes? How does for instance high cunning really benefit a warrior? Is there really a value to spreading the attributes evenly between classes? How does the greater variance within classer affect rthe differences between them? Can you truly make all attributes provide benefits of equal or similar value to every class and build?

Why is should there be mechanical differences between the races? What goal does this fulfill? If it is to mimic the differences in culture and background, should not all attributes be defined by your background rather than tactical optimum? How is one benefit weighed against another? Should the races be equal?

Why shouldn't items be class restricted? Is there really any point in plated mages and clothed warriors? Rogues wielding two handers and mages pulling longbows? How will this affect the difference between classes?

Most of these questions are of the devil's advocate variety. But my core point is that mechanics in a rpg (pen and paper or crpg) should be goal oriented. I've seen many who weren't and they were all terrible and inconsistent. If you want these things, you really need to address what goals these should strive towards and bind them all together. No mechanic sits in a vacuum. They all work together. And as such they need to support one another.

I'm not opposed to many of these suggestions as such, but if the only reason they're desireable is "I kind of like them" or "They're classic" then more thought needs to go into them I fear. Even if they have worked before, does not mean they will now.

[Maclimes]

If you have a front-loaded character sheet, no class restrictions, and all attributes are important to all characters... at that point, you might as well just ditch the class system altogether. No, It's fine the way it is. I have the same misgivings as Sir JK up there.

[Wulfram]

Sir JK wrote...

How exactly will the system benefit from a more front loaded character creator? What benefit will there be systemwise to allowing us to place the first few talent points and distribute a handful of attribute points?

It allows you to play the character you want from the start
The game is more interesting when you've got more than 1 talent

Though on the con side, it's maybe less friendly to newbies.  And since the first few levels are gained pretty quickly, it doesn't matter all that much.

Why should all attributes matter for all classes? How does for instance high cunning really benefit a warrior? Is there really a value to spreading the attributes evenly between classes? How does the greater variance within classer affect rthe differences between them? Can you truly make all attributes provide benefits of equal or similar value to every class and build?

If more attributes matter, then that means theres more builds, which makes choosing your build more interesting. 

In particular, if there's a stat which it's effectively obligatory to build up if you want to be effective, then there stops being a point in giving you a choice as to how to distribute those points.  All it does is serve as a trap for the inexperienced, and a bit of pointless makework for the experienced.

On the other hand, I don't think there's any massive harm to there being a dump stats or two.  But a fighter having a reasonable choice as to whether to focus on Dex or Str, or do something more balanced, and also another choice as to how much Con and Wil to pick seems fairly ideal to me.

Why is should there be mechanical differences between the races? What goal does this fulfill? If it is to mimic the differences in culture and background, should not all attributes be defined by your background rather than tactical optimum? How is one benefit weighed against another? Should the races be equal?

To give different play experiences, and to make it feel like you're playing an elf rather than just an odd looking human.

Why shouldn't items be class restricted? Is there really any point in plated mages and clothed warriors? Rogues wielding two handers and mages pulling longbows? How will this affect the difference between classes?

I'd flip this round and ask why should items be class restricted?  Aside from potential lore issues with non mages using magic staffs, I really don't see what the problem is.  Particularly when you don't have the talents for non-class items, and using them requires investing in stats outside your typical.

The items should be primarily designed to suit their class, but if someone can come up with a clever use for them with another class I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed.  Unless there's a major balance issue and they become too good, anyway.

Modifié par Wulfram, 12 juillet 2012 - 05:25 .

[Sir JK]

Wulfram wrote...

It allows you to play the character you want from the start
The game is more interesting when you've got more than 1 talent

Though on the con side, it's maybe less friendly to newbies.  And since the first few levels are gained pretty quickly, it doesn't matter all that much.

And what effect will this have on progression and the feeling of increasing difficulty? If the largest step is between nothing and level 1, isn't there a risk that each subsequent level feels less important and that the beginning of the game is the most difficult bit (since you have to deal with the greatest step in expanding capability)? How should this be addressed? What effect will that have? Is less levels an acceptable solution?

If more attributes matter, then that means theres more builds, which makes choosing your build more interesting. 

In particular, if there's a stat which it's effectively obligatory to build up if you want to be effective, then there stops being a point in giving you a choice as to how to distribute those points.  All it does is serve as a trap for the inexperienced, and a bit of pointless makework for the experienced.

On the other hand, I don't think there's any massive harm to there being a dump stats or two.  But a fighter having a reasonable choice as to whether to focus on Dex or Str, or do something more balanced, and also another choice as to how much Con and Wil to pick seems fairly ideal to me.

How do you balance the difference between classes to the balance within classes? Is it acceptable that a dex warriors plays identical to a rogue (or even a powered down one)? How do you ensure that all or the chosen few attributes are of equal value? How do you prevent balancing the two toward one another to be subpar or overwhelmingly powerful?

To give different play experiences, and to make it feel like you're playing an elf rather than just an odd looking human.

Does this change not also assume the ability to choose race? And even then, does this goal not also require a narrative change? How large difference can there be? Is it acceptable that spending the starting points a certain way means the entire bonus is achieved by another race?

I'd flip this round and ask why should items be class restricted?  Aside from potential lore issues with non mages using magic staffs, I really don't see what the problem is.  Particularly when you don't have the talents for non-class items, and using them requires investing in stats outside your typical.

The items should be primarily designed to suit their class, but if someone can come up with a clever use for them with another class I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed.  Unless there's a major balance issue and they become too good, anyway.

Similarily to above, what effect will this have to the difference between classes? What effect will it have on balance and aquisition of gear? How much can be assumed? How do you stat out rewards? How does this tie in with the other suggested changes?

[Its_a_Catdemon]

1. Yes please. A front loaded character creation has the benefit that I feel that my character is more defined in the beginning, as opposed to how I currently don't feel like my character is my own for the first few hours, until level 10 at least. I'd also think it makes more sense that our characters are their own person, and already have an identity, instead of only becoming much of a person throughout the events of the game, it seems incredibly strange how within a few days my mage has learned 10 new spells, yet knew only mind blast when the game began. This prevents much gameplay-story segregation.

2. Definitely agree with this. You can basically prove how important this is just by looking at the vast majority of endgame builds in DA2: Max strength. All other points into Endurance. Everything else at the base 10-12.
That just looks completely silly and unrealistic. It'd be incredibly rare and strange for a person to be perfect a model of their class. And then we have every member of the class looking like this. Something needs to change. Stats should actually represent the character as a individual, and most people don't fit this at all. I don't like dump-statting at all, but I'm in favor of everyone being able to play the kind of character they want, so as many different builds should be viable as possible, including, but not being limited to that kind of build. It'd be wonderful for actually roleplaying if I could give each character attributes fitting their personality, without having to worry about how my character will be inferior gameplay wise.

3. I don't see as much of a need for this, if I feel that elves are more magical, I can give my elves more magic. If there will be attribute differences, it would best be kept minimal, to the point where I start to question what the point of the differences are. Any larger difference is forcing us into specific roles, and taking away more customization. Racial differences were there, however slight, in origins, so it wouldn't bother me too much when it's that tiny, if anyone likes that, then sure. As long as there is no weapon bonuses, I'm okay with stats, but weapons just seem stereotypical.

4. Agreeing with this. It makes the world feel a lot more realistic and less gamey to not have those boundary lines. All mages wearing robes and staves just feels incredibly stupid considering how obvious it makes things for the circle and templars after them. It's nice to make our characters unique, all options could be worthwhile for everyone, with different benefits. Warriors could use staves, especially the bladed polearms used in DA2 such as the Staff of Parthalan. They wouldn't be magic, just a blade on a stick. But if each weapon type was different, other than who it was restricted to, there could be plenty of reason for such a use. A noble rogue would be able to wear his family's armor, while focusing on smoke bombs or trickery from the rogue talents, I'd picture this character like Sebastian.

[Leoroc]

Dump statting should certainly be an option, but it should impact you. Dumping cunning for example would make it tough to bluff your way past a guard. Dumping magic as a warrior could effect your magic resistance and how well you are affected by buffs/healing. Dumping str as a mage should effect your carrying capacity.

[Leoroc]

SirJK, RPGs have a long history of doing it this way, a history I know BW doesnt need me to explain. Go play D&D and you will understand =)

[Sir JK]

Ah, Leoroc. I think you misunderstood me. DnD is very carefulyl crafted, with everything in it supporting a few key goals. Which is sort of what I meant, these changes aren't good in themselves. But if they do support other mechanics and recieve support towards a certain goals they can be great. For instance, there are games were front loaded characetr creation is terrible because nothing in the system benefits from or support front loaded characetr creation. Doing things because rpgs have always done it, is not a very good cause. Doing it because this system needs it is.

I've played many rpgs and looked at their mechanics. Dark heresy builds towards a lethal atmosphere of massively powerful antagonists, investigation and players that need to learn to improvise. There goal and system go hand in hand as they should. Many things are not traditional though.

I have played DnD, as well as 12 other well developed systems. And that's just pnp. In most of them the system does work together towards certain goals. Good systems do. Adding popular stuff to a system for no reason however does not. Some of your suggestion may require the entire system to be rewritten from bottom up to be supported for instance.
As always, analysis is key.

What goals would your desire's work towards. What other things are working towards these goals? Is there anything working against them?

[Amycus89]

Assuming that we will have races to choose from (by the maker I hope so), I can kinda agree that while I want the races to feel different, I don't want to choose an elf and feel like I have to make him a rogue/mage, just because he isnt as effective as other races if I make him a warrior.

A suggestion would then be to instead add "racial benefits" that can still help any class, depending on your playing style. I think we actually already have one like the magic resistance in dwarves, but other examples could be:

*humans gain one extra stat point
*Elves have a 20% higher walking speed.
*Dwarves gain an increase in damage as their health falls (assuming that the reaver specialization won't be in DA3)

These are all examples of abilities that can still be useful for any class, depending on your playstyle.

[Kidd]

Sir JK wrote...

Why should all attributes matter for all classes? How does for instance high cunning really benefit a warrior? Is there really a value to spreading the attributes evenly between classes? How does the greater variance within classer affect rthe differences between them? Can you truly make all attributes provide benefits of equal or similar value to every class and build?

The way the stats function today, they would be better if they were not there. Since there is more or less a right and many wrong ways to distribute the points, you can only risk doing it wrong. You do not allow more character concepts in the current system, you only allow new players to make the game difficult for themselves.

But instead of removing the attributes completely, we could rework them to have more meaning. If it takes a bit of thought to decide where to place that one point, that means you're dealing with real choice.

For the players new to RPGs who feel overwhelmed during their first playthrough, there could be selectable presets of attribute score distributions or something =)

[AstraDrakkar]

I just want DA3 to be an RPG with some combat thrown in, and NOT another action game with a few RPG elements here and there. I can get an action game anywhere. They are a dime a dozen. It's getting harder and harder to find good RPG's though, and I want to keep DA as an RPG focused game.

Modifié par AstraDrakkar, 13 juillet 2012 - 04:53 .

[Sir JK]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...
The way the stats function today, they would be better if they were not there. Since there is more or less a right and many wrong ways to distribute the points, you can only risk doing it wrong. You do not allow more character concepts in the current system, you only allow new players to make the game difficult for themselves.

But instead of removing the attributes completely, we could rework them to have more meaning. If it takes a bit of thought to decide where to place that one point, that means you're dealing with real choice.

For the players new to RPGs who feel overwhelmed during their first playthrough, there could be selectable presets of attribute score distributions or something =)

And if attributes are too equal then the optimum changes from "put everything in the same category" to "spread it all out evenly". There's a very fine line to walk here. Moreover, if the attributes are relatively equal, how is progression handled? What effect would having one attribute in the forties and another in the low twenties have on the character? How is game difficulty tuned to account for both characters with a balanced spread and hyper specialized characters? How is stat upgrades on bonuses accounted for?

This, like the other desires expressed in this thread, is as I've mentioned not trivial changes. Both the value of attributes and the distribution at character creation is intimately tied to the progression system. How power increases and is distributed on individual level is what should define the first distribution and the appliances of attributes. The entire system would possibly have to be reworked along the lines of the change to accomodate it.

That's not intended as a discourgement however, but rather as a suggestion to delve deeper and suggest how to change the entire system to accomodate for this. To analyze what would be neccessary and where things need to be change to allow for it.

[Kidd]

Sir JK wrote...

And if attributes are too equal then the optimum changes from "put everything in the same category" to "spread it all out evenly". There's a very fine line to walk here. Moreover, if the attributes are relatively equal, how is progression handled? What effect would having one attribute in the forties and another in the low twenties have on the character? How is game difficulty tuned to account for both characters with a balanced spread and hyper specialized characters? How is stat upgrades on bonuses accounted for?

There is indeed a fine walk, and I believe it is up to BioWare to do the number crunching. It has been done before, even in games created by this very company, so they can do it again.

If you hyperspecialise, you will indeed be hyperspecialised. A warrior who puts all their points into strength would absolutely destroy most enemies, becoming a juggernaut far more capable than most. But the warrior may not have access to persuasion options, leading to difficult social situations. And in combat, they may fail to resist pretty much all effects thrown its way, whether they're facing a rogue performing dirty fighting or mages casting all kinds of spells. Not to mention, they go down very quickly once this happens, since they rely completely on their armour to protect them.

In effect, the best tactical use out of such a character would be to not use it as a tank, and equipping heavy armour may even be superfluous (or, possibly required, depending on viewpoint and game design). They would wait until the combatants had locked into combat already and then decimate the opposition from the side/behind. Any reinforcements the enemy has in place, whether they be unseen traps or more enemies, can prove fatal to the character. They will for instance be incredibly reliant on a more observant ally pointing out traps for them.

Etc etc.

[AkiKishi]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

Sir JK wrote...

Why should all attributes matter for all classes? How does for instance high cunning really benefit a warrior? Is there really a value to spreading the attributes evenly between classes? How does the greater variance within classer affect rthe differences between them? Can you truly make all attributes provide benefits of equal or similar value to every class and build?

The way the stats function today, they would be better if they were not there. Since there is more or less a right and many wrong ways to distribute the points, you can only risk doing it wrong. You do not allow more character concepts in the current system, you only allow new players to make the game difficult for themselves.

But instead of removing the attributes completely, we could rework them to have more meaning. If it takes a bit of thought to decide where to place that one point, that means you're dealing with real choice.

For the players new to RPGs who feel overwhelmed during their first playthrough, there could be selectable presets of attribute score distributions or something =)

Like I said in the useless stat threads it should work like this.

You get base stats for your class.
When you pick a skill, you get a set of stat points along with the skill. Tanking skills will give you stats that will make you a better tank.

Just some made up numbers.

Lets say at level 2 you pick shield bash and passive defence.

Shield bash will give you 5 str and 10 con. Passive defence will give you 50 extra health. This is in addition to what the skills would normally do. This means your stats are reflecting and complimenting the style you want to play but without having to analyse any numbers or worry about spending them wrong. 

[Yrkoon]

Leoroc wrote...


2 - All attributes should matter for all classes: Sure some more than others, but ending the game with 100s in two stats and 12s in the others is kind of lame. Gear should help with more than jut a class's two primary stats and dump-statting should be discouraged mechanically.

Agreed with all your points, but I'm gonna comment on this one because I think  it's a huge issue  that Bioware dropped the ball on, even though you can tell that they tried their hardest to nail.

For example, take a look at the description for Dexterity and Cunning in DA2.    Aside from being "rogue" stats, they also  allow warriors to increase their critical chance and critical damage by spending points in them.  When I first got this game I was salivating at this fact.   This looked  potentially awesome.  A total game changer.   Something  that would, alone, put DA:O's character building system to total shame.   My mind raced at the thought of being able to create a 2 handed warrior who can Crit with almost every hit and then do massive  critical damage... with an auto attack.    More than just a traditional strength build.

But  NO....the game doesn't actually let you do that.  if you're playing a 2-h warrior and you're spending your points on Dex and Cunning, you'll soon find yourself not being able to wield decent weapons, or equip armor that lets you survive.  Consequently, by the time you're 20th level, your 80 cun/dex 2-handed warrior is doing pitifully less damage than your Strength and Con built 2-hander.  And not even runes will help you since the weapons and armor that a warrior  with low str/con CAN equip don't have rune slots.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 13 juillet 2012 - 11:32 .

[nightscrawl]

Realmzmaster wrote...

1 - As long as it is explained in either a in-game tutorial or extremely well in the manual I have no problem, because even with a level up the casual has to understand what and why it is being leveled up.

2 - Why would all attributes matter to each class? Unless skill and talent learning is going to be tied to intelligence. The character is going to need a certain amount of intelligence to be able to learn a weapon proficiency or pick a lock

3 - Is weight also going to be a consideration. So if I create a 250 pound elf character he/she will not be as dexterous as a lighter elf, but more dexterous than a human of the same weight? Or will there be weight restrictions differences between races? Will there also be differences regarding gender within the races?

4 - I agree no class restrictions regarding weapons and armor but severe penalties if a rogue is wearing plate mail and trying to sneak past the guards or pick a lock. If a mage is wearing plate armor it should impede spellcasting ability especially if the spell requires gestures or drawing of a glyph.
If a warrior or any non-mage uses a staff in his/her hands it is simply a piece of wood or whatever material it is made of since the warrior cannot channel magic from the Fade. The warrior can only use it as a quarterstaff unable to unlock the magic potential within.

I agree with everything here.

2 - NWN was the first game of that type that I ever played, and also introduced me to the DnD universe without my having to actually do the whole PnP thing. I always found it amusing that the description on the Intelligence stat stated that "An Intelligence score lower than 9 [I think it was] means your character is unable to speak properly." I think something like that is getting a bit too carried away...

3 - Unless they add sliding body mass scales (see Guild Wars), which I highly doubt, I don't see them implementing any sort of weight restriction, other than another carry over from NWN of Strength affecting weight you can carry (in your bags), and overloading your bags affects your ability to walk because you are overburdened. Similarly, I don't see them adding in gender restrictions. Most games these days tend to just have gender be mainly cosmetic, with a game like Dragon Age changing some dialogue around, but that's all.

wsandista wrote...

It assumes that the character is from a certain culture. The reason Elfs have proficiency with Bows(longswords and rapiers as well) in D&D rules is because the use of them is part of Elven culture.

Allan Schumacher wrote...

So really more of a "too much backstory" issue for you?

It is reasonable to assume that any innate benefits an elf may have with a bow is due to innately superior dexterity or whatnot, so I can definitely see your point.

It seems like you two are talking about two different things here. A +2 Dex bonus for elves is not really the same as a racial bonus for weapons based on culture. The city elves in Dragon Age really don't have much to do with elven culture, so they shouldn't be expected to have those skills. A dalish elf might, but not all of them. Merrill might know how to use a bow, but as a mage I would hardly expect her to be proficient at it simply because she is a dalish elf. Orana, being a former slave, might not have ever held anything sharper than a steak knife in her hand, but still have the innate grace that comes with being an elf.

At any rate, with any sort of weapon proficiency or racial bonus you run the risk of players choosing based on that criteria alone (to be the best!) rather than for story reasons. However, if the usefulness of those types of bonuses wears off as you level I can see it being a fun feature. An example from World of Warcraft being the (formerly, this was since changed with the last expansion) starting stats of all races. Some have more Int, more Str, and so on, but it only varies by by 5-8 points, which becomes insignificant as you level and acquire gear with +426 Int or +455 Agility (WoW's Dex stat).

Modifié par nightscrawl, 13 juillet 2012 - 12:15 .

[Cimeas]

Leoroc wrote...

Dump statting should certainly be an option, but it should impact you. Dumping cunning for example would make it tough to bluff your way past a guard. Dumping magic as a warrior could effect your magic resistance and how well you are affected by buffs/healing. Dumping str as a mage should effect your carrying capacity.

If everything was equally important or at least somewhat important, the theorycrafters would just create one stat-build for each class that has the best balance and everyone would use that.   Or if everything was equal, why not just invest points equally, defeating the point as it were. 

[Vilegrim]

Leoroc wrote...

 I would like to see some stronger RPG elements in DA3. What do I mean by that? I will tell you!

1 - front loaded character creation: Let us get our hands on a character sheet at creation. Choose our initial talent, and place attribute points.

2 - All attributes should matter for all classes: Sure some more than others, but ending the game with 100s in two stats and 12s in the others is kind of lame. Gear should help with more than jut a class's two primary stats and dump-statting should be discouraged mechanically.

3 - Races should affect you mechanically: If we get to choose race, or even if it is just our companion's races, certains races should be better than others at certain things (Elves and nature magic, bows, being poor =p) dwarves hardier and more resistant to magic, kossith stronger etc.

4 - Items should not be class restricted: I mean hard restrictions, no rogue only leathers or warrior only swords. There can be serious disadvantages to a warrior using a staff or a mage wearing platemail to make it not worthwhile, but no outright restriction (other than maybe stats).

That's about it, feel free to comment/disagree.

some enchanted weapons I can see being class limited,  The Sword Of Bloody Death will be weilded by a raveger! It's enchantments hurt anyone else who tries. (for instance.)

[Leoroc]

Cimeas wrote...

Leoroc wrote...

Dump statting should certainly be an option, but it should impact you. Dumping cunning for example would make it tough to bluff your way past a guard. Dumping magic as a warrior could effect your magic resistance and how well you are affected by buffs/healing. Dumping str as a mage should effect your carrying capacity.

If everything was equally important or at least somewhat important, the theorycrafters would just create one stat-build for each class that has the best balance and everyone would use that.   Or if everything was equal, why not just invest points equally, defeating the point as it were. 

 

This doesnt appear to be the situation in Fallout, which does use the system style I am referring to.

[bzombo]

aldien wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

I agree with the OP.

I wish BW would expand on some things they already have, but currently don't use to their full potential. A good example are the tattoos. I can imagine that these have magical attributes. Instead of selecting a pattern to look nice a PC doesn't have one initially. To get a tattoo requires a quest to obtain one. Having such a tattoo should have significant impact and once chosen it cannot be changed. That also adds a quest that people would love to do. Make that quest challenging.

Talent trees should be learned from someone and it would require a quest.

Weapons and armor should get their own specific quests. I didn't like that the best armor in DA2 was part of the main quest. Especially because what you found there was the best in the game, but it also required them to be sets to be fully useful. Why not have a specific quest for a complete set, instead? Make great weapons and armor obtainable by epic quests. Still have some variation in them, so that different armor have the same quality, but different properties and looks.

The same idea can also be applied for rings and other jewelry.

A merchant for magic items? Because magic is taboo everywhere create a quest to find a merchant who sells that stuff. The same can be done for the other classes. Arrows can either be found in the game, but the great ones require the fletcher to be found through a specific quest.

And so on.

Adding to this because you reminded me of it, I wish they would allow the player to craft their own armor and add or pay for it to be enchanted. It is an idea from Skyrim but if they cut out the 'finding your own resources' and made it so the player could still craft, I think it would be fun. At least, it would feel more personal.

Perhaps craft your own staff or take pieces of items to craft a new one. Mix and match if that makes sense.

Please no. This just allows for players to create armor that makes finding in game armor useless. Keep crafting to potions, traps, etc.

[Maclimes]

bzombo wrote...

Please no. This just allows for players to create armor that makes finding in game armor useless. Keep crafting to potions, traps, etc.

There's a lot to be said for crafting and customization in games. But, in the case of Dragon Age, I tend to agree. Crafting should be for consumable resources, not equipment.

[bzombo]

Maclimes wrote...

bzombo wrote...

Please no. This just allows for players to create armor that makes finding in game armor useless. Keep crafting to potions, traps, etc.

There's a lot to be said for crafting and customization in games. But, in the case of Dragon Age, I tend to agree. Crafting should be for consumable resources, not equipment.

Exactly. It works in Skyrim and Kingdoms of Amalur. It just doesn't fit Dragon Age.

[TonberryFeye]

I think we need races back, and races need to matter.

In Origins, this didn't quite work because it went against what we expected. I made an Elven Rogue because I assumed "Elves = Dexterity" and thus being a Rogue would make be a better Rogue. I was wrong. Horribly wrong. Elves are the single most useless race in Origins bar none; Dwarves make better archers than Elves do. Dwarves!

So let's get that fixed right off the bat. Elves need to have racial modifiers that make them worthwhile in all classes. High Dex in D&D is useful to everyone. Archers and finesse-melee fighters use Dex to hit. Everyone else gets an armour boost off Dex to represent dodging attacks. As such, a D&D Elf can comfortably fill any class role. Take a page out of D&D and make Elves worth taking in all three roles the way Humans are, just in a slightly different way.

Beyond that, I agree 100% with the OP.

[Maclimes]

TonberryFeye wrote...

Elves are the single most useless race in Origins bar none; Dwarves make better archers than Elves do. Dwarves!

I didn't think there was a mechanical difference between the races at all. I could be wrong, I admit.

Anyway, a better way to do it would be like this. Treat each race as a Specialization Tree in DA2. It would be mostly full of Passive Abilities, with the occasional Active Ability or Mode. Boom.

For Elves, for example, you might have the main ability, the first one you must pick, as a minor +Dex. Then, you can go down different trees of abilites. One for archery, one for nature magic, and one for potion crafting. (Cheaper potions and Elf-only recipes, etc).

For Dwarves, you do it as a +Con at the base, then a tree for melee combat, one for hardiness (resistance to magic, stun, etc), and one for Rune crafting.

For Humans, it starts as a +Will, and then moves into a tree for Diplomacy (Easier persuade attempts, cheaper prices, etc), a tree for ... something? I dunno. Humans are boring. I'm sure someone could fill this out better. But I feel good about the general concept.