208 réponses à ce sujet

[Solmanian]

No, because you avoid combat with a dialogue choice... You want experience? Loot? Pay the iron price. Talking things out doesn't improve your fighting capabilities, so you shouldn't be able to get skill points for fighting skills for NOT fighting. Solving issues in a non violent way, make you a good diplomat, not a good fighter.
If you gained non-combat skills by leveling up, than you could argue that you should get XP for non-violent solutions. Most D&D NPC diplomats are level 0...

[Plaintiff]

Solmanian wrote...

No, because you avoid combat with a dialogue choice... You want experience? Loot? Pay the iron price. Talking things out doesn't improve your fighting capabilities, so you shouldn't be able to get skill points for fighting skills for NOT fighting. Solving issues in a non violent way, make you a good diplomat, not a good fighter.
If you gained non-combat skills by leveling up, than you could argue that you should get XP for non-violent solutions. Most D&D NPC diplomats are level 0...

Then every single scenario in the game must have a non-violent solution.

Who cares how D&D does things? Dragon Age is not D&D.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 07 avril 2013 - 06:19 .

[Solmanian]

I don't follow your reasoning... You have yet to explain why do you think your combat skills should improve from not fighting...

[Plaintiff]

Solmanian wrote...

I don't follow your reasoning... You have yet to explain why do you think your combat skills should improve from not fighting...

Because the game will undoubtedly require my character to fight, whether I want them to or not. At some point, combat is going to be unavoidable.

If the game is not going to fully support a non-violent playstyle (meaning every single encounter from the giant rats in the cellar to the final boss can be solved in a non-violent manner), then it has to allow my character to develop combat skills, regardless of whether or not he has used them in any previous encounter.

Whether or not it makes sense within the logic of the narrative is utterly irrelevent. Providing inviable character builds is poor game design.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 07 avril 2013 - 06:39 .

[Bfler]

A drill ground or arena is the solution to raise your skills outside combat.

[Zarathiel]

Plaintiff wrote...

Solmanian wrote...

No, because you avoid combat with a dialogue choice... You want experience? Loot? Pay the iron price. Talking things out doesn't improve your fighting capabilities, so you shouldn't be able to get skill points for fighting skills for NOT fighting. Solving issues in a non violent way, make you a good diplomat, not a good fighter.
If you gained non-combat skills by leveling up, than you could argue that you should get XP for non-violent solutions. Most D&D NPC diplomats are level 0...

Then every single scenario in the game must have a non-violent solution.

Who cares how D&D does things? Dragon Age is not D&D.

Fun Fact. D&D actually DOESN'T do that. In any edition.

Only Bad DMs do this.

[Selene Moonsong]

Solmanian wrote...

No, because you avoid combat with a dialogue choice... You want experience? Loot? Pay the iron price. Talking things out doesn't improve your fighting capabilities, so you shouldn't be able to get skill points for fighting skills for NOT fighting. Solving issues in a non violent way, make you a good diplomat, not a good fighter.
If you gained non-combat skills by leveling up, than you could argue that you should get XP for non-violent solutions. Most D&D NPC diplomats are level 0...

"Most D&D NPC diplomats are level 0" may be true, depending on your DM, but while that may be true to some degree, most NPC diplomats are not PCs of varying skills. Diplomacy is not the only way to overcome an obstacle  in a non violent manner, in D&D or any other game. A fighter can avoid combat, even in D&D, and use their head now and then to circumvent a needless fight to achieve a goal and still get XP to spend towards advancement. Knowing when to avoid a needless fight is as much a combat skill as is the physical combat.

I remember competing in a D&D tournanment at a convention where all the players were given a fighter character (all stats were identical for all PCs). Out of 12 players who were in the compatition, only two of us were successfull due to our methods of play because we were able to apply common sense and wit while staying strictly within the published guidelines of the fighter class.

If all you want to do in a game is fight, by all means play the way you like, the games are supposed to be fun and challenging for all styles of play, but don't suggest that others should see everything in the same way you may see things. This is Dragon Age (not D&D) and I have never seen or supported the idea that non-fighter classes serve as 'support rolls' for fighters in combat: to do so demeans the value of the other classess for players.

No one is suggesting that all situations allow circumventing of combat, but there are times when it should be at least a possibility. Diplomacy or other means of avoiding combat should not always be successful and should still provide a little something extra even on a failed attempt, such as additional information or secrets you may discover that are not necessarily required to succeed on a given quest or game plot, that can otherwise help the party out in some way.

Diversity makes games more challenging and more interesting for everyone. That is what people are asking for.

Modifié par Selene Moonsong, 07 avril 2013 - 08:52 .

[esper]

Solmanian wrote...

"Talking things out" is the easy way out and should net less XP or none at all.

I have to quote this because I think it is the opposite. Hiting someone/killing them/showing physical dominance is an extremely easy way to get your will.

Succesfully talking someone into to thinking that they want to help you because it was all their idea in the first place is a lot more difficult.

Just trying to get people to chance their opinion in real life. Extremely difficult.

[TheJediSaint]

I think any time there's dialogue prior to initiative being rolled, the player should at least have the opportunity to try and avoid combat.

[XX-Pyro]

Solmanian wrote...

No, because you avoid combat with a dialogue choice... You want experience? Loot? Pay the iron price. Talking things out doesn't improve your fighting capabilities, so you shouldn't be able to get skill points for fighting skills for NOT fighting. Solving issues in a non violent way, make you a good diplomat, not a good fighter.
If you gained non-combat skills by leveling up, than you could argue that you should get XP for non-violent solutions. Most D&D NPC diplomats are level 0...

I agree with this. I'm all for more diplomatic solutions and would use them myself, but I shouldn't be getting combat experience for it, doesn't make any kind of sense to me. 

[Zarathiel]

XX-Pyro wrote...

Solmanian wrote...

No, because you avoid combat with a dialogue choice... You want experience? Loot? Pay the iron price. Talking things out doesn't improve your fighting capabilities, so you shouldn't be able to get skill points for fighting skills for NOT fighting. Solving issues in a non violent way, make you a good diplomat, not a good fighter.
If you gained non-combat skills by leveling up, than you could argue that you should get XP for non-violent solutions. Most D&D NPC diplomats are level 0...

I agree with this. I'm all for more diplomatic solutions and would use them myself, but I shouldn't be getting combat experience for it, doesn't make any kind of sense to me. 

Experience has never been gained from just combat in Dragon Age, though. See traps and turning in quests.

[In Exile]

XX-Pyro wrote...

I agree with this. I'm all for more diplomatic solutions and would use them myself, but I shouldn't be getting combat experience for it, doesn't make any kind of sense to me. 

But you should get speechcraft experience from combat? 

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

I want more violent solutions tbh.

[Solmanian]

Zarathiel wrote...

XX-Pyro wrote...

Solmanian wrote...

No, because you avoid combat with a dialogue choice... You want experience? Loot? Pay the iron price. Talking things out doesn't improve your fighting capabilities, so you shouldn't be able to get skill points for fighting skills for NOT fighting. Solving issues in a non violent way, make you a good diplomat, not a good fighter.
If you gained non-combat skills by leveling up, than you could argue that you should get XP for non-violent solutions. Most D&D NPC diplomats are level 0...

I agree with this. I'm all for more diplomatic solutions and would use them myself, but I shouldn't be getting combat experience for it, doesn't make any kind of sense to me. 

Experience has never been gained from just combat in Dragon Age, though. See traps and turning in quests.

You will still get XP for completing quests, it will be identical regardless of the way you completed it (unless the quest giver actualy prefers a certain resolution and chose to resolve it in a better/worse way). What we're saying is you don't get XP from a combat encounter you didn't have. XP from traps and picklocks is tottaly justified because it involves using class skills, that you need att points form leveling to improve.

[Solmanian]

In Exile wrote...

XX-Pyro wrote...

I agree with this. I'm all for more diplomatic solutions and would use them myself, but I shouldn't be getting combat experience for it, doesn't make any kind of sense to me. 

But you should get speechcraft experience from combat? 

Do you know something I don't? like that DA:I will be an elder scrolls game? Because that's where speechcraft is from. DA:O had coersion which made sense for recieving XP from intimidation and persuaion (who were also dependants on your strength and cunning repectively). DA2 had no talent that wasn't combat oriented; if DA:I will be the same in that regard (And I pray it isn't), there's no point in giving XP for persuasion/intimidate tests (I'm not even sure they had them in DA2), or any other non-comabt action like crafting.

I for one hope they bring back non-combat skills, and that they will be at least as branching and as eleborate as the combat skill tree in DA2. You can even use them to distinguish the classes: Warrior will have smithing (making weapons and armors for themselves and their squadies). Rogues will have trap making and poison making. Wizards will get enchanting/runecrafting. Not sure who gets herbalism and potion making... I think first aid (a skill that allow you to craft first aid kits) should be a general skill like in WOW.

[In Exile]

Solmanian wrote...
Do you know something I don't? like that DA:I will be an elder scrolls game?Because that's where speechcraft is from.

Or it can be half-handed way of talk about dialogue skills. But awesome for you - you played Morrowind like everyone else. 

DA:O had coersion which made sense for recieving XP from intimidation and persuaion (who were also dependants on your strength and cunning repectively).

No. In DA:O you had persuasion and intimidation which triggered off (primarily) your cunning scores, and who you could pick at different levels provided that you had the appropriate base cunning score and allocated "skills" there, which were acquired primarily by murdering hundreds of people (or darkspawn).

I for one hope they bring back non-combat skills, and that they will be at least as branching and as eleborate as the combat skill tree in DA2.  

Which are sensibly improved by murdering more people? 

[Fast Jimmy]

In Exile wrote...

XX-Pyro wrote...

I agree with this. I'm all for more diplomatic solutions and would use them myself, but I shouldn't be getting combat experience for it, doesn't make any kind of sense to me. 

But you should get speechcraft experience from combat? 

Should picking locks result in combat experience?

You either have to go the TES route of every activity has its own XP pool (or some hybrid of that) or you take it on good faith that XP is a commodity to buy skill points with. Why a Mage can beat someone with their staff and learn a spell from it seems a little counterintuitive as well, but it is the nature of a General XP leveling system. 

[Zarathiel]

Solmanian wrote...

Zarathiel wrote...

XX-Pyro wrote...

Solmanian wrote...

No, because you avoid combat with a dialogue choice... You want experience? Loot? Pay the iron price. Talking things out doesn't improve your fighting capabilities, so you shouldn't be able to get skill points for fighting skills for NOT fighting. Solving issues in a non violent way, make you a good diplomat, not a good fighter.
If you gained non-combat skills by leveling up, than you could argue that you should get XP for non-violent solutions. Most D&D NPC diplomats are level 0...

I agree with this. I'm all for more diplomatic solutions and would use them myself, but I shouldn't be getting combat experience for it, doesn't make any kind of sense to me. 

Experience has never been gained from just combat in Dragon Age, though. See traps and turning in quests.

You will still get XP for completing quests, it will be identical regardless of the way you completed it (unless the quest giver actualy prefers a certain resolution and chose to resolve it in a better/worse way). What we're saying is you don't get XP from a combat encounter you didn't have. XP from traps and picklocks is tottaly justified because it involves using class skills, that you need att points form leveling to improve.

Here's the thing, though. You're still having the encounter. You're just not resorting to combat as a solution. XP and levels are an abstraction, anyway. I don't see why you're so picky about how they're earned. Plus, there's already a cost involved in taking nonviolent solutions. It's called loot.

[XX-Pyro]

Zarathiel wrote...

XX-Pyro wrote...

Solmanian wrote...

No, because you avoid combat with a dialogue choice... You want experience? Loot? Pay the iron price. Talking things out doesn't improve your fighting capabilities, so you shouldn't be able to get skill points for fighting skills for NOT fighting. Solving issues in a non violent way, make you a good diplomat, not a good fighter.
If you gained non-combat skills by leveling up, than you could argue that you should get XP for non-violent solutions. Most D&D NPC diplomats are level 0...

I agree with this. I'm all for more diplomatic solutions and would use them myself, but I shouldn't be getting combat experience for it, doesn't make any kind of sense to me. 

Experience has never been gained from just combat in Dragon Age, though. See traps and turning in quests.

You're right, I think they should branch it into two sections or so. Skill experience (assuming those things come back,) which allows you buy skill points in whatever skills might be included, and combat/ability experience. Would make much more sense to me than the arbitrary system currently in place, although to be fair it's more of a pain in the ass.

[Naitaka]

I still think the problem in how Bioware implements non-violent solutions. Most if not all the time, it's simply just a skill check of of form or another and in fact does require less effort than a combat encounter. If we look at the Divinity series (Divine Divinity, Divinity II), we are required to search out clues about the situation or the person who we try to persuade in order to achieve non-violent solution most of the time and exp can be rewarded for those activities as opposed to combat encounter to balance the scale.

[Cairodin]

In order to get XP from conversations, I feel like there'd have to be persuasion checks in the game. For that, BioWare'd have to either bring back direct persuasion skills like charm/intimidate from ME, or go the Jade Empire route and have indirect Charm/Intuition/Intimidation skills that are based on other stats. In any case, it'd seem unfair to reward XP to conversation-based resolutions unless combat skills were sacrificed somewhere along the way in order to achieve them. Make it a choice, yo.

Modifié par Cairodin, 12 avril 2013 - 07:37 .

[Solmanian]

Cairodin wrote...

.... In any case, it'd seem unfair to reward XP to conversation-based resolutions unless combat skills were sacrificed somewhere along the way in order to achieve them. Make it a choice, yo.

What do you mean "Sacrificed"?

[Razyx]

Solmanian wrote...

I don't follow your reasoning... You have yet to explain why do you think your combat skills should improve from not fighting...

That's a good question. 
I think all these non-aggresive skills (persuasion, etc) should work through your charisma, intelligence and wisdom levels.
How one of these skills should affect on combat?, e.g. intelligence could do the trick adding bonuses on your attack/defence. A clever and patient warrior will be more dangerous than a naive one.

All it's up to a good skill system development.

Modifié par Razyx, 12 avril 2013 - 11:27 .

[Cairodin]

Solmanian wrote...

What do you mean "Sacrificed"?

What I was going for was this:

1.  If you have a certain amount of skill points that you acquire throughout the game,
2.  And the only reasonable way to allow XP from conversations is to have devoted persuasion skills,
3.  Then it follows that in order to put points into a persuasion skill, you aren't putting those points into a combat skill.  

Hence you sacrifice a certain amount of combat skill so that you can have persuasion skill.  I think that passing persuasion checks based on persuasion skill is a decent enough equivalent to progressing the game via combat; so in that scenario awarding XP to players that can avoid combat through conversation is justified.

Hope that makes more sense, now.

All that being said, I don't know that I see the devs adding conversation skills back into their games.  I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

[esper]

The thing with experience is that either you have seperate experience pools for every category which in dragon age would translate to
Combat
Persuatíon
Lockpicking/Traps/ Other thing that involves making things with your hands.
Dragon age is not freeroam is simply don't see them having have enough talks, trap making to make the last to reasonable.

The other option is having a shared experience poll for all different categories as it is now. But when that is the case, you should get experience from talking the combat away, else we end with something completely weird as in Origins where you got godly at talking by killing enemies.

If there exist out of combat skills, there have to exist out of combat experience points too.