91 réponses à ce sujet

[General Malor]

Aha! I realized what I didn't say about my idea! I was reading it over and I was like this doesn't make much sense. I'm forgetful. My bad.

What I was trying to say was keep the class system, basically you are a Mage, Warrior, or Rogue, but alter the way you build their attributes and abilities.

The system would be the same for each class basically but with class specific differences. So say you are building a Mage character right? You don't want to have to put attributes in magic because it's kind of obvious but there are other stats you can fuel to build your abilities they way you want them to be built.You're a Mage, you use magic, you shouldn't need to invest more into it. What you do want to do is individualize the way your spells work for your character. And more than spells you want the most control over your character you can have. So you can add physical bonuses to your Mage character that will increase his durability, or cunning bonuses to quicken his reasoning and observation. These would alter your character without making you invest in anything that won't help your class specifically.

The point being that the decisions you make will only advance your class and help you build your class. No more throwing a few points into constitution to make your Mage a little more durable, you'd just choose this one "talent" and your durability would be increased to a sensible reason for your class.

Think of it like this. You have your one spell, and that spell is what it is at it's core. You can't really change that. What you do change is your character's use of that spell. Say you have a Mage that put something into cunning, your character thinks and reasons quicker, so he'll have a bonus to cool downs on spells due to his enhanced mental speed. Same thing for physique, it would add like a force bonus to your spells. Plus with a better, more durable body you'd suffer less health loss from Blood Magic related spells. Or something. Those were just generalized examples.

I mean with this system a Mage would never be as strong or tough as a Warrior but I'll admit that I'm of the mind that the Mage should never be. I like seeing set classes and people have to play those classes how it is supposed to be played. Obviously some things would change if you make something like a Arcane Warrior for your Mage, but that would be a special circumstance.

So it's not exactly Fable's system but for some reason I see them linked. I guess because I would like for there to be cosmetic effects for your choices in terms of ability or have them effect dialogue scenes with their increase, as I mentioned with the R/P system for Mass Effect. But have the cosmetic effects be subtle as they should be. No altering heights or increasing musculature, just increasing definition or presence or better facial expressions and body language.

It's just an idea. Let me know if I left anything hazy, I probably did.

[In Exile]

[quote]General Malor wrote...
So say you are building a Mage character right? You don't want to have to put attributes in magic because it's kind of obvious but there are other stats you can fuel to build your abilities they way you want them to be built.You're a Mage, you use magic, you shouldn't need to invest more into it. What you do want to do is individualize the way your spells work for your character. And more than spells you want the most control over your character you can have. So you can add physical bonuses to your Mage character that will increase his durability, or cunning bonuses to quicken his reasoning and observation. These would alter your character without making you invest in anything that won't help your class specifically. [/quote]

That sounds well and good in theory, but the skills and abilities have to be modified so that this works. What does it mean for a mage who doesn't use magic to learn how to swign a sword in a way that also relies on magic? Haste-warrior? I'm not saying the idea is bad, I'm just asking because I think the hard part is in the execution.

[quote]The point being that the decisions you make will only advance your class and help you build your class. No more throwing a few points into constitution to make your Mage a little more durable, you'd just choose this one "talent" and your durability would be increased to a sensible reason for your class. [/quote]

What would the talent be?

[quote]Say you have a Mage that put something into cunning, your character thinks and reasons quicker, so he'll have a bonus to cool downs on spells due to his enhanced mental speed.  [/quote]

The problem is DPS. If dmg turns on mag, then you're still not going to be able to do enough dmg. I'm not nitpicking. My argument is more that you run into problems here - either the mag stat is overpowered (because your DPS goes crazy) or it has to get nerfed for the build to be viable. Or maybe there's a third option I'm not seeing.

[quote]I guess because I would like for there to be cosmetic effects for your choices in terms of ability or have them effect dialogue scenes with their increase, as I mentioned with the R/P system for Mass Effect. But have the cosmetic effects be subtle as they should be. No altering heights or increasing musculature, just increasing definition or presence or better facial expressions and body language. [/quote]

That would be super costly, though, because it means extra cinematics potentially the whole game long. Now, I agree with you 100% - that would be an awesome feature.

[quite]It's just an idea. Let me know if I left anything hazy, I probably did. [/quote]

It was a really neat idea!  

[Catfish Shotgun]

Well an obvious solution would be to make each attribute do more so that they're more universally useful and relevant to each class-type.

[Fast Jimmy]

Catfish Shotgun wrote...

Well an obvious solution would be to make each attribute do more so that they're more universally useful and relevant to each class-type.

i don't think anyone would disagree with you on that. But, as always, the hard part is... how?

[General Malor]

In Exile,

Sorry, on the first question I was thrown when you asked about a Mage who doesn't use magic. If could clarify your question that would be awesome. Sorry.

For the talent it could be something that serves to increase physical abilities for the character, the name of it isn't important. What it would do is increase health and damage resistance. And if they instituted interactive dialogue sequences with the idea that these abilities would play a part it would let the Mage character perform a more physical feat in that instance in place of a magical ability or just missing out on the event all together. This would mean that the Mage could whack someone with their staff instead of blasting them with magic, thus maybe even keeping the fact that the character is a Mage hidden from the masses who might be hostile.

Magic itself wouldn't be a stat or attribute or talent for a Mage character. They already have magic, so they don't need to "increase" it to be stronger. What they have to do is increase their aptitude with it. So in place of something that increases "magic" as a generic stat you'd have talents or passive abilities. These talents or passive abilities would serve all the functions that "magic" once served. But you would get to specify in what way do you focus on your improvements. So you could increase your mana and focus on that for a while to have a massive reserve of mana to call on, then couple that with a cunning increase and you'd be swiftly throwing spells out to batter down defenses or just harass crowds more than they could handle.

Or maybe you want to focus on damage, you'd throw around devastating spells that hit like a ton of bricks. Add to that a physical attribute and you'd have a Mage who wades into the middle of a battlefield and lays waste to all those around. How that could be worked is the Mage uses his staff like a melee weapon and thus blocks attacks enough for him to loose his powers, but he can only do that because he is physically able enough. That way it would be more of a defense bonus modifier too.

Then you could mix and match them all together to make the character you want to play as close as you can possibly get. Obviously there'll be reasonable limits on things to keep the classes distinct, but it would allow for more flexibility and thus more customization for each and every player.

I'm glad you like the idea, as I said I know it's not perfect, just kickin' around ideas.

[Catfish Shotgun]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Catfish Shotgun wrote...

Well an obvious solution would be to make each attribute do more so that they're more universally useful and relevant to each class-type.

i don't think anyone would disagree with you on that. But, as always, the hard part is... how?

Well I suppose for example Magic could, along with magic resistance for everyone and spellpower for mages,  additionally be linked to one's ability to utilize runes and wield rune weapons/armour- so say if one's magic is only high enough to effectively use a 2nd tier rune but they've got a 3rd tier frost rune on their weapon, their attack speed is slower, if on armour, their movement speed is slower. A flame rune on a weapon could do a small amount of self-inflicted damage on an attack and on armour each hit received taht isn't flame-based might doa dditional damage on the wearer? Idk. This is similar to how a mage in DA2 (Can't remember if this was the case in DA:O) needed a certain amount of magic to be able to wield a staff.
Of course, this might make runes seem less... attractive, especially if a player doesn't want to place precious attribute points in magic without being hindered by runes. Then why not then make runes more capable so that they're desirable enough that a warrior might trickle a little bit into magic for that 3rd tier rune they have sitting in their inventory?

Strength, as we know, takes a great part in physical damage inflicted, specifically for warriors, but again make it so that a certain amount of strength is required for certain higher tier weapons and apparel (Due to heaviness)? I mean obviously a rogue, having considerably lighter armour (Not enough dexterity to fit inside of a suit didn't really make sense lol), wouldn't need as many attributes in that section if they didn't want, but if they really wanted to dual wield long swords then hey, it'd be an option as long if they had the skill and their strength was high enough. With mages, I wouldn't bother with most robes (although in DA2 there was the one with all those metal spikes and jazz on it which I suppose would be begging for at least a little bit of strength), but some tier 5 metal staff might be heavier than the tier 3 wooden one? Idk.
Additionally, it could also affect how far a rogue would be able to throw a grenade and how far an archer could draw back their bow-string, thus constituting somewhat for range and damage with a bow.
I think Strength gave physical resistance too, not sure.

Cunning, hit accuracy?, critical chance, ability to use certain skills to greater levels (Like trap making and herbalism and poison/grenade making and survival and coercion like in DA:O. I hope they bring these things back and implement them a bit better. It was nice.). Additionally it could make ability cool-downs faster (It would make more sense to put this in Willpower but it already controls stamina and mana, so that together with a faster cool down would be ridiculous. Putting it in cunning would provide additional incenstive to put points into cunning).

Dexterity, increased attack speed, increased % ability to dodge, % critical damage, weapon proficiency (Again like the trap making, surivival thing in DA:O where one needed it to unlock higher tier skills, although i suppose the skill-trees are going to be different and not just a row of unlock this to unlock this to unlock this (Similar to DA2 I guess)), etc. Ah, but how would this be useful for mages, you ask? Well, I don't know. Lol. Perhaps the levels of weapon proficiency (Year, remember that in DA:O?) is applicable to a mage's ability to use their staves physically as melee weapons should worst come to worst?

Will power and Constitution, well... Willpower applies to how much stamina/mana someone has, which of course is beneficial to everyone, especially mages if they want to be useful. Constitution is health, which you're probably only going to delve into if you're warrior, less so if you're a rogue and even less if you're a mage. So perhaps mix the two up a little? Willpower could be made so that, if health reaches 0, there is a chance that they "hold on" for a little (Chance of this happening and duration of this "hold on" period would be determinged by willpower and the damage they're able to take while in this mode before ultimately dying would be determined by constitution). While in this mode, the person is practically immobilized, and another person in the party would need to either need to be nearby to give them a health potion of sorts or a mage could heal them before time runs out (3-15 seconds de[pending on Willpower? I love to micro-manage). While in this mode their threat level is pretty low, so it's unlikely for an enemy to attack them over someone else unless they're right next to the enemy and no one else is nearby or attacking said enemy. Given, the chances of this mode are considerably minute, but it's something, and of course there may be certian abilities that if used would dis-allow this from happening, such as a critical hit being the killing blow, or if they were frozen, or if they're on fire, or crushing prison or elsewise. This could also add a little bit to a fight should it happen, where your tank would then need to to the threat-yel thing while your rogue stealths over to your downed mage to apply a health poultice or chuck a health potion down their throat. Alternatively instead of a spell or potion, it could be made to be an injury kit instead, which I found kind of useless in the game otherwise. Except when revived from this mode with an injury kit (Unless it's an uber one), they still have an injury on them as if they were dead and then awoke after battle.

What I'm saying is, while each class would definitely have certain attributes that are associated with them and thus have definite benefits if pursued (Dexterity for Rogues, Strength for Warriors, Magic for Mages), their would also be more involved that would make the occasional dip into a different attributes a little more appealing, rather than dumping everything into strength and constitution as you outlined in your first post. Making the number requirements for everything universally smaller whilst making the attributes a little more scarcely given out might make them seem more valuable without screwing up the whole balance thing if you get me, and I also liked the suggestion of greater levels of attributes requiring more points for them increaese; Perhaps in incrememnts of +1  > 30, +2 > 50, and +3 onwards? (As in 1/1 points up to that attribute's 30 score = a single numerical increase in said attribute, 1/2 * 2 between 30 and 50 = an increase, 1/3 * 3 after 50 = an increase (That doesn't make sense, Jimmy explaine dit better lol))

But yeah. Just chucking ideas on the table.

Modifié par Catfish Shotgun, 13 janvier 2013 - 11:42 .

[Celene II]

Catfish Shotgun wrote...

Well an obvious solution would be to make each attribute do more so that they're more universally useful and relevant to each class-type.

This is a far better solution then to remove them totally. Each attribute could do more things in the game.

How about strength being used to have a chance of breaking locked chests?

A high wisdom skill could give you more information about magical things then a low one.

[Catfish Shotgun]

Celene II wrote...

Catfish Shotgun wrote...

Well an obvious solution would be to make each attribute do more so that they're more universally useful and relevant to each class-type.

This is a far better solution then to remove them totally. Each attribute could do more things in the game.

How about strength being used to have a chance of breaking locked chests?

A high wisdom skill could give you more information about magical things then a low one.

I believe I saw a mod similar to what you're suggesting called "lock bash" :PP
It's a pretty cool idea. I mean they're practically forcing you to have a rogue in your party by making them the only ones able to get through locks, which, while I suppose does make sense, is a bit constricting. It could be made that only through a certain amount of strength and cunning/dexterity (Hitting the lock with enough force, in the right place, in the right way maybe), one could break locks, more attributes being required for higher tiers~. This would give incentive for other attributes to be delved into (If only slightly) if there were no rogues (That you wanted *Looks over at Origins*). If Bio wanted to deter this from being done though while still making it possible though, well obviously picking locks would be easier than lock bashing, and perhaps Master-Level locks can only be possible through lock-picking? Hmm.
And yeah, I think I might prefer intelligence/Wisdom over Magic as it leaves WAAY more possibilities. Like what Celene saida bout additional information~
And one more thing that I just want to see: Depending on the levels of attributes(Strength, intelligence, yada yada), levels of skills (Again, like surivivalism, herbalism, and etc in DA:O, not abilities), choices made in the past and companions present, there would be different dialogue options present in situations.
For me it's story>everything else ^^

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Catfish Shotgun wrote...
What I'm saying is, while each class would definitely have certain attributes that are associated with them and thus have definite benefits if pursued (Dexterity for Rogues, Strength for Warriors, Magic for Mages), their would also be more involved that would make the occasional dip into a different attributes a little more appealing, rather than dumping everything into strength and constitution as you outlined in your first post. Making the number requirements for everything universally smaller whilst making the attributes a little more scarcely given out might make them seem more valuable without screwing up the whole balance thing if you get me, and I also liked the suggestion of greater levels of attributes requiring more points for them increaese; Perhaps in incrememnts of +1  > 30, +2 > 50, and +3 onwards? (As in 1/1 points up to that attribute's 30 score = a single numerical increase in said attribute, 1/2 * 2 between 30 and 50 = an increase, 1/3 * 3 after 50 = an increase (That doesn't make sense, Jimmy explaine dit better lol))

Mantle of the Champion requires 31 magic and 18 willpower for mage or 31 Strength and 18 constitution for  warrior or 31 dexterity and 18 cunning. You do not have that many points to distribute to other attributes no matter how appealing those different attributes are.

[Wulfram]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Catfish Shotgun wrote...

Well an obvious solution would be to make each attribute do more so that they're more universally useful and relevant to each class-type.

i don't think anyone would disagree with you on that. But, as always, the hard part is... how?

I don't think it's possible to do well.  You either end up with half useful newbie trap attributes - which seem like they could be useful but will really do little but weaken your character - or you end up sacrificing all flavour and connection with reality in the name of balance.

Not that the DA system of attributes has ever had much connection with reality.

[philippe willaume]

Catfish Shotgun wrote...

Well an obvious solution would be to make each attribute do more so that they're more universally useful and relevant to each class-type.

This is exactly what having perks/talent instead of value in actual attribute. So instead of having 15 in strength you have 5 perks.
IE
Strong back (mentioned earlier) give bonus to lifting,
throwing and stamina with may be a penalty in speed.

 Raw power give a bonus in 
mêlée and damage and short sprint/evasion but ad a x% cost of those
action in stamina

Strong arms, bonus into determining what weapon you can
throw, bonus to armour penetration reduction of speed.

and so on. You could chose a body type that would limit the number of perks you can start with in a given attribute.

Another way of doing it is to have the combat skills that uses several  attribute with a law of diminishing return. this mean that attribute will not have the same usefullness to all skills.  

if we take Two handed Weapon skill
you could say that it require a minimum strength of 15.  
The skil is made up of strength, cunning, agility and that governs the  attack and defence score,
the damage, armour penetration and the speed.

So provided that you have the minimum strength. The directing attribute can be strength, agility  or dexterity up to 3/4 of the max of the score %. After that you can say that strength is the attribute that matter.

So obviously that works fine for a warrior that use strength as the main attribute and up to a 3/4 that works just as well for am agility  or cunning rogue. So to keep the rogue or a dex or cunning oriented warrior on the power level curve. You need to have  talent/perks.
Those perks talent can only be selected from a class where the attribute is not the class main attribute.

The bonus you get should be caped to 1/4 of the max of the score % and be the same investment in attribute points as getting the top tear through the main attribute. The capping should come off when you are over the level that was used for the 100% score calculation.

combat acumen (cunning) 
You know where  the weak spot and weakness of the armour as well as sound tactical mind. you get a bonus in the  attack and defence score, the damage, armour penetration and the speed. 

combat reflexes (agility)
You can parry or dodges at the last minute and well as well time counters. The  attack and defence score, the damage, armour penetration and the speed. 

Heavy strike (strength) 
Using bio mechanic and you innate sense of time an place. you get a bonus in the  attack and defence score, the damage, armour penetration and the speed. 

Phil

Modifié par philippe willaume, 13 janvier 2013 - 03:17 .

[Amycus89]

I prefer set attributes, with only 2-3 extra points that might be earned throughout the story (or lose them, I remember in BG2 where I seriously considered to sacriface a companion's life instead of a stat point, despite roleplaying a good paladin).

It would hopefully also help solving one problem that has plagued the DA series so far: The stat requirements for equipment. In DA:O it was far too easy to make any character wear massive armor without any real penalties. In DA2 it was the opposite problem, where the different stat requirements almost demanded your character to have their attributes in a predetermined way (when I played a rogue in DA2 I quickly noticed that I had to balance dexterity and cunning in a very specific way in order to be able to wear the weapons AND armor appropiate to my level. Having a set attribute system would solve these problems, where you need a certain level of strength to wear heavy armor - and of course sacriface certain other attributes.

[Thibax]

I don't like 1 point of attribute per level
I don't like 1 point of spell / talent.
I want freedom.

If I leveled up, I don't leveled up in one thing after all my experience acquired, not in one thing at least.

[Fast Jimmy]

Thibax wrote...

I don't like 1 point of attribute per level
I don't like 1 point of spell / talent.
I want freedom.

If I leveled up, I don't leveled up in one thing after all my experience acquired, not in one thing at least.

Well, the problem was that it was just TWO things.

Mages - Magic + Willpower
Rogues - Dexterity + Cunning
Warriors - Strength + Constitution.


There was almost never a reason to put points in something else for these classes. If you did, it wouldn't result in a more dynamic build, but an under-powered (and even sometimes totally ineffectual, given level scaling) build for the game. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 13 janvier 2013 - 02:48 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Catfish Shotgun wrote...

Well I suppose for example Magic could, along with magic resistance for everyone and spellpower for mages,  additionally be linked to one's ability to utilize runes and wield rune weapons/armour- so say if one's magic is only high enough to effectively use a 2nd tier rune but they've got a 3rd tier frost rune on their weapon, their attack speed is slower, if on armour, their movement speed is slower. A flame rune on a weapon could do a small amount of self-inflicted damage on an attack and on armour each hit received taht isn't flame-based might doa dditional damage on the wearer? Idk. This is similar to how a mage in DA2 (Can't remember if this was the case in DA:O) needed a certain amount of magic to be able to wield a staff.
Of course, this might make runes seem less... attractive, especially if a player doesn't want to place precious attribute points in magic without being hindered by runes. Then why not then make runes more capable so that they're desirable enough that a warrior might trickle a little bit into magic for that 3rd tier rune they have sitting in their inventory?

Strength, as we know, takes a great part in physical damage inflicted, specifically for warriors, but again make it so that a certain amount of strength is required for certain higher tier weapons and apparel (Due to heaviness)? I mean obviously a rogue, having considerably lighter armour (Not enough dexterity to fit inside of a suit didn't really make sense lol), wouldn't need as many attributes in that section if they didn't want, but if they really wanted to dual wield long swords then hey, it'd be an option as long if they had the skill and their strength was high enough. With mages, I wouldn't bother with most robes (although in DA2 there was the one with all those metal spikes and jazz on it which I suppose would be begging for at least a little bit of strength), but some tier 5 metal staff might be heavier than the tier 3 wooden one? Idk.
Additionally, it could also affect how far a rogue would be able to throw a grenade and how far an archer could draw back their bow-string, thus constituting somewhat for range and damage with a bow.
I think Strength gave physical resistance too, not sure.

Cunning, hit accuracy?, critical chance, ability to use certain skills to greater levels (Like trap making and herbalism and poison/grenade making and survival and coercion like in DA:O. I hope they bring these things back and implement them a bit better. It was nice.). Additionally it could make ability cool-downs faster (It would make more sense to put this in Willpower but it already controls stamina and mana, so that together with a faster cool down would be ridiculous. Putting it in cunning would provide additional incenstive to put points into cunning).

Dexterity, increased attack speed, increased % ability to dodge, % critical damage, weapon proficiency (Again like the trap making, surivival thing in DA:O where one needed it to unlock higher tier skills, although i suppose the skill-trees are going to be different and not just a row of unlock this to unlock this to unlock this (Similar to DA2 I guess)), etc. Ah, but how would this be useful for mages, you ask? Well, I don't know. Lol. Perhaps the levels of weapon proficiency (Year, remember that in DA:O?) is applicable to a mage's ability to use their staves physically as melee weapons should worst come to worst?

Will power and Constitution, well... Willpower applies to how much stamina/mana someone has, which of course is beneficial to everyone, especially mages if they want to be useful. Constitution is health, which you're probably only going to delve into if you're warrior, less so if you're a rogue and even less if you're a mage. So perhaps mix the two up a little? Willpower could be made so that, if health reaches 0, there is a chance that they "hold on" for a little (Chance of this happening and duration of this "hold on" period would be determinged by willpower and the damage they're able to take while in this mode before ultimately dying would be determined by constitution). While in this mode, the person is practically immobilized, and another person in the party would need to either need to be nearby to give them a health potion of sorts or a mage could heal them before time runs out (3-15 seconds de[pending on Willpower? I love to micro-manage). While in this mode their threat level is pretty low, so it's unlikely for an enemy to attack them over someone else unless they're right next to the enemy and no one else is nearby or attacking said enemy. Given, the chances of this mode are considerably minute, but it's something, and of course there may be certian abilities that if used would dis-allow this from happening, such as a critical hit being the killing blow, or if they were frozen, or if they're on fire, or crushing prison or elsewise. This could also add a little bit to a fight should it happen, where your tank would then need to to the threat-yel thing while your rogue stealths over to your downed mage to apply a health poultice or chuck a health potion down their throat. Alternatively instead of a spell or potion, it could be made to be an injury kit instead, which I found kind of useless in the game otherwise. Except when revived from this mode with an injury kit (Unless it's an uber one), they still have an injury on them as if they were dead and then awoke after battle.

What I'm saying is, while each class would definitely have certain attributes that are associated with them and thus have definite benefits if pursued (Dexterity for Rogues, Strength for Warriors, Magic for Mages), their would also be more involved that would make the occasional dip into a different attributes a little more appealing, rather than dumping everything into strength and constitution as you outlined in your first post. Making the number requirements for everything universally smaller whilst making the attributes a little more scarcely given out might make them seem more valuable without screwing up the whole balance thing if you get me, and I also liked the suggestion of greater levels of attributes requiring more points for them increaese; Perhaps in incrememnts of +1  > 30, +2 > 50, and +3 onwards? (As in 1/1 points up to that attribute's 30 score = a single numerical increase in said attribute, 1/2 * 2 between 30 and 50 = an increase, 1/3 * 3 after 50 = an increase (That doesn't make sense, Jimmy explaine dit better lol))

But yeah. Just chucking ideas on the table.

I do like some of your ideas here. In fact, I think some of the examples you give would give a very intereting twist on the concept of leveling as it exists now.

Damage Per Second (good ole' DPS) has come to rule in designing builds for characters. How much destruction you can dish out in a certain window of time has to determine your total character's effectiveness, right? The problem is that this results in one uber-build and all builds are inferior to the point of not using once you understand the basic mechanics.

However, some of your suggestions could circumvent this. To throw my two cents on top of some of your suggestions... your idea of runes could be applied to ALL magical equipment. If you didn't have a high enough Magic score, you could still use magic equipment, but it would come in various penalties, where the equipment itself could even do damage to you if you used it. A Warrior could then still dump all of his poiints in Strength to do the most damage, but then would either have to avoid using magical equipment, or be forced to eat the negative penalties of using them.

Characters who use heavy armor, but don't have the requisite Strength could have superior defense still, but could have huge penatlies to stamina/mana or attack speed because they aren't hearty enough to get around as easily. Similarly, characters could likely all wear light armor, but if they don't have a high enough Cunning to anticipate enemies' moves, then it wouldn't offer mouch in the way of protection. Or a character with a high constitution could have a potion restore their health right away, but those with a lower constitution would have their health restore over time.

Or other examples. Point being - if a player were to pursue a pure highest-DPS-possible build in some of these scenarios, it may result in some really unique challenges and even a sub-optimal build. You could do a lot of damage... until you got swatted down like a fly. A more diverse build could survive longer, but not dish out as much damage. You could mix and match the two (or more) design philosophies when making your party to have really customizable setups.

[Gazardiel]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Characters who use heavy armor, but don't have the requisite Strength could have superior defense still, but could have huge penatlies to stamina/mana or attack speed because they aren't hearty enough to get around as easily. Similarly, characters could likely all wear light armor, but if they don't have a high enough Cunning to anticipate enemies' moves, then it wouldn't offer mouch in the way of protection. Or a character with a high constitution could have a potion restore their health right away, but those with a lower constitution would have their health restore over time.

Or other examples. Point being - if a player were to pursue a pure highest-DPS-possible build in some of these scenarios, it may result in some really unique challenges and even a sub-optimal build. You could do a lot of damage... until you got swatted down like a fly. A more diverse build could survive longer, but not dish out as much damage. You could mix and match the two (or more) design philosophies when making your party to have really customizable setups.

I'd like this type of flexibility for characters because it would give more organic ways to get through tricky encounters without needing to reload/respec/regear/change the "slider".  This goes away from the attribute discussion a bit, but it would add some realism and creativity.

For example, I played a DW rogue, but found that some fights are really tough for squishy melee and it was often recommended that rogues swap to bows for damage dealing.  It would be neat if for some fights, your mage could put on tougher armor and take the penalty on DPS for more survivability, or your 2H warrior could pick up a shield to add a second tank. 

I'm really not a fan of the arbitrary class system that automatically restricts equipment usage; I understand the game balance/design reasons for it, but allowing a flexible-but-suboptimized strategy would open up some new ways for creative players to experience the game.

[Wulfram]

What does a non-mage investing in Magic represent? From an in-universe perspective, I mean?

Modifié par Wulfram, 13 janvier 2013 - 04:15 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Wulfram wrote...

What does a non-mage investing in Magic represent? From an in-universe perspective, I mean?

Yeah, that is an excellent question. In DA2, it gave them more magic resistance. But I don't know how one would be more in tune with magic, or the Fade, and therefore be LESS suceptible to magic. If anything, from a lore perspective, we see that the dwarves have the exact opposite - their lack of connection to the Fade gives them resistances to Magic. So for Mages, it increases the power of the connection... but for non-Mages, it diminishes it...?

[Atlanth]

What about something like this:

You do have the standard classes mage, warrior and rogue. Each of them have their speciality attribute (warriors=strength, rogues=cunning, mages=magic). 

Each attribute governs a perk tree, with e.g. the cunning tree having access to the typical rogues skills (assassin skills in one branch, archery in another, etc.). Generally, all trees are open to all classes aside from the magic tree, which is only open to mages because mages are born in DA. Not all trees are unlocked at the beginning, or are only partially unlocked. 

Higher tier skills need a certain threshold to unlock. This threshhold depends on your class choice. Rogues, for example, would have a lower threshhold in the cunning tree, but a higher in the strength tree. That way, it still would be possible for a rogue to gain the lower tier perks in the strength tree without pumping massive amounts of attribute points into it.

It could even be tied to the backgrounds that Bioware confirmed will be in the game. Like...in one background your father always took you with him hunting, so the threshold for archery is lower than it normally would be or archery would be unlocked if you are a mage, while it otherwise wouldn't be.

There could also be neutral trees, responsible for armor, persuasion, etc. In this case, a mage could wear light armor, if he puts enough constitution points to unlock it in the armor tree, but to unlock heavy armor, he must first unlock a specific threshold in the strength tree.

Investing attribute points not in the tree governed by your speciality attribute would give special classes special bonuses, like a warrior who has put enough in the cunning tree to get a special, warrior only, critical attack bonus, that rogues will not gain no matter what. Rogues, on the other hand, would have something similiar in the strength tree. That would mean that point dumping in only one tree might not be the most effective build. You can, of course, concentrate only on your one class specific tree, but that would mean that a nifty ability escapes your grasp.

As for the unlocked or partially unlocked trees...it could be done like this: in the beginning of the game, you could limit the points that can be put into attributes, depending on class and background. So a mage, who knows a lot about magic but not really anything at all about the outside world because he lived in the Circle, could put a lot of points in his magic attribute and thus unlock the magic tree sooner and higher, but could only put a limited amount of points into strength, because there was no physical exercise in the Circle. This limit to points allocation could be lifted at a specific time later, e.g. level five or when the plot allows for an explanation as to why the mage is suddenly stronger or not as naive about the real world (lifting strength and cunning points limit). This way, we would actually have something that binds attributes and role-playing together.


So, that's it from me. Just brainstorming here. Tell me, if you think there's something good in my thoughts above.

[In Exile]

General Malor wrote...

In Exile,

Sorry, on the first question I was thrown when you asked about a Mage who doesn't use magic. If could clarify your question that would be awesome. Sorry.

Not a problem! 

I misundestood your line, actually. When you said "You're a Mage, you use magic, you shouldn't need to invest more into it." I thought you meant that you might choose not to put points into magic.

But what you really mean is that you get effects on your spells based on what stats you're buidling.

I actually think that's a brilliant idea!

For the talent it could be something that serves to increase physical abilities for the character, the name of it isn't important. What it would do is increase health and damage resistance. 

So you could have a tank mage, sort of?

This would mean that the Mage could whack someone with their staff instead of blasting them with magic, thus maybe even keeping the fact that the character is a Mage hidden from the masses who might be hostile.

That would be a cool mechanic if we play as an apostate again.

Magic itself wouldn't be a stat or attribute or talent for a Mage character. They already have magic, so they don't need to "increase" it to be stronger. What they have to do is increase their aptitude with it. So in place of something that increases "magic" as a generic stat you'd have talents or passive abilities. These talents or passive abilities would serve all the functions that "magic" once served. But you would get to specify in what way do you focus on your improvements. So you could increase your mana and focus on that for a while to have a massive reserve of mana to call on, then couple that with a cunning increase and you'd be swiftly throwing spells out to batter down defenses or just harass crowds more than they could handle.

I got it now. Actually, I have an idea too: willpower has you resisting demons. That's the thing about DA - as a mage, you yourself aren't threatened by demons. But it seems like this is exactly the gameplay mechanic they should choose given that they want to show what it's like to be a mage, and the dangers.

Then you could mix and match them all together to make the character you want to play as close as you can possibly get. Obviously there'll be reasonable limits on things to keep the classes distinct, but it would allow for more flexibility and thus more customization for each and every player.

I think you're right on the money.

I'm glad you like the idea, as I said I know it's not perfect, just kickin' around ideas.

Of course. But I get how it works now, and I like it.

[nicethugbert]

Gazardiel wrote...
Another nice thing about skills was that you could mitigate a weak attribute, like Charisma (#1 dump stat), with skill ranks in Coercion or Bluff - that represented how you, even though you're not inherently charismatic, is still working hard at something and able to do it despite natural inability.

I don't think that mechanism represents working hard at something and able to do it despite natural inability.  If that is what the makers of D&D were intending then they failed.  I think the way to represent working hard at something and able to do it despite natural inability is to make it cost more to reach the same skill as someone who does have natural ability.  So, the attribute bonuses should have functioned as multipliers instead of additives.  This could produce interesting results with skills reaching astronomical values quickly.  But this would then make the case that attributes should have limits.

For instance, since it is a fantasy game, the players should be progressing towards being super human, super dwarfan, super elfan, etc.  But being super human would be the next step up from human.  This is the logical progression.  So, for example, in terms of strength, for a human that would be something like a hill giant.  They have comparable morphlogy.  For a human to advance his strength to the realm of a Storm Giant and remain human sized would be super super super super human.

It's a fantasy game so super super super ..... human is entirely possible.  But, there has a be a rational that suspends disbelief.  In fantasy, that rational is typically magic.

This is why in D&D, the mundane classes like fighter and rogue, never make sense to me.  They are too similar to the real world, to unmagical to suspend disbelief.

The proper vehicle for fantasy in games such as D&D are the magic classes, Warlocks, Clerics, Mages, etc. because you have to suspend disbelief entirely to even contemplate such things.

Otherwise, you have to limit yourself to small numbers such as not letting a human fighter go beyond something like 20 in strength.  But small numbers do not allow for a long arc of progression or larger and larger fantastic results and many players expect to gain many levels/feats/skills/attribute points in a game as a sign of fantastic progress and fantastic ability.

To get a truely fantastic melee character in a fantasy game without disbelief issues you would need something like an Arcane Warrior.  How does he do it?  Oh, it's just magic.  He's magical.  Fighters and rogues are not magical, Arcan Warriors are.  He trains like a level 5 fighter but he produces the results of a level 20.  Magic, it amplifies, mulitplies, the mundane.

If it were up to me, in D&D, fighters and rogues would be limited to 5 levels or something like that.  Using a multiplicative system rather than an additive system, such as D&D, you can keep base numbers such as attributes low so as to be believable and use magic to magnify the results into the realm of fantasy.

Modifié par nicethugbert, 13 janvier 2013 - 11:13 .

[nicethugbert]

Gazardiel wrote...

I personally dislike b because it really negates attributes in an RPG; they just serve as a shaping/scaling mechanic rather than as character building - and you see the impacts of this as WoW is very gear-based (good to encourage grinding).

I like gear based progression as gear is, essentially, technology of a sort therefore it is easier to suspend bisbelief with it.  A magical helm of deep sea diving is like a goofy bathesphere.  Which is easier to accept than "his constitution/strength is 100 so he can withstand the pressure and hold his breath but he can't punch through a stone wall and he's only flesh and blood after all".

What I don't like is merchants carrying all this hand held WMD around, and the mountains of gold we give them, in their wagon yet they can't fight their way out of a paper bag and no one robs them.

If the Arch Demons had any brains, they would quietly kill all the merchants.  The world would be powerless to fight back afterwards.

Modifié par nicethugbert, 13 janvier 2013 - 11:23 .

[freche]

Set System is the best one in my opinion, it can give a good description of the character.

The "increase as you go" on the other hand gives an illusion of progress when your progress in fact declining.

We increase a couple of stats to basically keep the character at the same level.
What I mean by that is if it requires 20str to wield a longsword in the beginning and then later on it requires 40str to wield a longsword.
Did the swords get heavier? No they didn't, the 40str character is basically as strong as he was in the beginning with 20str.

But while we increase the str stat we will neglect some other stats, lets say I ignore dexterity.
I had 10 when I started and later on I still have 10, in the beginning my dex was half my str but later on my dex is only a 4th of my strength.

So while my character is equal strong through out the game, he becomes less dexterous as I "progress". So as I said my character hasn't progressed, in fact he has become worse.

The Set Attribute system is much better and it's much easier to relate the characters attribute toward other characters in the same universe.
If lets say a standard male human have 12 str then we know that a male human with 16str is really strong, it's easy, it's clear, just better imo.
This system also makes it much easier to design requirements for all kind of items.

Modifié par freche, 14 janvier 2013 - 01:19 .

[philippe willaume]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

What does a non-mage investing in Magic represent? From an in-universe perspective, I mean?

Yeah, that is an excellent question. In DA2, it gave them more magic resistance. But I don't know how one would be more in tune with magic, or the Fade, and therefore be LESS suceptible to magic. If anything, from a lore perspective, we see that the dwarves have the exact opposite - their lack of connection to the Fade gives them resistances to Magic. So for Mages, it increases the power of the connection... but for non-Mages, it diminishes it...?

it could be both connection with the fade and academic knowledge
so it could be use for lore  (provided that there is ever a use for that skill) 
or becasue of teh connection, they can see the spell forming and have a better change of defending. kind of the the same way that you can tell that a situation will escalate.

as well it may be used to craft potions or runes (lyrium as a raw ingredient?)
Phil

[philippe willaume]

Gazardiel wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Characters who use heavy armor, but don't have the requisite Strength could have superior defense still, but could have huge penatlies to stamina/mana or attack speed because they aren't hearty enough to get around as easily. Similarly, characters could likely all wear light armor, but if they don't have a high enough Cunning to anticipate enemies' moves, then it wouldn't offer mouch in the way of protection. Or a character with a high constitution could have a potion restore their health right away, but those with a lower constitution would have their health restore over time.

Or other examples. Point being - if a player were to pursue a pure highest-DPS-possible build in some of these scenarios, it may result in some really unique challenges and even a sub-optimal build. You could do a lot of damage... until you got swatted down like a fly. A more diverse build could survive longer, but not dish out as much damage. You could mix and match the two (or more) design philosophies when making your party to have really customizable setups.

I'd like this type of flexibility for characters because it would give more organic ways to get through tricky encounters without needing to reload/respec/regear/change the "slider".  This goes away from the attribute discussion a bit, but it would add some realism and creativity.

For example, I played a DW rogue, but found that some fights are really tough for squishy melee and it was often recommended that rogues swap to bows for damage dealing.  It would be neat if for some fights, your mage could put on tougher armor and take the penalty on DPS for more survivability, or your 2H warrior could pick up a shield to add a second tank. 

I'm really not a fan of the arbitrary class system that automatically restricts equipment usage; I understand the game balance/design reasons for it, but allowing a flexible-but-suboptimized strategy would open up some new ways for creative players to experience the game.

we all do, the problem is how to make it happen and not cripple the char. (personally i am all in favour of a given char being able to operate different strategies, the DA:2 on trick pony was ultra tedious)






The problem you will always have with increasing attribute and levels is that  it created an slack in a performance
level. That can either leed to a build being unplayable  (as in DA:2) or difficulty not being really challenging for "optimal" build (DA:2 and DA:0)

i.e. using daft numbers for demonstration purpose

 attack =55 defence=40 and damage=40  is not equivalent to 45 -45- 45 or  even to 40-40-55.

when designing encounters for that level, what level of difficulty should you set as designer? 
60 might not be a big challenge for 55 but it is much bigger for 40 or 45. and 45 will be a walk over for  55.

So if our mage pick up an armour or if the THW warrior takes a shield they need to be in the same ball park performance as a proper tank would be and still be on the par as a mage or a TWH warrior.

If all the attribute affect on aspect of combat (strength= damage, dexterity=weapons skill and cunning= critical chance) it is de facto having dump attributes. 

phil

Modifié par philippe willaume, 14 janvier 2013 - 02:31 .