Animals and Habitat
36 views
Skip to first unread message
Journeyman
Oct 14, 2009, 9:01:10 PM10/14/09
to Incursion
So, while my time right now is primarily taken up working
on the script compiler, I'm also always doing mechanical
design at the back of my head for Incursion, and one thing
I'm working at right now is rethinking polymorph and wild
shape. The latter might/might not end up limited to forms
appropriate to a focused habitat a druid claims at chargen
(with the possibility to expand the list with feats, of course).
One benefit of this would be that every druid would not
automatically default to the "one best" form available at a
given level, but would instead have thematically appropriate
forms with more 'feel'. Another benefit is that each alt-form
could be evaluated as a whole entity for balance, rather
than relying on formulas based on hit dice, etc. (Wizards'
polymorph would then no longer be random, instead each
spell having fixed lists available.)
Anyway, I'm not really looking for feedback on this so much
as I'm wondering if anyone can help me with my brainstorm/
research by pointing me to any web source which lists (real
life) animals organized by biome/habitat/climate. You would
think such a resource would be easy to find with Google, but
apparently it isn't. Wikipedia is also letting me down, at least
as far as any kind of comprehensive lists go. _Someone_
must have compiled something like this...
(What I mean here is desert, tropical forest, coastline, fresh
water, arctic tundra, plains, etc.)
on the script compiler, I'm also always doing mechanical
design at the back of my head for Incursion, and one thing
I'm working at right now is rethinking polymorph and wild
shape. The latter might/might not end up limited to forms
appropriate to a focused habitat a druid claims at chargen
(with the possibility to expand the list with feats, of course).
One benefit of this would be that every druid would not
automatically default to the "one best" form available at a
given level, but would instead have thematically appropriate
forms with more 'feel'. Another benefit is that each alt-form
could be evaluated as a whole entity for balance, rather
than relying on formulas based on hit dice, etc. (Wizards'
polymorph would then no longer be random, instead each
spell having fixed lists available.)
Anyway, I'm not really looking for feedback on this so much
as I'm wondering if anyone can help me with my brainstorm/
research by pointing me to any web source which lists (real
life) animals organized by biome/habitat/climate. You would
think such a resource would be easy to find with Google, but
apparently it isn't. Wikipedia is also letting me down, at least
as far as any kind of comprehensive lists go. _Someone_
must have compiled something like this...
(What I mean here is desert, tropical forest, coastline, fresh
water, arctic tundra, plains, etc.)
Elethiomel
Oct 14, 2009, 11:38:50 PM10/14/09
to Incursion
While you're not looking for feedback, you're going to get some
anyway. ;)
I think that the druid's Wildshape is a very nice feature as-is. Of
course how it will be balanced in the game proper is hard to tell from
this single-dungeon game we have now, but what I like best about it is
how versatile it is. There isn't really one "best" form per level,
unless that form has darkvision, flight, fast movement speed, a high
number of attacks, can fit in a dungeon corridor, has scent... I think
you see where I'm going. The best thing about wildshape is that it's
so flexible - there's likely to be some form that can do what you want
to do, but it will likely be limited in some other capacity. So each
use of it is an interesting choice. If a savannah druid can only be a
wombat, a gazelle, or a lion... there's only so much that druid can do
with wildshape; it becomes an entirely different class feature.
As for your actual question, my google-fu must be strong - this took
only one search string to find: http://www.enchantedlearning.com/biomes/
anyway. ;)
I think that the druid's Wildshape is a very nice feature as-is. Of
course how it will be balanced in the game proper is hard to tell from
this single-dungeon game we have now, but what I like best about it is
how versatile it is. There isn't really one "best" form per level,
unless that form has darkvision, flight, fast movement speed, a high
number of attacks, can fit in a dungeon corridor, has scent... I think
you see where I'm going. The best thing about wildshape is that it's
so flexible - there's likely to be some form that can do what you want
to do, but it will likely be limited in some other capacity. So each
use of it is an interesting choice. If a savannah druid can only be a
wombat, a gazelle, or a lion... there's only so much that druid can do
with wildshape; it becomes an entirely different class feature.
As for your actual question, my google-fu must be strong - this took
only one search string to find: http://www.enchantedlearning.com/biomes/
Journeyman
Oct 15, 2009, 11:57:19 AM10/15/09
to Incursion
> While you're not looking for feedback, you're going to get some
> anyway. ;)
It's not so much not-looking, as that the idea isn't fully
> anyway. ;)
polished.
> I think that the druid's Wildshape is a very nice feature as-is. Of
want to preserve it; I think it's very valid as a class feature.
A lot of classes will be getting a lot for variants/customizability
in the new game, I hope, and terrain focus is one direction I
was brainstorming with druids.
The real culprit here is mage polymorph spells, which have
always been hard to balance in both canon d20/D&D and in
Incursion, where they're random, timed by XP ticks and give
you all the creature's abilities. I want to refactor that model a
lot, to be more useful and have less potential for being really
broken.
> course how it will be balanced in the game proper is hard to tell from
> this single-dungeon game we have now, but what I like best about it is
> how versatile it is. There isn't really one "best" form per level,
> unless that form has darkvision, flight, fast movement speed, a high
> number of attacks, can fit in a dungeon corridor, has scent... I think
though
in Incursion the crocodile has benefits too.
> you see where I'm going. The best thing about wildshape is that it's
> so flexible - there's likely to be some form that can do what you want
> to do, but it will likely be limited in some other capacity. So each
> use of it is an interesting choice. If a savannah druid can only be a
> wombat, a gazelle, or a lion... there's only so much that druid can do
> with wildshape; it becomes an entirely different class feature.
there
was enough versatility intrinsic to each habitat I had in mind.
Another
alternative would be that druids attuned to a specific terrain get
their
affinity forms earlier, but get all or most of the rest later anyway.
> As for your actual question, my google-fu must be strong - this took
> only one search string to find:http://www.enchantedlearning.com/biomes/
could not find -- but this is exactly what I wanted.
Message has been deleted
Frumple
Oct 15, 2009, 10:34:49 PM10/15/09
to Incursion
Idle question (or perhaps a potential question for the finished
concept), but how would the whole mythic hybrid/plant/elemental/etc.
feats work out in this system?
Idle observations;
- Druid (non-feat) 'combat form' is actually fairly flexible,
depending on what you're trying to do. In terms of overall combat
ability as a PC, the large cats actually trump the bear line fairly
handily, in my experience -- especially if the added trip effect on
some of them isn't deciding to crash the game that day. The only
problem being that most of the cats can't knock down doors, and
constantly shifting in and out of wildshape to manipulate stuff is...
terribly unfeasible. The thing I like the most about the bears is
actually the stat boost to strength skills; you get to jump veeery
far, heh. Otherwise the primate line is wonderfully effective, as you
get a noticable stat boost and still get to keep your hands (and
stabby things.). Of course, once you hit the higher levels and the
feat'd forms start opening up, the top tier form becomes terribly
flexible depending on situation and personal preference, though
again,
anything with hands (Minotaur is pretty common, I think, and the
Shambling Mound is an absolute beast) tends to be pretty high on the
list.
- I could see the biome specialization being pretty interesting,
though. Apex predator ('combat form') distribution in relation to
utility forms generally handles itself insofar as natural setups go,
but you've got fair carte blanche to muck around however you see fit.
Between the additional hominids in Inc (us two-leggers have a history
of being terribly effective predators, even before we started
throwing
pointy sticks at things) and the various nasty ohai-I'm-gonna'-eat-
ur-
lands unnatural critters running around, animal distribution could
get
pretty mixed up. You probably wouldn't see wolf packs running around
where there's winter wolves to supplant them, ferex. Lots of
situations like that could come up.
- Interestingly on affinity progression; could there be feats that
open up 'templated' (snapjaw, dire, corrupted, etc.) versions of the
biome's critters? I could see exchanging some tree progression, so to
speak, to upgrade the lower tier forms a bit.
concept), but how would the whole mythic hybrid/plant/elemental/etc.
feats work out in this system?
Idle observations;
- Druid (non-feat) 'combat form' is actually fairly flexible,
depending on what you're trying to do. In terms of overall combat
ability as a PC, the large cats actually trump the bear line fairly
handily, in my experience -- especially if the added trip effect on
some of them isn't deciding to crash the game that day. The only
problem being that most of the cats can't knock down doors, and
constantly shifting in and out of wildshape to manipulate stuff is...
terribly unfeasible. The thing I like the most about the bears is
actually the stat boost to strength skills; you get to jump veeery
far, heh. Otherwise the primate line is wonderfully effective, as you
get a noticable stat boost and still get to keep your hands (and
stabby things.). Of course, once you hit the higher levels and the
feat'd forms start opening up, the top tier form becomes terribly
flexible depending on situation and personal preference, though
again,
anything with hands (Minotaur is pretty common, I think, and the
Shambling Mound is an absolute beast) tends to be pretty high on the
list.
- I could see the biome specialization being pretty interesting,
though. Apex predator ('combat form') distribution in relation to
utility forms generally handles itself insofar as natural setups go,
but you've got fair carte blanche to muck around however you see fit.
Between the additional hominids in Inc (us two-leggers have a history
of being terribly effective predators, even before we started
throwing
pointy sticks at things) and the various nasty ohai-I'm-gonna'-eat-
ur-
lands unnatural critters running around, animal distribution could
get
pretty mixed up. You probably wouldn't see wolf packs running around
where there's winter wolves to supplant them, ferex. Lots of
situations like that could come up.
- Interestingly on affinity progression; could there be feats that
open up 'templated' (snapjaw, dire, corrupted, etc.) versions of the
biome's critters? I could see exchanging some tree progression, so to
speak, to upgrade the lower tier forms a bit.
Journeyman
Oct 16, 2009, 1:42:15 PM10/16/09
to Incursion
The big change, I think, is that polymorph effects in general
are going from being equation/rules based (test every monster
according to set rules to see if you can change into it at level
N), to list-based (here's a list of forms you get, based on the
spell you cast or you levels in Wild Shape).
I'm not really fond of druids changing into human-like forms
that have thumbs (i.e., minotaur). Ignoring whether or not it's
broken (and if you can change into a 6 HD splat that can wield
a +5 greatsword, why ever change into a 7 HD bear?), I also
that it's somewhat outside the intended theme of the druid. I'll
probably allow them to change into monkeys and such, but
not wield weapons in monkey form -- as soon as they can open
doors and not have to change back, it gets to be a broken
ability, both in theme and power.
The other big change is that polymorph effects no longer give
stat bonuses that stack with enhancement bonuses from things
like Bull's Strength or Gloves of Dexterity. Druids may get a
limited remittance from this at ihgher levels (i.e., if you have
N levels of wild shape above what you need to change into form
Y, you can keep N points of enhancement bonus. Or somesuch.)
The issue here is that thaumaturges and druids are ending up as
stronger and doing more damage than fully tricked-out warriors,
in both Incursion and canon d20, and that's a big problem.
Most of the feats that add to the shapes you can take (like the
feats for elementals, plants or mythic hybrids) will probably stay,
but specific problematic forms (like minotaur, which is not what I
had in mind AT ALL when I wrote that feat) will be weeded out.
There could certainly be some templated critters available --
dire animals are an obvious and appropriate option, and the
razorjaw types might be possible for high-level druids -- but
the important thing is that druidic shapeshifting should be
_naturalistic_, IMO, not freakish -- so no flame badgers or
gelatinous cubes, at least not without some kind of special
exemption/prestige class/race affinity/non-mainstream-druid
grandfather clause.
are going from being equation/rules based (test every monster
according to set rules to see if you can change into it at level
N), to list-based (here's a list of forms you get, based on the
spell you cast or you levels in Wild Shape).
I'm not really fond of druids changing into human-like forms
that have thumbs (i.e., minotaur). Ignoring whether or not it's
broken (and if you can change into a 6 HD splat that can wield
a +5 greatsword, why ever change into a 7 HD bear?), I also
that it's somewhat outside the intended theme of the druid. I'll
probably allow them to change into monkeys and such, but
not wield weapons in monkey form -- as soon as they can open
doors and not have to change back, it gets to be a broken
ability, both in theme and power.
The other big change is that polymorph effects no longer give
stat bonuses that stack with enhancement bonuses from things
like Bull's Strength or Gloves of Dexterity. Druids may get a
limited remittance from this at ihgher levels (i.e., if you have
N levels of wild shape above what you need to change into form
Y, you can keep N points of enhancement bonus. Or somesuch.)
The issue here is that thaumaturges and druids are ending up as
stronger and doing more damage than fully tricked-out warriors,
in both Incursion and canon d20, and that's a big problem.
Most of the feats that add to the shapes you can take (like the
feats for elementals, plants or mythic hybrids) will probably stay,
but specific problematic forms (like minotaur, which is not what I
had in mind AT ALL when I wrote that feat) will be weeded out.
There could certainly be some templated critters available --
dire animals are an obvious and appropriate option, and the
razorjaw types might be possible for high-level druids -- but
the important thing is that druidic shapeshifting should be
_naturalistic_, IMO, not freakish -- so no flame badgers or
gelatinous cubes, at least not without some kind of special
exemption/prestige class/race affinity/non-mainstream-druid
grandfather clause.
Elethiomel
Oct 16, 2009, 8:33:32 PM10/16/09
to Incursion
> The issue here is that thaumaturges and druids are ending up as
> stronger and doing more damage than fully tricked-out warriors,
> in both Incursion and canon d20, and that's a big problem.
based defenses, trips, disarms, and other tricks that warriors have;
skill in combat should be the warrior's forte, rather than raw damage.
I'd rather compare them with barbarians, as that's what they're trying
to emulate if they go for strength and damage over everything else.
And honestly, I'd rather buff warriors than nerf two or three other
play styles (depending on whether you think barbarians wrongly fall
into the "stronger and more damage than the warrior"). Buff-based
builds have already got mana bleed to worry about, after all.
In canon d20, the Tome of Battle goes a long way toward "fixing" this
issue by giving people who want to play a very skilled warrior the
Warblade, and using maneuvers and stances rather than feats to give
combat with such a character more flair and variety.
Journeyman
Oct 21, 2009, 12:45:19 PM10/21/09
to Incursion
> Stronger and more damage? Maybe so. But they don't have all the feat-
> based defenses, trips, disarms, and other tricks that warriors have;
In d20 feats don't add up to much; Incursion is better, and
> based defenses, trips, disarms, and other tricks that warriors have;
nu-Incursion will have even more substantial feats and feat
trees for higher-level Warriors.
> skill in combat should be the warrior's forte, rather than raw damage.
> I'd rather compare them with barbarians, as that's what they're trying
> to emulate if they go for strength and damage over everything else.
> And honestly, I'd rather buff warriors than nerf two or three other
because it works very differently from d20 polymorph -- specifically,
you get a lot more of the creature's abilities.
> play styles (depending on whether you think barbarians wrongly fall
> into the "stronger and more damage than the warrior"). Buff-based
are neither casters nor skill-monkeys need a bit of a push, IMO.
Please keep in mind that I'm not only evaluating for the current
game, but levels 1-20. Also recall that magic weapons are currently
crazy-pumped-up as a band-aid fix in current Incursion.
> builds have already got mana bleed to worry about, after all.
casters in general, but there are some things that are vaguely
problematic now that will be hugely problematic by the time
the game reaches level 20.
> In canon d20, the Tome of Battle goes a long way toward "fixing" this
> issue by giving people who want to play a very skilled warrior the
> Warblade, and using maneuvers and stances rather than feats to give
> combat with such a character more flair and variety.
want to turn Warriors into pseudo-casters with "prepared"
maneuvers that are "expended". There's a lot more flexibility
coming for warriors, though -- just not exactly in a ToB style
or form.
Anyway, very busy at work, need to dash now!
Elethiomel
Oct 21, 2009, 2:41:46 PM10/21/09
to Incursion
On Oct 21, 6:45 pm, Journeyman <jmen...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> > Stronger and more damage? Maybe so. But they don't have all the feat-
> > based defenses, trips, disarms, and other tricks that warriors have;
>
> In d20 feats don't add up to much; Incursion is better, and
> nu-Incursion will have even more substantial feats and feat
> trees for higher-level Warriors.
Feats can add up to a lot in d20 if you combine them correctly. The
> > Stronger and more damage? Maybe so. But they don't have all the feat-
> > based defenses, trips, disarms, and other tricks that warriors have;
>
> In d20 feats don't add up to much; Incursion is better, and
> nu-Incursion will have even more substantial feats and feat
> trees for higher-level Warriors.
trouble is that there's only a handful of such "power combinations"
available, even with the hundreds of feats available in published
material. I'm very happy with the state of feats in Incursion, as they
all tend to be either useful in their own right or useful as a less-
good-but-still-decent opportunity cost for access to things further
along whatever feat tree they're part of.
> I agree, actually. I'm not nerfing druids.
nerf.
> Agreed. The real issue here is that polymorph needed a shakedown
> because it works very differently from d20 polymorph -- specifically,
> you get a lot more of the creature's abilities.
you get for changing forms in Incursion so far, and I don't envy you
the job of actually making calls as to what's balanced or not. I can
only say what "feels" balanced for me, and I haven't played warriors
extensively, or druids... they both feel kind of weak in the early
game (before forms for druids, and before the feat chains really get
going for warriors).
> No, barbarians are even weaker than warriors IMO. Classes that
> are neither casters nor skill-monkeys need a bit of a push, IMO.
can get angry, then I hit things even harder!"), and when faced with
something their trick can't handle they're even worse off than
warriors, because warriors get a bunch of extra feats to cover up
those weaknesses.
> Please keep in mind that I'm not only evaluating for the current
> game, but levels 1-20. Also recall that magic weapons are currently
> crazy-pumped-up as a band-aid fix in current Incursion.
equivalency) would be the very highest I could see a level 11
character go when it comes to weapon power in regular d20. In
Incursion, I've seen spawns of +9 equivalent. And there's the unique
weapons.
> > builds have already got mana bleed to worry about, after all.
>
> Whereas tank-types have HP bleed. I'm not big on nerfing
> casters in general, but there are some things that are vaguely
> problematic now that will be hugely problematic by the time
> the game reaches level 20.
regenerating mana to cast "cure X". I can see that some things will be
more problematic as the game approaches 20 - d20 was never really well-
balanced between casters and melee warriors above ~level 9. (As an
anecdote, when my group was doing Return to the Temple of Elemental
Evil, we hit a brick wall at one of the elemental enrances. Only the
arcane caster survived. He went back to town and recruited some new
helpers, returned to the dungeon, attacked... and again he was the
only survivor. Then he went to the mage's guild and recruited some
more casters... and we walked through the rest of the module. This was
pretty early - definitely before ToB.) Whether what's needed is nerfs
or buffs is all up to you anyway; you design the monsters after all,
and how big groups they spawn in, and so on. Good luck!
I hope the ability to, at least partially, cho
> I take a lot of inspiration from ToB, but ultimately I do not
> want to turn Warriors into pseudo-casters with "prepared"
> maneuvers that are "expended". There's a lot more flexibility
> coming for warriors, though -- just not exactly in a ToB style
> or form.
As an additional inspiration source, you could look at the recently
released Fantasycraft. It is loosely based on d20, but adds a whole
lot of new mechanics. Its feats are inspired. Fair warning: It is 400
pages of crunch (though a fair bit of that goes to NPC design; it is
not a symmetrical system).
Frumple
Oct 21, 2009, 3:36:24 PM10/21/09
to Incursion
On Oct 21, 1:41 pm, Elethiomel <terje...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 21, 6:45 pm, Journeyman <jmen...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> Not letting enhancement bonuses and form bonuses stack sounds like a
> nerf.
I keep thinking I'm missing something here, but doesn't current-state
> On Oct 21, 6:45 pm, Journeyman <jmen...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> Not letting enhancement bonuses and form bonuses stack sounds like a
> nerf.
Inc not stack form bonuses with anything else already? To be more
precise, the last time I paid attention, the wildshape form bonuses
_replace_ all other bonuses, which leads to strange situations where
upgunned end-game druids can actually melee better unshaped than
shaped, even with all the nasty doombeasts available at that point.
Seeing a halfling out-melee shambling mound is a sad, sad thing.
Actually went and checked it; yeah, the natural stat boosts override
whatever physical enhancements you may have at the time. Magic, feat
granted, inherant, all of it.
> > No, barbarians are even weaker than warriors IMO. Classes that
> > are neither casters nor skill-monkeys need a bit of a push, IMO.
>
> I agree. Barbarians are a one-trick pony ("I hit things really hard. I
> can get angry, then I hit things even harder!"), and when faced with
> something their trick can't handle they're even worse off than
> warriors, because warriors get a bunch of extra feats to cover up
> those weaknesses.
got more and generally better skill choices (and more skill points),
honestly _nice_ class features (above and beyond berserking; movement,
potential natural armor, etc.), and their HP progression is not to be
discounted. I've always had an _easier_ time with barbs than warriors,
myself, though warriors do have a degree of greater finesse options
(diplomacy... though their already harsh skill limit means it can be
hard to invest much into it.).
That being said, the melee fellows (Barb/monk, melee-centric warrior)
could stand a bit of a push, yes.
Journeyman
Oct 23, 2009, 10:23:47 AM10/23/09
to Incursion
Take it as a testament to how tangled the old poly code
got that I didn't even _know_ they didn't stack. It's much
better now.
Anyway, there's going to be an effort to tone down some
of the more excessive numbers in Incursion in general, so
if druid numeric bonuses go down a bit it might just fit in
with everyone else. I want the game to do low-key a little
better at the low levels, and the system has been deformed
a bit by that fact that level 1 characters have to be able to
survive and conquer a 16-room dungeon of basically random
monsters solo. I also think "number escalation control" is a
core component to interesting fights at higher levels.
Towns, single-encounter low-level quests, themed dungeons
and such will help to alleviate this pressure to power-up low
level characters from the other end. Also, NPC allies with an
Intelligence level above that of a turnip will help to take the
pressure off the PC to be so uber.
That said, I am _not_ bringing feats down to d20 levels. I
like the fact that they're more powerful in Incursion. I just
think that melee types at 7-20 will need even more (that is
capped by BAB, of course) to compete with spell levels 4-9.
The thing about mage's polymorph, balance aside, is that
it's just bizarre -- it's NetHack-inspired and thus random, and
that made it useless unless/until you lucked on to a really,
really good form, at which point it's broken. So we added the
"time out after N xp ticks" balancer, which is cool, but pushed
it back into the "weak" side. Specific lists of monsters are a
lot easier to keep balanced than a formula, which can only
really be balanced by cutting out of lot of interesting
opportunities.
Also, everyone currently _doesn't_ have to worry about HP
bleed -- there are lots of "don't get hit" builds, and mages
arguably need that to survive. But it makes the classic "tank"
strategy really suck in comparison. This is the root of the
barbarian weakness -- Defense Class escalation makes high
HP less useful than they might otherwise be.
I have looked at FantasyCraft, briefly. It is nifty, but divorced
enough from D&D sacred cows that it's a secondary inspiration
on Incursion at most, rather than a primary source. I'm surprised
you bring it up, since it hits casters in general pretty hard with
the nerf stick compared to 3.X.
I've seen Incursion random weapons much more powerful than
+9 equiv, going all the way up to +15 or higher. I'm not sure that
11th-level characters will be limited to +4 equivalent, though; the
+9 sounds not terrible for a character with high Luck at 11th or
so.
Interestingly, I'm toying with the idea of barbarians having some
options other than berserk rage, so that the berserker would only
be one "type" of barbarian, with the others being a skirmisher-type
with a bonus damage ability vaguely like sneak attack (on a slower
progression) and some wilderness guerrilla tricks, and perhaps
something totemic, where you get some set supernatural powers
tied into an animal totem. Maybe other options, too -- it's all a kind
of sketchbook approach at this point.
One thing I really, really like about the new engine is that it
leaves
a great deal more room to shape and customize classes and add
options or choices to them.
The problem with feats in d20 is that every new sourcebook needs
to have pages of them, rather than 5-8 neat, carefully designed
ones, so you get a lot of "chaff" mixed in with the awesome, as
Elethiomel notes. Fortunately, I can be a fair bit more selective in
Incursion, not that I always am. :)
got that I didn't even _know_ they didn't stack. It's much
better now.
Anyway, there's going to be an effort to tone down some
of the more excessive numbers in Incursion in general, so
if druid numeric bonuses go down a bit it might just fit in
with everyone else. I want the game to do low-key a little
better at the low levels, and the system has been deformed
a bit by that fact that level 1 characters have to be able to
survive and conquer a 16-room dungeon of basically random
monsters solo. I also think "number escalation control" is a
core component to interesting fights at higher levels.
Towns, single-encounter low-level quests, themed dungeons
and such will help to alleviate this pressure to power-up low
level characters from the other end. Also, NPC allies with an
Intelligence level above that of a turnip will help to take the
pressure off the PC to be so uber.
That said, I am _not_ bringing feats down to d20 levels. I
like the fact that they're more powerful in Incursion. I just
think that melee types at 7-20 will need even more (that is
capped by BAB, of course) to compete with spell levels 4-9.
The thing about mage's polymorph, balance aside, is that
it's just bizarre -- it's NetHack-inspired and thus random, and
that made it useless unless/until you lucked on to a really,
really good form, at which point it's broken. So we added the
"time out after N xp ticks" balancer, which is cool, but pushed
it back into the "weak" side. Specific lists of monsters are a
lot easier to keep balanced than a formula, which can only
really be balanced by cutting out of lot of interesting
opportunities.
Also, everyone currently _doesn't_ have to worry about HP
bleed -- there are lots of "don't get hit" builds, and mages
arguably need that to survive. But it makes the classic "tank"
strategy really suck in comparison. This is the root of the
barbarian weakness -- Defense Class escalation makes high
HP less useful than they might otherwise be.
I have looked at FantasyCraft, briefly. It is nifty, but divorced
enough from D&D sacred cows that it's a secondary inspiration
on Incursion at most, rather than a primary source. I'm surprised
you bring it up, since it hits casters in general pretty hard with
the nerf stick compared to 3.X.
I've seen Incursion random weapons much more powerful than
+9 equiv, going all the way up to +15 or higher. I'm not sure that
11th-level characters will be limited to +4 equivalent, though; the
+9 sounds not terrible for a character with high Luck at 11th or
so.
Interestingly, I'm toying with the idea of barbarians having some
options other than berserk rage, so that the berserker would only
be one "type" of barbarian, with the others being a skirmisher-type
with a bonus damage ability vaguely like sneak attack (on a slower
progression) and some wilderness guerrilla tricks, and perhaps
something totemic, where you get some set supernatural powers
tied into an animal totem. Maybe other options, too -- it's all a kind
of sketchbook approach at this point.
One thing I really, really like about the new engine is that it
leaves
a great deal more room to shape and customize classes and add
options or choices to them.
The problem with feats in d20 is that every new sourcebook needs
to have pages of them, rather than 5-8 neat, carefully designed
ones, so you get a lot of "chaff" mixed in with the awesome, as
Elethiomel notes. Fortunately, I can be a fair bit more selective in
Incursion, not that I always am. :)
Elethiomel
Oct 23, 2009, 3:07:25 PM10/23/09
to Incursion
> monsters solo. I also think "number escalation control" is a
> core component to interesting fights at higher levels.
I agree, which I suppose is part of the reason I suggested
> core component to interesting fights at higher levels.
Fantasycraft in the first place; it doesn't nerf only casters - it
nerfs melee and ranged attackers too, but it does so while providing
good, interesting choices. (The melee/archer nerfs are less obvious
until you look at the systems for designing magic weapons and armor,
how many you're allowed to truck around, and so on.) Overall I find
Fantasycraft to be a very elegant system... though I must admit I
haven't played or run it yet. I'm reading the book a few times before
testing it out.
> Towns, single-encounter low-level quests, themed dungeons
> and such will help to alleviate this pressure to power-up low
> level characters from the other end. Also, NPC allies with an
> Intelligence level above that of a turnip will help to take the
> pressure off the PC to be so uber.
"Uh, it doesn't have a mind to influence? Crap. I run away."
> That said, I am _not_ bringing feats down to d20 levels. I
> like the fact that they're more powerful in Incursion. I just
> think that melee types at 7-20 will need even more (that is
> capped by BAB, of course) to compete with spell levels 4-9.
encounters? On the one hand, raining death from above as a ranger-on-a-
pegasus on orcs without a significant ranged attack seems pretty
awesome, on the other hand I could see it getting boring (and
encouraging that style of "scumming" for XP and loot). I suppose you
could always go the Champions Online way and give nearly every monster
encountered outdoors a ranged attack... or a way to run the hell away
and hide.
> it back into the "weak" side. Specific lists of monsters are a
> lot easier to keep balanced than a formula, which can only
> really be balanced by cutting out of lot of interesting
> opportunities.
when it came to the biome list; I'm sorry for assuming the worst.
> Also, everyone currently _doesn't_ have to worry about HP
> bleed -- there are lots of "don't get hit" builds, and mages
> arguably need that to survive. But it makes the classic "tank"
> strategy really suck in comparison. This is the root of the
> barbarian weakness -- Defense Class escalation makes high
> HP less useful than they might otherwise be.
the Kobold, and only until it runs out of charges. For everyone else,
there's the sudden Arbalest from the shadows that rolls 20 - 20 and
crits you to death. Or just the one that rolls 20 and bleeds your HP a
little; my point is that the management of HP is a concern for
everyone, even people with "nigh unhittable" builds.
> I've seen Incursion random weapons much more powerful than
> +9 equiv, going all the way up to +15 or higher. I'm not sure that
> 11th-level characters will be limited to +4 equivalent, though; the
> +9 sounds not terrible for a character with high Luck at 11th or
> so.
conservative estimate (one that I was sure I remembered correctly)
instead - and yeah, if you dump your points in luck you should get
something back from it, I agree.
> Interestingly, I'm toying with the idea of barbarians having some
> options other than berserk rage, so that the berserker would only
> be one "type" of barbarian, with the others being a skirmisher-type
> with a bonus damage ability vaguely like sneak attack (on a slower
> progression) and some wilderness guerrilla tricks, and perhaps
> something totemic, where you get some set supernatural powers
> tied into an animal totem. Maybe other options, too -- it's all a kind
> of sketchbook approach at this point.
Journeyman
Oct 27, 2009, 10:11:38 AM10/27/09
to Incursion
On Oct 23, 1:07 pm, Elethiomel <terje...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree, which I suppose is part of the reason I suggested
> Fantasycraft in the first place; it doesn't nerf only casters - it
> nerfs melee and ranged attackers too, but it does so while providing
> good, interesting choices. (The melee/archer nerfs are less obvious
> until you look at the systems for designing magic weapons and armor,
> how many you're allowed to truck around, and so on.) Overall I find
I've only browsed it very lightly; I don't have any real
> I agree, which I suppose is part of the reason I suggested
> Fantasycraft in the first place; it doesn't nerf only casters - it
> nerfs melee and ranged attackers too, but it does so while providing
> good, interesting choices. (The melee/archer nerfs are less obvious
> until you look at the systems for designing magic weapons and armor,
> how many you're allowed to truck around, and so on.) Overall I find
depth of understanding of it. It does seem to be a very
gritty system, but it also rubs me aesthetically as
"not-D&D, with some of the D&D spell list welded on",
which is... odd. You need your paladins and rangers
and druids and such, in a D&D homage game.
> Fantasycraft to be a very elegant system... though I must admit I
> haven't played or run it yet. I'm reading the book a few times before
> testing it out.
> > Towns, single-encounter low-level quests, themed dungeons
> > and such will help to alleviate this pressure to power-up low
> > level characters from the other end. Also, NPC allies with an
> > Intelligence level above that of a turnip will help to take the
> > pressure off the PC to be so uber.
>
> Themed dungeons will certainly help builds like the Enchanter a lot.
> "Uh, it doesn't have a mind to influence? Crap. I run away."
like Bards a lot. Enchanters especially should not be able to do
run solo -- "Uh, it doesn't have a mind to influence? I throw my
charmed warrior at it and cast /heroism/ on him."
Hopefully, this will somewhat balance the coming DC nerf -- the
plan is that a lot of extraneous/high DC modifiers will be removed
or delayed to higher level, and mages will calculate their spell DC
as (10 + spell level + HALF Ability Score Mod), the theory being
that the mage will choose spells with a DC based on his highest
Ability Score against a foe's (probable) lowest saving throw, so
1/2 highest mod should be roughly balanced by full mod in an
Ability Score of (essentially) the caster's choice.
And the thing where Enchanters and Maevites add two attributes
to spell DC will probably get clipped, in favor of spells with the
[Charm] descriptor always using just Cha, for eveyone, and
Enchanters getting a set +1 DC bonus and some other specials.
I may end up looting some Beguiler-related things to give as
perks to Enchanters in compensation.
This... probably really sucks for low-level Enchanters, but I think
that keeping a DC balance curve is really necessary to avoid the
game becoming "whoever goes first, wins" at level 15+.
> Yes, they will. How do you plan to deal with flying and outdoors
plan to
balance flying and similar "total death to meleeists" powers -- by
incorporating some some folk superstition remedies against magic
into the game, so for example /fly/ and /wraithform/ will cut out if
a character suffers damage from cold iron.
Honestly, from meleeist perspective, you should have a secondary
ranged weapon, and in some encounters you'll just have to use it.
It sucks, but it's no different from rogues fighting crit-immune
monsters -- some encounters you have to just tough out.
> encounters? On the one hand, raining death from above as a ranger-on-a-
> pegasus on orcs without a significant ranged attack seems pretty
knows the appropriate response to a flying archer is to get out of
the Vast Ampitheater and into a low-roofed corridor.
> awesome, on the other hand I could see it getting boring (and
> encouraging that style of "scumming" for XP and loot). I suppose you
> could always go the Champions Online way and give nearly every monster
> encountered outdoors a ranged attack... or a way to run the hell away
monsters from the air. This one I need to think about a bit,
however -- cold iron probably won't cancel a hippogriff mount's
flight, because that would be silly. I doubt it's /lawful/ from
Incursion's chivalry-based standard to rain death from above
on helpless enemies, but that's not balance for /everyone/.
> Yes. The lack of interesting opportunities was my (unfounded) worry
> when it came to the biome list; I'm sorry for assuming the worst.
coding exclusively on the script compiler and data model, and I'm
very eager to get back to something that actually feels like a video
game, so I'm putting a lot of random thought into game design,
but nothing's set yet.
> there's the sudden Arbalest from the shadows that rolls 20 - 20 and
> crits you to death. Or just the one that rolls 20 and bleeds your HP a
> little; my point is that the management of HP is a concern for
> everyone, even people with "nigh unhittable" builds.
for the tank-types.
> Fair enough; I seem to remember weapons like that too, but I took a
> conservative estimate (one that I was sure I remembered correctly)
> instead - and yeah, if you dump your points in luck you should get
> something back from it, I agree.
It may figure into hit points in some as-yet-undetermined manner,
since it plays a role in how D&D hit points are usually rationalized,
and it's also going to have a role in letting characters escape
attacks that would insta-kill/insta-disable them a limited number of
times by something other than HP damage. At least, characters
with the "heroic quality" thing (PCs, party members and uniques),
and perhaps also "monsters of legend".
So I want to be careful not to overload it as a stat.
I /like/ instakill effects, from an aesthetic perspective, and I
hate
the idea of removing them or reducing them to HP damage (as 3.5
did with /disintegrate/) but I also recognize that they need to be
balanced carefully if high-level play is to be something other than
opposed "initiative roll" crapshoots (and yes, I know Incursion
doesn't have initiative per se, but you know what I mean).
My basic design premise is that anything that does instakill
should be very situational, and have a list of conditions in which
it just doesn't work, full-stop.
Part of all this derives from my desire to include "bosses" and
"uniques" in a non-trivial way, which Incursion can't really do
currently. Murgash is ridiculously overstatted, and he's still close
to trivial to many PCs, compared to the guardian runes, his
support team and so forth. It's in-genre, I think, for bosses to
/matter/.
Elethiomel
Oct 27, 2009, 12:36:47 PM10/27/09
to Incursion
On Oct 27, 3:11 pm, Journeyman <jmen...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> On Oct 23, 1:07 pm, Elethiomel <terje...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I agree, which I suppose is part of the reason I suggested
> > Fantasycraft in the first place; it doesn't nerf only casters - it
> > nerfs melee and ranged attackers too, but it does so while providing
> > good, interesting choices. (The melee/archer nerfs are less obvious
> > until you look at the systems for designing magic weapons and armor,
> > how many you're allowed to truck around, and so on.) Overall I find
>
> I've only browsed it very lightly; I don't have any real
> depth of understanding of it. It does seem to be a very
> gritty system, but it also rubs me aesthetically as
> "not-D&D, with some of the D&D spell list welded on",
> which is... odd. You need your paladins and rangers
> and druids and such, in a D&D homage game.
It does have paladins and rangers - paladin is a "prestige" class, and
> On Oct 23, 1:07 pm, Elethiomel <terje...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I agree, which I suppose is part of the reason I suggested
> > Fantasycraft in the first place; it doesn't nerf only casters - it
> > nerfs melee and ranged attackers too, but it does so while providing
> > good, interesting choices. (The melee/archer nerfs are less obvious
> > until you look at the systems for designing magic weapons and armor,
> > how many you're allowed to truck around, and so on.) Overall I find
>
> I've only browsed it very lightly; I don't have any real
> depth of understanding of it. It does seem to be a very
> gritty system, but it also rubs me aesthetically as
> "not-D&D, with some of the D&D spell list welded on",
> which is... odd. You need your paladins and rangers
> and druids and such, in a D&D homage game.
rangers you can get by making a warrior or scout with the "druid"
background or the feat that gives an animal companion. Shapeshifting
is less ubiquitous, but also possible.
> > Fantasycraft to be a very elegant system... though I must admit I
> > haven't played or run it yet. I'm reading the book a few times before
> > testing it out.
>
> It does look very well done -- just "not D&D".
Incursion. There's no vancian magic in incursion, and it has a fatigue
system, etc... I'm not saying "abandon current design and implement
Fantasycraft", just that it has a lot of good feat and class design
behind it that may give you good ideas - it deserves a second look.
> AI will also help Enchanters and other teambuilder characters
> like Bards a lot. Enchanters especially should not be able to do
> run solo -- "Uh, it doesn't have a mind to influence? I throw my
> charmed warrior at it and cast /heroism/ on him."
battles much more than other builds, sure... but why should they not
be able to do that?
> Hopefully, this will somewhat balance the coming DC nerf -- the
> plan is that a lot of extraneous/high DC modifiers will be removed
> or delayed to higher level, and mages will calculate their spell DC
> as (10 + spell level + HALF Ability Score Mod), the theory being
> that the mage will choose spells with a DC based on his highest
> Ability Score against a foe's (probable) lowest saving throw, so
> 1/2 highest mod should be roughly balanced by full mod in an
> Ability Score of (essentially) the caster's choice.
> > Yes, they will. How do you plan to deal with flying and outdoors
>
> I've actually got a fairly nifty (if not really traditional D&D)
> plan to
> balance flying and similar "total death to meleeists" powers -- by
> incorporating some some folk superstition remedies against magic
> into the game, so for example /fly/ and /wraithform/ will cut out if
> a character suffers damage from cold iron.
> Honestly, from meleeist perspective, you should have a secondary
> ranged weapon, and in some encounters you'll just have to use it.
> It sucks, but it's no different from rogues fighting crit-immune
> monsters -- some encounters you have to just tough out.
> > encounters? On the one hand, raining death from above as a ranger-on-a-
> > pegasus on orcs without a significant ranged attack seems pretty
>
> Roof height can limit this, in combination with a monster AI that
> knows the appropriate response to a flying archer is to get out of
> the Vast Ampitheater and into a low-roofed corridor.
> > awesome, on the other hand I could see it getting boring (and
> > encouraging that style of "scumming" for XP and loot). I suppose you
> > could always go the Champions Online way and give nearly every monster
> > encountered outdoors a ranged attack... or a way to run the hell away
>
> Or just not give XP for flying characters fighting ground-bound
> monsters from the air. This one I need to think about a bit,
> however -- cold iron probably won't cancel a hippogriff mount's
> flight, because that would be silly. I doubt it's /lawful/ from
> Incursion's chivalry-based standard to rain death from above
> on helpless enemies, but that's not balance for /everyone/.
expenditure of any resources is by the book, but it is difficult some
times to judge whether any given encounter is of that nature in a
computer game.
> > there's the sudden Arbalest from the shadows that rolls 20 - 20 and
> > crits you to death. Or just the one that rolls 20 and bleeds your HP a
> > little; my point is that the management of HP is a concern for
> > everyone, even people with "nigh unhittable" builds.
>
> Yeah, but "lose some every encounter" is a very different concern
> for the tank-types.
> and it's also going to have a role in letting characters escape
> attacks that would insta-kill/insta-disable them a limited number of
> times by something other than HP damage. At least, characters
> with the "heroic quality" thing (PCs, party members and uniques),
> and perhaps also "monsters of legend".
> So I want to be careful not to overload it as a stat.
>
> I /like/ instakill effects, from an aesthetic perspective, and I
> hate
> the idea of removing them or reducing them to HP damage (as 3.5
> did with /disintegrate/) but I also recognize that they need to be
> balanced carefully if high-level play is to be something other than
> opposed "initiative roll" crapshoots (and yes, I know Incursion
> doesn't have initiative per se, but you know what I mean).
and it really took away a lot from boss fights, turning them into pure
you hit, I hit slugfests; I suggest implementing defenses that aren't
immunities; casters can have (dispellable) spell mantles to stop
instakill effects a certain number of times, melee type bosses can
have items (that can be disarmed/pick-pocketed) to stop things, etc.
> My basic design premise is that anything that does instakill
> should be very situational, and have a list of conditions in which
> it just doesn't work, full-stop.
boss around. An Assassin should be able to Death Attack a humanoid
boss, and there should be a chance at success, or you might as well
not include the Death Attack at all:
> Part of all this derives from my desire to include "bosses" and
> "uniques" in a non-trivial way, which Incursion can't really do
> currently. Murgash is ridiculously overstatted, and he's still close
> to trivial to many PCs, compared to the guardian runes, his
> support team and so forth. It's in-genre, I think, for bosses to
> /matter/.
special abilities of the characters fighting them, they cease to be
meaningful game world entities, because they break the rules that the
game world verisimilitude is built upon.
Journeyman
Oct 29, 2009, 5:00:23 PM10/29/09
to Incursion
Sorry for the delay; really busy at work and really tired
at home recently.
> That's right, it's "not DnD" in many ways that matter... But so is
> Incursion. There's no vancian magic in incursion, and it has a fatigue
> system, etc... I'm not saying "abandon current design and implement
> Fantasycraft", just that it has a lot of good feat and class design
> behind it that may give you good ideas - it deserves a second look.
Gotcha.
> > AI will also help Enchanters and other teambuilder characters
> > like Bards a lot. Enchanters especially should not be able to do
> > run solo -- "Uh, it doesn't have a mind to influence? I throw my
> > charmed warrior at it and cast /heroism/ on him."
>
> Why not? Enchanters who want to run solo will have to pick their
> battles much more than other builds, sure... but why should they not
> be able to do that?
I guess because I see the Enchanter as a kind of kingmaker, like
Arthurian wizards, more than "mindfuck guy", which is the niche of
the (coming) Psionicist. Enchanters are the mages who Make
Friends and Influence People, so their play style should reflect that.
They get Heroism and Enchanted Weapon, after all. These guys
are _made_ to prop up charmed/recruited/etc. fighters.
I'm also coming to the conclusion that it's very hard to balance
powers for people who depend on those powers as their meat-and-
potatoes and people for whom those powers are one tool among
many. In other words, mindspells strong enough to make solo
Enchanters viable might be broken in generalist-mage hands. But
that can be system-shaped around...
(This also taps into the question of whether final!Incursion will be
a solo game, a party game or both/either, which I haven't fully
answered yet, and want to see the new AI working in practice
before I do, so...)
> > Hopefully, this will somewhat balance the coming DC nerf -- the
> > plan is that a lot of extraneous/high DC modifiers will be removed
> > or delayed to higher level, and mages will calculate their spell DC
> > as (10 + spell level + HALF Ability Score Mod), the theory being
> > that the mage will choose spells with a DC based on his highest
> > Ability Score against a foe's (probable) lowest saving throw, so
> > 1/2 highest mod should be roughly balanced by full mod in an
> > Ability Score of (essentially) the caster's choice.
>
> Many casters (especially specialists) do not have that choice.
At higher level they likely will, even if it involves blowing a bit
of
fatigue to cast an opposed-school spell. (This is about the context
of boss battles, IIRC.)
> > Honestly, from meleeist perspective, you should have a secondary
> > ranged weapon, and in some encounters you'll just have to use it.
> > It sucks, but it's no different from rogues fighting crit-immune
> > monsters -- some encounters you have to just tough out.
>
> Or bypass.
Of course.
> My question was in the context of outdoors encounters.
Answer unclear; ask again later. (Needs more brainstorming,
in other words.)
> No XP for encounters that pose no challenge or don't require the
> expenditure of any resources is by the book, but it is difficult some
> times to judge whether any given encounter is of that nature in a
> computer game.
Agreed.
> > > there's the sudden Arbalest from the shadows that rolls 20 - 20 and
> > > crits you to death. Or just the one that rolls 20 and bleeds your HP a
> > > little; my point is that the management of HP is a concern for
> > > everyone, even people with "nigh unhittable" builds.
>
> > Yeah, but "lose some every encounter" is a very different concern
> > for the tank-types.
>
> True.
I'm backbrain-gestating the idea of dividing hit points into wound
points and luck points, and letting the latter regenerate until some/
all of the former is lost. It seems fair, since mana regenerates but
d20 spell slots assuredly do not. That might help restore some
fighter/mage balance in Incursion.
> > and it's also going to have a role in letting characters escape
> > attacks that would insta-kill/insta-disable them a limited number of
> > times by something other than HP damage. At least, characters
> > with the "heroic quality" thing (PCs, party members and uniques),
> > and perhaps also "monsters of legend".
>
> This is a Good (tm) way to increase the longevity of bosses.
Glad to have a stamp of approval. :)
> Making bosses generally immune to many effects was a mistake NWN1 did,
And Angband. I want to avoid "every mage's a blaster in the final
battle" syndrome a great deal. Status effect spells need to be
possible to get off, but have restrained/lessened effects enough
that they aren't more effective than a comparable amount of HP
damage.
> and it really took away a lot from boss fights, turning them into pure
> you hit, I hit slugfests; I suggest implementing defenses that aren't
> immunities; casters can have (dispellable) spell mantles to stop
> instakill effects a certain number of times, melee type bosses can
> have items (that can be disarmed/pick-pocketed) to stop things, etc.
Caster-vs-caster is easy to balance -- and I do like the "breach
defenses layer by layer" concept.
The real block, for me, is that there are lots of different
instakills
and I want a _verisimilitude-sustaining_ reason for bosses to have
defenses/lessened effects from them, rather than arbitrary-seeming
"no, it doesn't work." I'm a very simulationist-oriented thinker about
RPG rules, even if simulating genre rather than reality.
> Just so long as those conditions aren't omnipresent whenever there's a
> boss around. An Assassin should be able to Death Attack a humanoid
> boss, and there should be a chance at success, or you might as well
> not include the Death Attack at all:
It's funny you bring Assassins up -- they're the _only_ people I
think should be able to one-shot (some/most) bosses, because
that's their character concept. They're a bit outside the normal
rules -- and yes, it's tempting to have death-attack bypass some
of the "karmic defenses" I'm talking about here, at least if the
character is a deticated assassin rather than having a one-level
dip or somesuch.
> The corollary for bosses mattering is that if they negate all the
> special abilities of the characters fighting them, they cease to be
> meaningful game world entities, because they break the rules that the
> game world verisimilitude is built upon.
I like you; you Get It. :)
You sum up exactly my feelings on the matter, and I agree
100%. This, I think, is also why I find everything associated
with 4E so very unpalatable -- they _just don't care_ about
this kind of thing, and I want to avoid Incursion going down
that road, even though there's some compelling game-design
reasons why it's so well trod.
No idea when I'll have time to post here next, BTW. Just for
everyone's information.
at home recently.
> That's right, it's "not DnD" in many ways that matter... But so is
> Incursion. There's no vancian magic in incursion, and it has a fatigue
> system, etc... I'm not saying "abandon current design and implement
> Fantasycraft", just that it has a lot of good feat and class design
> behind it that may give you good ideas - it deserves a second look.
> > AI will also help Enchanters and other teambuilder characters
> > like Bards a lot. Enchanters especially should not be able to do
> > run solo -- "Uh, it doesn't have a mind to influence? I throw my
> > charmed warrior at it and cast /heroism/ on him."
>
> Why not? Enchanters who want to run solo will have to pick their
> battles much more than other builds, sure... but why should they not
> be able to do that?
Arthurian wizards, more than "mindfuck guy", which is the niche of
the (coming) Psionicist. Enchanters are the mages who Make
Friends and Influence People, so their play style should reflect that.
They get Heroism and Enchanted Weapon, after all. These guys
are _made_ to prop up charmed/recruited/etc. fighters.
I'm also coming to the conclusion that it's very hard to balance
powers for people who depend on those powers as their meat-and-
potatoes and people for whom those powers are one tool among
many. In other words, mindspells strong enough to make solo
Enchanters viable might be broken in generalist-mage hands. But
that can be system-shaped around...
(This also taps into the question of whether final!Incursion will be
a solo game, a party game or both/either, which I haven't fully
answered yet, and want to see the new AI working in practice
before I do, so...)
> > Hopefully, this will somewhat balance the coming DC nerf -- the
> > plan is that a lot of extraneous/high DC modifiers will be removed
> > or delayed to higher level, and mages will calculate their spell DC
> > as (10 + spell level + HALF Ability Score Mod), the theory being
> > that the mage will choose spells with a DC based on his highest
> > Ability Score against a foe's (probable) lowest saving throw, so
> > 1/2 highest mod should be roughly balanced by full mod in an
> > Ability Score of (essentially) the caster's choice.
>
> Many casters (especially specialists) do not have that choice.
of
fatigue to cast an opposed-school spell. (This is about the context
of boss battles, IIRC.)
> > Honestly, from meleeist perspective, you should have a secondary
> > ranged weapon, and in some encounters you'll just have to use it.
> > It sucks, but it's no different from rogues fighting crit-immune
> > monsters -- some encounters you have to just tough out.
>
> Or bypass.
> My question was in the context of outdoors encounters.
in other words.)
> No XP for encounters that pose no challenge or don't require the
> expenditure of any resources is by the book, but it is difficult some
> times to judge whether any given encounter is of that nature in a
> computer game.
> > > there's the sudden Arbalest from the shadows that rolls 20 - 20 and
> > > crits you to death. Or just the one that rolls 20 and bleeds your HP a
> > > little; my point is that the management of HP is a concern for
> > > everyone, even people with "nigh unhittable" builds.
>
> > Yeah, but "lose some every encounter" is a very different concern
> > for the tank-types.
>
> True.
points and luck points, and letting the latter regenerate until some/
all of the former is lost. It seems fair, since mana regenerates but
d20 spell slots assuredly do not. That might help restore some
fighter/mage balance in Incursion.
> > and it's also going to have a role in letting characters escape
> > attacks that would insta-kill/insta-disable them a limited number of
> > times by something other than HP damage. At least, characters
> > with the "heroic quality" thing (PCs, party members and uniques),
> > and perhaps also "monsters of legend".
>
> This is a Good (tm) way to increase the longevity of bosses.
> Making bosses generally immune to many effects was a mistake NWN1 did,
battle" syndrome a great deal. Status effect spells need to be
possible to get off, but have restrained/lessened effects enough
that they aren't more effective than a comparable amount of HP
damage.
> and it really took away a lot from boss fights, turning them into pure
> you hit, I hit slugfests; I suggest implementing defenses that aren't
> immunities; casters can have (dispellable) spell mantles to stop
> instakill effects a certain number of times, melee type bosses can
> have items (that can be disarmed/pick-pocketed) to stop things, etc.
defenses layer by layer" concept.
The real block, for me, is that there are lots of different
instakills
and I want a _verisimilitude-sustaining_ reason for bosses to have
defenses/lessened effects from them, rather than arbitrary-seeming
"no, it doesn't work." I'm a very simulationist-oriented thinker about
RPG rules, even if simulating genre rather than reality.
> Just so long as those conditions aren't omnipresent whenever there's a
> boss around. An Assassin should be able to Death Attack a humanoid
> boss, and there should be a chance at success, or you might as well
> not include the Death Attack at all:
think should be able to one-shot (some/most) bosses, because
that's their character concept. They're a bit outside the normal
rules -- and yes, it's tempting to have death-attack bypass some
of the "karmic defenses" I'm talking about here, at least if the
character is a deticated assassin rather than having a one-level
dip or somesuch.
> The corollary for bosses mattering is that if they negate all the
> special abilities of the characters fighting them, they cease to be
> meaningful game world entities, because they break the rules that the
> game world verisimilitude is built upon.
You sum up exactly my feelings on the matter, and I agree
100%. This, I think, is also why I find everything associated
with 4E so very unpalatable -- they _just don't care_ about
this kind of thing, and I want to avoid Incursion going down
that road, even though there's some compelling game-design
reasons why it's so well trod.
No idea when I'll have time to post here next, BTW. Just for
everyone's information.
Elethiomel
Oct 30, 2009, 9:02:09 AM10/30/09
to Incursion
On Oct 29, 10:00 pm, Journeyman <jmen...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> I guess because I see the Enchanter as a kind of kingmaker, like
> Arthurian wizards, more than "mindfuck guy", which is the niche of
> the (coming) Psionicist. Enchanters are the mages who Make
> Friends and Influence People, so their play style should reflect that.
> They get Heroism and Enchanted Weapon, after all. These guys
> are _made_ to prop up charmed/recruited/etc. fighters.
An upcoming Psionicist, huh? Traditionally in DnD the Psion has been
> I guess because I see the Enchanter as a kind of kingmaker, like
> Arthurian wizards, more than "mindfuck guy", which is the niche of
> the (coming) Psionicist. Enchanters are the mages who Make
> Friends and Influence People, so their play style should reflect that.
> They get Heroism and Enchanted Weapon, after all. These guys
> are _made_ to prop up charmed/recruited/etc. fighters.
the blaster to beat all blasters, as they can go completely nova; this
is mitigated in Incursion because all casters can do the same thing
with magic points as Psions used to be able to do with their power
points. A new role for the Psionicist sounds very reasonable then, and
as long as I get my "mindfuck" role available I'm happy. ;)
> I'm also coming to the conclusion that it's very hard to balance
> powers for people who depend on those powers as their meat-and-
> potatoes and people for whom those powers are one tool among
> many. In other words, mindspells strong enough to make solo
> Enchanters viable might be broken in generalist-mage hands. But
> that can be system-shaped around...
score" formula. Maybe specialists can get their full ability score to
their specialist school DC?
> (This also taps into the question of whether final!Incursion will be
> a solo game, a party game or both/either, which I haven't fully
> answered yet, and want to see the new AI working in practice
> before I do, so...)
that no matter how many man-hours and how much clever coding goes into
the party AI there will *always* be situations where it does the exact
opposite of what I want. If Incursion turns into a party game, I'm
likely to be playing a sort of challenge mode by going solo. This is
also why I wanted a solo-viable Enchanter.
> > Many casters (especially specialists) do not have [the choice of which save to target].
>
> At higher level they likely will, even if it involves blowing a bit
> of
> fatigue to cast an opposed-school spell. (This is about the context
> of boss battles, IIRC.)
Ah, cool. So opposed-school spells will be available in the interface,
> At higher level they likely will, even if it involves blowing a bit
> of
> fatigue to cast an opposed-school spell. (This is about the context
> of boss battles, IIRC.)
or will they have to use scrolls?
> I'm backbrain-gestating the idea of dividing hit points into wound
> points and luck points, and letting the latter regenerate until some/
> all of the former is lost. It seems fair, since mana regenerates but
> d20 spell slots assuredly do not. That might help restore some
> fighter/mage balance in Incursion.
Fantasycraft, except the luck points are called vitality points in
those systems, and are supposed to represent "combat fatigue" (And
don't regenerate on their own without rest, but that's an
understandable systematic difference).
> > Making bosses generally immune to many effects was a mistake NWN1 did,
>
> And Angband. I want to avoid "every mage's a blaster in the final
> battle" syndrome a great deal. Status effect spells need to be
> possible to get off, but have restrained/lessened effects enough
> that they aren't more effective than a comparable amount of HP
> damage.
the status effects need to compare in usefulness to an amount of
empowered, maximised HP damage.
> The real block, for me, is that there are lots of different
> instakills
> and I want a _verisimilitude-sustaining_ reason for bosses to have
> defenses/lessened effects from them, rather than arbitrary-seeming
> "no, it doesn't work." I'm a very simulationist-oriented thinker about
> RPG rules, even if simulating genre rather than reality.
about the new edition, as I haven't looked at it), if you rolled a
Noble when starting your character you started with the Lucky trait -
because anyone who was born a Noble in that world were obviously more
lucky than your average person. Maybe these "stop instakills"
qualities are something some people are just fortunate enough to be
born with, and it helps them rise to power? Luck is a good stat for
all bosses to have a lot of for a reason like this.
> It's funny you bring Assassins up -- they're the _only_ people I
> think should be able to one-shot (some/most) bosses, because
> that's their character concept. They're a bit outside the normal
> rules -- and yes, it's tempting to have death-attack bypass some
> of the "karmic defenses" I'm talking about here, at least if the
> character is a deticated assassin rather than having a one-level
> dip or somesuch.
for each level of Assassin taken?
> > The corollary for bosses mattering is that if they negate all the
> > special abilities of the characters fighting them, they cease to be
> > meaningful game world entities, because they break the rules that the
> > game world verisimilitude is built upon.
>
> I like you; you Get It. :)
I make these long arguments because I care about Incursion, after all,
so it's very nice to know I agree with you on fundamentals like this.
> You sum up exactly my feelings on the matter, and I agree
> 100%. This, I think, is also why I find everything associated
> with 4E so very unpalatable -- they _just don't care_ about
> this kind of thing, and I want to avoid Incursion going down
> that road, even though there's some compelling game-design
> reasons why it's so well trod.
within-a-system you have in 3.X to design any concept by mixing
different classes together. That's taken away in 4E. I very much like
the essence of class-less, level-less systems, but they are often very
difficult to get to grips with; I think 3.X DnD is a great compromise
between the flexibility of class-less, level-less systems and the
structure of class-based systems.
Of course, game world verisimilitude is also a big reason why I
dislike 4E. As you say, it just doesn't care about that.
Captain Action
Nov 1, 2009, 6:08:12 PM11/1/09
to Incursion
That luck system sounds like the luck stat the AtariST game Dungeon
Master. Every character had a hidden luck stat that influence the dice
rolls in the background. What was interesting was that every time the
character got lucky or bad luck on a roll the lucky stat would change.
Over time the luck stat would go back to the normal level for the
character and picking up a lucky rabbit's foot would increase luck for
as long as it was carried.
Master. Every character had a hidden luck stat that influence the dice
rolls in the background. What was interesting was that every time the
character got lucky or bad luck on a roll the lucky stat would change.
Over time the luck stat would go back to the normal level for the
character and picking up a lucky rabbit's foot would increase luck for
as long as it was carried.
RNA
Dec 12, 2009, 3:40:23 PM12/12/09
to Incursion
This is just me helping with the brainstorming, buuuht... Let's list
what We've got.
-Specialist Druid
Pays homage to a specific habitat and has morphs from that location.
-General Druid
See the current version of Inc...
And here are a few of my thoughts.
-Specialist Druid (extended)
Pays homage to a specific habitat much like a mage pays homage to a
school of magic, but also learns morphs from other habitats at a
slower rate. Hence, very strong morphs from one while still gaining
many useful morphs from others.
-Empathetic Druid
Druids are in touch with the land, as such they draw their power and
knowledge from it. An empathetic druid's options to morphs are based
on where they are when they morph. They could most likely gain a feat
called 'favored form' which allows them to select a form from all the
ones they've ever used which could be used anywhere they go. Kinda
like it's so special to them it's not engraved in the land, but upon
them.
Well, I've put in my two bits. ^_^
what We've got.
-Specialist Druid
Pays homage to a specific habitat and has morphs from that location.
-General Druid
See the current version of Inc...
And here are a few of my thoughts.
-Specialist Druid (extended)
Pays homage to a specific habitat much like a mage pays homage to a
school of magic, but also learns morphs from other habitats at a
slower rate. Hence, very strong morphs from one while still gaining
many useful morphs from others.
-Empathetic Druid
Druids are in touch with the land, as such they draw their power and
knowledge from it. An empathetic druid's options to morphs are based
on where they are when they morph. They could most likely gain a feat
called 'favored form' which allows them to select a form from all the
ones they've ever used which could be used anywhere they go. Kinda
like it's so special to them it's not engraved in the land, but upon
them.
Well, I've put in my two bits. ^_^
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages