So, I've been wondering...
30 views
Skip to first unread message
Backgammon
Nov 14, 2010, 7:53:13 PM11/14/10
to Incursion
Exactly _what_ do Vrock Spores do?
Also, poisons in general are pretty useless. The con-reducing ones are
MAYBE helpful on high level monsters that don't have the saves for it.
Carrion Crawler, Choldrith, Dark Naga, and Elfshot are the only
practically useful ones, and Carrion Crawler has too much of a delay.
I dunno, are the way poisons work now going to be relevant in new!
Incursion? At the moment they're really only debiliating for the
player, since most things with a Fort save low enough to be affected
by poisons probably won't live long enough in the average engagement
for the effect to become obvious. This with the exception of the four
listed, which are in fact rigged when used correctly.
What would be really interesting is "poisons" that do more interesting
things. For example, some manner of liquid or powder applied to
weapons (Or thrown) that affects undead and gives them disabilities or
whatever, or fast-acting biological agents, or more interesting
effects like insanity (Ignore alliances), blinding, deafening,
aggression, etc. Poisons that inflict combat maluses would also
probably be pretty popular compared to how poisons are used at the
moment.
Also, poisons in general are pretty useless. The con-reducing ones are
MAYBE helpful on high level monsters that don't have the saves for it.
Carrion Crawler, Choldrith, Dark Naga, and Elfshot are the only
practically useful ones, and Carrion Crawler has too much of a delay.
I dunno, are the way poisons work now going to be relevant in new!
Incursion? At the moment they're really only debiliating for the
player, since most things with a Fort save low enough to be affected
by poisons probably won't live long enough in the average engagement
for the effect to become obvious. This with the exception of the four
listed, which are in fact rigged when used correctly.
What would be really interesting is "poisons" that do more interesting
things. For example, some manner of liquid or powder applied to
weapons (Or thrown) that affects undead and gives them disabilities or
whatever, or fast-acting biological agents, or more interesting
effects like insanity (Ignore alliances), blinding, deafening,
aggression, etc. Poisons that inflict combat maluses would also
probably be pretty popular compared to how poisons are used at the
moment.
Desirsar
Nov 17, 2010, 9:32:30 AM11/17/10
to Incursion
Shoot poison, flee and stealth, wait for it to die in a far away room
on its own. Sadly, if you lose line of sight (or tracking, whatever
detection) and something dies to your poison, you don't get the XP.
on its own. Sadly, if you lose line of sight (or tracking, whatever
detection) and something dies to your poison, you don't get the XP.
Backgammon
Nov 17, 2010, 3:13:45 PM11/17/10
to Incursion
But generally it's much faster and cleaner to just shoot it again,
since if it's susceptible then it's probably also not tough enough to
survive more than 2-3 more shots.
since if it's susceptible then it's probably also not tough enough to
survive more than 2-3 more shots.
Dan R.
Nov 19, 2010, 8:11:11 AM11/19/10
to Incursion
That's a pretty accurate description of how poisons work in standard
D&D too, so I'd call it an accurate reflection of a flawed system.
Maybe it should be less accurate? I do like the idea of poisons
giving immediate status effects.
D&D too, so I'd call it an accurate reflection of a flawed system.
Maybe it should be less accurate? I do like the idea of poisons
giving immediate status effects.
Elethiomel
Nov 19, 2010, 8:50:38 AM11/19/10
to Incursion
But poisons in standard DnD actually do have an immediate effect -
often but not always it's ability damage instantaneously, then another
round of ability damage later. Con-damaging poisons can be devastating
when they hit because they reduce the fort save versus later rounds of
poison. Even in mid-levels there are very dangerous poisons, like the
Spirit Naga's DC18 1d8 con / 1d8 con poison, which almost felled a
Warmage in my current game who was charmed by the Naga's gaze attack
and then bitten on a subsequent surprise round. I rolled 8 and 7 on
those dice respectively, and he had 16 con, so he barely lived just
from con damage.
In a game like Incursion the lethality of delayed-effect things like
poisons need to be considered from a worst-case scenario. Of course
with Return of the Forsaken and an open world, players can simply
choose to go somewhere else if they happen upon a nest of spirit nagas
with their low-CON bad-fort character, but that's not always so easy
in the current system where all the stairs may be past that room.
Remember, poisons are not only for the player character to use.
often but not always it's ability damage instantaneously, then another
round of ability damage later. Con-damaging poisons can be devastating
when they hit because they reduce the fort save versus later rounds of
poison. Even in mid-levels there are very dangerous poisons, like the
Spirit Naga's DC18 1d8 con / 1d8 con poison, which almost felled a
Warmage in my current game who was charmed by the Naga's gaze attack
and then bitten on a subsequent surprise round. I rolled 8 and 7 on
those dice respectively, and he had 16 con, so he barely lived just
from con damage.
In a game like Incursion the lethality of delayed-effect things like
poisons need to be considered from a worst-case scenario. Of course
with Return of the Forsaken and an open world, players can simply
choose to go somewhere else if they happen upon a nest of spirit nagas
with their low-CON bad-fort character, but that's not always so easy
in the current system where all the stairs may be past that room.
Remember, poisons are not only for the player character to use.
Frumple
Nov 19, 2010, 9:37:55 AM11/19/10
to Incursion
On Nov 19, 7:50 am, Elethiomel <terje...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Remember, poisons are not only for the player character to use.
I... I think that's kinda' the point, right now.
> Remember, poisons are not only for the player character to use.
In current!Inc. non-player poisons are exponentially more dangerous
than player used poisons, due simply to the fact that for anything
except the player, it's more effective (more or less period) to whack
them with your stick again instead of applying poison. Even the bigger
critters with mondo HP and freakish armor tend to be more likely to be
dropped by more direct means than poison (mostly due to said critters
having silly fort saves that take HIGHLY specialized characters to do
anything about). Player poisons are just basically useless at the
moment -- not to mention awkward to use and a bit buggy, though those
aren't really meaningful to _this_ discussion..
Mostly, I'd think player poisons would need to end up an asymmetric
system unless combat changes radically. Right now, players fear
attrition (Which NPC poison _does_, well) while NPCs fear burst damage
and immediate effects -- most critters just don't live long enough for
effects that require a long duration to kick in to matter and those
that _do_ are either outright immune to poisons or effectively so. If
the combat system flipped to attrition vs attrition (which would _very
interesting_, but incredibly difficult to keep from getting massively
boring), then poison as is would be fine. That would be a seriously
radical change for something that could be 'fixed' just by adding an
immediate effect of some sort to poisons, possibly 'unlocked' by
higher levels of poison use skill. The thought of poisons that have
emerging properties due to skill level is kinda' interesting, but
mostly irrelevant to the discussion.
tl;dr: Players need now!dakka. Player poisons could stand some now!
dakka. Non-player poison is fine, 'cause NPCs like dere attrit!dakka
and they got it via th'current poison.
Journeyman
Nov 19, 2010, 5:15:24 PM11/19/10
to Incursion
I approve this post, and its replies. :)
I don't have time to be more substantive right now, and
will be offline for the next six days. But I will discuss
this in more depth when I have time. It's a shame I just
saw this now...
I don't have time to be more substantive right now, and
will be offline for the next six days. But I will discuss
this in more depth when I have time. It's a shame I just
saw this now...
Desirsar
Nov 19, 2010, 9:44:31 PM11/19/10
to Incursion
Even creatures that have high general poison resistances generally had
something specific they were vulnerable to. Hopefully the new
Incursion allows for poisons to have specific modifiers for species or
entire classes of monsters so things like dragons might have a
fortitude save of +25 or higher, but would receive a -20 or something
versus "Dragonsbane" or whatever dragons are vulnerable to. (Just to
make up a random example on the spot.)
something specific they were vulnerable to. Hopefully the new
Incursion allows for poisons to have specific modifiers for species or
entire classes of monsters so things like dragons might have a
fortitude save of +25 or higher, but would receive a -20 or something
versus "Dragonsbane" or whatever dragons are vulnerable to. (Just to
make up a random example on the spot.)
Backgammon
Nov 22, 2010, 8:12:15 PM11/22/10
to Incursion
My meaning here was not to make the poison asymmetric for players and
monsters.
Incursion obviously stays away from poisons that just deal timed
damage, like in other roguelikes, but a DnD poison system is not
appropriate for the kind of game Incursion is. Individual engagements
are much more trivial than what I assume they might be in DnD (Having
not ever played the actual game, but reasonably familiar with some of
its systems), and right now attrition with poison does not (and might
not in new!incursion without some intervention) work well.
The reason, again, is that almost any monster susceptible to poison is
also easier to kill by simply hitting it again than waiting for it to
die from poison. Things that poison would be useful on, like greater
demons, dragons, extremely high-danger monsters that you do not want
to be in combat with for any amount of time (Bodak, paralysis-causing
monsters, boalisks and other disease inflicters, ranged poisoners,
etc) are either outright immune, or have fort saves so ridiculous
very, very few characters would be able to use poison against them
effectively.
The suggested fix is to change the poisons system, not just for
players, but for monsters too. Players would be able to use poisons
that were immediately effective, which is the niche that they are
needed in. Diseases could also be adjusted to fill the role poisons
play now. Monsters with poisons are now serious combat threats,
instead of indirect threats (more like annoyances) after combat was
over. This is what I feel would make a more interesting Incursion
experience.
Opinions?
monsters.
Incursion obviously stays away from poisons that just deal timed
damage, like in other roguelikes, but a DnD poison system is not
appropriate for the kind of game Incursion is. Individual engagements
are much more trivial than what I assume they might be in DnD (Having
not ever played the actual game, but reasonably familiar with some of
its systems), and right now attrition with poison does not (and might
not in new!incursion without some intervention) work well.
The reason, again, is that almost any monster susceptible to poison is
also easier to kill by simply hitting it again than waiting for it to
die from poison. Things that poison would be useful on, like greater
demons, dragons, extremely high-danger monsters that you do not want
to be in combat with for any amount of time (Bodak, paralysis-causing
monsters, boalisks and other disease inflicters, ranged poisoners,
etc) are either outright immune, or have fort saves so ridiculous
very, very few characters would be able to use poison against them
effectively.
The suggested fix is to change the poisons system, not just for
players, but for monsters too. Players would be able to use poisons
that were immediately effective, which is the niche that they are
needed in. Diseases could also be adjusted to fill the role poisons
play now. Monsters with poisons are now serious combat threats,
instead of indirect threats (more like annoyances) after combat was
over. This is what I feel would make a more interesting Incursion
experience.
Opinions?
Journeyman
Nov 26, 2010, 11:36:54 AM11/26/10
to Incursion
Sorry my reply here took so long; I've been busy.
Anyway, Frumple's point about burst damage vs. attrition
is very salient. New!Incursion will have some longer-lasting
fights; they'll be the minority but they'll be dangerous.
Monster numbers in new!Incursion will also be a bit more
restrained than either old!Incursion on canon d20, but with
some creatures having abilities like the PC that let them
avoid insta-kills and survive longer.
The d20 poison model is not great as it stands. I don't
mind the attribute damage poisons, but I'm not stuck on
the idea that attribute damage is the only thing poisons
should do. Bonus normal damage, pain modifiers, slowing,
delerium (i.e., stunning), occult poisons to block certain
magical abilities... lots of possible status effects and
uses. I thankfully don't see a need for a truly asymmetric
system, because the player can choose the burst-damage
poisons (or whatever suits them), while the monsters can
use attrition poison (usually, which comes from their
anatomy so they have no real choice in-world).
I do really like the repeated saves-condition worsens-
condition-gets-better-need-N-to-overcome model, as I
think it creates drama and tension. But there's room for
poisons that have a harder "initial hit" as well.
Poison it, run away, let it die should be a valid tactic,
but not the only way poisons can be used.
Incursion is moving in a team-game direction (while
maintaining a solo option). I want to make sure that use
of poison is a good choice for rogues and other thematic
classes, but at least a non-requisite for warriors and
such. If there was a poison that gave a flat +2d6 instant
damage when you rubbed it on a weapon, it would be a no-
brainer that warriors want it as much or more than rogues
to. Important standards for balanced poisons in RPGs in
general, I think, is that they apply per exposure, not
per-attack or even per-round. The big balance danger
inherent in poisons is that they make attacks stronger
but don't have an action-economy cost, so can become a
"plus with no downside" and no resource cost if they're
treated as separate and don't need character traits to
use effectively.
From a verisimilitude side, I don't think poisons should
be _instant_, but they could be as quick as working a
single round later, which is certainly relevant in most
fights. Possible exception for things which cause pain
penalties, which could conceivably happen instantly.
Con damage is not a terrible thing for players to deal,
as it reduces the HP of large monsters proportionally to
the number of HP they possess, and also lowers Fortitude
saves, making them easier prey for casters.
Incursion is meant to have individual engagements that
are less trivial than those in other _roguelikes_, but I
doubt every combat will be as serious as those in D&D,
due to the "is this really worth rolling out" factor of
tabletop games. Especially when it moves in the direction
of having multiple party members to control, combats will
have to be more challenging to justify players taking the
thought-effort to select different actions for each party
member. (Though, the planned interface allows the PC to
play one character and let the AI run the rest, that will
likely not be optimal for serious fights and you'll want
to set the option on 'run all real party members' for a
serious combat.) This is all discussing vaporware at this
point, of course -- I'll have to get the party interface
running before I can discuss it more seriously.
I think that effective use of poisons by players has to
hinge on character traits rather than just poison traits,
especially things like the Poison Use skill that are open
to rogues (and drow/kobolds), but need more hoop-jumping
to add to warriors and clerics.
Tentatively, I would expect this from new!Incursion:
* Poison DCs based on Poison Use rather than poison type,
unless it comes directly from a monster's anatomy. We
sorta have this already, don't we?
* Some poisons do hit point damage; others do attribute
damage, others do various staus effects like pain,
vertigo, etc.
* Poisons work per-exposure rather than per-attack or
per-round, so you can't poison the same creature lots
of times with repeated hits of a poisoned weapon.
* Some poisons take several rounds to set in, but many
do something a single round after initial exposure.
* Monster Fortitude numbers are not to high as to make
poisons useless against powerful monsters. (Physically
BIG monsters, on the other hand, might me more resistant
to dosage-based poisons for verisimilitude reasons).
So yeah.
Anyway, Frumple's point about burst damage vs. attrition
is very salient. New!Incursion will have some longer-lasting
fights; they'll be the minority but they'll be dangerous.
Monster numbers in new!Incursion will also be a bit more
restrained than either old!Incursion on canon d20, but with
some creatures having abilities like the PC that let them
avoid insta-kills and survive longer.
The d20 poison model is not great as it stands. I don't
mind the attribute damage poisons, but I'm not stuck on
the idea that attribute damage is the only thing poisons
should do. Bonus normal damage, pain modifiers, slowing,
delerium (i.e., stunning), occult poisons to block certain
magical abilities... lots of possible status effects and
uses. I thankfully don't see a need for a truly asymmetric
system, because the player can choose the burst-damage
poisons (or whatever suits them), while the monsters can
use attrition poison (usually, which comes from their
anatomy so they have no real choice in-world).
I do really like the repeated saves-condition worsens-
condition-gets-better-need-N-to-overcome model, as I
think it creates drama and tension. But there's room for
poisons that have a harder "initial hit" as well.
Poison it, run away, let it die should be a valid tactic,
but not the only way poisons can be used.
Incursion is moving in a team-game direction (while
maintaining a solo option). I want to make sure that use
of poison is a good choice for rogues and other thematic
classes, but at least a non-requisite for warriors and
such. If there was a poison that gave a flat +2d6 instant
damage when you rubbed it on a weapon, it would be a no-
brainer that warriors want it as much or more than rogues
to. Important standards for balanced poisons in RPGs in
general, I think, is that they apply per exposure, not
per-attack or even per-round. The big balance danger
inherent in poisons is that they make attacks stronger
but don't have an action-economy cost, so can become a
"plus with no downside" and no resource cost if they're
treated as separate and don't need character traits to
use effectively.
From a verisimilitude side, I don't think poisons should
be _instant_, but they could be as quick as working a
single round later, which is certainly relevant in most
fights. Possible exception for things which cause pain
penalties, which could conceivably happen instantly.
Con damage is not a terrible thing for players to deal,
as it reduces the HP of large monsters proportionally to
the number of HP they possess, and also lowers Fortitude
saves, making them easier prey for casters.
Incursion is meant to have individual engagements that
are less trivial than those in other _roguelikes_, but I
doubt every combat will be as serious as those in D&D,
due to the "is this really worth rolling out" factor of
tabletop games. Especially when it moves in the direction
of having multiple party members to control, combats will
have to be more challenging to justify players taking the
thought-effort to select different actions for each party
member. (Though, the planned interface allows the PC to
play one character and let the AI run the rest, that will
likely not be optimal for serious fights and you'll want
to set the option on 'run all real party members' for a
serious combat.) This is all discussing vaporware at this
point, of course -- I'll have to get the party interface
running before I can discuss it more seriously.
I think that effective use of poisons by players has to
hinge on character traits rather than just poison traits,
especially things like the Poison Use skill that are open
to rogues (and drow/kobolds), but need more hoop-jumping
to add to warriors and clerics.
Tentatively, I would expect this from new!Incursion:
* Poison DCs based on Poison Use rather than poison type,
unless it comes directly from a monster's anatomy. We
sorta have this already, don't we?
* Some poisons do hit point damage; others do attribute
damage, others do various staus effects like pain,
vertigo, etc.
* Poisons work per-exposure rather than per-attack or
per-round, so you can't poison the same creature lots
of times with repeated hits of a poisoned weapon.
* Some poisons take several rounds to set in, but many
do something a single round after initial exposure.
* Monster Fortitude numbers are not to high as to make
poisons useless against powerful monsters. (Physically
BIG monsters, on the other hand, might me more resistant
to dosage-based poisons for verisimilitude reasons).
So yeah.
-N
Nov 27, 2010, 3:39:31 AM11/27/10
to Incursion
> Anyway, Frumple's point about burst damage vs. attrition
> is very salient. New!Incursion will have some longer-lasting
> fights; they'll be the minority but they'll be dangerous.
*cough* ...I'm wondering when the last time was you fought a buffed
> is very salient. New!Incursion will have some longer-lasting
> fights; they'll be the minority but they'll be dangerous.
dragon in Old!Incursion with melee. I've had battles that lasted
thousands of turns, not including the ones where I needed to make a
will save on every hit or be teleported away. Those took tens of
thousands of turns.
> Incursion is moving in a team-game direction (while
> maintaining a solo option).
> of having multiple party members to control, combats will
> have to be more challenging to justify players taking the
> thought-effort to select different actions for each party
> member. (Though, the planned interface allows the PC to
> play one character and let the AI run the rest, that will
> likely not be optimal for serious fights and you'll want
> to set the option on 'run all real party members' for a
> serious combat.) This is all discussing vaporware at this
> point, of course -- I'll have to get the party interface
> running before I can discuss it more seriously.
Vaporware-triggered panic - I really really hope groups won't be the
> have to be more challenging to justify players taking the
> thought-effort to select different actions for each party
> member. (Though, the planned interface allows the PC to
> play one character and let the AI run the rest, that will
> likely not be optimal for serious fights and you'll want
> to set the option on 'run all real party members' for a
> serious combat.) This is all discussing vaporware at this
> point, of course -- I'll have to get the party interface
> running before I can discuss it more seriously.
only viable option in New!Incursion.
As I'm sure you're aware, Incursion already suffers from a huge
information overload problem. So, as effective as the build may be I
can't stand to play the summon-spam caster due to the hassle of "more"-
ing through through a dozen lines of combat updates each clock tick.
Sifting for critical info when dozens of characters you DON'T care
about get involved in fights is very not-fun. With the level of
detail already in the game, managing just 2 characters will take
significantly more than twice as long as a single character.
Elethiomel
Nov 27, 2010, 10:50:31 AM11/27/10
to Incursion
It depends on the AI and whether it will be possible to filter combat
messages. I think managing two characters can take much less than
twice the time, provided that out of combat one does not have to move
them separately. How easy will it be for the average player to script
things with the AI? How smart will the party members be regarding
following the currently selected party member? Will they exend
resources to do so? Can that be turned off? Can you make a combat log
filtering system that eliminates spam yet makes sure you get the
messages you want to?
There are too many unanswered questions at this point to say anything
with certainty regarding what impact it will have to control a party
rather than a single character. Personally I am excited about the
party possibility, because it means niche builds will be much more
viable - one no longer has to build a character keeping in mind that
that character should be able to survive or evade every conceivable
encounter - the rest of the party can take care of the things a single
character is weak at. A cleric that only does healing and party
buffing and doesn't carry a weapon, a wizard that focuses on save-or-
suck or troubleshooting or transport or terrain control, a fighter
whose only focus is defense, a rogue that only focuses on traps and
doors - all these are possible and viable within a party context
without adding the clause ".. and overpowered summoning" to them.
messages. I think managing two characters can take much less than
twice the time, provided that out of combat one does not have to move
them separately. How easy will it be for the average player to script
things with the AI? How smart will the party members be regarding
following the currently selected party member? Will they exend
resources to do so? Can that be turned off? Can you make a combat log
filtering system that eliminates spam yet makes sure you get the
messages you want to?
There are too many unanswered questions at this point to say anything
with certainty regarding what impact it will have to control a party
rather than a single character. Personally I am excited about the
party possibility, because it means niche builds will be much more
viable - one no longer has to build a character keeping in mind that
that character should be able to survive or evade every conceivable
encounter - the rest of the party can take care of the things a single
character is weak at. A cleric that only does healing and party
buffing and doesn't carry a weapon, a wizard that focuses on save-or-
suck or troubleshooting or transport or terrain control, a fighter
whose only focus is defense, a rogue that only focuses on traps and
doors - all these are possible and viable within a party context
without adding the clause ".. and overpowered summoning" to them.
Priority7
Nov 28, 2010, 3:11:49 AM11/28/10
to Incursion
I, for one, am also happy to see that there is at least a thought
about a move towards a largely team based game. I always feel
irresponsible talking about something I haven't seen yet; I just
wanted to throw my hat in with the "I would probably like this game
even more if I could control a party" group.
about a move towards a largely team based game. I always feel
irresponsible talking about something I haven't seen yet; I just
wanted to throw my hat in with the "I would probably like this game
even more if I could control a party" group.
Journeyman
Nov 29, 2010, 10:22:40 AM11/29/10
to Incursion
> Vaporware-triggered panic - I really really hope groups
> won't be the only viable option in New!Incursion.
They'll be the focus, but not a necessity; solo characters
> won't be the only viable option in New!Incursion.
will still be possible and playable. I've had very firm
feedback about that from a few different fans and don't plan
to ignore it.
> As I'm sure you're aware, Incursion already suffers from a huge
> information overload problem. So, as effective as the build may be I
> can't stand to play the summon-spam caster due to the hassle of "more"-
> ing through through a dozen lines of combat updates each clock tick.
There's a few interface-streamlining concepts in the pipe, and
potentially a more ergonomic display as well -- but part of that
will come after the first release whenever that happens, and I
respond to feedback about interface.
> Sifting for critical info when dozens of characters you DON'T care
> about get involved in fights is very not-fun. With the level of
> detail already in the game, managing just 2 characters will take
> significantly more than twice as long as a single character.
game won't work.
I haven't changed the interface design a lot yet, but I have
untangled the code a fair bit and made it a lot easier to make
extensible or customizable in different ways. So there's that.
Journeyman
Nov 29, 2010, 10:37:37 AM11/29/10
to Incursion
> It depends on the AI and whether it will be possible to filter combat
> messages. I think managing two characters can take much less than
> twice the time, provided that out of combat one does not have to move
> them separately. How easy will it be for the average player to script
> things with the AI?
AI _scripting_ per se isn't planned, but there will be a
> messages. I think managing two characters can take much less than
> twice the time, provided that out of combat one does not have to move
> them separately. How easy will it be for the average player to script
> things with the AI?
lot of knobs and options to control and influence the
behavior of characters and let the game know when you
want to run them and when you want the AI to.
One important element of team-based play, I think, is
"catch-up" movement -- so you move your one controlled
character and then the other party members catch up and
the game waits, so nobody gets left behind in out-of-
combat movement. I was trying to do this with pets in
old-Incursion, but the engine wasn't up for it.
I've been playing Troika's Temple of Elemental Evil a
bit recently, and that handles party-based D&D fairly
well with an interface I personally find manageable,
despite being nearly as buggy as Incursion is -- the
basic design works, despite horrible quirks with the
pathfinding and other things. So it certainly is doable.
Hopefully Incursion will lack the ToEE "quirk" where
trying to move your party from explored point A to
explored point B causes two of the six members to
take a completely different path including a shortcut
through unexplored areas of the dungeon. That's rather
irritating. :)
> How smart will the party members be regarding
> following the currently selected party member? Will they exend
> resources to do so? Can that be turned off?
controlled member out-of-combat easily. That's a
basic prerequisite.
> Can you make a combat log
> filtering system that eliminates spam yet makes sure you get the
> messages you want to?
> ... because it means niche builds will be much more
> viable - one no longer has to build a character keeping in mind that
> that character should be able to survive or evade every conceivable
> encounter - the rest of the party can take care of the things a single
> character is weak at. A cleric that only does healing and party
> buffing and doesn't carry a weapon, a wizard that focuses on save-or-
> suck or troubleshooting or transport or terrain control, a fighter
> whose only focus is defense, a rogue that only focuses on traps and
> doors - all these are possible and viable within a party context
> without adding the clause ".. and overpowered summoning" to them.
Yeah -- I think this is very essential for a game to be
> that character should be able to survive or evade every conceivable
> encounter - the rest of the party can take care of the things a single
> character is weak at. A cleric that only does healing and party
> buffing and doesn't carry a weapon, a wizard that focuses on save-or-
> suck or troubleshooting or transport or terrain control, a fighter
> whose only focus is defense, a rogue that only focuses on traps and
> doors - all these are possible and viable within a party context
> without adding the clause ".. and overpowered summoning" to them.
authentically d20/D&D -- the whole system is built for
parties, after all.
Journeyman
Nov 29, 2010, 10:43:25 AM11/29/10
to Incursion
> *cough* ...I'm wondering when the last time was you fought a buffed
> dragon in Old!Incursion with melee. I've had battles that lasted
> thousands of turns, not including the ones where I needed to make a
> will save on every hit or be teleported away. Those took tens of
> thousands of turns.
Not really what I meant -- dragons are kinda broke, since
> dragon in Old!Incursion with melee. I've had battles that lasted
> thousands of turns, not including the ones where I needed to make a
> will save on every hit or be teleported away. Those took tens of
> thousands of turns.
their attributes are out of the player character's range. If
you took those dragons as they are now and gave them the
new_Incursion AI, I think they'd massacre the player. What I
mean is that the game mechanics will allow creatures to last
against the player without having crazy-cheap resistances
and buffs -- tactical instead of monotonous. And ideally
combat will stay interesting for the rounds it lasts and
include meaningful choices.
Essentially, combat will be a lot faster than old!Incursion
dragon fights, but last longer than high-level tabletop D&D
combat tends to.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages