The two things I'd most like to see

Here's the place to talk about the features you would like to see in a sequel to KotC.

The two things I'd most like to see

Postby some_name » Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:24 am

1. Prebuffing. Yep, I'm going to keep harping on it. It needs to be implemented. Preferably with some macro system to prevent having to cast every spell individually. I know you say it's pointless since if the player can do it, the enemy can do it too, and then it balances out. There's one thing you're missing, though- it does A LOT to eliminate first-round "disable everyone" cheese that turns the game into "who rolls higher on initiative?".

2. Multiclassing. It's a key part of the system. Without it, level ups for non-caster classes tend towards "click accept", especially if you're planning on implementing Pally/Barbie. It also helps the fighters stay relevant late game- a Fighter 2/Barbarian 18 is far more powerful than either a Fighter 20 or a Barbarian 20. Figher 1/Cleric 19 with practiced spellcaster allows for some fun stuff, too (weapon proficiencies + cleric buffs). I haven't seen what you plan on doing with assassin, but I imagine it will probably synergize well with Figher.

Those are the main things. To a lesser extent, I'd like to see "true" Vancian casting (yes, I know, I'm probably the only person in the world who actually likes that system), Wizard familiars, Quickened Spell, the Sorceror class (if true Vancian casting is brought on board, that is), the Druid class, full Cleric abilities, and skills (if you can't implement skills, it'd be really cool to have Spellcraft checks to see what magical effects an opponent has based on level like Concentration currently works).
some_name
Vrock (CR 9)
Knights of the Chalice
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2009 10:26 pm

The two things I'd most like to see

Advert
 

Re: The two things I'd most like to see

Postby Narsham » Mon Sep 14, 2009 6:09 pm

I agree about the flexibility of 3.0/3.5 multiclassing--unimportant, generally, for spellcasters but vital for other classes--but I can see where the implementation might be tricky and this feature I can do just as easily without. (Most other cRPGs I'm playing single-classed characters...) I can also see strong arguments against the cheesy ways taking 1 level in a class can work.

As for prebuffing, I have mixed feelings about it. The major reason to forbid it, in my mind, is from a design standpoint:

Let's allow prebuffs. Party A goes into a major encounter with the following spells cast on everyone: Haste, Stoneskin, Prot Arrows, all Prot element spells, Spell Resistance, Death Ward, Prot Evil, Mind Blank, Freedom of Movement, Bull's Strength and Displacement.
Party B goes into the same encounter with no prep spells cast.

How do I design an encounter that will be challenging for party A without forcing party B to die horribly? In effect, I simply reset the "default" to a party running with all preps in advance, enemies with preps too, and turn the opening rounds into a Dispel Magic competition. If I'm using KotC spells, I also render most of the monster special abilities useless. Death and domination effects won't work, I can't web or grapple anyone, spells will bounce off of the high spellcast SR and every PC will have max resists and DR off of Stoneskin.

What's worse, if I match by having all the monsters running similar spells, then the PCs can't use any of these effects either.

So what's really needed is JUST ENOUGH prebuffing to allow the "tender" PCs to survive the first round alpha strikes or surprise round + regular round combos that can kill them.

If I were doing it, I'd take several steps:
1. Restrict most prebuffs to item effects or caster-only spells. Offer a Mind Blank helmet for the low Willpower types but force clerics and wizards to pick between defense and offense. Limit Stoneskin to wizards but let them run around with it up all the time (until the damage limit is reached). By the level they can cast it, enemies will have special effects on their attacks and enemies can always grapple or counterspell anyway.
2. Weaken any prebuff effect which offers immunity. Death Ward is the prize example. Instant death effects are no fun, but they should still be something of a threat. Maybe have Death Ward offer a +5 stacking bonus to saves, and if a Death save is failed then the death effect is stopped but the Death Ward spell ends? Ablating prebuffs would offer protection for that first or second round of a fight but, if triggered, would vanish.
3. Extend prebuff duration but limit the number any character can have running at once. Maybe have a prebuff management screen, or use the inventory screen? An 11th level character might have 3 prebuff slots (1 at 1, 2 at 6th and so on). You'd configure your party, selecting what prebuff spell to have on each character and which caster would provide it, and they'd be cast automatically after a rest. The spell slots would be expended. If a prebuff is dispelled or expended, you could either prohibit recasting until a rest or permit them to be recast at any time so long as they don't exceed the slot limit.

If you don't separate spells into two types, with one type prohibited during combat, then any prebuff spells cast as buffs in combat on someone whose buff slots are full would only last as long as that fight and would then be removed. OR, you could make prebuff spells work only as preparation spells, not in regular combat.

As an alternative, you could replace 3.5 prebuffs with some other mechanic. Two options off the top of my head:
A. Buff auras. Every class would have its own selection to choose from; each could have no more than one active at a time. They'd affect every member of the group, though, so you could have four running at any one time. Setting them would be a matter of strategy. A Paladin might have an aura allowing any other party member to receive his Fort saves against any death effect; a Monk might receive a Deflect Arrow roll to protect any adjacent ally.

Balance against monsters by allowing only "named" enemies to have these auras. Probably a monster with other specials (like immunities, innates or a pre-set X Shield effect) should consider them to be instead of an aura. But you could also implement enemy-only auras. An elven leader might grant +2 to hit for all elf archers in his group, for example. That would add to strategy as it would provide a reason to take the leader down first instead of killing off the weaker archers.

B. Steal an idea from 4.0 and replace prebuffs with rituals. They'd cost GP to cast and would last until expended. I'd probably make all of them ablative, so they protect once against a given effect or power and are then gone until performed again. (Prot from Petrification, for example, would remain in place until that first save is failed, at which point it goes away but stops the effect. Or you could make it auto-prevent the first attack of that type, regardless of save.) Not my favorite option, though...
Narsham
Hezrou (CR 11)
Knights of the Chalice
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:39 pm

Re: The two things I'd most like to see

Postby some_name » Tue Sep 15, 2009 1:38 am

I can also see strong arguments against the cheesy ways taking 1 level in a class can work.

It's not unbalanced as long at there
a)- aren't Prestige classes (which never should have happened in general)
and
b)- the XP penalties for having multiple base-classes that go against your race's preferred class are enforced.

As for your prebuffing question- you don't try to make an encounter that won't waste party B. Death and Domination are fine, just not in round 1. Dispel (and Disjunction) is there for a reason. The system is no different than now where clerics always cast mass Death Ward round 1 and Magic Circle against Alignment round 2, except that it doesn't allow for "TPK by surprise rounds/poor initiative". It also means that Delay needs to be used more intelligently to set things up, which makes fights more interesting, and it means that Quickened Spell is significantly more useful, which gives an edge to Wizards over Sorcerors (never underestimate the power of a Quickened Dispel).

Thinking about it further, I'd rather see a larger variety of classes than races. I'd really like it if all of the original base classes (Fighter, Paladin, Barbarian, Ranger, Rogue (assassin), Bard, Druid, Cleric, Wizard, and Sorceror) were included, with multiclassing, even if it meant only having 3 races.
some_name
Vrock (CR 9)
Knights of the Chalice
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2009 10:26 pm

Re: The two things I'd most like to see

Postby screeg » Tue Sep 15, 2009 1:41 pm

some_name wrote:1. Prebuffing. Yep, I'm going to keep harping on it. It needs to be implemented. Preferably with some macro system to prevent having to cast every spell individually.

Take feats that give you higher initiative. Here's something even less tedious than using a macro to cast all your prebuff spells: no prebuffing.

some_name wrote:2. Multiclassing. It's a key part of the system.

It is part of the D&D system, but I've always thought it's exactly counter to the original philosophy behind the game, which is to create a party of characters with disparate, complementary skills who band together for just that reason. I don't know that if it were implemented it would take anything away from the game (except balance), but I would never use it.
-----
User avatar
screeg
Marilith (CR 17)
Knights of the Chalice
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 8:19 pm

Re: The two things I'd most like to see

Postby some_name » Tue Sep 15, 2009 2:56 pm

screeg wrote:Take feats that give you higher initiative. Here's something even less tedious than using a macro to cast all your prebuff spells: no prebuffing.

Does nothing for you in surprise rounds, and even with improved initiative, the +- swing of the D20 is larger than dex + improved initiative.

some_name wrote:2. Multiclassing. It's a key part of the system.

It is part of the D&D system, but I've always thought it's exactly counter to the original philosophy behind the game, which is to create a party of characters with disparate, complementary skills who band together for just that reason. I don't know that if it were implemented it would take anything away from the game (except balance), but I would never use it.[/quote]
Protip: If you create generalist characters, YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG. You use multiclassing to bring in abilities which enhance your core competency- for instance, a rogue multis with a two-weapon Ranger because they share the same party role (light fighter/skill monkey) and two-weapon abilities naturally complement sneak attack. A Cleric takes a level of Fighter because it enhances one of his core competencies (backup tank). You don't see stuff like Fighter 10/Wizard 10 or Wizard 10/Cleric 10, especially without prestige classes such as Arcane Archer or Mystic Theurge (both of which, especially Mystic Theurge, are still hopeless compared to a single classed primary caster).
some_name
Vrock (CR 9)
Knights of the Chalice
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2009 10:26 pm

Re: The two things I'd most like to see

Postby VentilatorOfDoom » Tue Sep 15, 2009 3:25 pm

Of course you can abuse multiclassing , it's part of the fun. Godly saves on your Sorcerer or Evasion on your wizard or access to the better weapons and tower shield prof. on your Cleric certainly gives such a character a significant edge.
User avatar
VentilatorOfDoom
Silver Wyrm (CR 24)
Knights of the Chalice
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 2:30 pm

Re: The two things I'd most like to see

Postby screeg » Tue Sep 15, 2009 4:18 pm

some_name wrote:
screeg wrote:Protip: If you create generalist characters, YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG.

What does that mean? I play the game to have fun, not to maximize my munchkin potential by carefully reviewing every multi-class combination. What I said was I think multi-classing takes away from the experience, where Clerics have certain weaknesses and disadvantages, because they are Clerics. How does taking away the weaknesses and keeping all the strengths improve gameplay? It just dilutes the archetypes that the classes represent. And once you include three or four different variations on the core class (Paladin, Barbarian, Knight, for example), why do you need multi-classes on top of that? It just turns a clean system into a muddle.
-----
User avatar
screeg
Marilith (CR 17)
Knights of the Chalice
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 8:19 pm

Re: The two things I'd most like to see

Postby crpgnut » Tue Sep 15, 2009 4:36 pm

In this game, adding a level of fighter would have been highly useful because clerics were so nerfed. If a cleric can't prebuff, can't turn/destroy undead, can't turn outsiders, can't cast flamestrike, then it'd be nice if he was a decent tank. Even though I normally never multi-class in D&D games, I would have in this one.
crpgnut
Vrock (CR 9)
Knights of the Chalice
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2009 7:24 pm

Re: The two things I'd most like to see

Postby BlueSalamander » Tue Sep 15, 2009 5:16 pm

Narsham wrote:1. Restrict most prebuffs to item effects or caster-only spells. Offer a Mind Blank helmet for the low Willpower types but force clerics and wizards to pick between defense and offense. Limit Stoneskin to wizards but let them run around with it up all the time (until the damage limit is reached). By the level they can cast it, enemies will have special effects on their attacks and enemies can always grapple or counterspell anyway.
As long as the duration defined in the rules is quite high I am not totally opposed to making them permanent spells (day duration). For example Stoneskin (duration 10 minutes per caster level in the book) could be made into a personal-range spell with a duration of a day. It would still disappear after soaking a certain number of damage points, and could be dispelled. Of course you can expect that most enemy wizards are going to have it. Are there any other spells that would seem appropriate?
Re/Auras, the paladin will probably have one, not sure on the details yet. Some monsters could have one too.

screeg wrote:And once you include three or four different variations on the core class (Paladin, Barbarian, Knight, for example), why do you need multi-classes on top of that? It just turns a clean system into a muddle.
That's also my opinion (Paladin=fighter+cleric, Assassin=fighter+wiz, Psychic Warrior=fighter+psion), that plus the fact that adding multiclass would create a myriad of problems. Like... cleric/wiz would need data for remaining spells per day of both the wiz and cleric, fighter x/wiz 1 would be able to cast from scrolls with just a single wizard level, xp penalty stuff, adjustments to the interface and screens, adjustments to the AI (since fighter x/wiz 1 would be equivalent to a fighter NOT to a full-fledged wizard), etc. If it's just for the benefit that a barbarian can get extra fighter feats, that doesn't seem reasonable.
'Say there is a chunk of meat. Pirates will have a banquet and eat it! But heroes will share it with other people. I want all the meat!!' - Luffy in One Piece
User avatar
BlueSalamander
Master Conjuror
 
Posts: 1292
Joined: Sun May 18, 2008 6:20 pm

Re: The two things I'd most like to see

Postby math0ne » Wed Sep 16, 2009 12:32 am

I don't like multi-classing and never use it personally.

I do love the idea of pre-buff slots though, 1-3 seems like it would be an interesting strategic dimension.
math0ne
Griffon (CR 4)
Knights of the Chalice
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:33 pm

Next

Return to Ideas for KotC 2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron