IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Guilds and races
Painbringer
post Oct 22 2005, 11:52 AM
Post #21


Adventurer
****

Group: Members Plus
Posts: 444
Joined: 13-July 05
From: Hellas (Greece)
Member No.: 373
referrer:lot of search



QUOTE (grobblewobble @ Oct 22 2005, 01:37 AM)
Probably not. But maybe Dragon's Blood could be a little less rare?
*


Oh yes! And of course the same could be done with Potions of Youth.

Moreover how about Healers gaining XP when healing or Ressurecting?
I mean, Thieves gain XP for chest unlocking, mages for charming and so on... why not Healers???


--------------------
Stranger, go back to Sparta and tell our people that we who were slain obeyed the code.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
grobblewobble
post Oct 22 2005, 02:10 PM
Post #22


Dungeon Master
******

Group: Mordor MP Prog
Posts: 890
Joined: 22-February 05
From: Netherlands
Member No.: 134
referrer:Slimey's site



@ Keltosh: where did you read something about evil mages? As far as I know, the only suggestion (made by Crusher and myself) was to restrict them to neutral, if at all.

About the sorcerer guild: that is now two people against restricting them to evil. Your idea of allowing good characters to join, but not allowing them to cast the morkal spells could be a nice alternative.
Anyone else in favour of it?

You also have a good point that restricting thieves to evil isn't all that stylish. The reason I suggested it is, because it would mean not every party could have a thief in it (and thus have access to the best chest-opening abilities).
If they remain neutral, any party could take a thief along. And I wonder if anyone would be satisfied with less than a real thief in their party. But if you already have a thief, there is little reason to include a scavenger or ninja as well. So only solo players would use those guilds.
Granted, the thiefing skill would become more useful to the other party members if their chances of being robbed would no longer be determined by the thiefing skill of the currently selected character. But then again, you could just keep pooling all money and interesting items to the thief.

@ Painbringer: the idea of XP for healing is a bit problematic. Killing dangerous monsters, or disarming dangerous traps are risky activities. Healing is something you can do as much as you want, without any risk. Ok, getting wounded first may involve some risk. :laugh.gif: But you may even have a way to get around that, like taking a companion with you with many hitpoints and a low defense.
That's why I think it should only give little XP, if any.

This post has been edited by grobblewobble: Oct 22 2005, 02:49 PM


--------------------
Fear the Society of the Psychic Tyco
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Keltosh
post Oct 22 2005, 03:25 PM
Post #23


Adventurer
****

Group: Members
Posts: 393
Joined: 25-September 04
From: Italy
Member No.: 3



QUOTE (grobblewobble @ Oct 22 2005, 04:10 PM)
@ Keltosh: where did you read something about evil mages? As far as I know, the only suggestion (made by Crusher and myself) was to restrict them to neutral, if at all.


Well, I misread this piece.

QUOTE (Nudibranch @ Oct 20 2005, 09:53 AM)
Wizard:
If I'm Neutral, I'd rather have a Healer, otherwise I'd rather have a Mage.  If Healers were Good and Mages and Sorcerers Evil, Wizard would suddenly be a very interesting choice for Neutral characters.


As of now the mage can be good or evil, so I misunderstood and thought you meant for it to be evil only. Still it's all the same, making it neutral only makes even less sense than only evil. I don't see why someone who goes around charming people CANNOT be evil tongue.gif

Keep in mind that I'm reasoning from a fantasy point of view. If you completely eliminate the story.. there's not much left tongue.gif

As for the sorceror, the point is that if you make it evil only, you are preventing a good party to have ANY offensive spell except from those of the healer (and the mage but apart from precognitive death, they mostly suck tongue.gif). And I already pointed it out in another thread that, more as a matter of common "fantasy" sense than anything else, the healer should NOT have the most powerful offensive spells in the game. I always considered the word of death an overpowered spell, given to a character class who should NOT have it. And if you're telling me that a good party cannot have ANY spellcaster at all.. what is left? I mean, it really makes no sense at all biggrin.gif That is why think my idea is more viable if you REALLY want to put in morkal spells..

As for the thief, my point was once again purely academical. You CAN have a netral thief. If you really want to restrict it to evil, you can do it I suppose. Actually you could even say that the scavenger is the good and neutral "thief". It doesn't make MUCH sense, but if it's for balancing issues.. basically you're proposing the healer to be good only and the thief evil only. I can live with that. That is, IF the sorceror is not evil only. If the sorceror is evil only you're really KILLING the good party.....

This post has been edited by Keltosh: Oct 22 2005, 03:30 PM


--------------------
"You know you’ve played too much Mordor when you start taking it personal." - Grog
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Captain
post Oct 22 2005, 11:18 PM
Post #24


Soldier
***

Group: Members
Posts: 261
Joined: 20-May 05
Member No.: 197
referrer:The magic of google...



I'm running late so I'll keep this short, In my opinon...

Sorcerer needs to remain as good+ evil, or else only neutral.
Wizards should be both evil and good, I really don't think Wizards should be all evil.
It makes perfect sense that healers are neutral. Their job is too heal people, regardless of who those people are, whether they be good or evil.
Just my thoughts on the subject.


--------------------
"These humans all suck. I'd rather be home feeling violent and lonely."

"Idle hands spend time at the genitals, and you know how much God hates that." - Old Drippy

"They asked me if I wanted to search for intelligent life out there... I told them I was still searching for it here."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nudibranch
post Oct 23 2005, 01:15 AM
Post #25


Fire Master
*********

Group: Mordor MP Prog
Posts: 1,613
Joined: 19-November 04
Member No.: 71
referrer:search



Whether you call it logic, realism, or common sense, it's all pretty arbitrary anyway. In real life, there are no alignments, nor races, nor guilds. But down in the dungeon, game balance is of central importance. A reasonable story can be constructed around whatever game balance is ultimately chosen. And you'll never settle the debate as to whether healers ought to be Good or Neutral, logically speaking. dntknw.gif

QUOTE (Keltosh @ Oct 22 2005, 11:25 AM)
As for the sorceror, the point is that if you make it evil only, you are preventing a good party to have ANY offensive spell except from those of the healer (and the mage but apart from precognitive death, they mostly suck tongue.gif).


I expect what spells each guild gets, and how effective they are, is likely to change. I agree that Healers should not have the best offensive spells -- although Word of Death is overrated. It's powerful, but Precognitive Death and Electric Field are both good too, and work against many monsters that are resistant to WoD.

As for a Good party having no spellcaster: a Good party can have Neutral members -- who might be Mages or Wizards, depending on how this debate turns out. I personally feel there ought to be one decent offensive spellcasting guild that could be of any alignment -- probably Wizard.

QUOTE (Keltosh @ Oct 22 2005, 11:25 AM)
If the sorceror is evil only you're really KILLING the good party.....


I think the hope here is to create some trade-offs between one type of character/party and another. Giving Good parties the best healing and Evil parties the best thieving and offensive spells seems to be a good way of achieving this. Evil parties will still have healing and Good parties will still have offensive spells and thieving -- just not the absolute best.

QUOTE (Keltosh @ Oct 22 2005, 04:43 AM)
If you want to finish the game solo you should (arguably) do it by choosing hybrid classes that gives you more abilities, not pure single class characters.... No powerplayers thanks biggrin.gif


Good point. A Giant, being stronger than all the other characters, should not have all their specialized abilities as well, through item use.

QUOTE (Keltosh @ Oct 22 2005, 04:43 AM)
First things first, moving classes: I'm trying to think both of game balance AND what makes sense. Also one thing: in mordor you cannot as of now have good and evil characters in the same party, so I'm assuming you'll remove the limitation. Else you will have to deal with the impossibility to have an evil party with a healer...


If Mages are Neutral, they can be in either Good or Evil parties, and bring with them adequate healing abilities. As for the "story logic" of them being Neutral... what if they were renamed to Druids? naughty.gif

QUOTE (Keltosh @ Oct 22 2005, 04:43 AM)
Thief: same reasoning as the mage here. Ok, not good for sure, but I'd say that a thief can be neutral. A master of opening lock and steling from MONSTERS tongue.gif and backstabbing them...


Unfortunately, now you're saying that Thieves, Mages, and Sorcerers can all be Neutral, but Healers must be Good, which makes Evil parties totally uncessary.

It also appears that you've forgotten that Neutral characters can be in any party. With that fact in mind, would your views about anything change?

As for killing/stealing from monsters... doesn't the Holy Warrior deserve better treatment? sneaky.gif

This post has been edited by Nudibranch: Oct 23 2005, 01:48 AM


--------------------
I would have started with lasers. Eight o'clock. Day one.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bullfrog
post Oct 23 2005, 04:48 AM
Post #26


Wanderer
**

Group: Members
Posts: 63
Joined: 29-September 04
From: Asheville, NC
Member No.: 31
referrer:Good old Mr. Google



One of the things I think needs to change is that certain races can only be certain alignments, specifically the neutral only races. Why can't I have an evil giant? I can understand that certain races would be either good or evil, like the trolls, but you would think that people of every race should have the ability to take sides.

Another thought I had was this. What if you got rid of character alignment entirely, and let the guilds you choose restrict other guilds. Confused? Me too. Maybe have it so that if a character decides to join the sorcerer's guild, they can no longer join the healer's guild or the paladin's guild. Like having the alignment of the first guild you join affect you acceptance into other guilds, but allowing a party of any combination you can think of. Maybe this is too much of a divergence from the original concept of the game...

This post has been edited by Bullfrog: Oct 23 2005, 04:49 AM


--------------------
I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.
Video Game Maps and Walkthroughs
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Keltosh
post Oct 23 2005, 11:24 AM
Post #27


Adventurer
****

Group: Members
Posts: 393
Joined: 25-September 04
From: Italy
Member No.: 3



QUOTE (Nudibranch @ Oct 23 2005, 03:15 AM)
Whether you call it logic, realism, or common sense, it's all pretty arbitrary anyway.  In real life, there are no alignments, nor races, nor guilds.  But down in the dungeon, game balance is of central importance.  A reasonable story can be constructed around whatever game balance is ultimately chosen.  And you'll never settle the debate as to whether healers ought to be Good or Neutral, logically speaking.  dntknw.gif
I expect what spells each guild gets, and how effective they are, is likely to change.  I agree that Healers should not have the best offensive spells -- although Word of Death is overrated.  It's powerful, but Precognitive Death and Electric Field are both good too, and work against many monsters that are resistant to WoD.


Very well, I willl admit it is a matter of my personal preferences as well tongue.gif . I still cannot see why you would want to avoid me frying monsters if I am good crybaby.gif . I just like too much to be a sorcerer...

But anyway, regarding the current character classes we are discussing about. As of now:
Healer mut be neutral
Thief must be neutral
Mage must be good or evil
Sorcerer and wizard can be any alignment.

After your proposals..
Healer must be good
Thief must be evil
Sorcerer must be evil
Mage must be neutral
Wizard can be any alignment

So basically, you're preventing the good party to have a sorceror and a thief, while the evil party cannot have a healer..
I suppose it all comes down to HOW the spells are remodeled. I thought braindead said somewhere (last bimonthly update maybe?) that the spells will be remodeled. I will now try my hand at completely impartial analisys typing.gif . As of now the things are like this.

Healer: best healing spells, best mid-level offensive spells (leprosis...), best high-end offensive spell (WoD) (NOOO the healer is NOT overpowered. It just has the best of everything tongue.gif)
Sorcerer: best mid-level offensive spells (same as above..), decent high end offensive spells (the elemental spells, depending who you're up against..)
Mage: charm, decent healing, decent high-end offensive spells (precognitive death)
Wizard: many spells, best offensive high end spell(WoD, and precognitive death too ...)

Now if things stay this way, any party can have word of death and precognitive death even if you restrict the healer to good, which makes the point rather moot. In fact you just need to restrict the thief to evil. After all, since the elemental spells are not the best offensive spells, the evil party doesn't gain muchf rom having the sorcerer.
However we both suppose things will change.
I think that it should be like this (at least I seriously HOPE so. I'd like someone who's working on the project to confirm this. It's not a spoiler after all...):

Healer: best healing spells, decent mid-level spells (leprosis...), decent high-end offensive spell (WoD)
Sorcerer: best mid-level and high-end spells (the elemental spells..)
Mage: charm, decent healing, decent high-end offensive spells (precognitive death)
Wizard: many spells, decent offensive high end spell(WoD, and precognitive death too ...).
This spell remodeling should be implemented both damage-wise and through monster resistances (PLEASE make it so the final boss is NOT basically immune to anything but ONE spell)

There are many possible scenarios but the most sensible according to what I read in this thread are:

1)
Healer must be good
Thief must be evil
Sorcerer must be evil
Mage must be neutral
Wizard can be any alignment (or neautral, doesn't change the fact any party can have him)

This way, the evil party gets the best thieving and offensive spells, while the good party gets the best healing

2)
Healer must be good
Thief must be evil
Sorcerer can be good or evil
Mage must be evil
Wizard can be any alignment (or neautral, doesn't change the fact any party can have him)

This way, the evil party gets the best thieving and the charm spells, while the good party gets the best healing.

In my opinion (and I'm trying as hard as I can to be impartial here), having the best healing spells is not as good as having the best thieving and the best offensive spells (AND if we add the morkal spells, the evil party has a character who can heal himself in battle too..). And this for a simple reason. You use the healing spell NOT during battle, while you use the offensive spells and the morkal spells ONLY in battle and the thieving abilities are useful both in battle and in the exploration. My point is, if I need to heal myself in an evil party, I can take my time and use minor heal or heal. Sure it is not as cost effective, but I can also use items and such. And I can also use the morkal spells in battle. However after items remodeling (which WILL be a serious depowering, I hope), it will not be as easy to compensate for not having the best offensive spells in a mortal combat (supposing the elemental spells do get a noticable advantage).

I will go back on what I said before for the mage. I must say that I think it would be more balanced the second scenario, cause in my opinion, having the best healing spells is a good tradeoff for the best thieving abilities + the charm spells. And , though I really liked my gnome paladin >_>... I must admit it makes more sense for the mage to be evil. I don't think a paladin would like someone in his party to enslave random monsters (and good monsters too...). If you're still not convinced, we could go with my previous proposals and make it so only EVIL sorceres get the morkal spells too.

I'm glad you like my idea about the hybrid classes for the solo characters though.

So what say you on my proposals ? biggrin.gif

This post has been edited by Keltosh: Oct 23 2005, 11:55 AM


--------------------
"You know you’ve played too much Mordor when you start taking it personal." - Grog
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Crusher Junior
post Oct 23 2005, 09:48 PM
Post #28


Nomad Slayer
**********

Group: Mordor MP Mod
Posts: 3,627
Joined: 25-September 04
Member No.: 10
referrer:braindead



QUOTE (Keltosh @ Oct 23 2005, 07:24 AM)
1)
Healer must be good
Thief must be evil
Sorcerer must be evil
Mage  must be neutral
Wizard can be any alignment (or neautral, doesn't change the fact any party can have him)

This way, the evil party gets the best thieving and offensive spells, while the good party gets the best healing

2)
Healer must be good
Thief must be evil
Sorcerer can be good or evil
Mage  must be evil
Wizard can be any alignment (or neautral, doesn't change the fact any party can have him)

This way, the evil party gets the best thieving and the charm spells, while the good party gets the best healing.
*


How does this sound:
Nomad: all alignments/races
Warrior: all alignments. Warriors can fight for the good and the evil, or neither.
Ninja: I can't really imagine a good ninja, but good and evil can stay. Any party can have a ninja now (so long as race permits it). This guild will need rebalancing to make it more useful.
Thief: in RPGs, I believe that thieves can be any alignment but lawful good. I find this pretty stupid. I can see a thief as neutral maybe (a man steals just enough to feed his family). And of course, an evil thief is easy to imagine. Neutral/evil sounds good here.
Magi: should be restricted to neutral only. A good magi shouldn't be charming evil monsters and vice versa.
Sorceror: someone argued that sorcerors could fight for a good cause just like warriors. I would view that spell-caster as a wizard, not a sorceror. Sorceror's spells are meant to destroy, so restricting them to evil would make sense. A possible addition of morkal spells will allow a sorceror to heal himself, which is important since there can't be a healer in the party. However, the sorceror can't heal companions and other party members with morkal spells. Sorcerors already have the best chance of killing a creature with spells since they have all the elemental spells, allowing them to have at least one spell that will affect most creatures. Evil only.
Healer: good only. Now evil parties can't have a healer. Possible re-balancing of spells. Gaining XP as you heal won't work (as stated above). You could simply walk on a pit over and over without levitating and heal up over and over.
Wizard: all alignments. Provides WoD and other attack spells for any party.
Scavenger: I always thought of these guys as being evil. I have no real basis for this however. However, being neutral will help out good parties so that they can have some sort of thief incase the thief guild is restricted to evil only.
Seeker: all alignments. Fine as is.
Paladin: good only with minor healing spells. No offensive spells.
Villain: evil only. has access to some type of morkal healing spell that can be cast on party members. The spell(s) transfer HP from one member to another, meaning that you will never gain full HP for every member by using these spells. This allows it to have an advantage and disadvantage at the same time. Has minor thieving abilities as well, including backstabing and critical hit.

The development team has other ideas in store as well. However, changing the guilds and races will not be done until we are farther in the development process. It is still important to discuss all of this though. wink.gif

QUOTE (Keltosh @ Oct 23 2005, 07:24 AM)
This spell remodeling should be implemented both damage-wise and through monster resistances (PLEASE make it so the final boss is NOT basically immune to anything but ONE spell)
*


Final boss? Secrets and surprises are in store. sneaky.gif


--------------------
It's only funny until someone gets hurt...then it's HILARIOUS

To misquote Bill Gates: "500 million should be enough for anyone".
-elro
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Keltosh
post Oct 24 2005, 12:41 AM
Post #29


Adventurer
****

Group: Members
Posts: 393
Joined: 25-September 04
From: Italy
Member No.: 3



QUOTE (Crusher Junior @ Oct 23 2005, 11:48 PM)
How does this sound:
Nomad: all alignments/races
Warrior: all alignments. Warriors can fight for the good and the evil, or neither.
Ninja: I can't really imagine a good ninja, but good and evil can stay. Any party can have a ninja now (so long as race permits it). This guild will need rebalancing to make it more useful.
Thief: in RPGs, I believe that thieves can be any alignment but lawful good. I find this pretty stupid. I can see a thief as neutral maybe (a man steals just enough to feed his family). And of course, an evil thief is easy to imagine. Neutral/evil sounds good here.
Magi: should be restricted to neutral only. A good magi shouldn't be charming evil monsters and vice versa.
Sorceror: someone argued that sorcerors could fight for a good cause just like warriors. I would view that spell-caster as a wizard, not a sorceror. Sorceror's spells are meant to destroy, so restricting them to evil would make sense. A possible addition of morkal spells will allow a sorceror to heal himself, which is important since there can't be a healer in the party. However, the sorceror can't heal companions and other party members with morkal spells. Sorcerors already have the best chance of killing a creature with spells since they have all the elemental spells, allowing them to have at least one spell that will affect most creatures. Evil only.
Healer: good only. Now evil parties can't have a healer. Possible re-balancing of spells. Gaining XP as you heal won't work (as stated above). You could simply walk on a pit over and over without levitating and heal up over and over.
Wizard: all alignments. Provides WoD and other attack spells for any party.
Scavenger: I always thought of these guys as being evil. I have no real basis for this however. However, being neutral will help out good parties so that they can have some sort of thief incase the thief guild is restricted to evil only.
Seeker: all alignments. Fine as is.
Paladin: good only with minor healing spells. No offensive spells.
Villain: evil only. has access to some type of morkal healing spell that can be cast on party members. The spell(s) transfer HP from one member to another, meaning that you will never gain full HP for every member by using these spells. This allows it to have an advantage and disadvantage at the same time. Has minor thieving abilities as well, including backstabing and critical hit.

Well, ultimately we all have our preferences, out of years of playing. I realize that due to this it's difficult to come down to an agreement. Most of what you wrote makes very much sense to me, and I completely agree with it.

The things I'd change, as I stated above, would be:
thief and mage evil
Sorcerer good or evil
I know I'm a stubborn bastard biggrin.gif But I still think it would be nice if the good party would not have the thief and the mage while the evil party cannot have the healer. And I also think it makes more sense for the thief and the mage to be evil tongue.gif

Since it seems we both have our opinions (and at this point it's kind of a matter of personal preferences biggrin.gif), I'd like to hear the others members of the forum biggrin.gif. Tell us what you think and why you think so. Try to convince either me or Crusher, or tell which of our configurations you prefer tongue.gif

Or maybe make new and interesting propostions. I'm open to suggestions biggrin.gif

QUOTE (Crusher Junior @ Oct 23 2005, 11:48 PM)
Final boss? Secrets and surprises are in store. sneaky.gif


I really hope so. Makes me want to play the game more biggrin.gif

EDIT: I really need to use fewer smilies ..... dntknw.gif

EDIT n.2 And to go to bed. 2.36 AM >_>

This post has been edited by Keltosh: Oct 24 2005, 12:44 AM


--------------------
"You know you’ve played too much Mordor when you start taking it personal." - Grog
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
grobblewobble
post Oct 24 2005, 11:08 AM
Post #30


Dungeon Master
******

Group: Mordor MP Prog
Posts: 890
Joined: 22-February 05
From: Netherlands
Member No.: 134
referrer:Slimey's site



Well, I am probably repeating myself here, but:

- I would like to see evil only thieves because it makes scavengers/ninjas more useful.

- I would like to see mages as Neutral only because otherwise, there would be too little reasons left to play a neutral character. I also agree with Nudibranch on the name "Druid" and his point that charming evil monsters is a strange thing to do if you're good.

- I would like to see Sorcerer as Evil for basically Crushers reasons.

Further, I would also like it if the best Banish and Dispell spells would become a little more effective, and I wouldn't mind it if the paladin guild would get some limited access to those. This would give good parties a little more blasting power, be it restricted to eradicating their Enemies. hypocrite.gif

Being able to destroy the Evil of Evils with an expensive, high-powered Banishment spell sounds very cool. Of course there would be other ways available to defeat him, too..


--------------------
Fear the Society of the Psychic Tyco
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aardless
post Oct 24 2005, 03:28 PM
Post #31


Goblin Shaman at work (used to be: on strike...)
**********

Group: Admin
Posts: 5,406
Joined: 27-September 04
From: Somewhere on level 3, staring at the light
Member No.: 18
referrer::yahoo:



@Nudi: you're right I forgot Defense (and Attack and HP). dry.gif I'd rather not touch guild HPs, we risk making a mess tongue.gif . Regarding Att and Def, I'm afraid with the current set-up the game would be unwinnable by a party, let alone a soloer. So we will have to change something to that, but it will have to wait until we know how many dungeon floors, monsters, etc., we want.

Age reducing potions: my take on this is that we should have more types of potions, with more or less the same rarity, rather than increasing their frequency. There's no reason to force an old character who cruises on level 8 to clear levels 1-3 to get a potion of youth.

Sorcerer: is currently just an elementalist, who are usually not morally bound either way. If we add morkal spells to evil sorcerers, good sorcerers need to get something else, or evil sorcerers need to give up something, in the spirit of fairness. Personally, I see sorcerers remain as they are, and a new evil-only guild with morkal spells and stuff (yeah, I'm obsessed with new stuff crazy.gif ). Morkal magic sounds too strong to add to an already powerful and popular guild like sorcerer.

Mage:
QUOTE (Keltosh)
I don't see why someone who goes around charming people CANNOT be evil
Actually, charming evil monsters to do all the dirty work to defeat an evil overlord strikes me as a particularly sneaky way to do some good, at least in a fantasy setting. The same goes for an evil mage charming good monsters.

Healer: I don't have any problem with healers knowing one of the strongets spells in the game. If someone knows how to heal or even how to give life, they certainly know a good way of reversing that too.
QUOTE (Captain)
It makes perfect sense that healers are neutral. Their job is too heal people, regardless of who those people are, whether they be good or evil.
That's usually the hallmark of the good guy, not the neutral guy. whistling.gif

@Bullfrog: the neutral-only races can join any party, so it's not a big deal. I suspect the limitations are there to prevent players from selecting a Good Dwarf or Osiri, which would be quite a silly mistake. There's no particular reason why you shouldn't be an Evil Giant, though.
The other idea, seemed at first a great idea, but it's basically alignment without alignment, which raises a few problems with items.

Spells: nothing's set, but I believe we will change the Base/Power of a few spells. The weakest and strongest of each spell class seem ok to me (well, Poison isn't ok happy.gif , a few of the strongest spells too). It's the in-between spells that need some serious thought, IMO. Static Mesh is just ridiculous as second strongest Electrical spell.

@Crusher: I believe in the 3rd edition, thieves can be anything but Lawful, so they can be Good, Neutral and Evil. Good thief -> Robin Hood. naughty.gif
Villain: you're increasing their usefulness, but not that of Paladins.
Scavenger: laugh.gif, I always thought of them as doing their interests, pure-neutrals. :laugh.gif:

@Grobble: it would make sense to change the name of Mage to Druid, *if* we change the alignment restriction to neutral. I agree also on the fact that the various suggestions are too polarised on Good/Evil, with next to no suggestions for neutral alignment. Abolish Undead isn't a bad spell at all, as it is.


--------------------
If money doesn't grow on trees, why is it that banks have branches? - sig of a guy on a chinese forum

Most off-topic topics are off-topic - fart642000
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
grobblewobble
post Oct 24 2005, 05:16 PM
Post #32


Dungeon Master
******

Group: Mordor MP Prog
Posts: 890
Joined: 22-February 05
From: Netherlands
Member No.: 134
referrer:Slimey's site



IMHO Abolish Undead should deal more damage than the best "general" magical damage spell (WoD), because its use is restricted to a single monstertype. The way things are now, there is only one reason I use this spell: because I can cast it for free with Cross of Commanding. Another of those stupid, way-over-the-top spellcasting items. ranting.gif

The Banish Devil/Demon spells don't seem any useful at all. They are relatively strong spells considering their mana-cost, but there are no interesting targets. That's mainly because Demons and Devils aren't any dangerous, midgame.

It is a shame that against the toughest monsters with low magical resistance, WoD is currently the best spell, regardless whether they are Servants of Evil or not.


--------------------
Fear the Society of the Psychic Tyco
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Captain
post Oct 25 2005, 12:13 AM
Post #33


Soldier
***

Group: Members
Posts: 261
Joined: 20-May 05
Member No.: 197
referrer:The magic of google...



Maybe there could be a way for certain things to work... Maybe if you wanted an evil giant, he could have exceptions and still be treated (guildwise) as neutral?
I think something like that would work quite well... dntknw.gif

My main hope is that the game isn't drastically changed. ohmy.gif

QUOTE (aardless @ Oct 24 2005, 10:28 AM)
@Crusher: I believe in the 3rd edition, thieves can be anything but Lawful, so they can be Good, Neutral and Evil. Good thief -> Robin Hood. naughty.gif
Villain: you're increasing their usefulness, but not that of Paladins.
Scavenger: laugh.gif, I always thought of them as doing their interests, pure-neutrals. :laugh.gif:
*


I happen to be related to Robin Hood, my great aunt Something-Hood traced back my ancestry a couple hundred years and we found out that we are related to a man called Robin Hood. (Before that they thought they were related to him, but didn't look up the proof...)


--------------------
"These humans all suck. I'd rather be home feeling violent and lonely."

"Idle hands spend time at the genitals, and you know how much God hates that." - Old Drippy

"They asked me if I wanted to search for intelligent life out there... I told them I was still searching for it here."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BeefontheBone
post Oct 25 2005, 09:35 AM
Post #34


Head of Imbuing
**********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 2,222
Joined: 7-June 05
Member No.: 213
referrer:reefer: reference: preferrer



*quickly protects money pouch*


--------------------
QUOTE (George Bernard Shaw (to TE Lawrence @ on the Seven Pillars of Wisdom))
"You practically do not use semicolons at all. This is a symptom of mental defectiveness, probably induced by camp life."

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
slimboy76
post Oct 25 2005, 10:24 AM
Post #35


Teacher
****

Group: Members
Posts: 476
Joined: 12-August 05
From: Jakarta
Member No.: 521
referrer:search via google



Well, how about simplify things,
Healer:Good or Evil.
Thief:Good or Evil.
There's a good doctor, or evil doctor like the ones we read in newspaper
There's a good thief like robin hood and there's a thief who basically evil. One thing that will be the difference, is the good healer or good thief will learn different spells from the guild, while the evil ones learn another kind of spells.

(Quoting Aardles)Sorcerer: is currently just an elementalist, who are usually not morally bound either way. If we add morkal spells to evil sorcerers, good sorcerers need to get something else, or evil sorcerers need to give up something, in the spirit of fairness.

Why can't we be like that?.........(hmmm, my last line sounds like some lyrics from a song) wacko.gif


--------------------
"Giving up smoking is the easiest thing in the world. I know because I've done it thousands of times."
-- Mark Twain.

"I say no to drugs, but they don't listen."
- Marilyn Manson
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
grobblewobble
post Oct 25 2005, 12:57 PM
Post #36


Dungeon Master
******

Group: Mordor MP Prog
Posts: 890
Joined: 22-February 05
From: Netherlands
Member No.: 134
referrer:Slimey's site



@Slimboy: You are basically suggesting to create 2 additional guilds: the "evil healer guild" and the "good thief guild". With new sets of spells.
But such guilds already exist! The "evil healer" are the guilds with morkal spells (and the neutral mage); the "good thieves" are ninja and scavenger.
So it would not simplify things at all, it would only create redundancy.

@Aardless: Introducing a new spellcaster guild that gets the morkal spells and leaving the sorcerer guild as it is, that sounds reasonable. What other spells would the new guild get? Morkal spells aren't enough in itself, after all..

Idea: you could make it a necromancer, with spells to create undead companions..


--------------------
Fear the Society of the Psychic Tyco
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fart642000
post Oct 25 2005, 08:51 PM
Post #37


IT'S A DRABBIT!
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 2,283
Joined: 26-September 04
From: Quebec, Canada
Member No.: 15
referrer:I searched the earth for it until braindead sent me an invite



QUOTE (grobblewobble @ Oct 25 2005, 08:57 AM)
Idea: you could make it a necromancer, with spells to create undead companions..
*


maybe you could bring back monsters you kill at half the stats or something


--------------------
Waffles - Well, you know what they say: kill thy neighbour, because it saves you having to remember two of the ten commandments. :D

Me:anyway i find it a bit scary how alike we think sometimes...
BL: It's because we're right :P
My forum (improved)

Braindead: Fart teaching me how to spell, LOL :) What will be next I wonder? :D
Cowboy:I leave you guys alone for 1 day and it's an orgy of politics and sex... what can I say, I taught you well :devilish:
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Outside666
post Nov 1 2005, 11:20 AM
Post #38


Wanderer
**

Group: Members
Posts: 74
Joined: 31-January 05
From: Netherlands
Member No.: 109
referrer:google



QUOTE (grobblewobble @ Oct 18 2005, 02:30 PM)
ninja:
If the multiple swing system is changed to work like it does in Demise, the
ninja guild starts shining. This system allows more interesting trade-offs
between different weapons, too. On the flipside, I have the impression it is too easy to
beat monsters to death in Demise. With a party with 24 or so total swings, this
should be no surprise. So maybe the damage characters deal should be decreased,
or the number of hitpoints monsters have should be increased. dntknw.gif
*


This reminded me of the GameBoy version of Lufia. There is a special attack called "Scattered hit" it lets you attack 6 times with 50% attack, so it are actually 3 normal hits.

Letting the damage drop a bit with every extra swing, defeating monsters will not be too easy.


--------------------
I'm back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rotlung
post Nov 16 2005, 02:44 PM
Post #39


Explorer
***

Group: Members
Posts: 135
Joined: 7-October 05
From: Singapore
Member No.: 797
referrer:Yahoo!



Sorcerers can have any alignment. Evil Sorcerers could be.... Warlocks?


--------------------
You are a disaster.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Crusher Junior
post Nov 16 2005, 10:01 PM
Post #40


Nomad Slayer
**********

Group: Mordor MP Mod
Posts: 3,627
Joined: 25-September 04
Member No.: 10
referrer:braindead



QUOTE (Rotlung @ Nov 16 2005, 09:44 AM)
Sorcerers can have any alignment. Evil Sorcerers could be.... Warlocks?
*


do you mean from a roleplaying point?


--------------------
It's only funny until someone gets hurt...then it's HILARIOUS

To misquote Bill Gates: "500 million should be enough for anyone".
-elro
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 27th May 2020 - 02:53 PM
Bridged By IpbWiki: Integration Of Invision Power Board and MediaWiki © GlobalSoft
Copyrights and Credits