Skills and Spells suggestion thread

For all Bard's Tale IV discussion that does not fit elsewhere, suggestions, feedback, etc. No spoilers allowed.

Moderator: Bard Hall Bouncers

Post Reply
User avatar
Drool
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9791
Joined: March 17th, 2012, 9:58 pm
Location: Under Tenebrosia, doing shots with Sceadu.

Re: Skills and Spells suggestion thread

Post by Drool » July 12th, 2015, 12:57 pm

Yes, but casting times and interrupting spells are all over MMOs.
Alwa nasci korliri das.

meganothing
Scholar
Posts: 238
Joined: April 28th, 2012, 4:40 am

Re: Skills and Spells suggestion thread

Post by meganothing » July 12th, 2015, 1:39 pm

Drool wrote:Yes, but casting times and interrupting spells are all over MMOs.
In MMOs it is a test of your reaction speed. In MMOs it often means death of you or the party if such a thing isn't countered. No choice really,

In a turn-based RPG (or a pen&paper) it is just a skill you might or might not have and which you might try or might decide not to do (because: low chance, better action available, spell not worth it...). In other words: it gives you choices.

InXile wants to have 9 classes with a few specializations for each class, not only for the mages. If they don't bring in some complexity into the combat, all that specialization will be window dressing. "Oh, spezialization 1 gives me blunt damage, half of the monster will get more damage, the other half less. Spezialization 2 gives me slashing damage, half the monsters will get more damage, the other half less. Oh, that is deep stuff, I have to think about it". Not really. (Grimrock got away with it, it was a short game and combat was real-time)

jrodman
Explorer
Posts: 352
Joined: March 13th, 2012, 9:15 pm

Re: Skills and Spells suggestion thread

Post by jrodman » July 12th, 2015, 3:35 pm

Class variation doesn't have to be rich in order to be existent. Consider OE D&D or Holmes or Moldvay etc Fighter vs Dwarf vs Halfling. Mechanically the differences are quite subtle, but yet players had lots of fun with the variation. And they are definitely not identical.

As for interrupts on spellcasting you have to start thinking what sort of system you would want.

D&D style interrupts do not rely on any particular skills. They rely on distracting the caster. This can be done by *any* means because it's a tabletop game. Do you arrange to fill the entire space with a cloud of flour? Do you make a noise so loud they cannot hear themselves think? Or do you just stab them? Any of the above would work.

A wow-style game has a lot of special actions on weird cooldowns to try to force different players to have different responsibilities in an interlocking web of challenge.

Since this isn't a tabletop game nor is it a multiplayer game, templates probably lie elsewhere.
If it was a novel property, I would suggest looking at games like Grandia or Xenosaga for inspiration, with upcoming actions, and the ability to have them delayed or possibly countered. However, since this is intended to be Bard's Tale, I would suggest long casting times and a significant focus on spell cancellation is probably not appropriate.

meganothing
Scholar
Posts: 238
Joined: April 28th, 2012, 4:40 am

Re: Skills and Spells suggestion thread

Post by meganothing » July 12th, 2015, 4:32 pm

jrodman wrote:Class variation doesn't have to be rich in order to be existent. Consider OE D&D or Holmes or Moldvay etc Fighter vs Dwarf vs Halfling. Mechanically the differences are quite subtle, but yet players had lots of fun with the variation. And they are definitely not identical.
Why do you compare a fighter (a class) with dwarf and halfing (races) ?

As for interrupts on spellcasting you have to start thinking what sort of system you would want.

D&D style interrupts do not rely on any particular skills. They rely on distracting the caster. This can be done by *any* means because it's a tabletop game. Do you arrange to fill the entire space with a cloud of flour? Do you make a noise so loud they cannot hear themselves think? Or do you just stab them? Any of the above would work.
Sure, any attack would work. But distracting a mage in back row with a front-row fighter should be quite impossible, he is out of reach (if he uses a bow in front row he should be an easy target and die fast, right?). So you need a ranged fighter like a ranger or a mage to do that. But it shouldn't be easy to distract mages, otherwise mages would be of no use anymore.
And if you are inXile and have to find some specializations, it would be a nice opportunity to make a rogue-spezialization for back-row-hunter with a tumbler skill. Also good to hunt other back-row classes, but with low damage after a tumble only effective as spell interrupter (otherwise the tumbler skill would be to good).
Or a ranger spezialization for mage-hunter, with skills aimed at interrupting mages. He knows enough about spells to know the moments when the mage has to have the highest concentration thereby getting a better chance. A normal ranger or a fighter with a bow can do the same, his chances are just much lower.

A wow-style game has a lot of special actions on weird cooldowns to try to force different players to have different responsibilities in an interlocking web of challenge.
Again that wow-word. Is a 'disarm' attack of a fighter (aka a "special action") something that reminds you of wow? It reminds me of a lot of RPGs I played. If a fighter can only do 'attack' or 'flee', he isn't interesting anymore, he is just a tank. And THAT would remind me of wow.

Please show me the fighter you envision for BT. What attacks or abilities in combat should he have and why is each of these attacks and abilities NOT a special action?

User avatar
ZiN
Adventurer
Posts: 682
Joined: January 27th, 2015, 7:57 am

Re: Skills and Spells suggestion thread

Post by ZiN » July 12th, 2015, 4:46 pm

I would also suggest Pillars of Eternity. It gives the freedom of choice, to make a character (with high perception) who's good at interrupts, so you can run around interrupting everything. It also has attacks of opportunity and tactical positioning. Basically it complies with all of your ideas. In the case you've already played it, all the more good for you, because you got a game exactly like you wanted.
I have a snowball's chance in hell, to get that, with BT4, but nevertheless i'm going to keep fighting! :twisted:
meganothing wrote:Please show me the fighter you envision for BT. What attacks or abilities in combat should he have and why is each of these attacks and abilities NOT a special action?
Because his "abilities" are:
- Lots of HP
- Use most weapons/armor
- 2nd best # of attacks progression

meganothing
Scholar
Posts: 238
Joined: April 28th, 2012, 4:40 am

Re: Skills and Spells suggestion thread

Post by meganothing » July 12th, 2015, 5:30 pm

ZiN wrote: Because his "abilities" are:
- Lots of HP
- Use most weapons/armor
- 2nd best # of attacks progression
That might be possible too. InXile could give the fighter passive abilities to choose at level-up that just give him more hit points and allow him better attacks. That would then be the fighter without spezialisation.

I don't understand why you find it interesting to just spam the attack key in fights, but there is no reason that "simple" archetypes couldn't exist.

User avatar
ZiN
Adventurer
Posts: 682
Joined: January 27th, 2015, 7:57 am

Re: Skills and Spells suggestion thread

Post by ZiN » July 12th, 2015, 7:02 pm

meganothing wrote:Again that wow-word. Is a 'disarm' attack of a fighter (aka a "special action") something that reminds you of wow? It reminds me of a lot of RPGs I played. If a fighter can only do 'attack' or 'flee', he isn't interesting anymore, he is just a tank. And THAT would remind me of wow.
Hmm, i take it that you haven't played WoW (or if you did, you haven't been tanking)? Or Bard's Tale for that matter. Sure, disarm is fine, go ahead and add it to the game (Dragon Wars had it), but in a typical Bard's Tale fight it won't be that useful. You see, when you encounter these guys disarming one won't do you too much good anyway, as a warrior you're way better off just attacking and being a meatshield for your backrow.
meganothing wrote:I don't understand why you find it interesting to just spam the attack key in fights, but there is no reason that "simple" archetypes couldn't exist.
That's what my fighters did in BT1-3, Dragon Wars (he could go normal/mighty blow or disarm), Wizardry 6-8 (depending on weapon he could bash, thrust, swing, or berserk), M&M 2-8 and Realms of Arkania, and somehow i enjoyed those games' combat nevertheless.

Anyways, don't worry, they will be adding lots of special attacks and combos for everyone, because according to the mainstream opinion, a modern blobber just gotta have that.

For fighters i imagine it more like a mostly passive set of special skills.

Tuoweit
Acolyte
Posts: 94
Joined: September 27th, 2014, 11:25 am

Re: Skills and Spells suggestion thread

Post by Tuoweit » July 12th, 2015, 8:51 pm

meganothing wrote:
jrodman wrote:Class variation doesn't have to be rich in order to be existent. Consider OE D&D or Holmes or Moldvay etc Fighter vs Dwarf vs Halfling. Mechanically the differences are quite subtle, but yet players had lots of fun with the variation. And they are definitely not identical.
Why do you compare a fighter (a class) with dwarf and halfing (races) ?
In the old boxed D&D game, Dwarf and Halfling were classes, just like Fighter.

User avatar
Crosmando
Supreme Jerk
Posts: 5136
Joined: January 3rd, 2013, 8:48 am

Re: Skills and Spells suggestion thread

Post by Crosmando » July 12th, 2015, 8:58 pm

1st edition D&D you mean, which was pretty primitive compared to later editions.
Matthias did nothing wrong!

User avatar
Zombra
Global Moderator
Posts: 6213
Joined: March 8th, 2012, 10:50 pm

Re: Skills and Spells suggestion thread

Post by Zombra » July 12th, 2015, 11:36 pm

Just to throw this out, I don't have ideas for specific abilities (though it's great to see the old BT fans with detailed suggestions on the best spells to implement here). Just wanted to say that I'm not especially interested in lots of tactical movement, front to back, side to side, shifting ranks, changing formation. I am the type of player who likes to formate his party once and stick with it.

In other news, my first thought was: "Will every class have cool things to do in combat?" I looked over the list of classes and it looks like they will. Paladins will have their support abilities, Warriors will have straight up combat numbers, Hunters will have critical hits, Rogues will hopefully have lots of noncombat utility, Bards certainly won't be neglected, and spellcasters obviously have their whole deal. The only meh looking class are Monks at this point, not really interested in them building up their meter or whatever before they can attack at full strength. But maybe some people will enjoy that. So I'm confident that every class will be an interesting choice, which to me is the paramount question in class design.
Image

User avatar
Crosmando
Supreme Jerk
Posts: 5136
Joined: January 3rd, 2013, 8:48 am

Re: Skills and Spells suggestion thread

Post by Crosmando » July 13th, 2015, 12:27 am

Monks are the masters of Eastern martial arts and stuff
Matthias did nothing wrong!

jrodman
Explorer
Posts: 352
Joined: March 13th, 2012, 9:15 pm

Re: Skills and Spells suggestion thread

Post by jrodman » July 13th, 2015, 12:44 am

meganothing wrote:
jrodman wrote:Class variation doesn't have to be rich in order to be existent. Consider OE D&D or Holmes or Moldvay etc Fighter vs Dwarf vs Halfling. Mechanically the differences are quite subtle, but yet players had lots of fun with the variation. And they are definitely not identical.
Why do you compare a fighter (a class) with dwarf and halfing (races) ?
If you're not familiar with the materiel to which I'm referring, perhaps you should ask about it, instead of making false assertions.
Hint: 0E does not have a seperate choice of race and class.
Tuoweit wrote: In the old boxed D&D game, Dwarf and Halfling were classes, just like Fighter.
You're referring to 1981 or 1983 Basic, which also has that characteristic. I'm referring to 1977 original D&D with the Greyhawk supplement. However, the differences are moderately subtle.
meganothing wrote:
jrodman wrote:D&D style interrupts do not rely on any particular skills. They rely on distracting the caster. This can be done by *any* means because it's a tabletop game. Do you arrange to fill the entire space with a cloud of flour? Do you make a noise so loud they cannot hear themselves think? Or do you just stab them? Any of the above would work.
Sure, any attack would work. But distracting a mage in back row with a front-row fighter should be quite impossible....
WHOOOSH!

In a tabletop RPG there is no "I am front row, I am in the back row". It isn''t about "game balance" but about letting you try almost anything reasonable.

If you want to make suggestions about how they would work in a video-gamey way that's fine, but why make them in response to a quote in which they are an irrelevant context?
meganothing wrote:
jrodman wrote:A wow-style game has a lot of special actions on weird cooldowns to try to force different players to have different responsibilities in an interlocking web of challenge.
Again that wow-word. Is a 'disarm' attack of a fighter (aka a "special action") something that reminds you of wow?
You are missing a few boats.

First, the post gives a few different examples of traditions into which that sort of interplay might fit. You should accept that wow is a well-known example of a game in which interrupts are a thing.

Second, YES, it reminds me of WOW to have say fighters have a DIsarm ability that no other hand to hand fighters have. In a tabletop RPG environment, any character who was especially motivated to master the ability to disarm well would probably find a way to achieve it. But what would make it truly wow-like would be having the balance be how long the cooldown is before you can do it again.

If a fighter can only do 'attack' or 'flee', he isn't interesting anymore, he is just a tank. And THAT would remind me of wow.
Well this is an easy fallacy. You believe that if a specific ability is not available to fighters, AND ONLY FIGHTERS, that they will only have two abilities. That certainly does not follow.

Additionally, as someone who played as the highest DPS in a Naxxramas 40 raid as a warrior, at time of progression, I quite disagree that warriors in WOW can only tank. Separately, tanking in WOW is quite active, so a lack of abilities would not remind me of tanking in WOW.

User avatar
Drool
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9791
Joined: March 17th, 2012, 9:58 pm
Location: Under Tenebrosia, doing shots with Sceadu.

Re: Skills and Spells suggestion thread

Post by Drool » July 13th, 2015, 12:43 pm

jrodman wrote:You're referring to 1981 or 1983 Basic, which also has that characteristic. I'm referring to 1977 original D&D with the Greyhawk supplement. However, the differences are moderately subtle.
The old "photocopy of the game in a plastic baggie" edition? Never played that one. Had Redbook though. Elf was another class/race.
Additionally, as someone who played as the highest DPS in a Naxxramas 40 raid as a warrior, at time of progression, I quite disagree that warriors in WOW can only tank. Separately, tanking in WOW is quite active, so a lack of abilities would not remind me of tanking in WOW.
I have to agree here. Tanking in an MMO is a bit of an art, and probably tied for difficulty with healing. Anyone can tank or heal, but being a good tank or healer is something completely different. I'm pretty sure I couldn't tank for shit, but it's really easy to tell when you've got a good tank vs a bad tank. Especially when you're playing a DPS class with an outrageously high attack speed. If I only steal aggro twice in a dungeon, I consider the tank good. I've had times where every single fight I've stolen aggro.

But we're wandering far afield here.
Zombra wrote:The only meh looking class are Monks at this point, not really interested in them building up their meter or whatever before they can attack at full strength.
I'm not pleased with that either. Monks used to be good for A) getting lots of extra attacks, B) having naturally improving AC, and thus C) having plenty of space in their inventory for plot items or harmonic gems. In many ways, they were very much 1st Ed AD&D Monks. If you look at my Tarjan video (or even the Sceadu one), you'll see that they have just insane AC. And those guys were wearing starting armor. As an experiment, I used a character editor to pop a monk to near max level. His AC eventually turned into ***, which was probably -100 or more, before eventually wrapping around to +90 and starting to go down again.

Anyway, what it boiled down to was, they were like hyper-agile glass cannons. They hit like a freight train and were almost impossible to touch, but if something did make contact, they were probably going down. I really don't know how they'll fit in with this whole charging business. But if they keep it so that they get stronger as you go further in a dungeon, it might be interesting. Overcomplicated, but interesting.
Alwa nasci korliri das.

User avatar
Skor
Initiate
Posts: 1
Joined: July 8th, 2015, 12:12 pm

Re: Skills and Spells suggestion thread

Post by Skor » July 13th, 2015, 12:50 pm

I'd like to see a skill that front liner's can use to intercede attacks upon someone they are adjacent to with a chance to block/parry/ or take the damage of an attack meant for someone else depending on their skill level. Perhaps at a low skill level, they are able to substitute themselves as the target. At higher skill levels they can block a portion of the damage, or parry the entire attack, or even at really high levels perform a riposte upon the attacker. And maybe you can have a small percentage of times where the skill is used automatically without costing the action of the skilled individual.

"When The Going Gets Tough, The Bard Goes Drinking."

meganothing
Scholar
Posts: 238
Joined: April 28th, 2012, 4:40 am

Re: Skills and Spells suggestion thread

Post by meganothing » July 13th, 2015, 4:19 pm

jrodman wrote: WHOOOSH!

In a tabletop RPG there is no "I am front row, I am in the back row". It isn''t about "game balance" but about letting you try almost anything reasonable.

If you want to make suggestions about how they would work in a video-gamey way that's fine, but why make them in response to a quote in which they are an irrelevant context?
Rereading your message I understand what you wanted to say. But now try to understand what I wanted to say in the message you were replying to. I was refuting "accusations" of implementing MMO skills in BT. I'm not interested in (re)creating a D&D or wow skill in BT. I want to find a skill that provides interesting mechanics in this blobber system with front and back row. I brought up D&D in a reply to ZIN and Drool for the sole purpose of showing that spell interruption is not an idea or invention of WoW. Other than that I'm not interested in either D&Ds or WoWs spell interuptions.

You can argue that spell interruptions are not a tradition of blobbers. I agree and I don't really care. But I will argue that some form of spell interruption will fit quite nicely into a blobber.
Second, YES, it reminds me of WOW to have say fighters have a DIsarm ability that no other hand to hand fighters have. In a tabletop RPG environment, any character who was especially motivated to master the ability to disarm well would probably find a way to achieve it. But what would make it truly wow-like would be having the balance be how long the cooldown is before you can do it again.
I assume you don't want to imply that I said anything about cooldowns.

You say in a tabletop RPG any character could master disarm? But in most versions of AD&D lots of skills and abilities were very class-specific (oh sure you could double-class. Nevertheless the ranger could still not take disarm, even if he was level 20 and fighting a level 1 peasant. And a friend tells me that double-classing was restricted to demi-humans). To say that that is a defining property of a tabletop RPG is quite strange.
If a fighter can only do 'attack' or 'flee', he isn't interesting anymore, he is just a tank. And THAT would remind me of wow.
...
Separately, tanking in WOW is quite active, so a lack of abilities would not remind me of tanking in WOW.
Correct, I wasn't thinking straight when I made that comparison

jrodman
Explorer
Posts: 352
Joined: March 13th, 2012, 9:15 pm

Re: Skills and Spells suggestion thread

Post by jrodman » July 13th, 2015, 7:46 pm

meganothing wrote:But now try to understand what I wanted to say in the message you were replying to. I was refuting "accusations"
Yes, but I don't care about those accusations or a refutation of them.
meganothing wrote: You say in a tabletop RPG any character could master disarm? But in most versions of AD&D lots of skills and abilities were very class-specific....
The kind of D&D that I play, and the kind that is any good, does not list "disarm" as an ability of any class. Also come on, if you think you have to do what the book says, then you're playing such games the most boring way possible.

Yes, the Wizard has some ability to cast spells which is specific to Wizards, because supposedly they studied their whole lives to get anywhere with it. And that's very gamey. But disarming is something anyone is going to be able to try. They just might be way more likely to fail. Similarly, I have a Fighter who is super paranoid about detecting otherworldly assailants (he believes he's going to die in some unknown horrible way constant), so in addition to paying people to sneak up on him to try to develop preternatural sensitivity to danger, he keeps seeking out knowledge and artifacts to reveal dark intents and powers.

You can drive the game yourself, no matter what the book says. And that's the brilliance of it.
nothing wrote: And a friend tells me that double-classing was restricted to demi-humans).
Your friend is wrong in regards to every edition of D&D, but that's a whole different topic
To say that that is a defining property of a tabletop RPG is quite strange.
Which makes it a fine thing that I never did say that.

meganothing
Scholar
Posts: 238
Joined: April 28th, 2012, 4:40 am

Re: Skills and Spells suggestion thread

Post by meganothing » July 14th, 2015, 6:07 am

jrodman wrote: The kind of D&D that I play, and the kind that is any good, does not list "disarm" as an ability of any class.
To paraphrase "disarm is never class specific, except in the wrong kind of D&D that I don't recognize as valid for this discussion". Impossible to argue with such a position.
Also come on, if you think you have to do what the book says, then you're playing such games the most boring way possible.
One of the p&p sessions I play started with a free mix of AD&D 2 and 3 and transformed mid-game first into pathfinder, then spelljammer. So yes, I know that any rule is up to negotiation. It still means that the book is a guideline and if you argue every rule with your GM because it should work differently, you will be as popular as a rules lawyer.

In a computer game those rules are fixed and a lot of the fascination of a p&p session is lost in that regard, but still we and lots of others like to play them. And games like Baldurs Gate, Torment or Temple of elemental Evil incorporated many to most of the rules of AD&D into a computer game and it worked. Obviously there the role model that you were discounting in your first reply worked in all its inflexibility (which is unavoidable without a DM).

jrodman
Explorer
Posts: 352
Joined: March 13th, 2012, 9:15 pm

Re: Skills and Spells suggestion thread

Post by jrodman » July 14th, 2015, 7:49 am

meganothing wrote:
jrodman wrote: The kind of D&D that I play, and the kind that is any good, does not list "disarm" as an ability of any class.
To paraphrase "disarm is never class specific, except in the wrong kind of D&D that I don't recognize as valid for this discussion". Impossible to argue with such a position.
Well, factually, disarm isn't in original D&D; AD&D; Holmes, Moldvay, or Mentzer basic; or AD&D 2nd edition.
Practically, D&D that starts trying to quantity powers to the extent that players start thinking they can't be creative with what they do pretty much guts the core creativity of the experience, and transforms it into a rather plodding tatics game.

But hey, pidgeonhole instead of understand.

Also come on, if you think you have to do what the book says, then you're playing such games the most boring way possible.
One of the p&p sessions I play started with a free mix of AD&D 2 and 3 and transformed mid-game first into pathfinder, then spelljammer. So yes, I know that any rule is up to negotiation. It still means that the book is a guideline and if you argue every rule with your GM because it should work differently, you will be as popular as a rules lawyer.
The difference between a rules lawyer and someone who plays creatively is *NOT* a matter of being interested in trying things that aren't in the book. The difference is in saying "I try to ..." or "I want to ..." instead of "I get to do xyz because dragon magazine says I can."

Rules lawyers are quite specifically *not* creatively playing the game, thinking freely about what they'd like to do in the game situation. Instead they are thinking so specifically about the text of the game as a iron guide to play that they are intoning its authority, correctly or incorrectly, to override table decision making.

So no, rule lawyers are pretty much the *opposite* of what I'm talking about.

Of course if the GM is rulebound thinker about the game, creative play is going to annoy them, so it's always best to clarify what kind of game you want to play. However, I asserted that rulebound play that prevents creative play is bad tabletop gaming. That's the position you said is impossible to disagree with.
In a computer game those rules are fixed and a lot of the fascination of a p&p session is lost in that regard, but still we and lots of others like to play them.
YES, and a good thing I did not try to insist that this type of play is necessary for computer games, as in the very same post where I raised those examples, I talked about computer game examples as well, without asserting any superiority of one over the other. So it's quite perplexing why you feel the need to make this statement.
...incorporated many to most of the rules of AD&D into a computer game
Now this I certainly disagree with. There are craploads of rules that were not incorporated. However, I think that's 100% fine, because D&D rules aren't very integrated in the first place, and no one plays with all of them anyway.
Obviously there the role model that you were discounting in your first reply worked in all its inflexibility (which is unavoidable without a DM).
And a good thing you are inventing that from whole cloth, because the straw many you have constructed for me is a ridiculous position. Please do not be so dishonest in the future.

User avatar
Priest4hire
Explorer
Posts: 480
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 12:38 pm

Re: Skills and Spells suggestion thread

Post by Priest4hire » July 14th, 2015, 12:36 pm

Wizardry: Tale of the Forsaken Land has a system they call Allied Actions. Basically it's a bunch of combo abilities involving 2 or more party members that you can select at the beginning of the round; before you queue in the regular attacks. These in turn would be unlocked by gaining what amounts to party experience. The idea being that as you adventure together as a group, you get better at working as a group and thus unlock more AAs.

That seems to be a oddly overlooked aspect of these games considering that they're built around a party of adventurers. The tendency is to treat them just as a collection of individuals who might have skills that can benefit other party members, but otherwise act as wholly discrete units. So how about some abilities that involve the party working together? A random example might be that classic combat formation known as the shield wall. If every front row member has a shield, they can overlap them into a wall that will make them much harder to overwhelm.

BTW, one of the AAs from W:TotFL was an interrupt. Two members of the back row could be tasked to interrupt the first enemy that tries to cast by throwing rocks at him. Given how dangerous magic can be in Wizardry, this was a very handy tactic.

meganothing
Scholar
Posts: 238
Joined: April 28th, 2012, 4:40 am

Re: Skills and Spells suggestion thread

Post by meganothing » July 14th, 2015, 2:54 pm

jrodman wrote:
It still means that the book is a guideline and if you argue every rule with your GM because it should work differently, you will be as popular as a rules lawyer.
So no, rule lawyers are pretty much the *opposite* of what I'm talking about.
Yes, that was exactly what I (perhaps clumsily) wanted to say. If you go to far off into the "creative" side (as a player), you are as radical as a rules lawyer, just on the other side of the spectrum (and probably as exhausting to a GM). If I bring up any rule from a RPG rule book and you counter that with "but its not true, I could ignore that", well, yes, any individual rule is up to negotiation, anything is malleable, but on the whole the rule book still defines the ground rules.

I quote: " In a tabletop RPG environment, any character who was especially motivated to master the ability to disarm well would probably find a way to achieve it". You are right. But that makes disarm in some RPGs still a fighter skill. Or a skill that a fighter can learn more easily than other classes. And therefore not per se a WoW-esque skil just because it is optimized for the fighter. If it reminds you that way it may possibly be because you played too much WoW.

Ironically I never wanted to "fix" the disarm skill on the fighter, I just mentioned the fighter in connection with disarm because in most versions of AD&D it was a skill or trait a fighter would take, if at all. This context remark seems to have led to this rather superfluous side track of the discussion.
Obviously there the role model that you were discounting in your first reply worked in all its inflexibility (which is unavoidable without a DM).
And a good thing you are inventing that from whole cloth, because the straw many you have constructed for me is a ridiculous position. Please do not be so dishonest in the future.
I quote "Since this isn't a tabletop game nor is it a multiplayer game, templates probably lie elsewhere.". I was refering to this sentence. Obviously tabletop games have functioned as templates for computer games, so why shouldn't this one grab concepts or ideas from tabletops and adapt them for itself?

I was suggesting a spell interrupt ability in my first post. To make myself clear:
1) Spell interrupts in some form or other were used in tabletop RPGs and MMOs and therefore are not specific to MMOs.
2) A class based RPG has to make abilities (like stealth, power attack) either exlusive or easier, cheaper or faster to obtain for specific classes and specializations/subclasses. And I don't care which of these variants, that is up to inXile. Different classes should have different abilities they are best suited for, and in all class-based RPGs I know this seems to be true (even in blobbers like Grimrock). And spell interrupts to me look like abilities that could be specialities of ranger or rogue in this game with front and back rows.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests