f13.net

I did visit the "DDO" web site.  They are supposed to come out the end of 2005?

A few things caught my eye:  low server populations; max level 20; no crafting upon release; no experience points for killing, only for quest completion; wall climbing; recognition of the ineffectiveness of rogues to date; classic DnD class systems including multiclass.

At this point graphics are negative screen (although their race line-up sounds appealing).  They look fine.  I am interested in game play dynamics - and my interest has been caught.

They have some interesting ideas, I'll give them that. Pulling it off is something I'm highly skeptical of, for a lot of reasons. AC2 is the biggest reason (same dev house, though not necessarily same dev team). The fact that they are working two HUGE licenses (DDO and Middle-Earth Online) at the same time makes me think resources will be thin on both teams. But I'm at least interested enough to not write the whole thing off wholesale.

My inner geek wants this to be cool- if it could come close to recreating the late night PnP gaming sessions of my misspent youth, I would pay $50 a month for it. Unfortunately, there is just no way a MMOG can replace a living, breathing, thinking on the fly, creative, ruthless DM.

I hope they change spell-casting, I've always disliked the way AD&D handled the whole memorization thing.

Really interested in what they cook up for rogues.

Rogues are pretty damn badass in 3E if you play them right.  Having every attack you make do an extra +10d6 damage doesn't suck.

3E also added the Sorcerer class, for those that like arcane spells but don't like memorizing them.  From the DDO site it looks like they're going to have both wizards and sorcerers, like NWN did.  My current theory as to how they handle spell slots is that they repopulate in campsites and inns, or something along those lines.  That'd make it so you have to come out of the dungeon every once in a while (and manage your spells wisely while in there), but you wouldn't have to wait 24 hours to get your spells back.

Be interesting to see what they have to change to make it work online.  I love the idea of getting experience for quest completion rather than foozle whacking.  It's probably not going to work in an online game, though.

WoW already does that, from what I understand.  Or are you being ironic?   :|

Every time I played, the well-rested state = foozle-whacking extravaganza. He's saying DDO gives experience exclusively for finishing quests. Killing mobs is a waste of time.

The missing spirit of ALL MMORPGs has just been stated :)

If my bud could get his head out the PC - I would be doing pen and paper all over again.  We did for awhile a few years ago - and used the power of  Mac in the creation of images / dungeons etc to support each gaming session.

Hm.  The WoW fanbois I know claim that foozle-whacking is a waste of time in WoW also, and that quests are both the most fun and most optimal way to level, but it wouldn't surprise me if they were misrepresenting things a bit.

In any case, precedent has been set for giving XP for completing quests in a MMO.  Eliminating the XP from the foozle doesn't seem like that big of an extra step, though it will surely completely confound EQ refugees.  "OMG I WACKD 100000 FOOZLS AND NO DING!  THIS SUX"

I gather at this point you will still need to memorize spells.

In reality, most of the quests WILL involve killing some foozles to complete the quest, even if the quest itself is not the "kill orcs until you find a toe" variety.  Quests that don't involve some amount of combat or lots of travel are going to be exploited mercilessly.

CoH also gives you xp for completing missions.  Just not very much. :)

As for memorizing spells:

"6. Magic
Will I have to memorize my spells? As per the D&D rules, wizards and clerics need to memorize spells before they can be cast, and need to rest in order to replenish them. Sorcerers and bards cast their spells spontaneously, but still need to rest periodically in order to refresh their spell slots."

I'm very interested in DDO (moreso than MEO) right now.  However, my main issue is whether or not solo play is viable.  If I can adventure solo or hire AI NPCs (ala Guild Wars) to go with me on my adventures, I'm cool with that.

Bruce

My understanding is that it is group focused - they were rather upfront about the absence of solo play.  Hiring NPCs?  Dunno.

Turbine's last game, Asheron's Call 2, had the Vault Dungeons. At least in beta/release, you got no experience for killing the foozles in the dungeon, only for completing it. At least I think that's right. That may have been a stated design goal that they didn't implement or took out.

Yes, I read the FAQ.  But FAQs have been frequently known to be wrong.

Bruce

AC2 also had the first instancing, the first (I think) skill trees, quest-based advancement, distinct-looking areas, etc,. etc.

Really, that great game called WoW everyone has been enjoying?  I played it already.  It was called AC2.  Unfortunately, nobody else cared about the game, and the little things (lack of NPCs, enterable buildings, and the general sense of "world") were noticeably absent.  But the core gameplay elements?  All there.

Bruce

The skill trees thing doesn't match up between the 2 games, comparing the two is idiotic.  AC2 didn't instance either.  All of the dungeons were enterable by anyone, including the vaults.   We had day long fights over control of some of the higher level dungeons for quest completion.   

The quest based advancement was a joke and easily exploited (I could do 30-42 in one quest where I didn't even have to be on the continent).  Plus there were HUGE gaps where all you could do is grind.  And a grind it was.  Anything you could easily kill gave painfully little exp so most people were forced to get mobs stuck on pixels and snipe them from a distance to get an resemblence of a sane level progression.

Yah, you played a version of WoW: a premature, aborted fetus where nothing worked right and strides toward progress resulted in an unfun, sucky, bore.  Not to mention wonderful things like improved rubber band lag, a chat system that NEVER once worked throughout the entire day, and dev team that couldn't bilge the water fast enough to keep the ship from sinking.  It was a soulless, buggy, pit of MMORPG hell that I'm glad did fuckall for business.

Bruce, I can sympathise with your feelings on wanting MMO's that allow viable soloing, but when you consider that D&D is all about getting together with other people to have some fun dungeon romps, I'm pretty sure I won't give a fuck if the game bearing the franchise name is not solo-friendly.

I didn't say they matched up.  But nevertheless, they are both skill trees.


Ahh, your MMOG knowledge-fu has failed you.  The Vaults were indeed instanced in beta, but it was removed without much explanation before release.  It was part of the original design.


That's true, but that's a matter of content, not of design.

You're focused on the whole product and I'm talking about design features.  You can't see the trees for the forest.

Bruce

Too bad the people who published several solo adventures for AD&D disagree with your characterization of their product.

Bruce

Rasix, that was beautiful.

Anarchy Online.

Everquest.

Diablo 2, though the mechanic is older.

By this metric, Wish is the father of all games.  It was easily as close to WoW as AC2 was.  Which is to say, they both had someone who fantasized about making a worthwhile game, and not much else.

AC2 is the only game I have ever played where I felt actual, heart-wrenching pity for the developers when I played it.

Those aren't instances.  Those are each randomly-created areas.  The thing about instances is that they are "copies" of an existing place.


Sure, and all the MMOGs before EQ, too.  It all depends on how you define "distinct", I suppose.  The point is, a lot of people, whether you agree with them or not, feel WoW's different zones are truly "distinct" in look and feel.  I'm just pointing out that AC2 had that same design/feeling long before.


Not a MMOG.


You're not making any sense.

Can we go back to talking about DDO now?  Kthx.

Bruce

Anarchy Online did have instancing. It's just very boring instancing.

Someone who told me they were in a wee DDO beta pm'd me this on another board:



He pm'd me this after he posted something like this:   "I've seen DDO and thank God WoW is out", and I questioned his statement.   I guess he's telling me without actually telling me that DDO sucks so far.  Who knows?  I don't.   This is a very tiny grain of salt.  Another person I know who said they had something to do with the beta won't tell me anything at all.   I don't mind... I'm sure I'll see it for myself soon enough. 

I only posted this to see if I could make Bruce cry.   :-)

Whatever DDO and MEO information I can make public will arrive hopefully in the next week or so.

Says who?  Two AO characters walk through the same door, each ends up in a different, personalized zone with the necessary  mobs and objects for their mission, and its not instancing?  I think you're carefully re-defining an otherwise well-understood phrase.

No, I think you're focusing too much on the literal translation of the word "instance" and in doing so missing the true concept behind an otherwise well-understood phrase.

Well AO missions did create a "personal space", if you will, when MMOG developers started talking about "instancing" to solve problems, they mean creating multiple instantiations of the same space, to prevent the problems associated with everyone wanting to be in that same space to get the same thing.  In AOs case, there is only one instantiation; it just happens to also be only accessible by one person or group.

Bruce

So, when my D&D group gets together every other Sunday at my place, is that considered an instance?

Anyway, D&D means different things to different people. For me, it means creativity and imagination, and it's somewhat of a personal experience because you are sharing a consistent story with four people, rather than four hundred thousand. I am curious what attempt will be made to bring that same depth of experience to an MMO, if it's even possible.

Also, I suppose if Jeremy Irons needs another Ferrari, he could lend his voice for some NPC dialogue.

Didn't they file some sort of lawsuit to prevent anyone associated with the D&D movie from ever touching anything under the D&D license ever again?

And if they didn't, shouldn't they have?

He didn't write "Anarchy Online missions". AO's backyards are an example of instancing. The difference is that the backyards introduced with Shadowlands and Alien Invasion exit at the same location in the "main" world, while the ones from launch had separate exit and entry "doors".

If instances are supposed to be copies of one another, then CoH missions are not instancing.  The layout of the mission is often different for different players.  As we have all referred to CoH's missions as being instanced, I suggest that we close the book on this semantics debate and move on.

Stop derailing the thread with Bruce, dammit! Talk about D&D-O plz!

 - meg

Are they?  I always thought they were the same.  If you're right, then you're correct; those aren't real instances.


Yep.  Pretty clear people have been using the term incorrectly in that case; perhaps they were simply ignorant that the same mission generated different maps, though.  (I've seen different mob layouts and such, but not different maps.)

Bruce

Thank God Bruce is willing to be the arbitrator of game-mechanic definitions.  The rest of use will just have to wallow in our ignorance.

Back on-topic, the only thing that would pull me towards DDO would be the nostalgia. But to that end, I would want a server with a 1st-Ed ruleset.  From what I gather about the 3 and 3.5 rules, that would be a little like asking EQ to have a server with the AC ruleset.  i.e., not gonna happen.

Okay, back to DDO :)

Creating Community:  Smaller server population.  I ilke the idea but wonder about implementation.  Community is sometimes eroded by the prolific use of alts and a rapid leveling curve ("time to create a new char..").  Realistically how small can the server population become?  Would this negatively impact the economy?  And at this point we have no idea of grouping restrictions - but if they are anywhere close to EQ, it can make getting a group together a problem.  In EQ using the zone wide LFG tool - it can be hard to find folks to put together a team.  If your server population is smaller...hopefully, like CoH, there will be a way for the party to accept wide level differences.

Real Time Combat?  This is supposed to be fast - perhaps requiring more activity than what is used in WoW.  Of course being busy does not mean you are "engaged mentally" (heh - just turn auto attack off and hit the button every round).  At this juncture, they seem to suggest that there will be clear "feats" you can use in combat in response to the tactics of your opponent.  

Character Creation Choice.  This does not exist in EQ and superficially exists in EQ2 and WoW.  Shadowbane and CoH are currently the best examples of accepting trade-offs on what your character can and cannot do.  The decision to be multiclass is the first step.  Apparently as you advance you choose "feats".  I like that - but EQ2 has interesting choices too - but when you play the game you find their implementation makes them utterly trivial and its really just your class that differentiates you - that's it.

Balancing Pure and Multiclasses.  Deciding to be a Fighter/Thief vs. a Fighter or Thief (or a Fighter/thief/mage etc.) is a neat option.  
Somehow this has to be balanced - in PnP DnD this was balanced by assiging dungeons to your mulitclass character based on hit total experience points to date - not level.  A level 10 Cleric may be equivalent to a level 7 Fighter/Cleric and so on.  I wonder how they will balance this.

It's D & D.  Why the hell does it have to be balanced ?

jpark, that last comment suggests you are not familiar with the new 3E rules. A level 10 Cleric is quite well balanced with a 7 Fighter/3 Cleric character, actually. Both characters have achieved the same amount of exp and are considered level 10. If the multi-class character took the 3 cleric levels last, those 3 cleric levels took just as much exp to earn as if the character chose to stay a fighter.

That might have not been too clear, but I tried to explain something in one sentence what Wizards needed a whole chapter for.

Just like AO's missions, the layout of the instance is randomly generated when the mission is created, as are mob spawns and the location in the world of the instance entrance. You are splitting infinitesimally small hairs. Both AO and CoH's missions are one type of instance. CoH's city zones and EQ's bigger world zones (where multiple copies of the same exact zone exist) are ALSO instances.

Man....just thinking about playing my old mage/thief character. Man, I gotta go play some BG2.

I don't how the heck they'll balance multiclass, it'll have to be a lower level cap than pure classes, the traditional barrier of the extended multiclass timesink vs pure class progression is not really an object to today's catass, though I think it's still an obstacle to the rest of us. Too bad mmogs need to be designed to deal with both rational humans and those with OCD, eh.

Smaller community: love it. I like the tightness of beta servers, where you get to know a decent percentage of players. But my favorite game/server/ruleset overall was probably Siege Perilous of UO. Great tight community, where things like player justice and accountability (1 character per account, too) were a real possibility, rather than a pipe dream. Capped advancement, too, definitely not a server to race to the end, and yet it was still all about the elder games. Just a nice mix. And open pvp, big time (I played a character with no combat skills just for fun, yet was rarely ganked nor killed).

But good point about the modern proclivity for forcing grouping, that's when small communities can be a boon (tighter community, know more 'good' players) or a bane (less people to group with).

Maybe the work CoH is doing on scaling instances to the group makeup will pay off for the industry, so any mix of players (solo, duo, casual group, uber group, raid, etc) can enter an instance and have it be a decent adventure for them, and be balanced enough so you can provide good drops to all players, instead of just a segment of your paying userbase, but not have it be unbalanced (since it's scaled to be a challenge...if you take it further and use a difficulty slider (again, ala CoH, Cryptic is SO Best New Studio imo), then rewards are also tied to that slider.

It's really about making fun and rewarding options for all players, not just the most 'dedicated'. Imo. Anyway, I've rambled now, sorry. At least I didn't tell you what 'instance' means. But if I did, I'd say it's related to a programming term for an object's creation. I'd wager a programmer first coined it because they are dynamically created (or instanced) spaces. Not copies. Dynamic areas, created (instanced) on the fly.

Again, having played the game, with multiple characters, the layout always looked the same to me.  Perhaps the maps are random in some instances and not others.


Not really, *if* they are truly just randomly generated, and not merely multiple instantiations of otherwise identical maps.

Bruce

Arguing with you is ultimately fruitless, because you will believe what you want to believe. Talk to your "industry contacts" and ask them if both AO missions and COH missions, as well as city zones in COH are called "instances." Then come back when they tell you that you are, indeed, wrong.

And Bruce - actually AO does both. You might want to look up the dungeon and not mission instances in AO...You can get your own private dungeon or you can go into public dungeon, but you might end up in a different one from your friends unless you are grouped, even then if the pop cap is reached you might end up somewhere else.

I'll say one thing about AC2... It did have the coolest cliff diving of any MMO...

You're right I am not familiar - thanks for the clarification.

But can I be a monk?

Eventually - that class is not planned for release.

Why do you want to be a monk?  You're already a pirate and they're MUCH cooler than monks or ninjas!

I don't believe in nameless 'industry contacts' or 'secret sources'... it's just an excuse to say shit and not have to prove it.  Sometimes it even lets you get away with murder.

(http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/misc/g-gordon-liddy/202385.2.jpg)

Well, I was referring to release features -- I'm sure many MMOGs have added instancing since their launch.

Bruce

Haha Signe.

My monk would look exactly like that!

What about Deep Throat?

Bruce

You compare your work to the Watergate scandal? God complex much?

Who the hell is talking about my work?  You're the first person to bring it up.

Bruce

Some info I've gleaned off the boards for DDO...

Max level is 20.  For those who don't know 3.5e yet, this means 20 levels total... you can be a 20 wizard, or a 10 fighter/10 rogue, or a 15 cleric / 5 fighter, or a 2 Paladin / 18 Sorcerer.

Multi-classing is fairly well balanced against those who focus on one class.  Especially if you just want to pick up a few levels of a caster, if you're a 5 fighter / 3 wizard, you're gonna have a hard time hitting lvl 8 baddies with your wizard spells, and without the base attack bonuses from 3 levels of fighter, you may have a harder time hitting lvl 8 baddies than a level 8 fighter would.  On the other hand, non-combat spells may be useful, stuff like continual light, or comprehend languages, or knock.  Again, it's a tradeoff...  but depending on how often you group and with whom, it could be useful for your group to have access to certain utility spells.

If you start at as a spellcaster, multiclassing is less helpfull... Every level you spend as something other than your casting class causes you to lose out on high-level functionality.  You don't get 9th circle spells until 17 or 18...  if you spend 4 levels as something else, you'll never be able to cast them, because of the 20 level cap.


No...  probably because they realized, like I did, that 3E monks are insanely overpowered.  By the low teen's in level, a well set up monk is not only very hard to hit due to high AC, and does pretty decent damage(1d12 with bare hands, with 4 attacks/round if they use Flurry of Blows), they evade traps like a rogue(Improved Evasion), are immune to most poisons and diseases, can move twice as fast as anyone else, and have Improved Knockdown, which gives you a pretty decent chance to knock down giants... and have very high (class level +10) innate spell resistance.

And those are just the feats you get as part of your class.  You still get normal feat selections like everyone else.

I've heard there were some changes for 3.5e...  but I haven't yet absorbed that sourcebook, as I don't own it yet, nor have I gotten a chance to really sit down and read it.

Alkiera

[insert another headexplode.gif here]

By "work" I refer to your nameless industry sources that are being thrown around in this thread.

No game industry source will ever help to make the kind of impact on society that the Watergate scandal did. To compare your secret sources with Deep Throat is to make yourself, your contacts, and the industry more important that it is. Stop it.

Seems to me like Paladin or maybe dual-wielding Ranger is the way to go, then.

Bruce

It's a minor point, but CoH's instances are not truely random.  When you get a mission, that mission has a map type that's associated with it, like cave, or burned-out office building.  For each map type there's a certain number of hand-crafted maps.  What is randomly generated is which of these maps you get.  This (along with where the mission is, which may be truely random within certain parameters, I'm not sure) is assigned to you when you accept the mission.  So, if you start a mission, leave halfway through, and then restart it, the placement of the mob spawns and blinkies will have changed, but the map will still be the same.  But the next person to accept the mission will most likely have a different map.

I remember on release it seemed like there was only about 4-5 cave maps, and I kept getting the same ones over and over (which may be why Bruce thinks they're all the same, which was never the case), but I think they've increased the number of maps since then.

I agree that these mission maps are "instances".  I personally don't like the use of the term "instance" for CoH city zones (or EQ2's apparently, though I've never played that), because an instance to me is a private zone I can share with other people who have some connection to me (party, raid, guild, whatever), and that's obviously not how the city zones work.  If WoW had claimed to have "instanced dungeons" but it turned out that rather than their current system, you do have to share the dungeons with other random players, but a new version would spawn if the dungeon got too crowded, I think most people would consider that misleading.  So, I perfer the term "cloned" when talking about things like CoH's city zones, but it doesn't seem to be catching on.  :-(

HaemishM brought the term up in reference to people I know in the industry; you know, folks like Raph and Gordon and Jessica.  Not "secret sources" or the like.


The only one comparing them is YOU.  Here, have a clue.  Take two; they're small.

I was asking Signe about Deep Throat because she seemed to be discounting all "secret sources" as lacking credibility.

Bruce

Actually, I know that much.  The question is really whether or not the same mission calls Cave_Map_01 every time, even though other missions give you other cave maps.  I think it does, or at least, I believe some missions do; but it's possible most do not or don't any longer.  But in any case, it's not really important; I don't consider that to be true instancing.

Bruce

Ranger is a hard call depending upon how the whole campaign works.  e.g. is tracking relevant?  In EQ it was critical for quests and farming.

Paladin is not a bad idea - hybrid class - without multiclassing.  

Looking at Alkeria's post above, if you're going to multiclass, considering the maximal level, it might be best to do it with "support classes".  e.g. a Cleric / Druid (10/10) is better than a Fighter/Mage (10/10), since the latter is confronted with opposed tests in attacking the enemy directly, whereas the formal has no opposed tests in attempting to buff / heal team mates.

For those who may have missed my post above - instancing is named because of the way it acts, it has nothing to do with the content. If an object is created in an object-oriented language, it can be said that it is created, or instanced. Create = instance in that terminology. So when a zone is dynamically created, it is instanced.

Whether it be random, semi-random, or a static copy, for personal or public usage. When it's created (instanced) on the fly, it's an instance. So AO missions, WoW dungeons, and Atlas Park 3 are all instances, despite being different in the way they handle content or access.

I'll just copy-n-paste this in after another ten posts, I'm guessing...

Not as far as I know.  I played 2 characters up to around the mid-30s during the same time period, and one of those characters I always duo'd with a friend, so I kept going through the same missions three times in fairly short order.  We definitely got different maps for the same mission most of the time.  It's possible there are/were a few missions that always had the same map, but I don't remember anything like that (other than obvious exceptions like the respec trial, which was added quite a bit later).

Anyways, to be kind of on topic, will DDO include prestigue classes?

Yes according to their site.  hehe now what is a prestige class?

Also, directly offensive classes stack fairly well.  15 fighter/ 5 paladin is fine, the base attack bonuses stack, and the abilities are helpful.  Prestige classes tend to work that way, in that they tend to be pretty useful, broadening your capabilities without sacrificing too much in hitpoints, base attack bonus, or armor use.  They are balanced by having entrance requirements, so not just anyone can take them.

The big advantage to liscensing a system like D20...  is that most of the system balance, class balance, equipment balance, spell balance, etc work has already been done.  Sure, you need to be careful when translating to your game to not unbalance things, but that s an easier task, I think, than coming up with a completely new system, with new classes, spells, equipment, and ways of interacting.  It's already had the hundreds of thousands of man-hours of testing it takes to get something reasonably close to balanced.  It's almost a shame as few system developers are as open with their system as d20 is...  I'd vastly prefer a game based off HERO/Champions(tho CoH certainly sorta seems to be, at the system level), or maybe even Storyteller(White Wolf's '5 dots in everything!' system) to d20, especially the d20 magic system.

Tho I generally play mages in MMOs, I prolly would not play one in DDO...  The magic system is just icky.  I'd at least need to hear more about how spells are regained, and maybe what kind of day/night timer they plan on using, if it matters.  It's been a tough thing to balance in computer versions of the d20 rules.

Alkiera

Prestige classes are special variants of a base class, for instance, take Paladin. The 3 prestige classes of Paladin (that I know) are Inquisitor, Undead Slayer, and Cavalier. Each Prestige class usually works quite differently, and they are a nice variation upon the base class.

I don't know how DDO will implement it, but in D&D 3/3.5 prestige classes are not specifically tied to a base class.  They're like advanced classes that you have to meet certain prerequisites to get.  Prerequisities can be mechanical things like having your BAB (base attack bonus) be at a certain level, having to have a certain alignment, being able to cast arcane/divine spells of a certain level, or having so many ranks in a skill.  There also can be role-playing prerequisities like belonging to a specific organization or having killed some rare monster. But even for, say, a melee focued prestige class, a wizard can still meet the prerequisites, he'll just probably have to be higher level than a fighter would have to be and/or pick up some levels in a melee class.   That may be one thing they'll do away with, because if playing MMORPGS has taught me anything, some morons will have a wizard pick up a melee based prestige classe and then cry that they've gimped themselves.   

Prestige classes are supposed to represent specialized training or the benefits of belonging to an organization (like Forgotten Realms' Harpers or Red Wizards).  In practice they're classes that tend to be more focused than the base classes.  They often give up the flexibility of the base classes in exchange for doing certain tasks better.

Cleric 20 or Druid 20 is gonna be quite a bit better than Cleric 10/Druid 10.  Consider:

1) Your Druidic vows will prevent you from wearing any metal armor, so your cleric's heavy armor proficiency will be wasted.
2) You'll never get access to anything past 5th level spells (like, say, Heal and Mass Heal, two of the best support spells in the game).
3) You'll be turning undead as a level 10 cleric, which is pretty useless against the level 20 undead you might face as a level 20 character.

You're also wasting a lot of those classes' potential if you play them purely as healers; both have very strong offensive options as well (flame strike anyone?).

As was mentioned above, multiclassing as a spellcaster generally isn't profitable - getting twice as many low level spells or a bit of extra combat ability doesn't make up for never getting the high level spells.  Now, multiclassing the combat-heavy classes (e.g. fighter/paladin or barbarian/ranger) can definitely give you some interesting combinations, since the strongest abilities of those classes (e.g. attack bonuses and high HP totals) all stack together when you multiclass.

You have to be really careful when it comes to multi/dualclassing with casters. For instance, at least in IWD2, I found taking fighters to lvl 3-4, then switching over to mage seemed to work pretty well; they were not as vulnerable at lower levels, still had room to hit high enough levels to get high-end spells, and were able to equip all kinds of swords/shields, and elven chain mail if a set dropped (ie: armor that could also be equipped while casting arcane spells). The fighter levels also came in handy when using spells such as Tenser's Transformation, turning my mage into a melee beast. In BG2, I remember Aerie was a Cleric/Mage, and she was still useful to me.

But usually, I stick with Pure classes, but your mileage may vary.

This game will rock.

To prevent myself from getting into a fanboi-ish type rant, I'll leave that as my only contribution to this thread.

Agreed, hence my mention somewhere of the 2 pally / 18 sorcerer build, which was pretty popular in NeverWinter Nights.  Taking a couple levels of a fighter class can be kinda handy, just for the hitpoints at low levels... the extra base attack bonus is handy when you run out of spells, too.  But it can be taken too far.


One thing I hope for the game, is that the leveling curve isn't too painful.  D20 allows you enough flexibility that it can be easy to gimp yourself, sometimes such that it takes a few levels before you realize what happened... meaning either (a) there will be a lot of screaming people on the forums, or (b) it'll be easy enough to re-roll and catch up to play with your friends.

I also hope for there to be more than enough content to go 1-20 a couple times without having to do the exact same quests/dungeons/etc.

Alkiera

Multiclassing spell casters can work but you really have to watch out for the badly conflicting armor /weapon  issues. I actually find something like druid/wizard or sorc better than a druid/cleric. Druid/cleric is just to redundant where you pick up alot of the penalties and not much of the benefits.

And yes if they do it like D&D well there will be some multi class combos that really suck but for me I don't think that is such a bad thing.  If somebody wants to walk a hard path more power to them.  Also as long as your caster classes are high enough to cast 3rd level spells you will have almost all of your bread and butter powers from that class. Sure at high levels you get some silly stuff but most of the well known overall most useful powers in D&D tend to come at 3rd level of casting power.  I still would never recommend druid priest meh just way to may conflicts and the spell trees are just to similar.

kaid

I am confused. 

If you have a FIghter/ Pally at 10/10 isn't that a problem just as two casters types are (e.g. mage/druid at 10/10)?  I don't see the stacking.

Oh I forgot to mention one of my more favorite combos of classes was taking monk if available for 2 or 3 levels and then branching off to wizard or sorc. This gives you a pretty darn good ac, good hp, decent fighting capability for when the spells run out without needing to use armor which screws casters.


kaid

The fighter/pally will get a to hit bonus every level, which stacks (one of the main perqs of being a fighter or pally). You will lose out on some feats (IIRC, fighters gain them more quickly than other classes), but you will still be a combat machine with some minor clerical abilities.  Multclassing casters restricts you from getting high enough level to use the upper end of the class's magic, which is where most of the real power comes in. You basically trade power for much greater flexibility and utility.

Actually warrior/paladin stacks well. Warriors I believe tend to get more feats and get new ones earlier. Take warrior to level 10 and then branch off to paladin. This way you should have more feats available than a normal paladin of your level and you get all the core paladin abilities high enough to be useful. This would make you a little less competent as a caster but it should make up for it by having a lot more versatility due to the additional feats and all the free armor/weapoin profeciencies that warriors get.


kaid

The only computerized implementation of 3E rules I've cared to play was in Temple of Elemental Evil. (Not for the game itself, which was fairly dull, but for the rules engine implementation.) It provided the correct class building system, took into account the turn-based combat and playing it felt -- at least mechanically -- just like the 3E rules, with 5-foot steps, attacks of opportunity, etc. It even included limited magic item creation. Even though I'd already played 3E table-top since release, TOEE helped me demonstrate some aspects of combat to people who were having trouble understanding the changes from 2nd Ed to 3E.

One thing I liked about TOEE was the I could form all kinds of party/class combinations. I once made a party of 5 evil elven rogues, all with ranged weapons. They didn't fare all that well. In the end I preferred a more balanced (i.e. traditional Ftr/Wiz/Clr/Rog) party.

Turn-based combat is such a big part of the mechanical infrastructure of 3E, and ties into feats and skills that affect movement rates and combat abilities, I wonder how Turbine is going to translate these to the more time-independent dynamics of movement in an MMORPG.

I liked this comment.  Sometimes I feel that if possible - some MMORGPs would be better off if they started as pen and paper for some inexpensive and time tested balancing, in addition to looking at what abilities make a class "fun".  In pen and paper you can change rules pretty quick ... and adjust a class until it is both fun and balanced relative to other classes.

Oh.  The other thing I gleaned from the DDO forums was that the stat system was going to be point-buy at creation, with 28 points.  This allows you to have 4 14's and 2 10's, to give you +2 in 4 stats, and no penalties in the other stats.

For the uninitiated, new chars are allows stats between 3 and 18.  The point-buy system gives you an 8 in all stats, and a pool of points to use to increase them, but not at 1 to 1.  Well, points from 9-14 are 1 point each, 15 and 16 are 2 points, 17 and 18 are 3.

Thus, to have an 18 in one stat, costs 16 points, or more than half.  A 16 costs 10 points.  The bonus provided by a given stat is STAT/2 - 5.  An 18 is +4, a 10 is 0, a 3 is -4.

Racial bonuses or penalties are applied after the point-buy system.  Thus you could raise your dex to 18 with 16 points, then choose elf as your race, and the +2 dex would give you a 20 dex.

In play, you gain a stat point every 4 levels, and you can get above 18 that way.

The most efficient way to do this is to not put your stats at 18 to start, but put them fairly high, then put in the last few points with the points you get from leveling.

Alkiera

The operative word is set. 1st ed had a ton of independent systems, scattered across ten or so books, with differing mechanisms. In other words, a hell to implement and balance. 2nd ed is somewhat cleaner, but still has independent mechanisms.

3rd ed cleaned up all that by setting ONE mechanism (the d20 + modifier against a DC or opposing roll). Clean as teflon, and way way easier to implement.

You do not want a computer game based on 1st ed rules. You only think you do.

A crap build.  D&D done right means you'll just be a fallen paladin and no use to anyone.  You'd be better off with 2 levels of fighter...

With only 20 levels advancement is going to drag horribly.  Its going to be like the D&D campaign I was in where an average 5 hours a week most every week campaign had us reach level 5 and 6 in nearly 2 years.  Even when the adventuring was fun, and it was because the DM ran a good game, it got dull advancement wise.

DDOL is going to probably be slower than the advancement in the original crappy Neverwinter Nights solo campaign.  Which was agaonizingly slow as a solo adventure.

Unless they have a plan for adding in Epic Levels and all the extraneous races & classes that are well liked, I just don't see this game being all that fun.  A big part of the fun in a class and level system is gaining lots of levels so you can play with new toys.  And when you get bored, switch to a new set of toys.

The advancement is what bothers me too.
Playing low level characters in D&D is only fun if you have a good DM and wellwritten adventures - what your characters can actually do skillwise is extremely limited. Since a MMOG can provide neither, I just envision agonising hours of fed-ex quests or rat/goblin whacking.
"Sorry guys, I've spent my two Magic missiles - gotta rest!" works in a setting with built in fast forward (ie pen and paper) or where adventures can be solved without combat. This can be fun with a DM that rewards 'out of the box' thinking - I really don't see it happening with a computer as DM.
There's a reason all single player D&D games has been combat centric (and Planescape: Torment do NOT apply here) and has done away quickly with the low levels.

I predict suck.

-------------
And in the meta-discussion about instancing Bruce is wrong wrong wrong and should just shut up, allready.

No XP for Rat-whacking.  Bear that in mind.

Maybe finally we'll get mages that can do out of the box thinking :  invisibility to complete the quest, rather than 3 fireballs, 5 magic missiles and an ice storm...

Not that I disagree that it will probably suck donkeys unless they're REALLY thinking about this aspect...

A link to the people brave enough (http://www.ddo.com/index.php?page_id=58) (proud enough?) to admit they are responsible for DDO.

I thought the Lead Engineer was using a picture of the Hindenburg as his avatar.  That could have been a prophetic clue as to the fate of the game.  Then I looked around some more and found out it is the Graf Zeppelin, I don't think that one exploded to cries of 'Oh the humanity'.

I've done that in CoH instances often.

Ah..another good WoW NPC, the goblin named Hin Denburg, zeppelin guy.

It was ridiclous in 3.0.  You got Evasion, 8 HP, +2 to all your saves, and (to quote Fabricated at the time) the ability to shout "Here's my other somatic component, bitch!"

Oh and the Wisdom bonus to AC.  Although it isn't ideal for divine spellcasters (given you lose it the second you don armor) but sometimes that +1 or +2 for a Sorc or Wiz is plenty good.

With the NWN 3.0 ruleset I used to like making a dwarf thief with 2-3 levels (enough for evasion), and then go some variant of fighter.  With good AC, gear, and a weapon, he was tough for mobs to beat on.

What bugs me is that DDO is making solo play nearly impossible at higher levels. I like to group, but sometimes you can't find a group and I dislike sitting around on my ass.  I do like the fact that you get xp for completing quests rather than mob bashing.  I'm closing in on carpel tunnel with all these grinding games making me click the mouse or mash a button a billion times, do I won't miss mob bashing for xp.

Monks were always seemingly overpowered in 3.0 because they just kicked ass at everything. I personally prefer to be a thief, and sometimes a thief/<insert class>. 

I never really got into paladins because the modern D&D games kept track of alignment, sorcerers weren't versitile enough, and I hated the NWN mage spell interface.

Turbine can do a good job here, or totally muck it up.  I'm not sure what to expect yet.

The absence of solo content combined with no tradeskills (non-combat activity) could be a real problem for this game.  In EQ2 I called soloing doing tradeskills - which they actually did a pretty good job doing imo.

Don't tradeskills sort-of seem like out of place in D&D? I mean, it'a all about the adventure right.. i don't really remember any sessions i ever played involving the manufacture of boots +1. Although, there is the ability to make magical items, but it's mostly a wizard thing.

 - meg

 I think it strongly depends on your GM; I've played in DnD and other pen/paper campaigns that focused largely on non-combat activities or finding non-combat solutions to problems that would imply combat to your standard DnD party. And I don't just mean diplomacy, although elf sex solves a surprising number of problems; making a pact with the Demon Lord of Investment Banking and staging a hostile takeover of the mithril and iron trusts in order to suppress an alliiance of dwarven warlords comes immediately to mind.

YMMV.

 Edit: But more to the point, you really can't expect that sort of thing from a MMO/CRPG. IIRC, 3E has a sort of tradeskill system spread between skills and feats. I wouldn't be surprised if the tradeskill-like feats (craft wondrous item, scribe scroll, etc.) found their way in at some point.

Oh ya ya ya, i know what you mean, but when someone mentiones tradeskills in an mmorpg format, this usually indicates to me "level up your first aid to make bandages that heal 200hp" or somesuch. Vastly different from the non-combat interactions that D&D allows. And elf sex.

 - meg

Not to mention that in the vast majority of cases, creating magic items costs exp, which has to be provided by the person doing the enchanting.  Depending on what the 'grind' is like, that could be icky.

Alkiera

Subjective.  We all modified the rules when we play - and yes 15 years ago - my friends and I introduced tradeskills into our version of DnD :)

Maybe I'll expand on this - what the heck.  Gathering the components for the item to created was task to be addressed.  Finding a place to construct the item was another task to be addressed.  We had a rule that the more powerful the item you created, the greater the chance it would be '"sentient" with its own personality.  That personality would not tolerate the presence of other artifacts on your body, and may demand or withold certain benefits to the wielder if there was not "agreement" on some roleplay issues.  Because of of all of that - it was better make a very powerful weapon - leaving no doubt it would be sentient - and finding a person out there willing to buy immortality by offering his soul to the item.  The benefit here, is that in choosing the person, you could ensure that his Alignment matched yours rather than risk some random spirit entering the artifact.

Largely irrelevant to this this thread - but hey - that was our home grown trade skill system :)

So basically, kill grandma and put her in your sword? Nice. Then thw sword can say things like "when I was a human being, orcs were actually dangerous..."

It's a cold world.

Say, I have this water bottle I am looking to imbue... what alignment are you?

That was one of the great discoveries in pen and paper DnD for us - playing evil characters.  MMORPGS still do not do this well.  I can't tell you how much fun it was to take a "goody goody" DnD module and lace it with nefarious goals that an evil adventuring team had to achieve in making their way through the module.

I'm not too familiar with 3.0 vs 3.5 rules.  I only really played AD&D and even then stopped well before 90's even started but I have played most of the single player D&D games and if it follows along those lines I'll probably end up playing some fighter/cleric mix.  With only like 1 or 3 levels of fighter.  Focus on to hit type bonuses and along with self buffing and the ability subsets that get you bonus healing spells and the ability to instantly convert healing spells to harm spells and you are basically a minor god by the medium high levels.

Wear almost any armor, use almost any weapon, cast spells that do cubic butt loads of damage to single and multiple targets, obliterate undead, heal yourself and others have good attacks and excellent hit-points and thats not even getting into all the utlity spells that come in handy in a pinch.

Clerics have been way overpowered in most of the single player D&D games, though some of the wizard/sorc builds are damn impressive too.

Heh.


This thread has already convinced me that this game is going to fail.  You're all min-maxing already and missing the point of what they're trying to do.

What is what everyone else will do, I guess.

Another world chock full of dual-wielding, panther stroking dark elf rangers.

Motherfucker...

You almost certainly have. What you haven't done in CoH is got anywhere near equivalent reward for stealthing a mission as you would have done for annihilating every last motherfucker in the building.

Which is something that restricts CoH in introducing new mission types, and is what means most groups won't be keen to stealth a mission unless they can't complete it any other way, and it's a on a Trial/TF.

Paladin Thief!  Barbarian Druid?

You have a point though about optimization which a lof us tend to do.  I was intrigued way back when EQ2 devs suggested there might be some recognition for folks that take suboptimal class / race combinations.

I am all for unusual class / race combinations.  However, Gnome warriors should be banned.  Period.

This is one reason to consider rewarding XP for tasks completed rather enemies slain, buffs applied, or number of leather gloves stitched. Random mobs can still offer kill XP, just not as much. It's a minor paradigm shift of going from an action-oriented to a goal-oriented reward sytstem. Offhand, the only place I've seen levelling done this way is the Witch's Wake NWN premium module, and it threw a lot of players who were used to the traditional P&P XP reward system.

The primary drawback of task-based XP is that it requires a lot of interesting quests, which can be difficult to manage in an MMG at ship. Unless you're Blizzard, and you enjoy the luxury of being able to ship whenever you feel like it.

Ideally yes, but if you take CoH as an example, you could easily grant zero xp for kills on a mission, but credit mission completion with equivalent xp to killing everything in the building.

Outside of missions, since enemies spawn in groups it would be equally straightforward to gve xp only for arresting an entire group (you already get an influence bonus for wiping an entire group if you save a civilian in the process).

So goal based xp would certainly be possible on a COH budget.

I have a feeling this is the way it might be done in DDO as well.

i can only hope, jpark.

Especially with the nature of classes in D&D, where there are classes all about fighting, and other classes that are okay at fighting, but are balanced by having lots of skills for utility... Where a barbarian or fighter would just wade into combat, a rogue would either sneak thru, or talk his/her way past people....  Some disguise skill, some persuasion-type rolls...

I could only hope they've thought it that far thru.  Quest/task-based exp is certainly a step in the right direction.

Alkiera

If you play strategically with a Rogue, you can carve them up just as much as the toe-to-toe fighter.  Rogue's got much love in the 3rd edition.  Especially with Tumble and Sneak attack.

Am I right in remembering that rogues get xD6 bonus damage for every attack to the rear or to a stunned opponent, where x is level divided by 2? Which always meant that in most party situations any rogue could basically carve anything up that the GM allowed him to.

Or am I remembering some ruleset other than D&D?

Basically, when the opponent is denied their Dex AC bonus, they are eligible for a sneak attack.  Which can cover a wealth of sins.  Just chuck in an itching bomb and then cut the guy's fucking head off.

Further, flanking ALSO allowed you to get sneak attacks in.  So if you have a Rogue on either side of you (possible with tumble and Sneak) you were going to get fucked hard.

That's one reason I preferred ToEE over NWN - the use of sneak attack in NWN sucked horrible hairy donkey balls.  Basically, because they couldn't code it right, you usually got a sneak attack all the fucking time.

My Rogue in ToEE (dual wielding rapiers for the finesse WIN) used to do so much damage, especially when the warrior was on the other side of the opponant - brandishing his massive critical axe of cutting.

Ah, I might reinstall now...

For a Fighter/thief, is it the case that a thief can then use short swords for "backstab" or does he remain limited to daggers for this purpose?  (in the case of the more recent DnD pen and paper rules).

Doesn't work like that anymore, I don't think.  Basically Sneak attack is a training and a knowledge of weak points, rather than a weapon proficiency.  So you can actually sneak attack with a pencil, if you choose.

Which, of course, means the DM MIGHT have to rule that sneak attack from the shadows with a halberd just isn't on....

And while there are a lot of nice things about Sneak Attack, it has its limits:

- can only be used on living creatures with discernable anatomy (undead, oozes, constructs, plants and incorporeal)
- creatures immune to critical attacks are immune to sneak attacks
- you have to be able to see and reach the creature's vital spot(s)/organs
- can't sneak attack a creature with concealment (i.e. in fog, light or dense foliage, blurred, invisible, etc.)

So it's not an I win button in the PnP universe, though if the online game doesn't take into account the above, then it could easily become overpowered. TOEE certainly took care of the first two on the list -- which is easy to do since the monster types are so well defined in 3E. (IMHO, 3E made D&D incredibly consistent -- providing a consistent system for monster abilities/powers was sorely needed.)

You can use any "light" weapon for a sneak attack, I believe, which is any weapon with a size category lower than your own (e.g. a Small weapon if you're a human, or a Tiny weapon iif you're a halfling), with a few exceptions that are clearly noted (such as a rapier, which is considered a light weapon for Medium characters even though it is also Medium).  A rogue can therefore use a shortsword to sneak attack - in fact, the rogue weapon list was written with an eye toward smallish, light weapons that could be used in sneak attacks.

Even if you could use a greatsword or halberd to sneak attack, though, it wouldn't provide that great of an advantage.  In 3E, sneak attack damage is a bonus that's calculated independently of the weapon damage (1d6 per 2 rogue levels).  So if a 20th level rogue sneak attacks with a dagger, it's 1d4 + 10d6 damage.  If that same rogue sneak attacks with a shortsword, it's 1d6 + 10d6 damage.  The extra point or two of damage from using a larger weapon is all but inconsequential in that equation, which is IMO a Good Thing.

A far more interesting combination is using rogue/wizard to perform sneak attacks with spells.  Any spell that requires an attack roll (e.g. a touch spell like Shocking Grasp or a ranged touch spell like Acid Arrow) is treated just like a weapon for purposes of sneak attacks, which means that if you use that Acid Arrow on a flatfooted opponent who's less than 30 feet away, you apply your sneak attack damage (if any) to it.  Something about a wizard being able to use anatomical knowledge to hit an opponent in the vitals just seems very right to me.

Yes, indeed.  And thanks for the clarification on the 'light' weapons thing, which I had forgotten.  This also reminded me why I chose rapiers - the heaviest weapon that can still sneak.

For those who haven't had a chance to check out 3rd Edition rules, you really ought to.  They're clear, concise, consistant and, above all, fun.  The only failing is when they start pulling all the 'other' shit from the old editions :  Like psionics.  That should have been caned in the barn a long time ago.

And if you don't want to actually shell out money for the books (I wouldn't blame you), check out this site (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/home.html).  Mmmm... OGL...

Some people claim the new Expanded Psionics Handbook for 3.5 rebalanced the system and made it alot more sane.  I haven't read it, but I do know psionics was out of hand before.

Alkiera

That link was dead for me... so I found the 3.5 SRD on WotC's site.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srd35


Still useful for checking out rules, tho.

Alkiera

I was always considered the D&D rules a terrible millstone. They didn't actually work all that well for pen and paper and I doubt they'll work that much better in an online game. They're so cheesy and exploitable, calling out to the mini-maxers, while at the same time having a broken progression (helpless at levels 1-6, godlike at 20+) and a whole bunch of spells that anyone with an eye for game balance would blanch at. And this is being marketed as an advantage rather than tragic evidence of a lack of any originality or brains on the part of the developers?

Sure i've got fond memories of roleplaying, but that's got little to do with the ruleset.

This may have been true with 1E, but if you aren't familiar with 3.5E, you really shouldn't say such things.  Except for some of the basic class concepts and some of the spells, it's a very different game.

Bruce

I still far prefer 2 and 3 to 3.5. But then, I don't think ANY of them translate well to games.

We have D&D to thank for 'hit points' and all of the asstastic combat and damage mechanics that therefore ensue.  For that I will never forgive it.

But I still play every Friday.

I've played the ruleset neverwinter was using. If anything it's become even more monty-haul and min-maxing than before. You can see that in this thread where people are working how they can apply the thief backstab bonus to spells. And the spells themselves are still imbalanced, far too many with "all or nothing" effects which are just not a good idea in a MMORPG, and only barely so in CRPG. Heck, it still has complete heal and reverse complete heal right?

Now if you want to inherit the D&D universe, that I can see, although most of it was fairly pulp. But trying to adapt the D&D rules, without change, to a MMORPG is not something to be applauded.

WRONG.  (You get the bold font because in my last post I provided the link (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/spellsHtoL.html#heal) whereby you could have researched this before citing it.)  Very very few spells have "all or nothing" effects in 3.0, and even fewer in 3.5.  In particular, Heal and related spells now have level-dependent effects.


As for min-maxing, bullshit.  You don't know me.  Multiclassing rogue and wizard isn't min-maxing.  I know this because I'm playing a rogue/wizard right now and I could almost be casting fireball right now instead of magic missile if I'd gone straight wizard.  As it is, I'm too gimped of a rogue to be good as a rogue, and too gimped of a wizard to be good as a wizard.  I will never get the levels back that I spent on rogue, and I'll always be a level or two behind on my wizard spells because of it - getting an occasional +1d6 sneak attack damage doesn't make up for that even a little bit.  High level spells are far more awesome than that.

Why am I playing a rogue/wizard?  Because I really liked the character concept of a rogue/treasure hunter type with a scholarly bent, who gradually starts applying his knowledge to the practical use of magic.  I gave up the incredibly awesome feat "Dodge" so I could take "Skill Focus: Knowledge: arcana", for crying out loud.  As a first level rogue.  Because I wanted to take feats that reflected the mental image I had of my character, not the ones that would keep me alive.  You call that min/maxing?  My inner min/maxer kicks my outer roleplayer every time we look at our character sheet, knowing that this character could be a spellcasting badass if I'd just gone vanilla wizard instead of trying a different type of character.

I comment on the +1d6 sneak attack damage not because I think it is teh uber.  I comment on it because it is nifty.  It's a natural synergy between the skills of what were completely disparate classes in previous versions of D&D, but which 3E has let me combine into a relatively unique character concept, one that isn't illustrated in the Player's Handbook.  My character's entire theme, if it could be summed up in one cliched sentence, would be "knowledge is power."  In this case, my character has a diverse body of knowledge that allows him to not only to wield arcane energy as a tool and weapon, but to analyze the anatomy of an opponent and hit them in the vitals more effectively than a single-minded spellcaster could.  And the rules actually reflect that to some extent.  I could technically do more damage by having an extra level of wizard and casting lightning bolt instead of acid arrow.  I don't care, because saying "I surprise him with an acid arrow to the groin!" is just more fun than saying "Lightning bolt!"

With me?


(Edit: I apologize for the snippiness of the above post.  I just consider being called a min/maxer to be an affront to every principle I stand for where D&D is concerned.  Feel free to mock me for the intense geekiness of that last sentence.)

I have no idea what point you are trying to make. I'm certainly not intending to criticise your playstyle because I'm not interested enough to know what it is. I just picked one random example of how D&D encourages people to think in terms of systems rather than identities. It was marginally anachronistic when it was transferred from a miniatures wargame to pen and paper, where more should have been left in the hands of the GM. It's mind-bogglingly ill-suited to a MMORPG which has the capacity to background game mechanics into the structure of the virtual world.

Have you seen this man? (http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2005-02-07&res=l)

But heh, we'll see how it comes out. Although the developer probably gives me an unfair advantage in predicting suckage.

Kangeru, I don't know your age or background, so perhaps I'm off-base here, but you really have your history really turned around.

D&D was hardly "anachronistic" when it came out.  Back in those days, nearly *all* RPG systems were focused on mechanics.  The game world and background were also important, but at the core the games were far more about die-rolling than role-playing.  Now, certain GMs could take those structures and create campaigns that were heavy or light on mechanics, as their group wished, but there wasn't some magical land of True RPers that was defiled by the introduction of D&D.  LARPing was not that widespread.

The so-called "StoryTelling" style games were a rarity, and didn't really come into vogue until more recently, with VtM and the like.  These games emphasize plot and roleplay over mechanics, and that's fine if you like that sort of thing.  Personally, I tend to find them wanting -- they make interesting campaign settings, but the mechanics are often lacking.  One of the reasons systems like D20 and GURPS became so popular was their ability to have good mechanics which could then be applied to a variety of game settings without having to reinvent the wheel every time.


I don't understand this at all.  Just the opposite: heavy mecahnics is mind-bogglingly well-suited for MMORPGs, because computers are great at crunching numbers.  How in the world would you do it any other way?  Do you want every player to have their own GM, personally crafting and arbitrarting everything that happens to them?  There are so many things wrong with that I don't even know where to begin.

"Background game mechanics into the structure of the virtual world" sounds to me like hiding stats and rolls and the like so people can't see them.  That's great in theory, but the game is going to have to have consistent rules underneath the hood, and players will just figure out what they are.  Unlike a GM, the computer can't fudge die rolls or modify rules or make up new stuff on the fly to keep things obscure for the player.  And even if it could, people would simply find that frustrating.

MMORPGs are not primarily about "Role Playing" bout about expanding the horizons of previous CRPG games.  You want real RP?  Go play a text-based MUD or the like.

Bruce

I didn't read all of this thread (too much PnP talk for my tastes), so in case someone already said this, my apologies.

I'm really looking forward to this game because it's NOT the D&D that has become the main focus of discussion here. It's Dark Alliance first, D&D second. Or, in other words: VIDEO GAME first, PnP second.

No offense, but this thread (at least what I read of it) is basically 4 pages worth of irrelevant bullshit. Can someone please talk about DDO?

Then it's going to suck.  I liked Dark Alliance, but Good God, what makes anyone thing it would be a good online game ?  If they don't put a lot of thought into the mechanics and into the characters, it'll die a death.  IMO anyway.

And if we're going to end the PnP discussion, then Bruce and Samwise kicked your ass.  Heh.

Your accusation was that any discussion or recognition of game systems equates to min/maxing.  My assertion is that the D&D 3 ruleset is flexible and balanced enough that you can think in terms of identities and the system will actually reflect and support the identity that you thought of; using the game system to construct the identity that you came up with outside of the system is not min/maxing.  D&D 2 didn't allow that to nearly the same extent, nor do most RPG systems that I've seen.  The exception is light-rules systems that require lots of arbitrary case-by-case GM rulings to maintain balance (which won't work in a MMOG unless you have one hell of a customer service budget).

The D&D combat system has always sucked ass.  Tactics and preparation are meaningless if you get a couple of bad saving throws.  In every D&D computer game I've ever played, I've run into battles where I had to stop and reload over and over again because my characters kept getting instakilled by poor rolls.

I agree, the D&D system just pissed me off. Way too much emphasis on random crap that gets you killed. I don't like constantly dying in games over and over because of randomness.

I agree, randomness is fun in PnP (feels like gambling!) but not so much on a PC (feels like bugs!).

Easy fix, though.  Every d20 roll can easily be reduced to a percentage chance of success, and every damage roll can easily be reduced to an average.  Suppose that a fighter with a longsword has a +6 on his attack roll and does 1d8+3 damage.  Against an AC 10 opponent, he hits on a roll of 4-20, which is an 85% chance of success.  Multiply that by his average damage (7.5) and you get 6.375 damage per swing.  Against an AC 20 opponent (35% chance to hit) it'd be 2.625 damage per swing.

The same logic could be applied to just about any die roll - just figure out what the average probable effect of the die roll would be, and use that.  It's a little like taking 10 on everything but with fuzzy results instead of boolean success or failure (which would make no sense for combat, which is why you can't take 10 on an attack roll).

This would suck in PnP (fractions are hard!) but would be very workable on a PC (billions of calculations per second, biatch!).  And on the average, it's exactly equivalent.

I hit "quote" instead of "modify" to correct a typo and discovered that there is no "delete post" button.  Let this be a warning to the rest of you!

If you want it purged, just send a friendly message to your local moderator.   I could do this now, but then the valuable insight would be lost.   

Couple notes.  The DDO devs have said yes, there are creatures with powerful effects like this in the game, but not until higher levels, and they aren't ubiquitous.  Second, they point out that clerics, among others, have spells that make you highly resistant or immune to 'save or just die' type spells.

OMG Forced Grouping!!111, I can hear it already...  yeah.  While compared to the average person in Ebberon, a player IS a superhero... The things you're tasked with fighting are just as badass as you, if not moreso.  In a one-on-one fight you can survive, if you have the right skills/spells/tactics... think rock/paper/scissors.  If you're a DW rogue without magic weapons, there are plenty of monsters with DR 5/+1 that you're going to have problems with, where a sorc could nuke them down easily.  Whereas if they have elemental or magic resistances, that sorc will have trouble, and the rogue will be fine.

Gaining levels in d20 makes you a) somewhat more powerful, and/or b) somewhat more flexible.  Multi-classing is ideal for those who wish to trade power for flexibility.  As far as rogue/arcane caster goes, I'd go with something like 16 rog/4 sorc as a final build, say, a treasure seeker/dungeon delver with a magical assist.  That'd give you attacks of +14/+9/+4, same as a 19th rogue, and you'd only have 8d6 sneak attack, and you'd miss one of the special rogue feats....  For which you gain a familiar, 6 0th, 6 1st, and 3 2nd level spells per day, a bit more will save than you'd otherwise have as straight rogue.

For spells, I'd suggest...(6, 3, 1)
0th - Detect Magic, Read Magic, Mage Hand, Light, Mending, puny damage spell of choice.
1st - Identify, Magic Weapon, Expeditious Retreat
2nd - Spider Climb

So yes, you're slightly weaker than a traditional 20th level rogue, slightly lower skills.  For which, you gain a good bit of magical utility.

To me, this is working the ssytem to fill the desires of the character.  And if you're human, or a race with rogue or sorc as a preferred class, you'll take no exp penalty.  If you went with wizard instead of sorc, you'd get a larger selection(as many as you can write down in a collection of spellbooks) of spells, but you'd have to prepare them ahead of time, and be limited to 4 0th, 3 1st, and 2 2nd level spells per day.

I see D&D 3.5 as being the most straight-forward, easy to learn of the various gaming systems I've seen.  There are only 2 kinds of rolls, 1d20+ some stat, and weapon/spell damage rolls.  Nearly everything is the former.  And yet, there is room for flexibility, and room for the GM (or game designer, in CRPGs/MMOs) to play the system however they wish.

Alkiera

I find rogue/arcane builds a lot of fun as long as one avoids the temptation to be a fireball-casting thief. Spiderclimb + sneak attack FOR TEH WIN!

The PnP systems I liked the most was 1st edition runequest (before AH got it) and Rolemaster. I still think the heroquests in RQ are a fantastic model for character advancement and perhaps one of the origins for WoW's concepts of progression. Although given it's not yet in who can tell. I certainly wasn't meaning to support the story-telling systems which have always been a bit of a cop-out. But even with these systems I wouldn't support their direct translation to a MMORPG because there are things that will not translate and some things that could be done better when you have a computer doing the book-keeping for you.

Saving throws, D&D's to-hit system, spell memorization, lots of the spells are all things I expect to not translate cleanly. They're simplified due to the limits of how many aspects can be calculated and recorded by human beings with pieces of paper without breaking game flow. Even the levels and the use of a D20 are evidence of `chunky' gradients in the interests of simplicity. Advertising that it's an accurate representation of the 3.5e++ rules is simply reducing the desigers freedom to make it better.

I was also thinking about mini-maxing. To an extent it seems to me an inevitable result of true freedom to make substantial decisions in the characters development. Either it's perfectly balanced or people with the ability to analyse games will realise that some paths simply are sub-optimal. You can see this in WoW where you can't optimise a class, because there is no freedom, but it's hard not to realise that many talents give low return. End result being flavor of the month templates and "gimps" who tried to do something different. The bad reputation it has in PnP is largely because it represented someone finding exploits in the ruleset when they should have been concentrating on the gameplay. But is it a bad thing in a MMORPG where your interaction with inidividual players is less deep?

Perhaps we'll find out, because I bet DDO will be aimed at the munchkin brigade rather than the serious RP'ers market. And I expect them to find lots of raw material to work with.

I'm hugely interested to see what the munchkin brigade does with core 3.5 rules.  Most of the worst munchkins I've seen nowadays have to resort to whining at the DM or bringing in "supplementary" material (e.g. conning the DM into letting them play a lizard man with +5 natural armor and no significant drawbacks).  I always took this as a good sign that the core rules were pretty well balanced, since you had to dip outside of them to get really munchkinny.  If anything can prove that false, though, it'll be the MMOG community.

Who are these "munchkins"?

I already said who this game was going to appeal to: The BG: DA crowd. The City of Heroes crowd (ie the video game crowd).

This must be the 3rd or 4th time I've linked this here, but it needs to be done again:

DDO gameplay footage (26 MB) (http://ims.warcry.com/scripts/links/view_link.phtml?id=3472)

The term "munchkin" can be summed up as "selfish, immature powergamer," but that doesn't really do it justice or put it in its proper context.

The canonical definition of "munchkin", though, is this document, which also defines three less-commonly-referred-to archetypes.

Real Men, Real Roleplayers, Loonies, and Munchkins (http://home.mira.net/~tosh/humour/realmen.htm)

Sometime in the late 80's/90's didn't munchkin become a term for someone who uses an uber-templated character, likely fudges his stats, and always tries to steal the loot first. In addition, he asks if everything is Magical.

Speaking of, hmmmm. I wonder if there's a client with dice rolls and somesuch, and we could run an AD&D campaign over teamspeak. That would be...interesting.

I use AIM for online gaming and it works pretty well.  There's a dice roller built in, and being able to save the log is incredibly handy when figuring out XP (or for people who missed the session and want to know what went on).

Hmmmm, if enough people are into this, I would be intensely interested in being a player in such a thing. There aren't enough people where I live that would be remotely interesting to play with. Shall we start another thread on this? Does some proactive soul want to pick a world, etc?

You tempt me horribly.  What are your feelings on Call of Cthulhu?

Never played it, always wanted to. Hit me up on one of the instant messenger services. We'll talk about getting an f13 game going.

Everyone else: return to talking about DDO.
Everyone else who wants to play - send me a PM.

Well, shit. I used to love players that tried that kind of crap. Turns out the town the party needs to base out of is incredibly racist against non-humans. Lizards in particular, they have been raided by lizardmen in the past. Player is lynched and killed.

But really, I'd never let someone play an inappropriate race in the first place.

Or you could be like one tournament DM I got stuck with back in the 80s, I was entered in the tourney with my lead singer. He was a thief and I was a mage/thief. Party had us scouting ahead, stealthed. We pocketed everything not tied down, unbeknownst to the party. The DM was pissed about that, and rather than handle it in a mature fashion (tougher traps, alarm, etc)...he sent in invisible teleporting ninjas. I shit you not. Had to bring the officiator of the event over to protest it, and he was reprimanded and we moved on to the next round, because we scored so high with our lewtz and assassinations and whatnot. Good times.

I've run full fledged PnP campaigns online via OpenRPG (http://www.openrpg.com/). It works great.

I'd be up for a "Gaslight" era Call of Cthulu RPG game. I love that era.

I'd be interested....but our last attempt at an online p-n-p game ended before I could take my first turn (I was introduced several turns into the game)...

That happened our first few online sessions too.  I just started evolving methods to keep things moving along, such as imposing limits on how long you have to tell me what the hell you're doing that round (and if your action is something that requires a die roll, you need to roll the dice when you declare the action, to cut out the extra latency that die rolls usually introduce).  Things go at least twice as fast if the GM keeps the pressure on.

If you guys are going to do a pen and paper session - how are you going to simulate a server shutdown or lag?  8-)

Count me among the interested parties.

Send a bottle or 7 of good scotch to the GM.  I can attest that it works really well.

So DDO is going to have a chance, however small after cleric buffs, of players being instakilled by enemy spells?   :|

Niche game.

Almost any game has a chance of instakills under certain circumstances.  If you're a level 1 character and you draw aggro from a level 100 mob, odds are it will instakill you.  If you're a level 100 character and you strip off all your gear, the same might be true, depending on the game.  And even if you are properly equipped, shit sometimes happens.  Whether you die from taking more damage than you have hitpoints or from an "instakill" is a meaningless distinction.

Wait and see how it plays out in the game before judging this one.  Based on my experience with PnP, I suspect it won't have nearly the impact on gameplay that you think it will, and much of my PnP experience is with versions of D&D with a lot more instakill effects than 3.5 has.  Since I started playing 3.5 I haven't seen a single instakill effect in game.

Kind of like the Explosion+hally hit days of UO!

I agree that getting one-shotted in anything other than an epic encounter sucks, but we aren't talking about permanent character death here. Death in DDO will just be a timesink like all the other MMOs, I imagine.

Bah.  AIM Express sucks donkey dick today, and it's the only one I can use at work.  Going to start a thread (http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=2324.0), if you don't mind terribly.

Go for it.

You guys are forgetting that this isn't going to be PnP players, it's going to be MMOG players.  Thousands of people are going to grind and catass and end up taking on the uber instakilling monsters a hell of a lot more often than PnP players would, hence they're going to soak up a lot more instakills.

And they're going to scream.  In volume proportionate to the ressurrection penalty.  All over the forums.

I don't see what the point of leaving these in even is, except slavish devotion to PnP rules to the exclusion of MMOG common sense.

The more you punish a catass, the more addicted he will be to your game.  It makes his accomplishments all the more valuable, at least in his mind, if he has to go through unimaginable pain to get there.   :wink:

So true.

Well put. 

Default 3.5 penalty for death, if you manage to get a rez, or someone spends 5k exp to Wish you back to life, is you lose a level.  You're set to the exp value halfway to the level you used to be, no matter how far you were into that level.


W
This looks pretty cool.  Maybe I can manage to get disparately located people online to play a game now that they've moved to the four winds.

Alkiera

Wow, that's very punitive, especially if you only have 20 levels. What happens if you don't get a rez of some sort? Or do you have to get a rez in order to play again?

Betcha this stabilizes around 100k subs at best.  That's way too hardcore/catass to pull anyone away from even EQ2.

Possible.  I just think it's too early to make predictions (but that's the fun I know).  As CoH and WoW demonstrated - clean execution means a lot too and cannot be inferred from pure design or license discussions.  So execution has emerged as a much bigger variable in these games I think which is hard to get a handle on in early phases.

If your character doesn't get a rez, they're just dead.  Like every other PnP RPG I'm familiar with, D&D has permadeath.  The only one I know of that does not use permadeath is Paranoia, and you only have 5 clones, afterwhich the master computer decides you're worthless.

Really, tho, with an actual person there managing the encounter and able to fudge dice-rolls, you shouldn't have to deal with characters dying much, unless the players are dumb.

Alkiera

Just so you know, these issues are already addressed in the DDO FAQ: (http://www.ddo.com/index.php?page_id=63)

Bruce

So if Akiera is done telling me about PnP rules when I'm asking about an MMO...

Is there a full one level death penalty?  And are these warding spells 100% effective?  Because instadeath in any form plus a full level penalty are insanity in an MMO.

Wow. That death system sounds like garbage. Lose between 1/2 to 1 1/2 a level on death, only avoidable by a wish spell (and another players exp loss). And there are instakill spells in the game.

Next.

That's the D&D 3.5 default penalty.  Whether that's the penalty DDO will use, or not, I don't know.

Death Ward is a 4th level spell for Clerics, Paladins, and a 5th level spell for Druids.
This means they have access to it starting at level 9.  Makes you immune to all magical death effects, as well as negative energy effects, and energy drains.

The list of spells that can ressurect people is longer than just Wish.
Cleric 5th - Raise Dead, requires 5k gold in diamonds as component, requires corpse
Druid 4th - Reincarnate, requires 1k in oils as component and piece of dead body, generates entirely new body, of random race.
Cleric 7th - Resurrection, requires 10k in diamonds and holy water and piece of corpse, restores complete body.
Cleric 9th - True Resurrection, requires 25k in diamonds and holy water.

Also,
Sorc/Wiz 9th - Wish, can duplicate a res spell above, but costs caster 5k exp. (to get from 19 to 20 requires 19,000 exp, to keep things in perspective.)  Also has same component costs if they are 10k gold or more.

The main difference between the cleric spells are the amount of the corpse is needed to cast the spell successfully, the length of time since death that the spell will work(10 days for raise dead, 10 years/caster level for true resurrection), and the state the formerly dead person is in when they are resurrected. 

Those money amounts sound excessive?  Keep in mind, a +1 weapon costs 2k gold above the base weapon cost...  and you can get one of those pretty easily by 4 or 5, sometimes earlier.  Also, magic items are more available than normal in Eberron, but still worth the same amount.  Basically, inflation means 5000 gp woth of diamonds isn't all THAT much money to adventurers.

Also...  This is all PnP D&D info.  I'm pretty sure the devs will be changing things some for the sake of fun.  They have mentioned making changes to other abilities, but have released no details on the death penalty.

Alkiera

Seen the Ghostwalk campaign setting?  Upon reading that I immediately thought it'd make a great MMOG setting, because death in that setting is very much like death in a MMOG - your ghost becomes corporeal and drags your body to the nearest temple for a rez.  No level loss.  This happens because the setting is right at the edge of the veil between life and death; ghosts can assume physical form very easily (making it possible for them to tote their corpses around, or even keep adventuring), and resurrection is so much easier that close to the veil that there's no level loss trauma.  It's like getting a flat tire fixed.

So there's certainly precedent in D&D for cheap and easy resurrection.

There is a new dev diary up where they are going to use the point system for magic users rather than the tradition Spells per day x PC level.  It makes sense to me, but I hope they have enough rest areas around.  Mages don't start kicking a lot of butt until level 10+.

Hrm, I'll have to read it.  It seems to be a pretty common solution for online games, I played a d20 MUD that used a point system for spellcasters.

EDIT: Read it, they are using something based on the spellpoint system in Unearthed Arcana, which is similar, apparently, to how the psionic power point system works.  Psionic power base costs are based on spell level, lvl 1 is 1 pt, lvl 2 is 3, and so on.  Basically, (spell level * 2) - 1.  Then you get a number of points based on your level and high casting stats.  If you prepare spells, you can prepare what spells you wish within the limits of your points, otherwise you can just cast spells and pay power like your average 'mana' based system.  It's pretty useful.

Alkiera

At what point is it D&D in name only?

About 10 minutes after signing the licensing agreement.

Works for me. At least I know fun and convenience has priority over strict adherence to the rules.

Besides, think of it this way -- It will be more loyal to the D&D ruleset than any other MMOG before it.

I'm a "glass is half full" kind of guy, I guess  :wink:

When speaking of the MMOG industry, the glass may be half full, but it's full of urine.

And you, my friend, are the consummate pottymouth. I always wondered where you got that skill of yours.

TY. I needed a new sig.

That just made me spit coke all over the keyboard. Thanks. After this past week, I needed that. :)

After this next week, that glass may be half full with YOUR urine. Watch yourself. The vultures have descended on San Francisco and they smell blood.

When did Cal join SOE? I address him in the 3rd person because I have no idea if he is coming back.

If all EA MMOG developers end up at SOE, where do the SOE ones go?

IMHO no computer version can really be D&D. Perhaps when holodeck technology hits us, we'll be able to do it justice, assuming holodeck programming could somehow let us actually climb walls, put things into portable holes, and get in trouble with a deity if we piss on their favorite footstool.

Barring this turn of events, it might still be too much to ask to see things in the game like a Deck of Many Things, or Daern's Iron Fortress, or even a Figurine of Wondrous Power. Also, I really wish they would have gone World of Greyhawk with the setting instead of Ebberron. So much of what makes/made D&D "classic" came from that setting. They even used it as the default world for the 3E rules, which was a great idea. I love Ed Greenwood's Forgotten Realms, but Greyhawk really means D&D to me...

Agreed.  And even then, it'll take a good GM and programmer/tools to make all that happen.

I finally got a chance to read through the Ebberon Campaign Setting... It's a very cool world.  I like the magic level, the MagiPunk feel of the world.  And with some of the additions, the PnP game gains some pulpy, action/adventure characteristics.  You can still run other types of games, of course.  But the world seems to incorporate magic into daily life the way Forgotten Realms never really did.

Alkiera

I bet I would make a good DM.  I like bossing people around.  Maybe I'll incorporate naked twister into it. 

Yikes- I hope no one rolls a critical backstab on me!

LOVE ATTACKS FROM THE REAR! THEEEEEE REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAARRRR!

Not always...
(http://www.cyberpaperboy.com/courtney_love.jpg)

the GURPS Wild West MMORPG stands out a bit in an overly fantasy-soaked genre. Funny D&D and Steve Jackson Games both announce a mmorpg pretty much at the same time (Steve Jackson Games announced 2 games).

Which Wild West MMORPG would that be? Deadlands? That'd be cool as hell if it was.

Any other Wild West setting = meh. My ideas are better  :roll: (Seriously though, I'll take anything at this point in time).

I thought the GURPS games were going to MUD's, and hence not really worthy of comment.

"GURPS - Wild West" I believe is the title.


Ugh. If they are, how do they hope to make any money?

Steve Jackson Games and Worlds Apart were developing two online text-based MMOGs, GURPS Old West and Transhuman Space (http://www.sjgames.com/general/press_releases/030121.html),but they've since been cancelled. (http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/online/index.html)

Mr. Jackson has been at AGC and GDC the past couple of years, so he's still interested in getting into the online games space, but I believe his financial resources are limited so he has to find the right company to deal with.

Bruce

WHAT?!? You would think with the millions upon billions of people playing traditional p&p RPG's (instead of being at least semi-modern, owning a thing called a 'computer' with things called 'games') they would be making a killing!!

Yeah seems like they have no choice but to enter the video game arena, or die.

I was in my local games store today and saw HARD-COVER versions of GURPS 4th Edition and some source books - so the company seems willing to take som chances. Financially as well.

(They were next to fricking LEATHER-BOUND editions of the D&D 3.5E Player's Handbook but I digress.)

He doesn't strike me as the type who takes many chances.  This is the man who told me he priced out new maps and counters for G.E.V. but decided it wasn't worth the money to actually produce the expansion.  I've also heard, anectdotally, that he has wanted too much money for his licenses when he does negotiations.  Remembers Fallout was supposed to be the first (of many) GURPS-based computer RPGs, and that deal fell apart.  SJG had some success with AutoDuel, but the Ogre game they made was a complete flop.

Bruce