Dragon Age Forum News (Nov. 20, 05)

Remove all ads!

Here are today's Dragon Age forum highlights, taken from the Dragon Age Official Forum. Please take into account that these are only single parts of various threads and should not be taken out of context. Bear in mind also that the posts presented here are copied as-is, and that any bad spelling and grammar does not get corrected on our end.

Brenon Holmes, Programmer

How's Armor Going to Work?
The current plan for armour is to use a damage reduction system. I believe various weapons have different penetration values, though it's been a while since I've looked at the rules.

This could of course, change... so don't take it as gospel.

More: Current factors in damage computation:

* Base Damage
* Creature Strength
* Weapon Strength
* Target Armour
* Weapon Penetration
* Armour Material Type
* Situational Modifiers

Again, this is the current plan. Rules can change a fair bit based on balancing. So again, "not gospel".

David Gaider, Lead Writer

Classes that change...

---

I'm curious to know if the classes in DA will have "upgrades"?

---

The current plan looks quite close to what you suggest, yes.

More:

---

ehh please re-read his post before flaming him Mr.dev

---

All I meant to say was that the original poster's description included some things that were very close to what our class system will have... but it's not a complete description by any means (class promotion isn't ALL there is to it, after all), so leaping to an assumption by describing it as being like MMORPG-style class development (which is apparently a bad thing?) is a bit premature.

The way class development works in DA, the number of options you have in development is probably one of its biggest strengths... members of the same class needn't look alike at all. So Brenon pointing out that he is leaping to a conclusion based on limited info isn't wrong at all -- though I can see how Gecon might have gone there.

We'll discuss the class system at length in the future. I wouldn't read too much into this.

More:

---

but my point is that just because you move on to a higher tier class it doesn't mean that your previous class [necessarily] becomes totally meaningless.

---

That would be correct.

Poll: What do You Want to see in DA?

---

1. Mounts and/or "packmules" in the form of horses and other rideable animals.

---

I'm all for having mounts in a game... provided that they are important and central to the gameplay. Things like jousts, mounted combat, swift travel over large distances, horse chases, etc.

But obviously that's not going to fit every type of game. And if it isn't factored into the size of areas and the overall way that the player explores the world, then it seems like an expensive yet ultimately minor feature.

Dragon Age may yet have mounts, we'll see... it's a matter, however, of judging the payoff versus the effort involved to incorporate them into the overall design and not just "wouldn't it be cool if we could ride horses?" Hence why one does not see them very often in RPG's, I suppose. We tend to apply our time on all those other cool features that RPG's require.

If mounts are mentioned simply as pack animals, though, which is to say that they are brought along to carry treasure... mmmm, no, I don't really see them as necessary. Indeed, that would make it overly obvious in my mind that the party is just there to collect phat l00t... and lots of it, apparently.

---

2. Jumping or leaping ability. Without a "useable" z-axis it seems, but many other RPG's could have used this.

---

Adding jumping and leaping is fine, but then what would one use it for? Do adventurers do much jumping and leaping about? My fear would be that this would lead to jumping and leaping puzzles. And that would be bad.

---

3. Retaining effects from attacks. Such as arrows stuck on shields, charecters being caught on fire and scars or visible wounds.

---

Neat, but fluffy.

---

4. Custom sounds and portraits (If they're needed / and if they're even used).

---

I think we learned in NWN that this is a big desire for folks. If we use portraits and soundsets similar to NWN and BG, hopefully we'll make it easier to mod than we did in NWN (knock on wood).

---

5. Henchmen-style NPC's.

---

I assume this refers to NPC's that you don't fully control, a la NWN. I think the fully-controlled NPC's are a DA feature that is not to be overlooked.

---

6. Familiars or other kinds of animal companions.

---

I've yet to see this done well. In BG2 they were pretty much useless. In NWN they were far too useful. I think they should either be a full party member with lots of personality or a class feature... a combat companion that levels up as you do, like my feisty panther that stays with me throughout my ranger career. Or whatever. Anything else is a bit of a waste, probably.

---

7. Non-scripted, destructible/interactive enviornments.

---

They're very shiny, but RPG's have so many other systems they need to consider. How many things do you want to give up just so that you can blow up houses with your fireball spell?

---

8. Full available control of all partymembers during combat and outside.

---

Well, as mentioned above, this is what DA will have... including the level-up control. Not sure if we'll have scripted behavior yet, myself.

More:

---

Tough animal companions enable me to enjoy the game as I see fit to play, so I'd like at least some of the available choices in DA to have a similar level of usefulness.

---

As I said, if an animal companion of some kind is built into the class itself, as an extension of the class's fighting ability perhaps, then they can be as tough as all get out. That wasn't the case in NWN and animal companions were never intended to be replacements for fighters -- they were an accomodation of the single-player nature of a game using a rules system meant for parties, and thus a similar implementation in DA would not be a good idea. Putting in such an imbalance just so you can "play as you want" would be pretty silly, wouldn't you agree?

Well, maybe you wouldn't, but in this case I think I'll just step in and save you from your own desire. Call me arrogant if you wish, with all that putting in rules and balance and stuff. Lookit me, sheesh.

Definition of a Dwarf
Both sides have something right here. For starters, there's very little point in us using the names of these races unless we're going to use some of their familiar aspects to our advantage. We have so many new concepts to introduce with the Dragon Age setting, having some stuff be familiar to players allows them to take in part of the world without needing much introduction.

However, at the same time we've also no interest in being boring. While keeping them recognizeably elven and dwarfish (or is it elfish and dwarven?) we definitely put our own spin on them in DA and give them a definite history and culture... one that might even make them interesting again to those people who consider them the stuff of fantasy cliche. That's my hope, anyhow. I think some of you will be surprised with how far we've gone.

At the same time I think it's a mistake to always relegate humans to the boring end of the spectrum. Different cultures can be just as unique and interesting as another race... this needn't be Star Trek, after all.

More:

---

'nyways, my opinion is always do what you wish with the Dwarves, but please, please, keep the Elves in FR/Tolkien's tradition. Pwetty please?

---

If you mean that elves are supposed to be haughty, immortal, nature-loving super-beings who are superior to humans in every possible way -- then no, those won't be our elves. Not quite, anyhow. You'll see.

More:

---

haughty? Those are FR elves. Tolkien elves are on their best behaviour - in fact they are (as Tolkien put it) as humans should be.
Not to mention that the elves left in MiddleEarth weren't much superior to humans..especially those of Numenorian origin...

---

They are very much haughty and proud and seem to look down their noses at the race of men, as I see it. And they're also superior warriors (by far), know far more about everything (it helps to have lived so long, I suppose) and are also better smiths not only than men but also than dwarves.

I have no idea what a Numenorian is, and I'm not about to quote any obscure Middle Earth lore, I'm just saying that this is how the elves are presented and the pattern that FR follows as well.

More:

---

Well, unless I'm mis-reading David's post here, NONE of the races will be declining from some ancient, remembered glory period wherein cutlture and advancement were much higher than 'current times' in the world.

Is that a fair reading of that, David?

---

Sort of. That quote is in reference to the idea that's common in many fantasy worlds that the "ancients" always had powerful magic or technology which no longer exists. So it's ancient ruins that hold ultra-powerful items which can no longer be made because that lore has been lost, the idea that the modern world has fallen from some loftier height that it once held.

There are, however, still civilizations which have been destroyed or are declining from "some remembered glory period", as you put it. They just didn't have access to superior magic or tech to what is available today.

More:

---

There are, however, still civilizations which have been destroyed or are declining from "some remembered glory period", as you put it. They just didn't have access to superior magic or tech to what is available today.

---

Bah. Daniel just pointed something out to me in our docs that says I am perjuring myself on this point. Bah. Not intentionally, of course, as it's not a rule by any means, but there it is. Some lore has been lost, I guess. Frak.

More:

---

Eh? I must have missed those parts then when I read trough Tolkiens works.
The only elves I ever recall being haughty were Feanor and his sons..and Eol. and unlike FR elves they never waged war against eachother (save for once)

---

Okey-dokey. The elves of Middle Earth are perfect and nice to humans and very peaceful and I apologize for suggesting otherwise. Though I read the books, my impression is obviously based on insufficient knowledge.

---

Don't get me wrong, if elves as a race are superoir most people will only select them in charachter creation.
However, if all races are equal then it reeks of ..well..makes little sense really..

---

It makes less sense to put in races with built-in imbalances. I'd rather not have them in the world at all at that point.

---

there is a way around it.
you can for instance make elves the most powerfull race without affecting player charachter selection.
How you might ask?
Well, the plyer starts with a young charachter, and for an elf to reach it's potential takes hundereds of years, which is definately not gonna happen in game time.
Basicly A elf and human start roughly the same and learn at the same speed, however the human will die in X years and the elf will ive on and learn on.
So the most powerfull human you meet in game is let's say lvl 30 and hte most powerfull elf is lvl 80.
Get the picture?

---

Oh, sure, there's no imbalance in that.

So it would be okay to make elves physically superior and have all sorts of bonuses, so long as they didn't earn experience any faster than humans? And if they don't get those bonuses, isn't that making them artificially equal to humans (what you said wouldn't make sense up above)?

I see no reason to make elves the most powerful race, period, not in any sense. That doesn't mean there will be artificial balances between the races... this isn't an MMORPG, after all... but they'll have whatever traits make sense for them, make them interesting to play and don't make them a required choice because they have no drawbacks and are better than all the others at everything.

More:

---

Interesting topic, to be sure. One might want to take a look at WoTCs "Eberron" campaign setting, and particularly at what Keith did with Halflings. Very interesting diversion there. Oh yes, they are still stealthy, crafty little devils, in many ways reminiscent of the halflings of Calimshan in FR. However, their culture seems more like mongols or tatars than the pastoral little fellows puffing on pipes and taking long walks in the woods of Tolkien. The Raptors they ride aren't bad, either.

---

Dark Sun had some particularly good re-interpretations of the races -- they were recognizeable, but at the same time very different. The halflings especially were cool (and viciously cannibalistic!). I remember putting them into the Planar Sphere in BG2 with a bit of glee.

More:

---

---

But an 40 year old human and an 40 year old elf are more or less equal.

---

Elves do not mature till the age of 120. 40 yo elf is still a child. And no, Drizzt is not an indicator of normal elven development, since the drow are so screwed up by the contradictory references, that it hurts.

---

Well, if an elf could live for 40 years and still be considered a child developmentally, then the idea that they could ever possibly learn and develop at the same rate as a human is ludicrous.

But, then, trying to come up with reasons as to why a member of an immortal race isn't vastly learned and superior at all things is pretty silly. Tolkien had no need to balance anything in his world because he was simply writing a story. The elves in Middle Earth are rare and that's all the balance they need, in the larger picture.

Making a playable RPG out of it, however, is something quite different. Tolkien elves aren't playable because they're clearly far too advanced right out of the gate, and D&D chooses to gloss over their long lifespans and reduce their differences into slight stat advantages and disadvantages. Which is fine, I guess.

Literally, though, the argument is moot. We're not creating Tolkien elves. Is there a reason that an elven race must be immortal? Why must elves and dwarves live so much longer than humans, exactly? There's no reason that Dragon Age must adhere to such lore as it pertains to elves and dwarves -- especially if it makes no sense and doesn't make for a good game -- and we're not going to. Period.

More:

---

Without asking what they are (although a hint would be nice ), there will be somewhat signifigant racial differences in terms of gameplay, wont there?

---

In terms of advantages and disadvantages, stat-wise, for each race? There are some, yes. I would say, myself, that the difference is more of an aesthetic and story one though.

More:

---

Would these stat adjustments stem from racial attribute modifiers, or racial traits?

---

Both, actually, where appropriate.

Daniel Erickson, Senior Designer

Definition of a Dwarf

---

Is their "2D-ness" really a bad thing for the intents and purposes of D&D? As one adds more and more guidelines and details to a race, doesn't it become more difficult to roleplay a unique member of that race? Wouldn't that be detrimental to D&D?

---

It really depends what you look for in an RPG. My biggest problem with D&D from a world perspective has always been the inconsistency and lack of depth to the races and the dwarves are the top of that list. Studying a real culture is fascinating because of the intricacies of their history, the hows and the whys of why a people are the way they are tend to be, in my opinion, more interesting than just the details of what they are now.

I sincerely believe that playing a unique character in a culture is not hindered by having a detailed culture but is enhanced by it because you can see how your character would interact with his society. I'm not actually the gun toting right winger the Canadians expect me to be when they learn I'm from the US or the granola munching, unrealistic idealist my own people expect me to be when they learn I'm from San Francisco.

A real place has history, class structure and intricacies of society that produces a complexity that throw-away fantasy stereotypes so often lack. Dwarves, elves, etc should be people. They think, they dream, they deviate and conform and change over time. And they definitely do not talk loudly non-stop about their racial traits.