Thanks a lot for the response.
- It's hard to have an attribute which is equally good for everyone, and arguably, "equally good" is not actually something to aspire to. After all, unless you're playing an Elder Scrolls game, there are only so many points you're going to be able to get, you can't max out all attributes. I think giving most attributes some use for different archtypes is good.
Ah, I did specify "but some getting a greater benefit than others", with Finesse giving critical damage as an example of someone that benefits more(dagger users). Hoped that would have been clear enough; but yes, I think attributes should still fulfill the fantasy of an archetype. It would be weird to have the most optimal stealth dagger wielding rogue to be using pure strength, or a spell-slinger using his massive muscles to do so. The exact effects of the attributes are of course not that easy to determine.
- I definitely agree that Telekinesis is kinda subpar, there's not really much reason to take it over one of the much more obviously beneficial Civil abilities. It's still an improvement over D:OS 1 where there was no differentiation between Civil and Combat. But oh good, I can lift things too heavy for STR characters to lift, and very rarely I can reach an item far away... except that if you have LoS you can almost certainly teleport it closer instead.
- If you were to move all Civil skills to Talents, obviously the frequency of Talent points would need to be increased, but that would promote taking Combat-related Talents, so then you'd maybe need to make a distinction between Civil and Combat Talents, and then you've come into a big circle.
Ah, actually; a few civic talents instead of a bunch of points to max out of civic skills have several differences; If the talents also scale by attribute as I suggested (possibly not just by 1, or a different part of the talent is affected by different attributes, Intelligence affecting Telekinesis range, strength its capacity etc.) Thievery using strength to unlock some objects, intelligence for others, and finesse for most locks etc. etc.
As it is now; you basically max out a different civic ability with each character and leave it at that. With civic talents they're something your character can do now, which is improved by your attributes in a variety of ways. One of the things I think is important though, is to have each talent have several abilities keyed off it, and enough encounters in the world for it to matter.
- I think 3-5% Resistance to X element per point into X skill school is an idea which makes sense. Enemy base resistances might need to be adjusted down to take that into account, but I think the idea is reasonable.
- I would be quite careful about suddenly restricting movement skills. Fairly cheap movement has been in the game for all of EA. It probably hasn't been easy to notice, but if all of it was taken away, that would be a very dramatic change in combat - especially since enemies would almost certainly NOT lose their free movement. What the combat would look like in a game without movement skills is unclear.
Like I said; 1-2 movement memory slots rather than the "as many as you can" as it is now. Even letting you choose the same skill twice(if 2 slots). I like the movement abilities, but having 3 or even more gets out of hand in my opinion. Makes terrain less meaningful.
This way, people can play a jack of all trades, master of none and not be punished by numbers, but they won't have the mastery of the elements of spells like earthquake and tornado while also striking a mortal blow from stealth beforehand
Who does this? In the current game, who is both a strong melee fighter and powerful with int-based damage spells? Both the armor system and the attributes work against that.
I agree, but take the entire post as one with all changes it contains, they're generally related to eachother. With the changes you would be able to make a battlemage or a true jack of all trades.
Secondly(Oof, took a while to get to the second point), the physical/magical armour system. Right now it cuts off interaction between physical and magic damage users completely. Instead; Physical armour reduces damage of physical attacks by ~30% (could be more or less), and magical armour that of magic damage by the same %, but only 50% of the reduced damage is absorbed, the rest going directly to vitality. When one armour type is gone, the remaining damage goes to the other armour type which does not reduce that damage type. This would make a mixed party still useful to pick off individual targets, without having to both hack at a separate health pool first.
The idea I have is somewhat similar, except that damage goes to both armor types from the start, it doesn't shift after one armor type is gone. I suggested a 75-25 ratio of armor damage, although it could go as low as 67-33.
Once an armor type is depleted, the same amount of damage which would have hit the armor goes directly to health.
- So a 100 Magic Damage attack on a 300 HP Magister with 100 Physical and 100 Magical armor would leave the Magister with 75 Physical and 25 Magical armor.
- A 100 Magic Damage attack on a 300 HP Magister with 0 Physical and 100 Magical armor would leave the Magister with 275 HP and 25 Magical armor.
Thus, even if physical attackers have stripped away all their armor first, mages could still contribute by dealing some direct damage.
Hmm, I wouldn't mind this, though I do prefer my own suggestion because it makes healing more useful because of the vitality damage always going through.
Very important to note that this does require debuff protection to change because armour goes down slower; making thesholds of armour to show what kind of debuffs can be applied. For example; Chicken Claw or Frozen might require physical or magic armour to be between 0-30% or be resisted, while Bleeding or burning might require 0-80%, effects like silencing 0-50% etc. (all of the % are outlined on the abilities that apply it).
Here's where my idea differs: X-type Armor still blocks X-Type status effects as long as it is above zero. That said your idea seems to be an interesting idea, if more complex to understand, being a case-by-case basis for each status effect.
Case-by-base, but some baseline to go from. Effect(CC/Damage/debuff etc.) * Duration, damage effects would only need a slightly damaged armour, with debuffs taking more, and stuns and the like even more. I don't think it's that complex, would need to be shown poperly in the UI though.
- The idea of physical weapon types is not a new one, and not a bad one but I suspect that it got voted down at Larian. Good idea adding Necrotic to the Physical damage types.
Yeah, I think it'd be weird for decay to deal slashing/crushing/piercing damage. A magic that just eats away at the body.
