Goblin Squad Member
|
This started deep in another thread, but I wanted to bring it out into the light.
I would like to see a Fatigue score which is 0 when the character is rested, and 100 when they're utterly exhausted. It should return to 0 very quickly when it's low, and more slowly the higher it gets.
Most actions would cost a certain amount of Fatigue points, but rather than a flat cost, the cost would be modified by Physical Stamina and Mental Stamina (and maybe even Spiritual Stamina) such that the Fatigue cost is multiplied by (100 / Stamina).
For example, let's pretend it costs 10 Fatigue to sprint for 30 seconds. As a Physical action, it's modified by Physical Stamina.
A character with a high Physical Stamina (say 200) would only have to spend 5 Fatigue. While a character with low Physical Stamina (say 50) would have to spend 20 Fatigue.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I like this idea Nihimon as a way to create a baseline for all classes to be able to be equally active and fun over the course of an adventuring session. Couple suggestions:
1) Maybe simpler: Have a raw stamina score that is a function of your (class merit badges +1)* n (so you have 1 effective level at creation). Then have abilities (spells, attacks, trips, etc.) draw from that pool. A fighter can't cast spells, so there's no need to track physical vs. mental stamina costs. I have a straightforward pool, and the things I can do pull from it.
2) If ability scores are in, modify your pool from that merit badge, so that if you are a 2 Cleric/2 Fighter you with a high wisdom score and no bonus to strength, the cleric merit badge contribution to the pool is levered, but not the fighter side.
Doesn't that do what you want, but is maybe simpler?
Also, I would still want to see spell slots in. Acquiring spells for all casters, and prepping them for Clerics and Wizards, is a key part of the challenge and fun of playing those classes. A stamina pool lets me manage my ability to keep playing over time, but spell slots and a timer/rest period to change out spells makes me thoughtful and value preparation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am very much in favor of limited spell slots and preparing spells for Wizards, etc.
I am a little concerned about using a raw stamina pool that is meant to power both my spells and my Sprint ability. If Wizards have a large enough pool to power some serious spell use, then their pool will be similarly large for Sprinting.
Would it be simpler to use raw Constitution/Intelligence/Wisdom to modify the Fatigue Cost directly? I could see that working. And even opens up the idea for some actions to be modified by Dex instead of Con.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am very much in favor of limited spell slots and preparing spells for Wizards, etc.
I am a little concerned about using a raw stamina pool that is meant to power both my spells and my Sprint ability. If Wizards have a large enough pool to power some serious spell use, then their pool will be similarly large for Sprinting.
Would it be simpler to use raw Constitution/Intelligence/Wisdom to modify the Fatigue Cost directly? I could see that working. And even opens up the idea for some actions to be modified by Dex instead of Con.
I would say one key thing is, something that every class will likely use equally (say sprinting), should not cross with the pool one class uses for abilities but not the pool that another one does.
IE if a wizard runs into a situation where he wants to attempt to flee before being forced to fight, when failing to flee he has full magic power to fight if that fails.
While a fighter in the same situation, burned out his entire combat abilities attempting to sprint away.
I'm fine with both being exhausted from running (as that also is guaranteed to put them on even terms with the pursuer who also burned out his energy chasing them), but if the pursuer has an option of a class that can sprint without damaging his combat, that is where the issue arives.
I also am in favor of an overall shared fatigue of some kind, it also eliminates the problem that would come from a burst class mixed with a slow & steady class. (IE having a wizard/ranger that can do massive damage, but then can't cast spells, then pull out a bow and do medium steady damage as if he never had used up that burst of power).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Nihimon: I would like to separate out class-based contributions to adventuring from general human actions that are available to everyone. Basically separate pools:
-One for things like casting spells, backstabbing, turning undead, smiting evil, doing some bad-ass sword combo, etc.
-One for stuff like sprinting, jumping, etc.
Otherwise I don't see how you can even out adventuring activity without unduly favoring melee/body types.
@Decius: Agreed. Not just a limitation, but a natural outcome of multi-classing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Mbando, I'm not sure I'm seeing the point you're trying to show me.
If I've worn myself out swinging my sword, why should I still be able to sprint?
The way I see it not being unduly balanced towards melee classes is by separating the three Stamina scores.
I'll admit that I think it's reasonable that if a Fighter, a Rogue, a Wizard, and a Cleric all Sprint into a combat encounter, the Wizard and the Cleric should probably be a little winded while the Fighter and Rogue are relatively unaffected.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
@Nihimon: I would like to separate out class-based contributions to adventuring from general human actions that are available to everyone. Basically separate pools:
-One for things like casting spells, backstabbing, turning undead, smiting evil, doing some bad-ass sword combo, etc.
-One for stuff like sprinting, jumping, etc.
Otherwise I don't see how you can even out adventuring activity without unduly favoring melee/body types.
Why not? Melee/body types will be able to run faster and jump higher, if they wear the same armor as the other types. Or, they can move just as fast in heavier armor.
That makes monks dangerous and powerful, but fragile.
EDIT: Partial Ninja'd
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Mbando, I'm not sure I'm seeing the point you're trying to show me.
If I've worn myself out swinging my sword, why should I still be able to sprint?
The way I see it not being unduly balanced towards melee classes is by separating the three Stamina scores.
I'll admit that I think it's reasonable that if a Fighter, a Rogue, a Wizard, and a Cleric all Sprint into a combat encounter, the Wizard and the Cleric should probably be a little winded while the Fighter and Rogue are relatively unaffected.
I think it all comes to the durration of the sprint or the fight, if they have to sprint a large distance the fighter and rogue may actually be a bit winded and be less competant to handle the fight. Lets put it differently however.
Lets say there is a major fight, that takes the party to the brink. The cleric and wizard are mentally exhausted but physically fine, the fighter and rogue are physically exhausted. They collect the goods from the battle, and low and behold another strong monster comes, or a group of bandits pop out of the bushes. The cleric and wizard can sprint away just not fight. The fighter and rogue are sitting ducks, as not only can't they fight in this exhuastion, but they can't run either.
Secondly this system does not handle mutliclasses at all, you mentioned the rogue isn't exhausted, what about the rogue wizard who had the energy to sprint into the battle with ease, spellcast durring the entire battle, and then sprint out.
By not tieing similar abilities to different classes in the same area, you are giving multiclasses 2x staying power (as when they exhaust their spells, they switch to mellee which they haven't used). I am 100% in favor of supporting multiclasses as viable. I am 100% opposed to a system in which multiclassing is required to be viable. I would say a system where most classes only will use 1 of the 2 fatigue bars, and has one just sitting there, is a situation that would make it almost moronic not to multiclass.
That is why I back the same bar being shared between physical and magical classes. If a wizard were to go nova and burn everything he has on one massive burst, he should not be able to immidiately switch to steady consistant damage immidiately afterwards.
It would be simpler to just give each idea a resource bar:
Hit Point Bar-- Measures damage taken. Informed by CON.
Energy Bar-- Measures physical energy expended by fighting, sprinting, etc. Informed by your highest: STR, DEX, or CON.
Mana Bar-- Measures mental energy expended by casting spells. Informed by your highest: INT, WIS, or CHA.
Specific skills could increase each pool. Skills could also increase regen rate of each one. Investing in energy regen could quickly mean going from having to rest every few fights to not having to worry much about swinging weapons unless you sprint everywhere (or jump everywhere). Investing in mana regen could have a similar effect for casters.
Aside: I'm not a fan of the idea of Wounds or reverse scaling of fatigue regen or any other idea that creates a death spiral. Death spirals are not fun.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It would be simpler to just give each idea a resource bar:
Hit Point Bar-- Measures damage taken. Informed by CON.
Energy Bar-- Measures physical energy expended by fighting, sprinting, etc. Informed by your highest: STR, DEX, or CON.
Mana Bar-- Measures mental energy expended by casting spells. Informed by your highest: INT, WIS, or CHA.Specific skills could increase each pool. Skills could also increase regen rate of each one. Investing in energy regen could quickly mean going from having to rest every few fights to not having to worry much about swinging weapons unless you sprint everywhere (or jump everywhere). Investing in mana regen could have a similar effect for casters.
Aside: I'm not a fan of the idea of Wounds or reverse scaling of fatigue regen or any other idea that creates a death spiral. Death spirals are not fun.
That still leaves in the huge problem where casters can run away after exhausting themselves in a fight, and mellees are sitting ducks. As well still completely leaving the issue of a wiz/monk, or a cleric/fighter, having twice the staying power as a specialist. (IE bing able to fill one role until they run out of energy or mana, then jump into the other role).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I definitely understand the 'flee-from-combat' argument, and like how this universal fatigue system could address that problem.
My question would be, do you think this universal fatigue system would make all the classes operate in more or less the same fashion (i.e. all classes use 'mana/fatigue' for skills, no rage/energy mechanics ala WoW, or possibly new mechanics that GW could develop)?
Having different archetypes operate in slightly different ways may help to keep things interesting for alts, but I'm sure it complicates the mechanics of how a multiclassing character would work.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Lets say there is a major fight, that takes the party to the brink. The cleric and wizard are mentally exhausted but physically fine, the fighter and rogue are physically exhausted. They collect the goods from the battle, and low and behold another strong monster comes, or a group of bandits pop out of the bushes. The cleric and wizard can sprint away just not fight. The fighter and rogue are sitting ducks, as not only can't they fight in this exhuastion, but they can't run either.
I believe the original idea is to have all abilities drain from the stamina bar. Therefor casting also drains the stamina bar, and in the situation above the wizard is just as much a sitting duck as the fighter.
I believe Nihimon was suggesting one stamina bar and all physical actions drain from this resource. (Casting a spell is also considered a physical action.) However the type of action changes how much is drained depending on your Con Dex and Wis (or some other factor, but we will go with those 3 for now.)
So for instance...
A) Wizard- Con(10), Dex(12), Wis(15). Casting drains 5 stamina, dodging drains 11 stamina, Melee fighting drains 16 stamina.
B) Rogue- Con(12), Dex(18), Wis (12). Casting (if multi-classed)drains 11 stamina, dodging drains 4 stamina, melee fighting drains 11 stamina.
C) Fighter- Con(17), Dex(14), Wis(9). Casting (if multi-classed)drains 18 stamina, dodging drains 8 stamina, melee fighting drains 4 stamina.
Now this is not to say that there could not also be a mana bar, or a 'rage' bar as well to help limit the use of other powerful abilities.
Skyrim has a system like this, as will the new Elder Scrolls Online. I like the idea as it both realistic and adds another level of strategy to combat.
EDIT: Also keep in mind that things like heavy armor, heavy weapons, and more powerful magic will be a modifier for stamina usage. So despite a fighter's higher Con score, if he is wearing heavy armor and a wizard is wearing robes, sprinting may take the same stamina from both of them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The cleric and wizard are mentally exhausted but physically fine...
This is the part I'm suggesting is wrong. I think that being mentally exhausted means being exhausted. If I cast everything I have as fast as I can until I'm too exhausted to cast another spell, I want to be too exhausted to sprint or jump too.
Secondly this system does not handle mutliclasses at all, you mentioned the rogue isn't exhausted, what about the rogue wizard who had the energy to sprint into the battle with ease, spellcast durring the entire battle, and then sprint out.
I don't know if Mbando intended the inception, but I now believe that it's better to base the Fatigue cost on the primary Attribute(s) for the ability. That should balance things nicely for multi-class because it's not really that likely that a hybrid Rogue/Wizard will have the same Str/Dex as a pure Rogue or the same Int as a pure Wizard.
That is why I back the same bar being shared between physical and magical classes.
This is actually the goal of my proposal. A shared "bar"/resource that I named Fatigue.
It would be simpler to just give each idea a resource bar:
Hit Point Bar-- Measures damage taken. Informed by CON.
Energy Bar-- Measures physical energy expended by fighting, sprinting, etc. Informed by your highest: STR, DEX, or CON.
Mana Bar-- Measures mental energy expended by casting spells. Informed by your highest: INT, WIS, or CHA.
The danger here is that classes which use the Mana bar have a significant advantage over classes which use the Energy bar, because they can use the Mana bar to power their class abilities and still have their full Energy bar to power things like Sprinting and Jumping.
I'm not a fan of the idea of Wounds or reverse scaling of fatigue regen or any other idea that creates a death spiral.
I am most definitely not suggesting that Fatigue result in a death spiral. I don't think that being Fatigued should have any effect other than slowing the rate at which you rest back to full. I would not want it to make your abilities less effective.
... do you think this universal fatigue system would make all the classes operate in more or less the same fashion... ?
Excellent question. I would hope it wouldn't. In reality, all it does is normalize one method of powering abilities. There's always room for abilities that don't have a Fatigue Cost at all, or that have a nominal Fatigue Cost but also have a gimmick cost.
Having different archetypes operate in slightly different ways may help to keep things interesting...
I couldn't agree more. I found the Virtue Points for Paladins in Vanguard very cool, and as I said to Sissyl in another thread, I genuinely love gimmicky game play for the different Archetypes, or even for different alternate archetypes within an Archetype. The devs just have to be careful to ensure that none of the gimmicks really make multi-classing impossible.
I'm a big fan of designing ability costs around the Spirit & Feel of the Archetype. Things like a Necromancer powering a high-power ability mostly by consuming a number of debuffs he's already placed on his victim, or a Rogue using precision strikes to limit her victim's ability to dodge/parry and then using a high-powered ability that capitalizes on her victim's current state - those kinds of things excite me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
*nods sagely at DendasGarrett*
(( I've never played any of the Elder Scrolls games, and had no idea Skyrim used a similar mechanic. Maybe I'm just the Hundredth Monkey. ))
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Mbando, I'm not sure I'm seeing the point you're trying to show me.
If I've worn myself out swinging my sword, why should I still be able to sprint?
The way I see it not being unduly balanced towards melee classes is by separating the three Stamina scores.
I'll admit that I think it's reasonable that if a Fighter, a Rogue, a Wizard, and a Cleric all Sprint into a combat encounter, the Wizard and the Cleric should probably be a little winded while the Fighter and Rogue are relatively unaffected.
I'm trying to get at what Onishi is getting at--if you lump common actions in with class abilities, than the body/melee types are drawing from the same pool more often than caster and range types, which is an imbalance. Which means (I think) that to compensate you have to make them have a bigger body pool/bigger contribution to pool from body stats, so that when the wizard and the paladin have both blown their wad fighting, they both are on an equal footing for fleeing or whatever.
But that means the body/melee types have a surplus they can dip into if they think there's no need to flee--Clara the caster never has to juggle that under this common pool framework.
It's much easier to balance if we unbundle class abilities from actions.
-One pool for abilities, with the draw for abilities balanced so that the net "fun output" is relatively even across archetypes. Maybe that's a relatively smooth damage output consistently while you play. Maybe it's picking your spots and bursting out with damage. Maybe it has nothing to do with damage, and it's about buffing, movement, utility, etc.
-A second pool for actions like sprinting, taking cover, etc. That can be balanced as well, and I don't really care about how realistic it is.
What I want is for anyone, regardless of class, to be able to contribute meaningfully to gameplay over time. That means re-jiggering the tabletop mechanic for casters (high utility balanced through infrequency) to account for real-time in MMO gameplay.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm trying to get at what Onishi is getting at--if you lump common actions in with class abilities, than the body/melee types are drawing from the same pool more often than caster and range types, which is an imbalance.
Why would the body/melee type be drawing more from this pool than a caster or ranged? Casting a spell or firing at ranged takes effort too. Go swing a sword at a tree, then go fire a bow at a tree and see if they dont take the same effort for the same amount of hits. (I would also say to go cast some spells at a tree, but...)
The point being; every action takes effort; melee, ranged, casting, dodging, blocking, running. Therefore all classes rely on the same limited 'fatigue' pool to be able to do whatever their class has the ability to do.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... if you lump common actions in with class abilities, than the body/melee types are drawing from the same pool more often than caster and range types...
Either I'm misunderstanding you or you're misunderstanding me.
I'm suggesting there only be one pool, so all characters are drawing from it all the time, for everything they do.
I think you're right to want Wizards to be able to contribute significantly for the entire duration of a combat, but I also hope that we're able to choose to play a Wizard who takes infrequent but much more effective action. If I can choose to forego casting 6 Fireballs that each take about 5% of my target's health, and instead cast a single Fireball that takes about 30% of my target's health, but requires me to wait for an opportunistic opening, I would do so gladly.
I'm suggesting there only be one pool, so all characters are drawing from it all the time, for everything they do.
If the ability score system is SDCIWC, why not tie some abilities to each attribute? Fighters would have abilities based on STR, DEX, or CON, rogues would be DEX, INT, or CHA...
That even sets up a natural limitation on the power of multiclassed characters.
I see. So you're suggesing a single universal resource? That's better than mine.
Fighter blocks, expending 5 fatigue because he has high STR.
Fighter sprints, expending 20 fatigue because he has low DEX.
Fighter/Wizard casts a spell, expending 20 fatigue because he has low INT.
Wizard casts the same spell, expending 5 fatigue because he has high INT.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Of course, there's still room for other cost systems that are particular for an Archetype or even particular for a School of Magic, for example.
In addition to the normal Fatigue costs, a Necromancer might also have to expend some resource measured by the number of vampiric leeches he has actively sucking power from his victim(s). I really like specialized gimmicks like that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If I can choose to forego casting 6 Fireballs that each take about 5% of my target's health, and instead cast a single Fireball that takes about 30% of my target's health, but requires me to wait for an opportunistic opening, I would do so gladly.
Anything other than spamming fireballs every time the 3 second cooldown lights up and I'm game. This DPS obsession bores me to death.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Nihimon,maybe I am misunderstanding you. A single pool to draw from for abilities and actions, with your cost to draw from it modified by a primary stat. That makes sense to me, as long as abilities and actions are not tied to a class related stat.
If you mean what Hudax is saying though, you will unfairly favor body/melee types (not trying to pick on you Hudax).
I see. So you're suggesing a single universal resource? That's better than mine.Fighter blocks, expending 5 fatigue because he has high STR.
Fighter sprints, expending 20 fatigue because he has low DEX.
Fighter/Wizard casts a spell, expending 20 fatigue because he has low INT.
Wizard casts the same spell, expending 5 fatigue because he has high INT.
So given the above, after an exciting battle, both Wally the Wizard and Rebecca the Ranger are equally exhausted--he's been wisely using his INT- linked abilities like counter, burning hands, and mage armor, so that even though he's been in the fight, he has only accrued 95 points of fatigue. Rebecca has been equally smart--she's been using all her DEX-based attacks like true-shot, dual-swipe, and spring-attack. She also has accrued 95 fatigue points.
So far, everyone is equal--we've all been in the fight, all contributed, and it's all good...until a troll jumps them just as they finish. Rebecca sprints, expending 5 fatigue because she has high DEX--Wally can't sprint, expending expend 20 fatigue, because he has low DEX. Now they're not equal, and the body/melee type has an advantage.
Actions common to PCs--anything like sprinting--has to be unbundled from class-linked abilities.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Actions common to PCs--anything like sprinting--has to be unbundled from class-linked abilities.
Wally could have a spell of invisibility that gets him out of trouble for 5 fatigue points. Different solution, but same result.
You make a good point though - this sort of universal system requires GW to look at a lot of 'what-ifs' to make certain everyone is balanced. Or perhaps everyone won't be completely balanced, by design?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In any given situation, there should be some characters better able to handle the situation than others. Balance is in making situations that favor each type of character happen roughly equally.
That doesn't sound like any fun to me. The art to different classes isn't giving them roughly the same amount of total times they get screwed. Rather, it's in:
1) Giving players multiple ways to skin the cat, so different classes/different parties can crack the nut in creative ways.
2) Creating opportunities for class differences to leverage each other, like combining arms: direct fire weapons do one thing, indirect another, but combined they put the enemy on the horns of a dilemma. That's one of the best parts of D&D--that party with a bard, cleric, wizard and fighter is more than the sum of its parts.
Reinforcing, leveraging abilities give different classes a great reason to be social and group together, which in turn is a lot of fun.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
In any given situation, there should be some characters better able to handle the situation than others. Balance is in making situations that favor each type of character happen roughly equally.That doesn't sound like any fun to me. The art to different classes isn't giving them roughly the same amount of total times they get screwed. Rather, it's in:
1) Giving players multiple ways to skin the cat, so different classes/different parties can crack the nut in creative ways.
2) Creating opportunities for class differences to leverage each other, like combining arms: direct fire weapons do one thing, indirect another, but combined they put the enemy on the horns of a dilemma. That's one of the best parts of D&D--that party with a bard, cleric, wizard and fighter is more than the sum of its parts.
Reinforcing, leveraging abilities give different classes a great reason to be social and group together, which in turn is a lot of fun.
I don't see how what I said is contradictory to what you said, except that I allow for the existence of a group of players that has fun doing one thing well but not doing much else at all.
Twenty barbarians with forty axes will beat anything that can't withstand lots of getting chopped, but will be beaten back by a small group of well-disciplined legionnaires , who can be cut off from resupply by a couple of sneaky rogues, who can't hide from the 'eyes of the panther' monk, who can't handle getting chopped to pieced by an enraged barbarian.That doesn't make being a member of a group of barbarians less fun.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
1) Giving players multiple ways to skin the cat, so different classes/different parties can crack the nut in creative ways.
Personally I'd want that to include non-combat options with environmental interaction possibilities to bring down a enemy or get through dungeons.
DeciusBrutus is correct in that certain characters should be able to handle certain situations better then others, like a room full of traps should be easily navigated by a thief with the rights skills then a mage or a fighter.
And rightfully a mage should be better at dealing with say a arcane lock on a magically sealed vault. How a fighter would work into equations like this is the thing I can't work out because they are as simple as name-sake.
I agree with the cross class combinations though, a mage imbues a fighters weapon for fire/lightning/etc to battle something with a elemental weakness or a thief throws a bottle of sleep tonic on the ground while the mage uses wind magic to push it down into a corridor to incapacitate the enemies so the group can sneak past.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'll admit that I think it's reasonable that if a Fighter, a Rogue, a Wizard, and a Cleric all Sprint into a combat encounter, the Wizard and the Cleric should probably be a little winded while the Fighter and Rogue are relatively unaffected.
Agreed on the fighter at least. Melee classes need something to close the gap, otherwise their opponents can just turn, run, and get away. Having it so that fighter/barbarian/paladin/monk can continue to run longer than their mode scholarly opponents is both realistic, and a needed mechanic unless you add things that make melee warriors go flying at their opponents like in TOR and WoW. I would rather NOT, see a paladin/fighter go flying halfway across the map to land next to their opponent unless they are very high level with a damn good reason that they can do so.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That makes sense to me, as long as abilities and actions are not tied to a class related stat.
I would ask you to consider this from another angle.
Let's assume Sprint is a DEX-based action, just for the sake of argument. Now, imagine a Rogue (18 DEX), a Ranger (16 DEX), and a Wizard (10 DEX) decide to sprint until they're too Fatigued to continue. Should the Wizard be able to Sprint just as far as the Rogue?
For my part, I don't think so.
I posted a response in the thread where this conversation started that clarified how I thought Fatigue should not be like WoW's Energy bar, but should be more tiered.
In my mind, Wally the Wizard isn't remotely likely to be so close to exhausted after a battle that he can't Sprint. At any rate, if Wally the Wizard and Rebecca the Ranger are both equally exhausted, and Wally is so close to absolute exhaustion that he can't Sprint, then Rebecca will be right on the verge and certainly won't be recovering enough to do anything useful anytime soon.
I would rather NOT, see a paladin/fighter go flying halfway across the map to land next to their opponent unless they are very high level with a damn good reason that they can do so.
While I intellectually agree with you, I really did love the flying leaps my Paladin was able to do in Rift.
I've re-posted my response from the other thread below, if you're feeling lazy. I would add an extra tier where the regeneration rate is 0 before you collapse and can only crawl.
In the first tier, Fatigue decreases by 16 points during each "round" of action (basically, each time a character could act). So, if you're only doing activities that cost 16 Fatigue, then you can do them forever.
In each higher tier, Fatigue decreases by half the amount of the previous tier. So, the second tier it would decrease by 8 each round. Third tier would be 4. Fourth tier 2. Fifth tier 1. Once you cross into the Sixth tier, you are exhausted and collapse, perhaps able to still crawl, but unable to do anything else.
Recovering at an Inn could decrease your Fatigue by 16 points each round.
Consider a Wizard casting a Fireball that cost 64 Fatigue (after all modifiers).
After the first cast, Fatigue is 64. That's in the first tier, so 16 of that is restored by the time the character can act again.
After the second cast, Fatigue is (64 - 16 = 48) + 64 = 112. Still in the first tier.
Third cast, (112 - 16 = 96) + 64 = 160. Still first tier.
#4, (160 - 16 = 144) + 64 = 208.
#5, (208 - 16 = 192) + 64 = 256.
#6, (256 - 16 = 240) + 64 = 304.
We're now into the second tier, so we'll only be recovering by 8 Fatigue per round.
#7, (304 - 8 = 296) + 64 = 360.
#8, (360 - 8 = 352) + 64 = 416.
#9, (416 - 8 = 408) + 64 = 472.
#10, (472 - 8 = 464) + 64 = 528.
We're into the third tier now, and only got 4 casts in the whole second tier, compared to 6 in the first.
Obviously, the devs would need to spend some serious thought balancing costs and regeneration rates, but it's obvious to see that if I chose to wait a few rounds between each cast, I would never get remotely fatigued, and would be ready to pour on some serious burn if that were really necessary. Or I could choose a 32 cost spell and cast it every other round forever.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That makes sense to me, as long as abilities and actions are not tied to a class related stat.I would ask you to consider this from another angle.
Let's assume Sprint is a DEX-based action, just for the sake of argument. Now, imagine a Rogue (18 DEX), a Ranger (16 DEX), and a Wizard (10 DEX) decide to sprint until they're too Fatigued to continue. Should the Wizard be able to Sprint just as far as the Rogue?
For my part, I don't think so.
Not as far, but as often. Movement speed is part of class variability, and so we have monks and barbarians that move much faster tactically. What I don't want is for there to be times when high DEX classes can sprint but low DEX classes can't. The whole idea of a fatigue counter in my mind is to adapt a TT convention (power over time differentials) into something workable in a real-time MMO (equal playability over time). Tying common actions (which I think are going to be physical, not mental or moral) to fatigue gives a strong marginal advantage to body types whenever there are oh-sh*t moments. I think that is a crummy design choice.
@Fire Bud: Of course we want there to be the kind of rock-paper-scissors mechanism you and Decius are pointing to--that's a huge part of the fun in D20 games. I think common, non-class actions are a different type, and need to be commonly accessible.
When our party runs into trapped corridor and then gets ambushed, I want everyone to shine--for the rogue to find and disarm the trap, the paladin to muscle up on the Orc Raiders, the Cleric to shrug off the Hold Person spell cast by the Orc Shaman and then free his paladin friend, and for the sorcerer to channel mystic forces that burn enemies to ash. That sounds awesome. What doesn't sound awesome is the moment after that, for a mechanic that favors either the rogue or the paladin to be able to take actions, i.e. hyako out of there.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
The rogue runs away, the heavily armored paladin tries to but doesn't make it, the sorcerer becomes invisible or blurred, and the cleric puts up sanctuary.
Or in the next room, the rogue can disable the magic trap without identifying it, the sorcerer can identify where it will strike and guide the group through the safe zone, the paladin can absorb the damage, and the cleric can put up an aura of resistance which can mostly negate it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Tying common actions (which I think are going to be physical, not mental or moral) to fatigue gives a strong marginal advantage to body types whenever there are oh-sh*t moments. I think that is a crummy design choice.
I am in full agreement that any design choice which gave a strong marginal advantage to body-centric characters would be a crummy design choice.
I do not agree that my proposal amounts to such a design choice.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
While I intellectually agree with you, I really did love the flying leaps my Paladin was able to do in Rift.
While I agree that these kind of abilities can be fun for whoever is using them, they entirely change up how things work on the battlefield.
For instance, you are fighting with heavies up front and ranged squishes in the back. The leap/charge through everything right to my target abilities can take the enemy melee troops from in-front of your heavies to running among your squishes, where without those abilities they likely will either get intercepted/blocked by your heavies, or be delayed enough to take considerable damage from your squishes before breaking through.
I don't mind charge type abilities that will carry you quickly forward (within reason) and allow you to deliver a big blow to whoever is on the other end, or even an insane insta-teleport to target for some arcane assassin kind of class, but the majority of melee troops being able to just jump on top of their target, really contradicts the kind of tactical gameplay I would like to see. I would like to see commanders saying "Put some archers on that cliff" and not "Don't bother putting archers there, the fighter's leap will just carry them up to the top" or "Make sure our flank isn't exposed!" instead of "Don't worry about the flank, once the fighting starts they will all just leap into the middle of our forces anyway."
Fatigue is a way better advantage to give melee fighters IMO.
Goblinworks Founder
|
Another thing to consider with a fatigue system is that constitution becomes a universally important statistic for not only recovery time but also how far one is able to push themselves before becoming fatigued. I think this system would work if we were able to distribute points to our ability scores, but also improve them through use. The more one sprints the healthier they become, the faster their recovery times would be. Also as one becomes accustomed to the mental drain of casting the healthier they become in mind and spirit.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think this system would work if we were able to distribute points to our ability scores, but also improve them through use. The more one sprints the healthier they become, the faster their recovery times would be. Also as one becomes accustomed to the mental drain of casting the healthier they become in mind and spirit.
That model--the Elder Scrolls click and grow model--is the opposite of what GW is proposing: a steady, time based skill progression that is a pre-req for merit badges.
You can read about how this system works here: https://goblinworks.com/blog/index.html#20120104
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Elth, I still expect there to be some skill-based ways to increase your attributes.
Personally, though, rather than seeing Constitution be "universally important" for recovery of Fatigue, I would prefer to see Fatigue have a constant Maximum and Recovery Rate, and have all the variability be in how much Fatigue it actually costs to do something.
A Mage like Raistlin, with extremely low Constitution, can cast powerful spells all day long. I'd hate to see PFO take away that archetypal model.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Elth, I still expect there to be some skill-based ways to increase your attributes.
That surprises me given the blog:
The second common MMO design tries to capture a more "realistic" development process where characters become better at doing things by doing them repeatedly: when you swing a sword enough, you get better at sword swinging. This is system was used in the first successful mass market MMO, Ultima Online, and it's the system you'll find in the record-breaking single-player RPG Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim. One problem with these kinds of systems is that they often encourage very strange behavior as characters do the thing needed to improve a skill even if doing it makes no sense, like jumping constantly while moving anywhere, or continuously firing spells off into the sky. At the far end of this behavior are macros and bots—software programs that take control of a character and have it do boring repetitive actions on behalf of a human player who is off doing something else with their life. This tends to break the immersive experience for players who are trying to engage with the game "normally."
What makes you think they'll change this? What would the benefit be?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Mbando, I don't have any special knowledge, and I just read the section on Attributes from the Your Pathfinder Online Character blog, and there's certainly nothing in there to hint that we'll be able to raise our abilities.
However, there's still a big difference between "skill-based" attribute advancement, and "use-based". The section you quoted is talking about why PFO won't use "use-based" advancement. I don't think they'll have to go back on any of that to implement "skill-based" advancement.
And there's certainly a possibility that there won't be any "skill-based" attribute advancement either. I know that Eve dropped their Learning skill, which had the same effect there that Attributes will have in PFO with respect to reducing training time. It wouldn't surprise me if PFO only ever lets you increase your attributes with gear, but it would disappoint me a little.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I know that Eve dropped their Learning skill, which had the same effect there that Attributes will have in PFO with respect to reducing training time.
I must have missed this. Was this in the blog? A source or quotation would be much appreciated. (Since you can't here my voice tone let me just specify I'm not questioning your honesty or being sarcastic. I'm genuinely interested to know where you read this.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I've been paying entirely too much attention :)
From Your Pathfinder Online Character, under the heading "Character Development in Pathfinder Online":
Attributes: These correspond to the classic six abilities of the tabletop game (although we may rename one or two just for the sake of clarity given the way they'll work in the online game). In Pathfinder Online, these attributes have two aspects: The first is that they determine how long it takes to train a skill that uses that attribute as a base. The higher the attribute score, the faster your character can train those kinds of skills. The second is that they determine how effective the character is at resisting certain types of effects. Instead of the tabletop game's three saving throws, in Pathfinder Online there's a resistance bonus or penalty associated with each of the six attributes.
|
Goblinworks Founder
|
Indeed I am aware of the time based skill system proposed I probably just have trouble translating my chaotic thought process. Still there is nothing to say you cannot improve your constitution or fatigue with a "rocky" style montage skill over time.
Perhaps magic users could do similar through meditation and contemplation.
How the game design translates this doesn't need to adjust the fatigue bar or recovery, it could instead modify the specific skill or spell lowering the fatigue cost in an incremental improvement. An example would be a warrior practicing a specific swing or parry often enough that it becomes second nature to his muscle memory; an example of a Mage would be to study magic missile and contemplate how he could personally improve his casting technique or pronunciation of text. This would merely be translated to game mechanics as queuing up the skill to trains over time to Improve its fatigue cost or cast speed
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A Mage like Raistlin, with extremely low Constitution, can cast powerful spells all day long. I'd hate to see PFO take away that archetypal model.
+1 for Raistlin Majere.
Now to business:
Since I too am in agreement about physical attribute based character having an unfair advantage over mental attribute based characters, I would like to return to the example with Rebecca the Rogue and Wally the Wizard.
Thus far, people have generally been accepting of the idea that if you are mentally exhausted, you should be physically exhausted as well.
That said, this does not necessarily require both physical stamina and mental stamina to co-exist in one bar.
If Rebecca's physical stamina is at 5/100, and her mental stamina is at 100/100, she can expend 5 physical stamina sprinting away from the fight.
Wally on the other hand, normally needs 20 stamina to sprint. If the bars are shared, he can do nothing. If on the other hand the bars are separate but 'linked', he can still sprint away without being "physically fine" if the bars were completely disconnected.
What I mean by linked is that if a mental stamina bar is below say, 20/100, the costs for doing physical actions is multiplied by a factor of 3.
So at the end of the fight, when the troll shows up, Rebecca runs away, no problem, using up the last 5 of her physical stamina (taking no penalties because her mental stamina is full).
(End Result: Survived. 0/100 physical stamina. 100/100 mental stamina)
Wally likewise can still run away. While it normally would take him 20 physical stamina to run away, because he is mentally exhausted it instead takes him 60 stamina.
(End Result: Survived. 40/100 physical stamina. 5/100 mental stamina).
These numbers are completely random, and not a reflection of any sense of balance. They simply provide an alternative avenue of thought on this subject.
Other consequences of a system like this:
Multi-classed Wizard/Fighters could consciously choose to blend their physical and mental staminas in ways to maximize efficiency while minimizing penalties for being mentally/physically exhausted.
Mutli-classed Wizard/Fighters might be unable to perform as many actions as they should be able to if the penalties are not scaled appropriately. (Careful balance would be needed... Perhaps some multi-class only merit badges reducing crossover-penalty for being mentally/physically exhausted while trying to run/cast respectively)
Both the wizard and rogue, who are supposed to be 'equally tired' at the end of their fight are able to sprint almost the exact same distance away without breaking the physical consequences of a wizard being mentally tired. (both only had enough energy for 1 sprint action using the values established in other random number examples)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
i stopped reading this thread when it resorted to fatigue from combat because i'm okay with whatever GW decides there
so if this has been mentioned i just give it a +1:
what I would like to see fatigue for is the sprinting everywhere across the map every day
and for PvE wandering monsters to spawn substantially more for the cross country runners
if you are in a rush get a horse
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What game purpose does this serve?
It serves the exact same game purpose that is served by limiting Spells per Day in PFRPG. Which is the exact same game purpose usually served by Mana Pools in many games. Which is the exact same game purpose being served by Fatigue in games that implement it.
It's a better model for the underlying constraint that you can't just cast your most powerful spell over and over. And since it's so much easier to keep track of in a computer game than it is on the tabletop (although GURPS does a fair job with Fatigue Points), there's value in applying the same constraint to non-spell-based characters as well.
This specific model was proposed to address the failures in other Fatigue models. Specifically, that physical damage dealers were often at a disadvantage compared to spell casters because their Action Points pool was used up with standard physical actions like Sprinting, whereas a spell caster's Action Points pool would be full even after Sprinting, etc.
IF such a mechanic were to be implemented I would suggest a certain suite of skills should never cost fatigue. Furthermore I'd expand on that idea and suggest as characters get more powerful in certain areas that their "set" of unfatiguable-skills get larger.
I agree wholeheartedly. I would hope that higher Skill Level would translate to lower Fatigue Cost. And I agree that there should always be something I can do that has no Fatigue Cost. The Fatigue Cost is there to allow for the existence of high powered abilities that would be unbalancing without some means of limiting their use. If it's just a cooldown, then it becomes a question of which abilities aren't on cooldown. If you use shared cooldowns, then you're limiting things too much.