> I suppose one could add a bard type class, in which spells (songs) work a > bit different and which Cha is a key stat, but that is not a simple > change. And I'm not quite sure how that would work as a class in > crossfire. What works for a table top game, or even other CRPG's where > you have player controlled NPCs is different. Since crossfire by in large > is a solo play game, it means that the class has to be able to stand up on > its own - something that really complements a fighter has limited value if > you also have to be the fighter.
Cha could be used for charm monster, oratory, singing, to influence the outcome. > One has to be careful about such schemes - just results in one casting > spells at every opportunity. I've played some games like that, and so > while I'm wandering through the countryside, I'm casting a spell because > it will slowly improve my skill. > > You can try to control it - they spell has to do damage to creature, etc, > but then you get the case of the 30th level character sitting in the > starting house with a bunch of orcs so the spell damages something (if it > doesn't kill the orcs, they can do it all day). And if the requirement > does become it has to kill them, now you fall back into an exp based > system. Sure, it needs balancing. > Yes - that could be done, but would require some new logic (otoh, if the > npc is going to give a potion, why not just add logic instead like 'he > trains you to be stronger' instead?) New logic isn't hard to add - a simple Python script in the quest mechanism would work. > I'd hate to make them alchemy only - that tosses more balance issues into > the mix (by the very redesign of classes, some classes will have a hard > time being able to do alchemy, so they are effectively deprived of > potions). One could add something like an NPC alchemist - you bring him > the components, pay some amount of money, and he'll make the potion for > you. Yup, or that's make multiplayer a more interesting thing - one is a warrior, the other an alchemist. > For certain rare items, like potions, treasure lists and treasure chest > could also be changed. Right now, at some difficulty level, any random > chest can have a potion in it. One could instead add different quality of > chests (common, rare, etc), and only rare ones might generate potions, and > those chests should be used sparing - to an extent that random maps may > contain only one such quest every 5-10 levels or something (and fact it > may show up in the potion does not mean it would - it might still only be > a 10% chance, so it means if you clear out a level 100 dungeon, you get 1 > potion) Yep, treasure lists need rebalancing too. > True, but anything that has random determination of reward (Raffle being > an extreme example, but even rewards at end of dungeons) adds potential > for doing repeats to get the item you want. > > One could make many of the rewards static (and many items are), but that > also isn't ideal - it means one knows exactly where to go to get some item > - I'm not sure that is a good thing either. Some middle ground may be > better - not sure. Random is fine. After all, grinding for items is a playing objective. But maybe we need to also add quest-based grinding ;) Nicolas -- Mon p'tit coin du web - http://nicolas.weeger.org
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
