Re: [SWCollect] "Modern" classics

[Pedro Quaresma]

Edward Franks wrote:
>On Jan 14, 2004, at 11:07 AM, Pedro Quaresma wrote:
>[Snip]
>> Me too, but it's still too arcade-ish.

>                 It didn't seem that way to me, but then I play a fair amount first
>person shooters.  Combat seemed reasonably fluid.

>                 It is a good thing we have some variety in the genre.  :-D

Oh yes, no doubt. The problem is you never get all the things you want in the same game! :) Look exclusively at 2002, so many great different RPGs... nevertheless I'd love to have one with the graphics/settings/sounds of Morrowind, plus the interface/visual perspective of Divine Divinity, plus the combat/items/multiplayer system of Prince of Qin...

> Another flaw is the complete inbalance between magic users and
> melee-types. Spellcasters really get the shaft in this game.

>                 That depends on how you build your character.  My wife played the
>mage-type where you need to be attacked by magic to 'recharge' your own
>magic.  She did quite well in the game that way.  

Ah yes the Atronach sign. 85% of Morrowind's players, spellcasters or not, pick that sign!

>She did play through
>Arena with the same type of character so that may have made the
>difference.

That's a possibility. I have started Morrowind four times, and the character I feel most comfortable with is the one I used on Arena, Daggerfall and Battlespire: the melee type with magical support aka Spellsword.

Since you can enchant any item you want with any spell in the game (not to mention the scrolls), I can have a fully armored knight summonning a Daedroth and a Golden Saint, before discharging the 10 charges of Drathis Soulrot from my magical ring onto a crowd of foes. It's a bit munchkinist, but it does make the game for melee-types easier than for spellcasters.

[Snip]
> Yes, but if I put an armor on the mage, I can take it off and my
> problems are solved.
>
> Now if I start a Weaponmaster wannabe with 10 int, or if I give my
> archer-type Fighter the knockdown feat...

>                 I guess I'm not understanding your point.  Are you saying that the
>system should be rigid enough to stop you from making that choice?  

No, I'm just saying that the system is great but does have that flaw. It should _not_ stop me from doing "dumb" choices, but the fact is, I can make them and I have to live with them. In p'n'p you can ask your nice DM if he'll let you swap

>If you are then you're really wanted 1st or 2nd edition (A)D&D where you
>can't do quite a bit.  If you want a system flexible enough to allow
>lots of player options then you have to let the player make these types
>of mistakes.

I agree with you that AD&D 3 (and AD&D 3.5) is extraordinarily flexible. Nevertheless, you originally said it was "very simple", and that's where I disagreed.

It's not simple for a new player to understand some basic notions like the Base Attack Bonus, Attacks of Opportunity, maximum Dex bonuses to AC, etc.

I'm not trying to put Jim away from AD&D3, far from it... but making a _good_ character takes time and some trial and error. I have for example played a dozen characters on Neverwinter Nights alone, and I still make mistakes when making characters.