Looks good though it sounds like its following a gameplay type similar to Guild Wars. One hub city for adventurers with alot of instanced adventures for groups.
quote:
Timpofee Model 2000 was programmed to say:
It already kicks the SHIT out of Eq2 in looks IMO..
Thanks Kitty for the up to date news report.. and now.. back to Dick Dirk..
Yar. My favorite pic of the bunch has to be the rogue sneaking up on a lizardman.
quote:
Katrinity stopped beating up furries long enough to write:
Yar. My favorite pic of the bunch has to be the rogue sneaking up on a lizardman.
Thats in-game?? I am thoroughly impressed. It looks nicer than the plastic appearance showcased in EQ II.
I wouldn't mind trying this, with the huge history it seems to be a game worth giving a shot.
I'd rather see a new Icewind Dale game.
quote:
Mr. Parcelan spewed forth this undeniable truth:
I remain skeptical. Most D&D computer games have been pretty bad (but I'm of the opinion that NWN wasn't all that good, which many do not share).I'd rather see a new Icewind Dale game.
The new Forgotten Realms game based on an old Module for the PS2 and Xbox looks awesome. Demon Stone. Coming out 24th of September.
quote:
Mr. Parcelan's unholy Backstreet Boys obsession manifested in:
That does look interesting. I've always been a fan of games where you can switch characters mid-battle.
Like Knights of the Old Republic?
Er, sorry, didn't mean to rant there. I know dual-weilding was overpowered in 3.0, but they seem to have really, seriously gimpz0red it in 3.5. At least for everyone but rogues.
Anywho, back on topic. I ran out of drool buckets looking at the D&D Online review. The only question is: D&D or WoW? I seriously doubt I'll have the funds or time to play both anytime soon, so I need to choose.
Dwarves with axes or orcs with axes? 
Of course, I could just play a Half-Orc Fighter and spec in Greataxe...
Hmm...
It lets you build a reputation and not get lost in the server, without being too close knit with everyone.
That being said, I haven't read anything about this game, but that's a neat picture.
quote:
Lashanna had this to say about pies:
I always thought servers of about 200 people were good, maybe a bit more... That way you can recognize most names, and get to know quite a few. If you help out a newbie, they aren't really as likely to fade away into the vastness of the server, but they could show up again one day and help you out.It lets you build a reputation and not get lost in the server, without being too close knit with everyone.
Hear hear!
There's also the fact that in D&D, although travellers and explorers can be fairly common, adventurers, heroes, villains, etc. that are commonly dealt with in D&D are more rare, and can be considered gifted by some. These kinds of characters are simply more talented than your average Joe Schmuck, even at level 1. While a level 1 adventuring fighter wouldn't be as good at swordplay and tactics as the captain of the guard, a level 4 warrior, that fighter will almost always have a higher ability score average. Thus, the potential to be better is there in abundance (especially considering the captain of the guard will likely stay level 4 throughout the campaign, whereas the fighter PC will level up). There really aren't that many PC-class people in a lot of D&D worlds compared to average NPCs.
If PC-class adventurers are so rare, it really wouldn't make sense to have 5000 people on each server.
It would also really kind of cheapen the effect of being this powerful, heroic warrior if your average guard just out of training was a level 20 Fighter. That's one reason I greatly disliked EverQuest. NPC merchants could punch you for 300-something damage, and they weren't experienced monks. Guards could deal 300 damage per hit, and had quite a few good Warrior abilities, such as double attack and dual-weild. Granted, they weren't meant to be attacked in the first place, but if those guards and merchants are really such powerful fighters, why aren't THEY the ones going around slaying dragons and fighting gods? They should've been able to go toe-to-toe with your average low-level character, and probably even chew them up at the very early levels, but no guard should be equal to a level 50 warrior. I hope they didn't make this same mistake with D&D online.
...At some point while I was typing, I forgot what my point was. So, I'm just gonna shut up for a bit.
quote:
Check out the big brain on Lashanna!
I always thought servers of about 200 people were good, maybe a bit more... That way you can recognize most names, and get to know quite a few. If you help out a newbie, they aren't really as likely to fade away into the vastness of the server, but they could show up again one day and help you out.It lets you build a reputation and not get lost in the server, without being too close knit with everyone.
That being said, I haven't read anything about this game, but that's a neat picture.
Ick. There'd be like 10 people on at a time ;(
quote:
Darius! stumbled drunkenly to the keyboard and typed:
Ick. There'd be like 10 people on at a time ;(
Not if you bracket a whole bunch of servers into time-zones. So one or more servers are US East, a few for US West, a few for Rockies and Central time zone, etc for rest of world. That way, you're guranteed to have people who play around the same time as you most often.
quote:
Ruvyen said this about your mom:
I am getting this game. And playing a Dwarven Fighter. A dual-weilding Dwarven Fighter. Unless they go by 3.5e rules. The dual-weild feats suck ass for that one, what kind of melee fighter would take 17DEX to get just two extra attacks with his off-hand weapon? And 19DEX for three attacks? I admit that three extea attacks would be damn nice, but it's not with your mainhand weapon (meaning damage penalties, and you'll likely put the worst of your two weapons in your off-hand), and that 19DEX will take big-time points away from your STR and CON. 3.5e dual-weilding sucks for all warriors but rangers, and due to the whole light armour restriction on combat masteries, a ranger's more likely to go archery instead of risking quick death in melee. Besides, the DEX does two things for an archery ranger: Increases their AC (which they need as warriors), and increases their ranged attack and damage with bows.Er, sorry, didn't mean to rant there. I know dual-weilding was overpowered in 3.0, but they seem to have really, seriously gimpz0red it in 3.5. At least for everyone but rogues.
Anywho, back on topic. I ran out of drool buckets looking at the D&D Online review. The only question is: D&D or WoW? I seriously doubt I'll have the funds or time to play both anytime soon, so I need to choose.
Dwarves with axes or orcs with axes?
Of course, I could just play a Half-Orc Fighter and spec in Greataxe...
Hmm...
I totally disagree with you. I think that dual wielding works just dandy in 3.5. I also think that you're steriotyping all fighters into a heavy armor and heavy weapon mold which does not always hold true. There are many fighters who specialize in light fighting paths that are plenty effective at both dealing damage and not getting the shit kicked out of them. Primarily you seem to be forgetting about the Weapon Finesse feat. With this taken light fighters can hit just as fine as a standard fighter.
Now, to bring the above back to the point. Fighters should have to pay to almost double the amount of attacks open to them. Even at level twenty a fighter only has four base attacks. Going all the way up to Greater Two-Weapon fighting increases the total number of attacks to seven. That's a pretty big fucking increase when you consider the fact that by then, through large amounts of magical gear, a fighter is going to be having a pretty dame big attack bonus to be able to hit. This should not be an easy process. Making it too easy (kinda like how it was in 3.0) limits the use of shields or, God forbid, fighters who use only a single weapon.
quote:
Dr. Gee had this to say about Jimmy Carter:
I totally disagree with you. I think that dual wielding works just dandy in 3.5. I also think that you're steriotyping all fighters into a heavy armor and heavy weapon mold which does not always hold true. There are many fighters who specialize in light fighting paths that are plenty effective at both dealing damage and not getting the shit kicked out of them. Primarily you seem to be forgetting about the Weapon Finesse feat. With this taken light fighters can hit just as fine as a standard fighter.Now, to bring the above back to the point. Fighters should have to pay to almost double the amount of attacks open to them. Even at level twenty a fighter only has four base attacks. Going all the way up to Greater Two-Weapon fighting increases the total number of attacks to seven. That's a pretty big fucking increase when you consider the fact that by then, through large amounts of magical gear, a fighter is going to be having a pretty dame big attack bonus to be able to hit. This should not be an easy process. Making it too easy (kinda like how it was in 3.0) limits the use of shields or, God forbid, fighters who use only a single weapon.
I stereotype Fighters into the heavy metal objects mold because, for the most part, they're the most effective build of fighter. Their gear costs a ton, but it's worth every copper. That's not to say it isn't possible to play a dexterity-based Fighter, and that's not even to say a duelist-type Fighter can be pretty good. However, in my experience, a STR/CON fighter in full plate weilding a bastard sword and large shield will pretty much always be more effective in close combat than a DEX-based fighter.
A DEX-based fighter gets high AC without armour, but unless you find some way to get uncanny dodge (barbarian only) or possibly defensive awareness (Dwarven Defender only), you lose that if you're flat-footed. Also, as a DEX-based fighter, you might not have a high CON, opting instead to take a high INT and go Duelist PClass (if your DM allows) for the cool abilities and extra skill points. So, that means less HP, and less AC when flat-footed. One hit from a monster while flat-footed (because they WILL hit during that time if they're a challenge) might not kill you, but it'll hurt a LOT. Especially considering that, unlike in NWN, you can't keep rerolling HP until you get the maximum possible each level. You get a 3 on the roll, you get 3+CON HP for that level.
Also, weapon finesse increases a DEX-based Fighter's attack rating, due to allowing them to use DEX instead of STR. However, STR is still used for damage rolls. Not only that, but the Finesse weapons (any light, plus Rapier) tend to have smaller damage dice than their heavy counterparts. I can deal 1d6 damage with a rapier, or 2d6 damage, possibly double that of a rapier, with a greatsword.
It's true that getting more attacks in is always a Good Thing(TM), but to be honest, with the massive attack bonus Fighters get, both naturally and through equipment, I'd rather deal less attacks that have a higher chance of hitting and deal more damage, then more attacks, each of which might hit if I'm lucky and won't do as much damage per hit. Dual-weilding in D&D, either 3.0 or 3.5, is a gamble: Am I willing to penalize my attack bonus in order to get more chances to attack? I can swing less often, hit on most of my attacks round-by-round, and more than likely deal more damage per hit, or I can swing more often, with each attack getting less of a chance to hit, and less damage per hit, but more damage overall if all attacks hit.
It's true that Fighters should have to pay to get almost double their attacks, but really, Fighters should have to pay less in terms of stats and more in terms of feats. That's why I liked 3.0's dual-weilding system: 3 feats for 2 attacks, Ambidex requiring 15DEX and Improved TWF requiring Ambidex. 15DEX for a STR-based FIghter isn't impossible, a small hit to another stat, but not much. Plus, the extra point of AC in the beginning of the game, when you're still in scale or chain, can help a bit (although the 2AC gained from a large shield would probably help more, beginning-game). Yes, Fighters get lots of feats, but that's more so you can take feat chains. Before Fighters can take the really good shit, like Whirlwind Attack, they need to take some feats they may not ever use. Whirlwind Attack 3.5 requires DEX and INT 13+, Combat Expertise, Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, and base attack +4. So, for one feat, not only do you need a 13 or higher in both DEX and INT (not impossible, but may penalize your STR/CON), but you need to take 4 feats, one of which you'll use often (Combat Expertise), one of which you'll use only in some certain few situations past the low levels (Dodge), and the other two of which you'll likely not use ever. That, and you need to be at least a level 4 character. It's a good feat, yes, but it's also very expensive when you consider the other feat chains Fighters need. Weapon Focus/Weapon Spec/Greater Weapon Focus/Greater Weapon Spec being one of them. That's four feats that, although they increase your combat ability, they only work for one single weapon type each time. It can get pretty expensive for a Fighter that uses more than one type of weapon and cares about his combat ability with all of them. I know that I, for one, usually end up taking Focus/Spec multiple times, one for a one-hander/shield combo (eg. Bastard Sword, which also requires Exotic Weapon Proficiency), one for a two-hander (eg. Greatsword), and one for a bludgeoning weapon (usually two-handed, I like heavy flails as they also do piercing damage). The different damage types are often a big help. So, while Fighters get plenty of feats, having to spend more feats would be a bigger hit than needing more DEX, as it would leave less room for feat chains.
Well, that was a long-ass paragraph.
One last point, your Fighter won't always have awesome magical gear at his disposal. It depends on the campaign. I know I, personally, like the challenge of a low-magic campaign, where I'm not weilding +1 swords until level 9, 10, 11, around there. A fighter in that kind of campaign can't depend on just his gear to give him good attack bonus, and even in 3.0, dual-weilding can be more hindrance than help because of the penalties it applies.
Oh, and while high-magic campaigns exist, and can be quite fun, if you're weilding +5 Vorpal longswords with +2d6 fire damage at level 14, something's seriously wrong with your DM. In my opinion, a weapon should almost never go beyond +3, excluding any elemental damage/effects, and even then +3 is kinda stretching it. Having a +2 longsword that's +5 or even +6 vs. Dragons is fine. Having a +5 longsword, as in +5 vs. everything, is too much for any adventurer, even a level 20. Elemental effects increase the damage of the weapon while leaving attack bonus untouched (of course), but not many DMs seem to use it. Gimme a flaming +1 longsword over a +5 longsword any day. My Fighter's base attack is high enough, let's get more damage on these swords.
Yummy, I had like 5 attacks for 4d6+str
Glee.
quote:
x--Mr. ParcelanO-('-'Q) :
I remain skeptical. Most D&D computer games have been pretty bad (but I'm of the opinion that NWN wasn't all that good, which many do not share).
Yeah, despite repeated attempts to enjoy it, I still think Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 sucked.
quote:
Mr. Parcelan's fortune cookie read:
I'd rather see a new Icewind Dale game.
Definitely the best thing to come from the Infinity engine.
quote:
Maradon!'s unholy Backstreet Boys obsession manifested in:
Yeah, despite repeated attempts to enjoy it, I still think Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 sucked.
Also, I'll leave you with these two words for your heavy AC low dex characters:
Touch AC. have fun
