Grimrock

Going by your logic, we don't need classes at all, as "adventurer" is broad enough to contain it all - ivest is spellcraft - you got mage, invest in bows - you got ranger. After all who stpos you to tell that your wizard while student was spending every afternoon in fancing school mastering sworfighting?
I would rather stick to oldschool Dungeons&Dragons inspired class system

Besides, healer/cleric/priest class has a practical reason behin it - you have only 9 runes with order of pressing them insignificant. if we want to have much more spells ( and i think weall want to), we need more than one casting class.

I tried to limit the number of classes because of that issue. I was tempted to just keep going down the list with a ridiculous amount of classes (even sub-classes came to mind) but I just tried to keep it very simple with a few add-ons.

But a Healer class sounds like a superb idea. Superb in that the way the game plays out, and the types of situations that our anti-heroes run into. I like that idea very much. If the current classes could be improved (e.g. Fighter; Mage; Rogue) with a number of new skills, I would have no problem with that either. I see both ways here, and I like them very much. Whichever way they decide to go, I think they'll pan things out the correct way.

Thanks for the input, you kind of opened me up to a new type of outlook on how this could progress.

Encephalon wrote:I've been giving the idea about more clases some thought, and started to wonder: "Do LoG really need more classes?"

A ranger or barbarian is in essense a fighter, but it has been given a specific frame. When one reads "barbarian" you will most likely get a stereotypical image of a fierce, savage warrior clad in not much more than a loincloth, wielding a large sword or axe, possibly with some tattoos or tribal face paint. With "ranger" you get the image of a woodsman tracker and hunter, carrying a sword and longbow, clad in colours of green and brown. But they are, in essense, still fighters.

Some people have, myself included, suggested a healer class. I did because I'm used to if from other fantasy games. However, the term "mage" could have a broad meaning, just as "fighter" do. In the world of LoG perhaps the term mage would refer to any spellcaster, regardless of what magic they employ, healing included.

Instead of adding more classes the existing ones could be made more versatile. Take the fighter. Why can't a fighter learn daggers, ranged weapons and dodge? If the fighter could get these as options one could for a fighter choose swords, ranged weapon and dodge. Then you would have something that could pass for a ranger.
For traits you can choose two traits from a list for each character. What if you could do this with skills as well? Having a wider range of skills to choose from, but a limited number (say, 4 or 5) of slots to allocate these skills to. And once the game is started these skills are fixed for that character.
Although more skills would be shared by the different classes this way, some skills should be limited to a specific class. Such as Armours only being available to fighters and Assassination only being available to rogues.

Just some thoughts.

M.M wrote:Going by your logic, we don't need classes at all, as "adventurer" is broad enough to contain it all.

And a few games I have played works just that way. (Fallout and Arcanum) But as LoG has 3 classes it would be logical to at least keep these.

M.M wrote:I would rather stick to oldschool Dungeons&Dragons inspired class system.

I've played EotB, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, and pen-and-paper AD&D (the latter since I was 16) so that's a system I know and like very well. However, I would like LoG to be and evolve into someting that can stand on it's own, and not end up a copy-paste of other established systems. Do LoG need paladins, clerics, rangers or bards just because other game systems has them? If AH find a way to make those classes in a way that makes them fit and seem a natural part of LoG it's all well and good. But I don't think they should add them just for the sake of adding dem.

M.M wrote:Besides, healer/cleric/priest class has a practical reason behin it - you have only 9 runes with order of pressing them insignificant. if we want to have much more spells ( and i think weall want to), we need more than one casting class.

That a healer class (priest or cleric) has a practical reason behind them I can't (and won't) argue about. I haven't found any reference to any active gods or faiths in LoG, but in many aspects the world of The Northern Realms is still in it's infancy. Perhaps I'm too immersed in the AD&D system (as I was the pen-and-paper DM), but when I think of a clerc/priest I get to mind a person who get their spells from their deity, thus making faith more important than skill. In this case, one or more gods need to be created. Most likely more than one as the different races most likely has different beliefs and faiths.

As a mage one channels and shape arcane energies that are everpresent into the desired effect, requiering skill and knowledge important to harness these powers. And there's no reason this could not be used to mend wounds.

As for the runes: when you say "only 9 runes" I think you're a bit closeminded. No offense intended, mind. But those 9 runes can be arranged in many different combinations, both in number of runes and which specific runes are used. I've come up with possible rune combinations for a heal spell, a resurrect spell and temporary stats boost spells. And many more variations exsists with a little imagination.

I don't say I don't want more classes in a future LoG game, but my previous post was just some thoughts around in what aspect they are needed to create a more versetaile character setup. On the other hand there already exist a 4th class in the game, so I would not be surprised if the next game has more than 3 classes from which you can create your characters.

Dhauntyr wrote:I tried to limit the number of classes because of that issue. I was tempted to just keep going down the list with a ridiculous amount of classes (even sub-classes came to mind) but I just tried to keep it very simple with a few add-ons.

But a Healer class sounds like a superb idea. Superb in that the way the game plays out, and the types of situations that our anti-heroes run into. I like that idea very much. If the current classes could be improved (e.g. Fighter; Mage; Rogue) with a number of new skills, I would have no problem with that either. I see both ways here, and I like them very much. Whichever way they decide to go, I think they'll pan things out the correct way.

Thanks for the input, you kind of opened me up to a new type of outlook on how this could progress.

You're welcome!
I don't by any means think I have all the answers or the best suggestions. I draw on my experience from many games, both computer and pen-and-paper games. And I post to bring suggestions and discussions.

And as a note to a healer class; in one of Toorum's notes he mention the temples of Nex where they had what looked like smaller versions of the heal crystals found in Mount Grimrock. (Shame on me for not thinking of that before. ) So if there are temples there must be priests, and if there's Nex (whether a fictional or true deity) there may well be other deities. And with this a foundation for a possible new healer class.

M.M wrote:Besides, healer/cleric/priest class has a practical reason behin it - you have only 9 runes with order of pressing them insignificant. if we want to have much more spells ( and i think weall want to), we need more than one casting class.

Not really.

Possible combinations with 1 rune: 9
Possible combinations with 2 runes: 36 (9 runes for the first option, then 8 more runes for the second option is 72 combinations, but since order doesn't matter, cut them in half)
Possible combinations with 3 runes: 84 (9 runes * 8 runes * 7 runes / 6 possible orders of the same combination)
Possible combinations with 4 runes: 126 (9 runes * 8 runes * 7 runes * 6 runes / 24 possible orders of the same combination)
(8 would be same as 1, 7 as 2, 6 as 3, 5 as 4. 9 would have 1 option, of course).

It seems like 1-4 is plenty of combinations for two casting classes, without any spells overlapping. Alternatively, you could say that the corner runes are only used for elemental spells. That would mean you'd have:

1 rune: 5 options.
2 runes: 10 options. (includes the current light and darkness spells)
3 runes: 10 options.
4 runes: 5 options.
5 runes: 1 option.

It seems you'd have enough possible spells when not using the 5 corner runes for a 2nd spellcasting class, though barely.

petri wrote:I don't understand your point about the quiver. What is the problem you're trying to solve? It seems to me that adding a quiver would just make the ui more complicated.

i'm not sure about the quiver, but i also think there is some space for improvement.

imagine you have 2 poisoned arrows and 2 normal arrows. you can put only one type of them into your hand. so before the fight you put (for example) the 2 poisoned arrows in your left hand, but after you shoot them during combat, you have to go to the inventory (during the combat!) to put the other kind of arrows in your hand. it would be cool to implement something, using which you wouldn't have browse your inventory during the fight. some special slots in the inventory, where you can place things to be equipped, and when you run out of the stuff in your hands.
i would allow rogues to place throwing weapons there as well (after you run our of all arrows) and wouldn't limit that to left hand (for example for rogues skilled with throwing weapons, having them in right hand and shield in left hand)...

If this thread is to offer suggestions that will be consolidated, here's one from other discussions:

Add an optional "Old school" gui and control scheme

Even after completing the game, the one thing I never fully adjusted to was the controls. I would like to be able to use a control scheme that uses left click to attack and right click to open inventory. This would probably necessitate character portraits on top of the screen as seen in the pre-Feb 24 screenshots, instead of consolidating them with the attack panel as they are now. Also, I don't know of any way to deal with consumables that wouldn't potentially result in accidental consumption, other than to make it possible to drag food/potions and drop them over the character portrait on the inventory screen. To elaborate on the suggested optional/alternate control scheme:

Left click:
-attack
-pick up/drop/throw items
-manipulate buttons/switches/chains
-select runes
-cast spells

Right click:
-on character portrait, to open that character's inventory
-elsewhere, to toggle open last used inventory (since there is no party leader)
-on character in attack panel to rearrange party order (top portraits would probably have to shuffle according)

Thanks

in my opinion, the experience points should be divided, according to number of heroes involved in the fight (or amount of the damage they did in the fight)...
the way the experience points are divided now, i have to avoid casting stronger spells and use stronger weapons, because then a hero could kill some enemy alone, and so many experience points would be wasted... (he wouldn't get more experience points than if he would kill it together with others....and the others would get nothing).

the way it is now is so unreasonable, that i'm not sure if it's a bug and is going to be repaired, or if it's not a bug (but going to be repaired anyway ...

It's not a bug. Hope it stays the way it is.

dnk wrote:the way it is now is so unreasonable, that i'm not sure if it's a bug and is going to be repaired, or if it's not a bug (but going to be repaired anyway ...

Except for the part where experience is allocated to the position in the party instead of to the character who occupied that position and made the attack, the current system is not unreasonable at all, much less so unreasonable it may be a bug and desperately needs to be fixed. Could it be improved? Probably. Should future games refine it to incorporate such improvements? Certainly. Does it need valuable post-release developer time to fix instead of working on additional content or future games? Not really. I'd rather substantive changes rather than a relatively trivial adjustment to something that is working as probably intended.

Now, the part where experience is allocated to positions in the party instead of to characters, that probably is unintended behavior, a result of somebody not thinking through the code he was writing to address an unusual situation. Even this probably doesn't *NEED* a fix, but the case for it being a likely bug and extremely unreasonable behavior is much stronger with this one.