Buckle the knuckle is my unarmed fighter that kicks ass and punches it too. My problem with him at the moment is the fact that I have to give him a shield to give him a fighting chance.
three questions:
1. Could fighters also get access to the dodge skill so that you can make a fist fighting monk type?
2. Shouldnt shields also be a part of the "light" and "heavy" catagory?
3. Wouldnt it be cool to have no classes and just skills?
Buckle the Knuckle
-
LiamKerrington
- Posts: 116
- Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2012 12:18 am
Re: Buckle the Knuckle
Hi.
1. Interesting idea. As far as I remember "monks" were not typical for the old-school games; they occurred here and there (wizardy VII as an example), but in general I have not encountered them as such. Therefore the lack of "monks" in LoG suits the "old-school"-charm very well. It may be something to think about for future releases, if there will be any. But a question would be: Would this change the balancing between the classes a lot? Yes, right now we already know about certain character-developments that are over the top - minotaur rogue hurling anything like the incredible Hulk -, and yet each character also his minor or major flaws. What would be the flaws of a monk evading anything and finger-death-tipping anything?
2. This crossed my mind as well. But then again: Often "shields" are considered being an armor type of its own class - in computer games as well as pen& paper games. Not always, but often. Which is something to think about as well: Shields add evasion bonuses to your character. Now, if you do not have the armor-skill ranked for heavy armor, what would be the point in carrying around the heavy shields? The drawback on evasions would consume the evasion bonus of the shield ...
3. My opinion: No. On the one side it seems that it does not matter so much what classes and character-developments you choose during the game, so there is no real need to change things; on the other hands you need to plan along the limits the game provides, which is something I really enjoy because it is "planned" along classical rpg-elements - the sneakish rogue, the brute, the easily crippled mage shattering the earth with incredible spells ...
All the best!
Liam
1. Interesting idea. As far as I remember "monks" were not typical for the old-school games; they occurred here and there (wizardy VII as an example), but in general I have not encountered them as such. Therefore the lack of "monks" in LoG suits the "old-school"-charm very well. It may be something to think about for future releases, if there will be any. But a question would be: Would this change the balancing between the classes a lot? Yes, right now we already know about certain character-developments that are over the top - minotaur rogue hurling anything like the incredible Hulk -, and yet each character also his minor or major flaws. What would be the flaws of a monk evading anything and finger-death-tipping anything?
2. This crossed my mind as well. But then again: Often "shields" are considered being an armor type of its own class - in computer games as well as pen& paper games. Not always, but often. Which is something to think about as well: Shields add evasion bonuses to your character. Now, if you do not have the armor-skill ranked for heavy armor, what would be the point in carrying around the heavy shields? The drawback on evasions would consume the evasion bonus of the shield ...
3. My opinion: No. On the one side it seems that it does not matter so much what classes and character-developments you choose during the game, so there is no real need to change things; on the other hands you need to plan along the limits the game provides, which is something I really enjoy because it is "planned" along classical rpg-elements - the sneakish rogue, the brute, the easily crippled mage shattering the earth with incredible spells ...
All the best!
Liam
At the end of my first time with "the Legend of Grimrock" - played on default-party, hard, old-school mode:
My first time
My first time