Every point spent has an impact. You can see the % for success change as you add points to spells.
Blackguards
- Thread starter Morrandir
- Start date
Every point spent has an impact. You can see the % for success change as you add points to spells.
Each point put into a spell will influence the casting success chance. If you look at your character's spell list, on the right there's the explanation of what the spell does, etc. There's also a success chance there, which you'll see will go up as you put more points into the spell.
BTW, should you have trouble viewing the info, as the focus changes with mouse overs, click on the spell first, now even if the focus still changes as you mouse over another spell, it will return back to the clicked spell once you're not mousing over any other spell.
EDIT-- Darn, JDR was faster.
GothicGothicness
SasqWatch
- Joined
- October 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,292
Thanks, I am coming to really like this system.
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,292
Concerning the talent checks, the way the current edition of TDE rule system handles them is, IMHO, a really convoluted, "over-engineered" and needlessly cumbersome system. Especially when you consider these are pen & paper RPG rules ment for tabletop play and not computer RPG rules (originally). I mean, having to roll d20 three times for each talent check and then use your talent points if some of the rolls fail (and whatnot) seems like a chore. Leastwise it's way too slow and complex, when you consider most other P&P RPGs just get by with one die roll and that's it. To make matters worse, you basically have to keep a running tally of your talent points as you go and roll the three dice rolls required and deduct points off it as needed. Not exactly smooth, I'd say.
COnsider that e.g. after playing 6+ hours, in the wee hours of the night, having consumed a few beers, etc., you'd like to know if your character made his/her talent check and instead of just rolling 1d20 (or 1d100 or 3d6) and comparing that to a target number, you need to roll 1d20 thrice vs different target numbers, then should any of them fail, subtract enough from your talent score to succeed for each roll separately (if needed) and keep a tally of spent points, being careful of not spending more than your talent, etc. etc. Waaaay too cumbersome for my taste! Three separate rolls just to determine if you succeed in a talent check? No thanks. (For a computer game it's OK, mind you, as you have the computer doing the rolls and math instantly. BUt it's still over-engineered and needlessly cumbersome.)
P.S. The rule tinkerer in me couldn't resist the temptation of thinking an alternative rule system similar to the current TDE one. Maybe just use an average of the three attributes (calculated in advance, during char. gen.) and roll 1d20 against that. Just one roll. For "raw talent" with no points in the talent, apply a -5 modifier or something. Having points in the talent would modify the target number, of course. You'd need to redesign the talent score range, but something like -4 to +5 range could suffice (1st talent level = -4, 2nd = -3 up to 10th = +5). Something akin to earlier TDE rules, I think. Or something... I dunno. This just right of the top of my head with no deeper design work/thought.
COnsider that e.g. after playing 6+ hours, in the wee hours of the night, having consumed a few beers, etc., you'd like to know if your character made his/her talent check and instead of just rolling 1d20 (or 1d100 or 3d6) and comparing that to a target number, you need to roll 1d20 thrice vs different target numbers, then should any of them fail, subtract enough from your talent score to succeed for each roll separately (if needed) and keep a tally of spent points, being careful of not spending more than your talent, etc. etc. Waaaay too cumbersome for my taste! Three separate rolls just to determine if you succeed in a talent check? No thanks. (For a computer game it's OK, mind you, as you have the computer doing the rolls and math instantly. BUt it's still over-engineered and needlessly cumbersome.)
P.S. The rule tinkerer in me couldn't resist the temptation of thinking an alternative rule system similar to the current TDE one. Maybe just use an average of the three attributes (calculated in advance, during char. gen.) and roll 1d20 against that. Just one roll. For "raw talent" with no points in the talent, apply a -5 modifier or something. Having points in the talent would modify the target number, of course. You'd need to redesign the talent score range, but something like -4 to +5 range could suffice (1st talent level = -4, 2nd = -3 up to 10th = +5). Something akin to earlier TDE rules, I think. Or something... I dunno. This just right of the top of my head with no deeper design work/thought.
- Joined
- August 30, 2006
- Messages
- 7,830
No need to go to Steam. The very same guide is also in the game.
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2006
- Messages
- 7,830
GothicGothicness
SasqWatch
- Joined
- October 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,292
Wow, now I died a couple of times:
I have one more question, how does shields work? there appears to be no talent or such for it? do you get a chance to block both with shield and weapon or some such?
that dwarf games quest sure was tough especially since I opened all the chestes! Not to mention those two dwarfs I had to fight with crappy equipment and not my weapons of choice!
I have one more question, how does shields work? there appears to be no talent or such for it? do you get a chance to block both with shield and weapon or some such?
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,292
Thrasher
Wheeee!
There are 2 levels of shield fighting ability. Each level adds an attack bonus when fighting with a shield. The effect is to mitigate the attack penalties incurred when fighting with shield.
Thrasher
Wheeee!
Also, spell skill level and attributes affect the chance of enemies to resist your spells.
Thrasher
Wheeee!
I really have come to like the DTE combat system once I figured it out. It's very straightforward compared to the arcane special cases in DnD 3.5, fore example, which I also like, BTW.
S
sakichop
Guest
Yes, Unfortunately they do that a few times through out the game and stick you with weapons your not proficient with. Enough so that I had to jack up mace skill for guys I didn't want to so I wouldn't be inept when they stick me with a torch or club.
I suppose that's why they put points in the mace skill by default with there premade ranger and warrior builds. Annoying but forgivable.
It's in the weapon talents section, but afaik it just increases your attack rating when equipped with a shield. You can parry with or without a shield, but having one should increase your parry %.
@Thrasher - Couldn't fit all that in one post eh?
The second fight in the gladiator arena is starting to piss me off. The bitch with the poison mace seems almost unhittable.
Also, is it just me or do debuff spells seem useless in this game? I have Corpofesso Aching Limbs at level 10 which, according to the description, afflicts the target with -5 Strength and -8 Agility.
Well there's no way it's working properly because that much of a stat decrease should have a significant impact on the targets attack power. However, I'm not seeing any noticeable difference in the attack or defense of the enemy after a successful casting. The woman in the arena for instance is still miraculously hitting me for 10-15 damage every round after casting it on her.
Also, is it just me or do debuff spells seem useless in this game? I have Corpofesso Aching Limbs at level 10 which, according to the description, afflicts the target with -5 Strength and -8 Agility.
Well there's no way it's working properly because that much of a stat decrease should have a significant impact on the targets attack power. However, I'm not seeing any noticeable difference in the attack or defense of the enemy after a successful casting. The woman in the arena for instance is still miraculously hitting me for 10-15 damage every round after casting it on her.
Well, the base Attack Value (AV) is (Courage + Agility + Strength)/5. With a high talent skill though, the hit chance is maybe not significantly lowered. E.g. if she had Courage, Agility and Strength of 15, a talent of 15, giving 9 points to attack, this would result in an AV of 18. With your Corpofesso it would be 15.
The hit chance is 60%+(AV-PV)*5% (where AV is the attackers AV and PV the defenders PV). So if your characters PV e.g. is 15, the hit chance is 75% without Corpofesso and 60% with Corpofesso. With a very low PV of 10, the hit chance would only drop from 95% to 85%.
So hit chance is lower, but perhaps not "significantly". It's very likely that it's not noticed in a single battle with a handful of attacks.
So it's perhaps not useless, but less useful than you might wish.
And don't forget that this debuff lowers PV and Dodge Value also.
How exactly does armor % work? For instance, there's a gladiator helmet I can buy in the El'Halem arena that has a 50% rating vs ordinary damage. I would assume ordinary damage means non-magical melee and ranged attacks, but the helmet obviously isn't reducing the damage to my character by 50%.
It certainly doesn't seem like it, at least not with the bitch in the arena. I only seem to hit her about 30-40% of the time, and that's only if I'm using normal attacks. Forget about hitting her with a power blow. Yet she almost never misses and somehow manages to land a critical blow against my characters nearly 50% of the time. I'm almost convinced the AI is cheating in this battle.
It certainly doesn't seem like it, at least not with the bitch in the arena. I only seem to hit her about 30-40% of the time, and that's only if I'm using normal attacks. Forget about hitting her with a power blow. Yet she almost never misses and somehow manages to land a critical blow against my characters nearly 50% of the time. I'm almost convinced the AI is cheating in this battle.
Have you played TDE as pen & paper ?
Yes, my personal criticism towards the game is as well, that it is very, very "math-heavy". But these 3 rolls have been there from day 1. They belong to TDE like nothing else.
However, those weak in maths actually can have a hard time with the current rules.
The nad thing is, imho, that most hardcore TDE players want it to be so. They are vocally (especially in the official forum) against any "dumbening" of the rules set.
Some of them even argue that this complexity is a sign of quality.
There are several kinds of players out there; some prefer to play the story and leave the rules rather behind, or at least the complex parts of it. Others, the "simulationists" and the "min-maxers" as well, both prefer to have as complex rules as possible, because it gives them space to tinker with the numbers. Number-crunching, in a way. And this kind of player seemingly loves it.
Unfortunately, the number of forum members who like the rules to be "math-heavy" is seemingly greater in the forums (far greater, I'd add, from an subjective point of view) than the number of those who prefer to play the story.
My fear has always been that the "number-cruncher" faction in the forums had an too strong influence over the recent shapiung of the rules set.
Now that we have TDE 4.1 , the work on TDE 5 has already begun !
Therefore I strongly suggest you sending in your own opinions and suggestions regarding TDE 5th edition to this e-mail address : DSA5@ULISSES-SPIELE.DE
I don't know how much they know from international TDE players; however, I feel that it might be not much.
Me, I'm playing TDE pen & paper since I think it was 2012 ? and it is fun. We rather concentrate on the story, not on the rules set, and we have quite a lot of fun there, and that even although we have very different personalities (both RL & in-game) there.
Edit : German Wiki showing the current development plan for TDE 5 : http://www.wiki-aventurica.de/wiki/DSA5
Actually I don't know this myself. This works completely different in PnP, so I'm out. I think it should work the way you said.
Well, of course I can't invalidate this.It certainly doesn't seem like it, at least not with the bitch in the arena. I only seem to hit her about 30-40% of the time, and that's only if I'm using normal attacks. Forget about hitting her with a power blow. Yet she almost never misses and somehow manages to land a critical blow against my characters nearly 50% of the time. I'm almost convinced the AI is cheating in this battle.
But it would be a time-consuming task to really test it. If you let her hit 10 times with debuff and 10 times without, and the result is that she hits even more often with debuff, you still can't be "sure" that anything is wrong. If you lowered the hit chance from 95% to 85% and test with 10 attacks, then the chance of all attacks being hits, will still be nearly 20%...
Good question, I've been wondering it myself. Apparently, you'll get a damage reduction (not called that in TDE, but can't remember what it was) points for completing the armor set. This reduces all incoming damage by its value. Then you have the "resistance" percentages, which reduce incoming damage of their type (after DR reduction) by their percentage. E.g. having a DR of 1 and 40% resistance vs piercing against a hit doing 11 pts piercing would result in 11-1= 10, 10 -40%= 6 pts of damage. That's my understanding of it, anyway.JDR13 said:
As to the debuffs and such, I don't think the game cheats (I truly hope not), I think they're just bugged and not working properly as of now.
No, unfortunately I haven't. I've never even seen a TDE rulebook anywhere, let alone heard anyone playing it, but then again I'm not German and my understanding is that P&P TDE is quite rare outside Germany. I'd like to try it, sure, as I'm interested in the game world (Aventuria), but so far all I've experienced of TDE is the computer RPG side of it. So I'm basing my feelings of the ruleset on only reading about them, not actually playing them face to face. However, even without actual play I can tell I'd really dislike rolling d20 three times just to do a talent check.Alrik Fassbauer said:
Oh, I didn't know that. My memories of the Dark Eye Trilogy (i.e. Nordland Saga), which to my understanding used the 3rd edition TDE rules, were that there was only a single roll (under the hood) against an attribute with the skill/talent modifying the roll, but I'm obviously wrong then. So the three rolls are a "legacy rule" then and considered part of what makes TDE what it is. Hard to argue against that. But even so, it's curious that the system has been kept as is all these years as it is cumbersome. Many other rule sets which have their origins in the 80's, when most systems were quite rule and math-heavy, have evolved over the years and e.g. excessive dice-rolling or number-crunching have been lessened to a great deal.Alrik Fassbauer said:
Note that I'm not against some math in P&P RPGs. I'm not anti-math in any way, but if it is a constant requirement in normal gameplay, then I think it's going a bit too far. MOst of the math should be front-loaded to character creation and only a minimal amount of it required during play. IMHO, at least.
I don't think it's only those weak in math, but there are also people who can do math just fine but don't consider it a fun and relaxing way to spend their time - which RPGs should be, fun & relaxing time with your friends (for the most part at least).Alrik Fassbauer said:
THat's just elitism, IMO, and has nothing to do with good game design. Complexity doesn't equal Good Design. I'm not against complexity as such, mind you, but I am against needless complexity. Thus I find it hard to understand the hard core fans, if they seriously think the three dice roll talent check with talent point arithmetics is a good system out of anything but nostalgia. If the rules would keep all the three attributes relevant to the talent check and also have skill/talent score matter in a major way, but have it all be resolved with a single dice roll (with modifiers), how would that be "dumbing down" the system? You'd still have all the elements of the three dice roll system matter in the check, the only thing changing would be removing excessive dice rolling and point tallying.Alrik Fassbauer said:
Well, if we go by the old GNS theory/classification, I'm firmly in the simulationist camp myself, so I don't have anything against them.Alrik Fassbauer said:
However, being a simulationist doesn't mean you like to min-max or numbercrunch (I'd argue that's more of a gamist feature, but hey), it's more of a rules simulating the reality of the game world kind of thing. Whilst being a numbercruncher is alien to me, I still don't see the need for the rules to totally cater to that in it's most basic and oft needed rule (outside of combat). It's okay during character creation, as I said above, but if the very basis of the rule system hinges on numbercrunching, something is seriously off, IMO.As a frame of reference, my favorite RPG rule system is GURPS 4th edition and it's somewhat math intensive (especially during character creation) and one could argue a very simulationist system. So now you know where I'm coming from, and that I'm not adverse to math being included in RPGs at all, nor to any apparent complexity of loads of situational (and optional) rules.
(As a good alternative to GURPS, RuneQuest/BRP (and it's many derivates) is a very good system too.)Sorry, I need to go. (Oh, I think we should move this to another thread, this is getting seriously off-topic for this thread, I fear. I'd like to talk about this more, but maybe on another thread.)
P.S. There are a lot of cool things in the TDE 4 rules and I much rather play it than D&D (of any incarnation), so do note that I'm not trying to bad mouth TDE here.