Obviously we all know it will most likely be a spell amount system used for magic limit like it was in BG2, but since this is a different game. Wouldn't mana be a better preference when it comes to the limit of how many spells one can cast before having to rest? or at least a possibility to drink potions and such that will give you some/all of your spells back. Personally I would prefer mana or the 2nd potion option.

It'll probably be mana... pretty much every non-D&D system uses it.

Actually I'm a big fan of the Reagent or components and/or power up by using spell method.

But I'm afraid it's less popular system than the two mentioned here. I dislike mana though because somehow it feels cheesy in a grand universe I'm sure Dragon Age will be. Yeah, component or Reagents would be my first choice, with a level restriction to more powerfull spells.

Actually, Apeman's sugestion is very appealing, though I'd work it out differently. I don't like the idea of one big energy pot of mana, that all spells draw from, and they just use more or less of it. On the other hand, the memorisation like in D&D is not all that either, since you are forced into a fixed set of spells between rests. The reagent or component approach has the advantage of having a shared resource between the different spells, making the use of spells restrictive of the use of other spells, while still allowing a bit more flexibility, so as to not run out of usefull spells while you still have memorised spells, but that are not useable. In D&D, the closest example of this approach is the casting of sorcerers (and bards in 3rd).

A better example, but that fewer will know, is the one used in Secret of Evermore, which incidentally is the system Apeman was proposing. But it was implemented in a very intuitive way. You still had only a select few "slots" you could cast in battle (needed to talk to "mentor" characters to change the content of the slots), and every spell had certain components, so the useage of certain spells would hinder the useage of others, but not of all.

The difference I would do is not to use collectible ingredients, but just give the "schools" different energy types, and spells would be composed of a mixture of these energies, but I would let these energies "regenerate" just like the MP or mana used in most rpgs.

which incidentally is the system Apeman was proposing Not incidentally, Secret of Evermore is one of my favourite Snes games.

What about the spell advancement system of Secret of Evermore? It is kinda logical that spells grow more stronger the more you use them. The only downside in SoE is that the cost for the components is too high to really use the magic extensively, unless farming monsters.

But, I must admit the game industry has made some very good evolutions regarding the ability to use magic not only for "boss" fights, which was a phenomenon of older games, where it costed you much more to use your magic, and as such you couldn't afford using it in just random encounters.

Well cost wasn't really a problem, it was the availability and the length of the game that caused problems. For such a small game there were many spells and very little space and enemies to maximise all spells.The coolest spells you got were in the endgame where you just wanted to end the game, not using spells on monsters to increase the effectiveness.

Secret of Mana, while not having components, had enough space and enemies to effectively increase your spells. They even got another animations once you hit a certain level


But increasing effectiveness of spells by using them is a very valid option IMO. Fighting works the same way right, so why not magic. Maybe an experience point system for fighting and/or magic

Well, Morrowind has such a system, although it only increases your magic skills per school, not per individual spell, like Secret of Evermore did.

Mana is better. Or the D&D sorcerer system. Predicting what spells you may need to use and sleeping to learn them is rubbish, especially for priests and the like (as those spells are supposed to be prayers).

If we are talking about games released so far, I like the Might & Magic system and the Force system from KotOR 1 and 2. D&D isn't bad, but... it's not really it. It does have a certain flavour, but come on... the flaws are too obvious.

I agree with Chev. The mana system or the sorcerer system used in BG II both work well. The D&D standard system, though tried, is anything but true.
As for seperate xp systems, I like what Morrowind did, only refined. Certain spells leveling up individually makes a certain amount of sense, but not a whole lot. Types of magic going up makes more sense, but you shouldn't get much xp for shooting a fireball into a tree or swinging at mid-air or just jumping up and down. Xp comes from challenging yourself, not doing the same things over and over.
And forget about xp in running and jumping, there are some things that people should just know, especially in a wilderness/fantasy setting.

Xp comes from challenging yourself, not doing the same things over and over.Have you ever trained or watched someone train at something? Take the example of marshal arts. An exercise there is for example, constantly punching in air (how is this different from shooting fireballs at thin air?) and still you learn, you become better. Why? Because our body (and mind) learns from repetition. The more you do something, the more instinctive, fluent and efficient you become at it. And what else is xp than a numerical representation of the learning process?

And forget about xp in running and jumping, there are some things that people should just know, especially in a wilderness/fantasy setting.So you're saying that advancement in more physical non-combat skills is bs? Yes, your hero is not a demented child, so he will know how to jump and run. But the system in Morrowind didn't ever prevent you from running or jumping, it just made you better at it. You jumped higher and further, you could run faster and longer.

The only point I found stupid about the learning system of Morrowind (yes, I'm one of the few supporters of that system) was the lack of reaction from people when you were training your sneaking skill. You could just jam your character in a corner in front of an npc, go into sneaking and run into the corner (preferably by blocking the run and sneak button) and the npc would not react to you being all sneakish for hours around him, especially in the beginning while your sneaking was so abysmal he would constantly see you trying to sneak.

That is the whole problem/advantage in leveling and xp. always there will be some holes in the system. I prefer the 3,5 rule which has been debated over for so long that it contains the lowest number of faults. I hate skill tree's.

but dragon age is a new thing, a test to find the best system. A mix of memory and mana to allot/fuel like Guildwars can be a clue. Although that game is to much combat based, it plays smarter than just mana. for me the problem is that I absolutely positively do not want to end up with a so called rpg like the diablo clones that are called rpg. To avoid that we must mix memory into it. players must choose between different spells and not just select the heal and fireball. (With maxed stats in a skilltree system) If I want to mash a keyboard, i will buy a console. So I return to the D&D system.

example: I have been playing bg1(Tutu) today and came across an other party (bounty hunters, yes me) Brute force is easy, but they were higher in levels so I lost.well i can come back later... A simple web/stinking cloud combo and the archers cut them to pieces. Which system based om a skilltree will have so many different spells like that. Is it at all possible to think and create so much in a new system? So if not 3,5 than it has to be a mix.

I remember a piece of news on the bioware site a few years back. It had something to do whit the licsence of D&D. Wizards, if that is the owner, wanted big bucks from bioware for using it. Stupid while free advertising of your product over the whole world... Let me just say that D&D might be big in the US, but with me in the Netherlands shops with D&D are counted on one hand nationwide. I thnk that wizards get more money with the miniatures and books than one game per two years. Warhammer is far more populair here. So Bioware might have created a loophole and came with very similair but yet different things to keep the lawyers at bay and the players in.

Merlanni, I might be interpreting your post wrongly, but what you are refering too is more the spell choices, rather than how their use is limited (by slots or mana (or energy if you prefer)). The strategic value of spells has nothing to do with how they are fuelled, which is actually the discussion of this thread. Still, the strategic value of the spells in BG2 is still rather limited too, hence the reason the Sorcerer is such a good mage. There are only so few spells you use per level. Diversity is not enough, there must be a reason to use more than a few of them.

The diversity in D&D comes mostly from flavor. In other rpgs you have spells that do the same, but are just less flavorfull than throwing spider webs or stinking clouds at your enemy. There they are just called Paralysis (or something similar).

3.5 are good rules, BUT only for actual pnp rpg, not for crpg. Most of what makes the system cannot be implemented in a crpg in a decent fashion, as it is too broad. The only skills that translate well into crpgs are the combat skills. Besides, the button smashing has more to do with the fact the Diablo-likes have an action element. They will be button-smashers, no matter the system behind them. You clearly never played some of the hack-n-slash modules for NWN, which proves that 3.0 (which is similar enough to 3.5, which is only an improvement) is a very good system to make a diablo-like with.

Meatdog:
I understand your points, but a game, while following reality in some points, should evade it in others. Sure, you need to learn how to run effectively, but you need to use the bathroom, too. Players don't want to do that, they want the game idealized. Some may want to learn to run and jump properly, I understand, but I don't. As for repeditive training, that is only good to a degree. That lets you perform the act faster and with less concentration while also building whatever limits you have by pushing yourself. It also, however, ingrains any mistakes in form you have, and it can't let you actually punch/kick/cast a spell better, i.e. with more skill. The primary aspect of XP in most RPGs is learning to do things better because you had to. This is why sparring is used so much in martial arts.
In the same manner, spells should be fueled by a 'realistic' system. Ok, magic isn't real, at least, not D&D style magic, but we can interpolate some things. The whole D&D idea that the magic casts the spell and the mage just 'channels' it, which is how they explain 'memorizing' the same spell 3 times and forgetting it after you cast it, is BS. Exertion is the limiting factor in just about any activity, whether it be physical or mental or spiritual. Casting spells should reflect that.

I decided to open a thread on this topic in the BioWare forums (DA forums to be exact) and it already has obtained some replys (though none from Bioware Staff). It seems it is known what DA will be using. Here is the quote:

HotSnack:

Unlike BG they're using their own system, they already said that their own system will be using...

*Drum Roll*

Mana.View the topic Here (http://forums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=461282&forum=84). I'll be sure to post if the BioStaff posts anything on the topic :D .

P.S.: I'm Grave-C4 on their forums.

What we need is somthing new, not as simple like in games as sacred, but not to foggie like the D&D can be. The fuel as in memory or mana is the least important point of all. the spells are.

the reason wy I dislike the mana systems is the number of spells and the unavoidable skilltree. you get a number of points and can put those in all the skills you want. A thief levels as a thief and cannot get so strong to use two handed weapons. or make a fighter and give it two spells. (heal fireball)Every sinlgeplay rpg I have played had that system. But not the D&D and that is why I love it.

It is not the man I fear, it is the... Well, to me D&D is just a thing until somthing better comes along. Morrowind was a step i the right direction.

So now bioware is going to give it a go. Mana? Fine, but HOW?

I guess we'll find out when the game is out (god knows when!). They did mention it would be their own system, so it won't simply be a Diablo system.

The danger for spellcasting lies not so much in the fueling system as well in the unbalancing of the spell choices. Most games so far have had must-have spells and junk. I hope they will try to make all spells as usefull, if just to different people/uses.

Skilltrees? For spells? I think the only game I've played that had that was Lionheart. If they do a FF style spell system, I won't have any inherrant complaints, but I hope they get more inventive than that.

Diablo 2 also has skill trees for spells (correct me if I'm wrong).

To take a sidestep to skilltree's. what I mean is that leveling is done with skilltree's, not the casting itself. you know, you get points to put into stats that mostly end up in the fighter classes. the problem for me is that spellcasting in games that use this system is fueled by mana. I target games like diablo, divine divinity, sacred, dungeon siege.

So when someone says: "dozens of spells and mana, free leveling etc etc", and not D&D3.5, i suspect it is just an other diablo clone. And those are the rpg games I like the least.

So I hope that Bioware does not make a diablo type game, but a D&D clone

Oh yeah ... that system in Diablo where you got stat points at every level up that you had to put in Strength or Vitality or Dexterity or Magic was limiting.

I like the D&D system, specially the freedom in IWD II of leveling, feat & skill selection,etc., but agree that spellcasting limitations were bull****. Taking IWD II as base, I would want changes to be made.

Whenever a charecter levels as a spellcaster, his spellpower/mana should increase. This mana should regenerate at a slow rate which is influenced by fatigue. Mana can be topped up or added to with items, potions, etc. As a spellcaster levels up he can cast higher level spells.

Mana itself must be of different flavours/schools. Every spell is associated with a school or a combination of schools. Specialist Mage types get no mana of opposing school and double mana in their own, when leveling up as Specialist Mage.
All spells associated with a school, if known, can be cast so long as there is mana of that school left. None of that fixed spells per day business. Also, no need for restricting number of different spells.

Devine spellcasters only spontaneously know the entire pool of spells at/for appropriate levels.
Arcane spellcasters must learn each spell from some source; be it from scrolls, books, items, teachers, quests rewards.

And a spellcaster should have the ability to choose on his own what spells to cast per day. Choose what pool of spells you want to remember per day like a Wizard and spontaneously cast any of these like a Sorcerer.
Healing from Devine casters must simply be a HP-mana relation. No casting multiple Cure Light Wounds or one unlimited effect Mass Heal.

XP gained via battle and quest can anyway be tagged seperately. But knowing how much of battle derived XP came from using spells and how much from slashing, for each individual charecter and spell and weapon, is too complicated. Tagging individual spells used in and out of combat is just bogging down the computer.

At level up, player must have a choice of broadly increasing effectiveness of spells or decreasing mana amount used. Getting both simultaneously is cheese.
I'm not too sure if I like the idea of having to use components to be able to cast magic.

Every CRPG has their flaws and there seems to be no way around it. So no matter how hard the developers of DA try to make us all happy, they won't have 100% successes, but they may come closer than others.

As for what I would like in a spell system is spell grouping. As a first level spell caster at creation you select 3 spells from 5+ school/spell classification. (Elemental, physical, defensive, Protection, Stats) At each level up you are able to select one new spell from one of the schools or you could increase one of your currents spells as long as the current spells does not exceed your level. Also as you use certain spells your character gains level in that spells after x amount of uses or time.

To provide better understanding of this subject please see the example below.


Spell-caster: Level 1
Level One Spells:
Flame – Elemental
Acid – Elemental
Cats Grace – Stats

This character constantly uses Flame and Acid. He reach level two and choose a new level one spell, splash.

Spell-caster: Level 2
Level One Spells:
Flame – Elemental
Acid – Elemental
Cats Grace – Stats
Splash – Elemental

Before he reach level three his flame spells is increase and is allowed to select from one of two fire spells from level two.

Spell-caster: Level 3
Level One Spells:
Flame – Elemental
Acid – Elemental
Cats Grace – Stats
Splash – Elemental
Level Two Spells:
Flame Thrower – Elemental

This caster has been using Cats Grace more regularly and upon reaching level 4 receive a second level spells for his experience with Cats Grace and also receives new spells to select from.

As the character levels up they are able to gain spells levels for lower level spells more easily. For instance if you are a ninth level spell caster and you are using a first level spell after 2 or 3 uses it would open up the second level spells. This is due to the character understanding of magic. Meaning you get the same xp for any spells that you cast at that level, but you only gain that spell xp if the spells actually had some type affect. Example using a healing spell to heal someone who is already heal will not grant you the spell xp need to raise the spell to the next level, etc…

This system works great if the number of spells learned and spells level are limited according to an ability score that would reflect upon spell caster. Or each spell level may require certain scores for the spell to be cast.

To me this system would allow you to create a caster of your preference if you don’t like the D&D system or any CRPG system that limits the spell casting ability in most CRPG games.

Also I would prefer mana over the D&D resting rules. It would be nice if mana regenerated through some skills/abilities. This is most useful considering that a wizard mana level tends to be just as weak as their HP at lower levels which makes for one or two spells tops usually; that is why I highly believe a regeneration of mana is critical if mana is the route they go.

[ January 04, 2006, 16:35: Message edited by: Abdel - Bhaal Spawn ]

not bad, this way you force a mage to use more different spells or to really specialize.

I'm not sure. Honestly, I've never been wild about breaking arcane magic into schools, or even magic in general. Personally, I say only one type of magic. Maybe you can divide it by element, healing, boosting, etc. but no more Divine vs Arcane. Also, remember that, by using a computer, a lot of very complicated tracking and calculating can be done very easily. XP based on spell casting being limited to spell casting is not rediculous at all, its just 1 more variable. I've also always liked the idea of direct XP spending. This could be especially good if XP is broken into types (spells, skills, melee, ranged, etc.). This way, you character will get better at what they do and you can't get a mage with spring attack because he took levels in fighter, but never uses anything fighter-ish.
At the same time, I hope they will make this like a fusion between Fallout and LionHeart, only without Lionhearts stupid spelltrees and some of the other mistakes. Also, remember BioWare, adventuring parties are GOOD. People want to have COMPLETE or NEAR COMPLETE control of their allies. No AI you could ever come up with could be as good as us just havign control ourselves. And if you could, my computer couldn't run it. BG set the standard in terms of party systems. ToEE was good in that respect as well.

We can't really decide whether there should be a distinction between divine and arcane spells because we don't know if religion is playing a big part in Dragon Age.

Heck you are talking about fighter and mage levels and we don't even know if there is a leveling system just as D&D.

I still think reagents for spells and skillpoints for practicing any part of you arsenal is an option.

I think reagents should be used for making magical items (of any kind) but not for spells. I would love to see an XP spending system if it were worked well. The problem with something like that is that people tend to play jack-of-all-trades and if the system isn't ballanced properly, a joat is better than a specialist.

My favorite non-D&D CRPG has been Betrayal at Krondor. Magic there was a mana-based system, with spells being learned from scrolls or from observation. You could choose how much mana (within a range) to use to cast a spell, with more mana producing a better chance of success/greater damage.

There were no experience levels, rather skills, statistics and mana levels increased with relevant experience--fight enough and your fighting skill goes up, pick enough locks and lockpicking goes up, etc.

That system seemed more "realistic" to me than arbitrary levels--an incremental increase in abilities, rather than "I was a level 3 wizard, suddenly I am level 4."

Gawain the D&D system is based some what on you said. If you are a pure thief chances are that as you gain levels your skills as a thief will go up. Yeah I think there should be some modification to the system such as increasing or decreasing of certain skills if you don't use them or use them more regularly. But as I mentioned in my post all systems are flawed and not everyone will like what is offered.

The D&D system in PnP works that way. In CRPG's a thief gains lock picking skill points by killing things.

In BG2 you gain xp for open locks and F/R Traps. As a thief you gain it in both fashions. d

To receive xp is a point of debate all around. Most will agree that it must be earned on a class objective complete mission base and not plain kills.

So if a wizard gets her or his spell off and the foe has one hitpoint left, and the thief kills it? How do we divide the kill if killing this foe was the objective? Or a cleric that keeps on casting heal spells with mana that gets xp that way. How does the computer keep up. It is not so straightforward.

still, giving it for kills is not the way to go. It will be a compromise.

That's easy. The mage gets XP for succefully casting the spell on the enemy. More powerful enemies will have more HP, thus more spells, or magic resistance, thus more XP per spell but more failed attempts. The thief gets XP for the succesful attack/sneak attack. The cleric gets XP for healing and anything else (s)he does. If the quest was to kill the thing, the entire party gets XP for completing the quest, but there is no XP for directly killing the creature.
Also, with this system, a party can intentionally take their time to kill the enemy slower, getting more XP, but this means greater risk. This is very realistic.

true but not what i meant. The game must keep up whit all this information and with the situation. so how much more programming is it going to take. How much more chance for bugs.

Or a scenario like this: fight with an large enemy but do not kill it. go back to a other area and return. the enemy is healed and you go at it again. this way you can get much xp early if every hit, sneak and spell counts. Or a wizard/cleric that cast spells just at thin air for the xp.

Pen and paper lets the dungeon master do things realistic. A computer does not know that people are cheating, or one step less, cheesing.

Ok, no XP for 'practice'. You get XP for it actually having an effect. If you fireball air, nothing gets hurt. If you fireball a chest, the chest takes damage, but that was easy. If you fireball a group of goblins in the heat of battle, that was hard. Think 'skill rolls' for everything and XP is based off of how hard the roll was. Not that I'm suggesting that exact system, but that's the idea.
As for running from bosses, just do what NWN did. If you run, enemies follow, even to new areas. If you rest, the enemies spent all that time looking for you and didn't. Take away the warping out and this is an effective system.
If your worried about bugs, the only thing you really need to worry about is Atari publishing it. If they avoid Atari, the game should get a descent debug time. If they use Atari, you'll be relying on patches to fix all kinds of bugs anyway.

(Off topic)I will say one thing for atari, at least they publish rpg games. Most only want to sell shooter or strategy games.

But still, returning to the topic, how to fuel the spells. I am not yet convinced to let the D&D system go for a mana system like sacred or dungeon siege. A hybrid is the logical thing.

mana points per level? Interesting, but no. Maybe all spells of the same level cost the same MP, but you have to be level X to cast level Y spells. Or is it level Y to cast level X spells? Oh well, sounds good to me.

The last thing we want is mages to just level the place with the use of mana potions. As in collect many potions and cast away at key situations. The resting in D&D makes it more tactical. So restriction in use per day and power of the spells is a must. regenerating mana sounds good, but that means to keep the mana potions out.

what I want to avoid is that magic becomes the basic attack. That way it is just an other hit and not something divine or arcane that makes a character special.

In hybrid I do not mean mana points per level as rule but a time factor in recasting. Give the body a timeperiod to regenerate from a magical attack in which a normal attack can occur.

To make it more difficult: what about spell failure due to armor or distracting. in many non D&D games mages can wear armor and slug it out up to some point. A magic system is not just the fuel or amount.

What about using HP as source for the magic? I know there have been games where you actually used your own life to fuel your spells, though admittedly, you usually were something like a vampire or other non-standard humanoid.

Not bad, but that way you can use healthpotions or spells to fuel other spells. Games like vampire the masquerade?

It is quite a debate. Many will understand that I am a fan for the 3.5 ruleset, and not for the manasystems used in diablo type games. The reason why is not the spells itself, or the class like wizard or fighter. My problem is that if the spell is used as a weapon like a sword in the diablo games, the tactical aspect is gone. Those games always end up in hackfests that requires fast and constant clicking.

So is dragon age going the way of the hack and slash, a path that sells fast but for a short time, or will it go the way of the rpg like NWN that still sells?

At higher levels, a mage should be able to cast low-level spells as a regular weapon, otherwise they only come in handy for boss types, but I see your point. I like the idea of mana regeneration w/ time and resting, but no, or VERY few, mana restoring items. At the same time, I think high level mages should be able to just level everything around them, even if it does cost most or all of their mp.

What if cantrips are infinite and thus a standard weapon? The level spells can be used on a mana/level basis. A high level wizard can choose, for example, use a number of fireballs or two big bangs. Mana regenerates so later in the fight he can have one or two level one spells. But always the cantrips.

I actually meant that the mages mp supply/regeneration would be high enough that the low level spells would be cheap, not free. You could make all spells cast at X levels lower than the caster free, but I don't know about that.