deuxhero said:
How should magic be implemented? While skipping magic entierly may be a good idea, that's for a another topic.
I think magic should be never just being a framerate killing archer. This is one thing D&D (at least 3.5) does right, "blasting" is the worst use of magic while "proper" use is all about neutralizing the foe with instant death or a "might as well be dead" stats effect (and the spells don't stupidly fail against "boss" monsters). I heard Dark Messiah was good with it as well.
I also personally think magic should NOT be balanced with non-magic (It isn't anything close to phenomenal or cosmic then). Either the entire party should be a magic user of some sort (one thing I liked about TES, the lore was clear basic magic was something easily practiced in ones spare time, just like gameplay, rather than a years long study, leading to most classes using some kind of magic), or magic wielders are simply not part of adventurer parties and only show up as NPCs.
The actual spell system (spells per day? MP? Based on the number of reagents you have? Cool down? No limits?) is a bit less clear.
This aspect of it sucked for real PnP, but in the computer game implementations of 2nd ed D&D I actually loved the mage imbalance, where you were utterly useless early and absurdly powerful later. It just made for great character progression by having the main character as a magic user, either straight or hybrid, but with mostly mage focus. You'd start out as the nobody, the kid that was on the run and needed held, relying on your party members (hired goons) to protect you, until in true b-movie style you end up becoming Keanu Reeves and roasting everyone's asses while the companions you used to rely on are now mere spectators. Worked awesomely with both the Bhaalspawn and the PS:T storylines (even on my first playthrough, I tried to postpone other content until I could find out how to become a mage) - going from 'yeah, I can..umm...throw dust and maybe blind one enemy once every 10 fights or so' to eventually 'KNEEL BEFORE ZOD!!!'
In a proper party-based game, you don't need classes to be combat balanced - just combat-useful so you don't feel like they're dead-weight. It didn't matter in the I.E. games that fighters sucked compared to mages from around L5 until Throne of Bhaal - you still kind of needed them (yes you COULD have a mage party using summons, but it was still morpe practical just to have some fighteres). Same for a thief - you didn't expect the fucker to be keeping pace in combat, he's there to handle the traps and locks. Balance only really matters in mmorpgs, where no-one wants to feel like the 'gimped' class, and non-combat/flavour features aren't as viable as in PnP. Trouble is that current crpgs have eschewed the party, where 4 is now massive, and so a character that doesn't keep up in combat feels like too much deadweight to the console kiddies.
Alternatively, I think all spells should be accompanied by the 80s tune from that movie where the guy dates the mannequin that comes to life 'You've got to believe we are maaaggiiicc, and nothing can stand in our wwaaaaaayyyy'....
Outside the I.E. game cheese (sadly the 'epic party crpg' is probably the single most extinct species of crpg - and yes, I'm counting Wizardry-style dungeon crawlers, as there's quite a few indies doing that stuff), I find magic works best when used as a utility style rather than an uber-damage-source. That's something that Bioware understood when selecting spells from D&D, but completely failed at ever since. Gothic 2 and Risen did it very very well, as did Morrowind. Mages' strategic advantage should be things like flying, shrinking, mind-reading, with a smattering of thief abilities (walk on water instead of swiming, levitate for climb, open locks, disguise) but with limited usage compared to the thief (mana system or similar). In fact, I'd love to see a game where mages didn't get ANY direct damage spells - they had to fight with weapons like everyone else, using their mage staffs, and at a disadvantage to compensate for their other abilities.
For me, that's what Dragon Age fails at the most, and I think it's an increasingly common failing. Things like C+C and tactical combat are limited by the developers/publishers perceptions of what folk will buy - developers know what they are, they just aren't willing to implement them to the extent we'd like. But I think developers at present miss the whole notion of class variation altogether - that it's gone totally from their heads. In games like Dragon Age all classes play essentially the same - you might have a different combo of buttons, a slightly different combat strategy, or different tactical emphasis, but ultimately all characters must fulfill the same goals of killing enemies and talking to friendlies. The notion of a character class dedicated just to thievery (thieves becoming high-damage/low-hp fighters is typical of this), or to utility spells, creating real variation in play, is completely missing.
)
