Toril 2.0 and the Racewars?

Discussion concerning the upcoming Toril 2.0 update as well as general 3.5 edition D&D discussion
Arilin Nydelahar
Sojourner
Posts: 1499
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Virginia Beach
Contact:

Toril 2.0 and the Racewars?

Postby Arilin Nydelahar » Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:25 am

Nothings been said other than "new races" I know, but I for one am curious how racewars are going to be handled. Will any form of outcasting go back in or is that out for good? Will there even be a line anymore between the races? I'm quite curious to see how that plays out. Also quite curious what other people think, or how you think it should be handled?
Shevarash OOC: 'what can I say, I'm attracted to crazy chicks and really short dudes'
Minofagal
Sojourner
Posts: 224
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2005 11:32 am
Contact:

Postby Minofagal » Wed Aug 16, 2006 5:49 am

i think a semi pkill mud would be kinda neat. evil race vs. good race
Kaisi tells you 'get smirn, he's better than me'
--HELP! My legs aren't long enough!--
Lilira
Sojourner
Posts: 1438
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:53 pm

Postby Lilira » Wed Aug 16, 2006 7:35 pm

I have no interest in pkill other than arena, and I know on that one I'm not alone.
~\o--Lilira Shadowlyre--o/~

You group-say 'my chars will carry the component on them if I can.'
Inama group-says 'hopefully they'll have some sort of volume discounts on ress items for people like you'
You group-say 'oh? Ya think? *giggle*'
Inama group-says 'they could at least implement frequent dier miles'

Suzalize group-says 'oh, eya's over weight i bet'
Malacar
Sojourner
Posts: 1640
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Boston, MA, USA

Postby Malacar » Wed Aug 16, 2006 8:08 pm

Zero interest in pkill.
Arilin Nydelahar
Sojourner
Posts: 1499
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Virginia Beach
Contact:

Postby Arilin Nydelahar » Wed Aug 16, 2006 8:09 pm

Well the point of my post wasn't really about pkill more along the lines of group restrictions. Just curious how that'll be handled.
Shevarash OOC: 'what can I say, I'm attracted to crazy chicks and really short dudes'
Birile
Sojourner
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Albany, NY

Postby Birile » Wed Aug 16, 2006 9:05 pm

Arilin Nydelahar wrote:Well the point of my post wasn't really about pkill more along the lines of group restrictions. Just curious how that'll be handled.


I second that curiosity.
Lilira
Sojourner
Posts: 1438
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:53 pm

Postby Lilira » Wed Aug 16, 2006 9:40 pm

That's fine. :-) I was just responding to the pkill comment. I'd love to see outcasting return. Then it would be open to any race... not just humans. Better yet.. group restrictions by ALIGNMENT instead of race... so the silly good aligned troll and orc that's running around will be able to play with the half-elves etc. Still can't see a full elf group with orcs, but that's just me.
~\o--Lilira Shadowlyre--o/~

You group-say 'my chars will carry the component on them if I can.'
Inama group-says 'hopefully they'll have some sort of volume discounts on ress items for people like you'
You group-say 'oh? Ya think? *giggle*'
Inama group-says 'they could at least implement frequent dier miles'

Suzalize group-says 'oh, eya's over weight i bet'
Llaaldara
Sojourner
Posts: 998
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Dobluth Kyor

Postby Llaaldara » Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:28 pm

I'd buy that for a dollar.
Thilindel
Sojourner
Posts: 3173
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 9:09 pm
Location: Indianapolis

Postby Thilindel » Thu Aug 17, 2006 5:57 am

Lilira wrote:Better yet.. group restrictions by ALIGNMENT instead of race... so the silly good aligned troll and orc that's running around will be able to play with the half-elves etc.


*clap clap* hip hip hurray for the piglet and the pooh! I like that idea!
Malacar
Sojourner
Posts: 1640
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Boston, MA, USA

Postby Malacar » Thu Aug 17, 2006 1:20 pm

I say remove grouping restrictions altogether. The pbase is far too small for this little quirk.
Latreg
Sojourner
Posts: 481
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 9:47 pm
Location: Roanoke,Va

Postby Latreg » Thu Aug 17, 2006 7:51 pm

Malacar wrote:I say remove grouping restrictions altogether. The pbase is far too small for this little quirk.


totally agree, if the player base wa.n'ts an issue and forming/filling out groups wasn't a problem then even alignment restrictions would make sense, but currently there just aren't enough people to support these things. Other than for rp, what's the point of restrictions?
Talona responds to your petition with 'Sweet, I fixed something!'
Talona LFG: [55 Evil Human Nec] 'Don't make me mud castrate you all.'
Some people are like slinkies, not really good for anything but you still cant help smile when you see one tumble down the stairs.
Cirath
Sojourner
Posts: 517
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2001 5:01 am

Re: Toril 2.0 and the Racewars?

Postby Cirath » Sat Aug 19, 2006 11:26 pm

Arilin Nydelahar wrote:Nothings been said other than "new races" I know...


I must have missed that part. Where was there mention of new races?


Minofagal wrote:i think a semi pkill mud would be kinda neat. evil race vs. good race


No. No it wouldn't.


As far as grouping restrictions go, I suspect that if they were all abolished that it would severely limit the race/class combos that were taken in groups (I had the misfortune of outcasting a barbarian warrior back in the day, and you have never seen a more worthless or unwanted character when he stook in the shadow of ogres and trolls). It, of course, would also mean that race restrictions in most hometowns and such places would have to be removed, because if the races could all group together, then there would no longer be any point to them at all.

We already know how alignment restrictions would work. We would be back to the days of "Sorry, you can't come. We have a paladin/ranger in the group." Besides, only a handful of classes specifically advertise their alignment, and race would be no real guide, since that doesn't limit your alignment, but only determines where it begins.

Personally, I think it is fine as it is, and I expect (considering the poll in one of the other forums) that the launch of Toril 2.0 will help the player base problems, if only slightly.
Ashiwi
Sojourner
Posts: 4161
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Ashiwi » Sun Aug 20, 2006 2:28 am

I'd actually love to see zones that pitted evils against goods for various reasons. Not a full pkill game, mind you, but zones where pkill was an integral part of the gameplay.
Gormal tells you 'im a dwarven onion'
Gormal tells you 'always another beer-soaked layer'

Inama ASSOC:: 'though it may suit your fantasies to think so, i don't need oil for anything.'

Haley: Filthy lucre? I wash that lucre every day until it SHINES!
Lilira
Sojourner
Posts: 1438
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:53 pm

Postby Lilira » Sun Aug 20, 2006 2:59 am

*cough* arena *cough*
~\o--Lilira Shadowlyre--o/~

You group-say 'my chars will carry the component on them if I can.'
Inama group-says 'hopefully they'll have some sort of volume discounts on ress items for people like you'
You group-say 'oh? Ya think? *giggle*'
Inama group-says 'they could at least implement frequent dier miles'

Suzalize group-says 'oh, eya's over weight i bet'
Tasan
Sojourner
Posts: 1710
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Fridley, Mn USA
Contact:

Postby Tasan » Sun Aug 20, 2006 8:16 am

Latreg wrote:Other than for rp, what's the point of restrictions?


Each side of the game has bonuses and detriments to playing it. If everyone can group together, a lot of those detriments will cease to exist and you will have way more powerful groups possible.

3 troll warrior
2 barb shaman
3 grey invokers
2 yuan clerics
1 grey enchanter
...

You can imagine the rest.
Danahg tells you 'yeah, luckily i kept most of it in my mouth and nasal membranes, ugh'

Dlur group-says 'I have a dead horse that I'm dragging down the shaft with my 4 corpses. Anyone want to help me beat it?'

Calladuran: There are other games to play if you want to play with yourself.
Latreg
Sojourner
Posts: 481
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 9:47 pm
Location: Roanoke,Va

Postby Latreg » Sun Aug 20, 2006 7:38 pm

Tasan wrote:
Latreg wrote:Other than for rp, what's the point of restrictions?


Each side of the game has bonuses and detriments to playing it. If everyone can group together, a lot of those detriments will cease to exist and you will have way more powerful groups possible.

3 troll warrior
2 barb shaman
3 grey invokers
2 yuan clerics
1 grey enchanter
...

You can imagine the rest.


hhmm I see what you're saying, I guess it all depends on if there will be a huge difference in race with the new code like there currently is....
Talona responds to your petition with 'Sweet, I fixed something!'

Talona LFG: [55 Evil Human Nec] 'Don't make me mud castrate you all.'

Some people are like slinkies, not really good for anything but you still cant help smile when you see one tumble down the stairs.
Gantoris
Sojourner
Posts: 64
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Contact:

Postby Gantoris » Wed Aug 23, 2006 9:16 pm

What is a Barbarian Warrior? In 3.5 that would be a multiclass :P

~Gantoris -Tabletop D&D Junky-
Cirath
Sojourner
Posts: 517
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Cirath » Thu Aug 24, 2006 1:09 am

Gantoris wrote:What is a Barbarian Warrior? In 3.5 that would be a multiclass :P


Not if you substitute neaderthal for barbarian.
Malacar
Sojourner
Posts: 1640
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Boston, MA, USA

Postby Malacar » Thu Aug 24, 2006 1:07 pm

Yeah, citing current races for race balance in 2.0 is pure speculation.

Sure, certain races will have better innate abilities, or stat bumps. But I think the gap will be much less than you'd expect, and certainly less of a gap than in the current scheme.

I say remove race group restrictions still.
Guardias
Sojourner
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 11:01 pm
Location: West Plains, Missouri
Contact:

Give peace a chance

Postby Guardias » Thu Sep 28, 2006 8:14 pm

I'm for dropping group restrictions. The fact of the matter is that people want to zone, be they good or evil. However due to some reason goodies are more prolific than evils; this fact coupled with the fact that zoning is generally harder for evils (I’ve heard tell of this) leads to goodies zoning many, many times more than evils.

To the earlier comment that it would create a monopoly on certain class positions for zoning I would like to say this. Doesn’t it already? When one side of the “alignment” spectrum is zoning so much more often than the other isn’t there already a monopoly on zoning positions? I believe that a dropping of grouping restrictions while one is not in RP, the continuation of towns which discriminate against certain races (except in certain cases possibly- an RP quest or such to become a hero or villain to the area to gain admittance), and looser restrictions on equipment (which has been promised in 2.0) will actually create greater diversity amongst groups and overall create a more exciting zoning experience as well as create a more experienced player base.

Another reason I do not believe that any one race will become the heir apparent of any certain class is that with the coming of 2.0 orcs and elves will have the same ability for intelligence and such, and according to the newest 2.0 update racial intelligence will not matter for memtimes.

Overall I believe that dropping group restrictions will revitalize the mud and allow for people to actually do what they mud for: zone.
Cirath
Sojourner
Posts: 517
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2001 5:01 am

Re: Give peace a chance

Postby Cirath » Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:09 pm

Guardias wrote:Another reason I do not believe that any one race will become the heir apparent of any certain class is that with the coming of 2.0 orcs and elves will have the same ability for intelligence and such, and according to the newest 2.0 update racial intelligence will not matter for memtimes.


They can reach the same numbers, but it takes far more effort for one to get there than the other. Its the difference in a drag race where one car starts half way to the finish line. So while any race can achieve a score that will allow greatness in a particular venue, there remain only a few that would not require great sacrifice in other areas to do so.

Basically, what this boils down to is that trolls and ogres will still almost certainly be better warriors than any good race, barbarians will be better shamans, etc.

Also, while intelligence will have no bearing on the speed of spell preparation, the primary casting stat (int for mages, wis for priests, etc.) will affect how many extra spells are allowed per mem.

If all races were made equal by the change, then there would be no point to having different races, now would there?
Guardias
Sojourner
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 11:01 pm
Location: West Plains, Missouri
Contact:

Hrumph

Postby Guardias » Fri Sep 29, 2006 2:34 am

You are missing the point. All races are equal in truth, that is the way things are in D&D. Only racial innates and certain attributes that make a difference. The fact of the matter is that sure an orc may start out with a negative to intelligence, but this does not mean he cannot compete with an elf who might get a bonus. There are spells and items that can offset the difference WHILE giving other bonuses as well, and I suspect we'll be seeing alot more of these kinds of items due to the trend of this mud to mimic D&D with 2.0.

Oh yeah trolls and ogres? Since when was an ogre a better tank than a barbarian or dwarf? You might also remember than in 2.0 trolls and ogres will be large sized and therefore be innately easier to hit.

As a final note i'd like to point out that even if one race starts at say a 90 in wisdom and another in 60 it will take alot less for the guy at 60 to get to 90 than it will for the guy at 90 to get to 100. The higher your attribute score the more points it'll take to improve it.
Thilindel
Sojourner
Posts: 3173
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 9:09 pm
Location: Indianapolis

Postby Thilindel » Fri Sep 29, 2006 5:20 am

Well, I'm hoping svirfneblin race is brought in 2.0. I can't see it hurting anything. Could be an evils version of a neutral race. From what I've read, drow beat the living piss out of duergar, etc. Just more semi-ebils to play with! Not a balance issue there is it?
Cirath
Sojourner
Posts: 517
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2001 5:01 am

Re: Hrumph

Postby Cirath » Fri Sep 29, 2006 6:02 am

Guardias wrote:You are missing the point. All races are equal in truth, that is the way things are in D&D. Only racial innates and certain attributes that make a difference.


You pretty much just contridicted yourself in the space of those two sentences. It is hard for two things to be the same, except for being completely opposite.

Guardias wrote:The fact of the matter is that sure an orc may start out with a negative to intelligence, but this does not mean he cannot compete with an elf who might get a bonus. There are spells and items that can offset the difference WHILE giving other bonuses as well, and I suspect we'll be seeing alot more of these kinds of items due to the trend of this mud to mimic D&D with 2.0.


And what is to stop the elf from getting that very same item, thus negating the balancing factor that the orc has gained?

Guardias wrote:You might also remember than in 2.0 trolls and ogres will be large sized and therefore be innately easier to hit.


As well as a bonus to combat manuvers (grapple, bull rush, shield bash, etc.), damage, and reach, all of which will significantly impact tanking ability.

Guardias wrote:As a final note i'd like to point out that even if one race starts at say a 90 in wisdom and another in 60 it will take alot less for the guy at 60 to get to 90 than it will for the guy at 90 to get to 100. The higher your attribute score the more points it'll take to improve it.


And yet, it will cost the 60 wis race the same to get from 90 to 100. They just have to pay the points to get to 90 first.
Ambar
Sojourner
Posts: 2872
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Our House in Va.
Contact:

Re: Give peace a chance

Postby Ambar » Fri Sep 29, 2006 11:42 am

Guardias wrote:I'm for dropping group restrictions. The fact of the matter is that people want to zone, be they good or evil. However due to some reason goodies are more prolific than evils; this fact coupled with the fact that zoning is generally harder for evils (I’ve heard tell of this) leads to goodies zoning many, many times more than evils.

cut ..

Overall I believe that dropping group restrictions will revitalize the mud and allow for people to actually do what they mud for: zone.



Why would anyone take anything but a troll or dwarf warrior for a zone if there were no restrictions(I include dwarf here for the fire aspect)? A snake yuanti over any other cleric class ..
Orc shaman over barb .. and the list goes on. Playerbase be damned keep evil and good separate .. mebbe bring back OC for the fun of it but thats it. And I wonder how inn cache would work for OC peoples? Hmm

I think you may not be seeing the big picture here .. All classes will NOT be the same. Consider the COST of stat raises per RACE.. the elf warrior may be oober agility tank but he will never have the EQUIVALENT strength his brother tank dwarf or barbarian does. At 100 strength, say (if it is to be raised to 100, I do not know).. with using up his skill points, how low are his other stats??

Every race/class combo has their benefits .. Evils were balanced more with the onset of twinkies (dire raiders) and rift/wormhole but they are underutilized .. todays evils are GENERALLY (sans the older experienced evils who still play and the older, experienced goodies who play their evils) less experienced, newer players .. THAT is why they dont do the bigger zones .. they really CANT yet until their pbase learns HOW to ..

/opinion
"When a child is born, so is a grandmother."

-Italian Proverb
Malacar
Sojourner
Posts: 1640
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Boston, MA, USA

Postby Malacar » Fri Sep 29, 2006 6:47 pm

Ambar... given your response, I don't think you have read 3.5 very well.

The 3.5 system gives some rather unique perspectives to races in general.

A dwarf tank would have an average strength - equal to an elf in fact. The difference is his con would be higher.

I really think the 'playerbase be damned' attitude is going to sink this mud eventually... You need to keep players.
Gantoris
Sojourner
Posts: 64
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Contact:

Postby Gantoris » Fri Sep 29, 2006 7:37 pm

All those whacked out numbers and racial statistics that you don't see now for each race are going to be totally transparrent in 2.0 from what Shevy has said, so the dwarf and human are going to be EQUALLY good at tanking. A dwarf might happen to have the potential to have a few more hitpoints per level. Thats it!

Ogres and Trolls are large sized (Shevy, are they going to be large?) If so they get a +4 to grapple checks, +4 to disarm, everybody gets a +1 to hit them for their size.

Racial Stats: From how I read it, the scaling cost of 'buying' a higher stat at character creation is ONLY during character creation.

If an elf with an 80 INT and an Ogre (who spent want too many points) with an 80 INT both put on the same +5 Headband of Intellect, they would both have an INT of 85. The only differance is that for the Elf to have an INT of 80 they probably only had to buy a stat of 70. Whereas the Ogre likely had to buy a stat of 90 (expensive!) and then after the racial INT pentalty drops it down to that 80.

Make sense?

Grouping Restrictions: I would not be surprised if grouping restrictions loosened up a little bit, but I highly doubt you will see Chaotic/Evil Trolls and Chaotic/Good Gold Elves running around in the same group.

But will you see a Neutral/Evil Dwarven Ranger running around with a Lawful/Evil Troll Blackguard? I bet it is within the realm of possibility.

3.5 has loads of Alignment based stuff and as it turns out, being GOOD alighment has some major benefits not only for feats and spells!. Good Clerics can swap out ANY non-domain spell for a healing spell of the equivelant level... sooo damned handy.

Sweeeeeet.

~Gantoris
Ambar
Sojourner
Posts: 2872
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Our House in Va.
Contact:

Postby Ambar » Sat Sep 30, 2006 4:02 am

Malacar wrote:Ambar... given your response, I don't think you have read 3.5 very well.

The 3.5 system gives some rather unique perspectives to races in general.

A dwarf tank would have an average strength - equal to an elf in fact. The difference is his con would be higher.

I really think the 'playerbase be damned' attitude is going to sink this mud eventually... You need to keep players.


no i havent read it at all (i am not a tabletop gamer at all and have no idea what any books say) but you did repeat what i said :) by having equivalent stats in one area, others will be lower .. *nod me* and yes playerbase be damned leave races separate(unless they are OC) :)
"When a child is born, so is a grandmother."



-Italian Proverb
Malacar
Sojourner
Posts: 1640
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Boston, MA, USA

Postby Malacar » Sat Sep 30, 2006 4:43 am

Ambar wrote:no i havent read it at all (i am not a tabletop gamer at all and have no idea what any books say) but you did repeat what i said :) by having equivalent stats in one area, others will be lower .. *nod me* and yes playerbase be damned leave races separate(unless they are OC) :)


Actually, you're reading too much in to it. Every single race has drawbacks and benefits. Seriously. No one race is much better at a thing than the next, and even then, after levels come in to play, and equipment is calculated, the differences would be miniscule at best.

Not knocking you, but check it out before you decide on it. ;)

I'll agree to disagree (vehemently!) on the playerbase opinion, though. :)
Tasan
Sojourner
Posts: 1710
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Fridley, Mn USA
Contact:

Postby Tasan » Sat Sep 30, 2006 8:26 am

Guardias wrote:Only racial innates and certain attributes that make a difference.


Yes, this is what we were referring to as a reason behind things boiling down to certain roles for certain races.

Shev hasn't said diddly squat about innates so far so it's all moot speculation anyhow.
Danahg tells you 'yeah, luckily i kept most of it in my mouth and nasal membranes, ugh'



Dlur group-says 'I have a dead horse that I'm dragging down the shaft with my 4 corpses. Anyone want to help me beat it?'



Calladuran: There are other games to play if you want to play with yourself.
Gormal
Sojourner
Posts: 3917
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2001 6:01 am
Location: A Whale's Vagina
Contact:

Postby Gormal » Sat Sep 30, 2006 9:30 am

I'm a huge fan of racial differences, alignment incentives, and equipment restrictions. I hope that all three of these are prevalent in 2.0, especially the proc_ale dwarf only battle hammer.
Raiwen
Sojourner
Posts: 430
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Atlanta, Ga USA
Contact:

Re: Hrumph

Postby Raiwen » Sun Oct 01, 2006 3:10 am

Guardias wrote:You might also remember than in 2.0 trolls and ogres will be large sized and therefore be innately easier to hit.

So this may affect trolls, but not so much ogres, unless we get some natural armor bonus. They are already easy to hit, 2.0 won't make much a difference in that department unless nat AC comes into play.

Return to “Toril 2.0 Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests