Volourn

Yup. So if you freed a slave when it is legal to have one... you are the animal... not the slaver. LMAO

"I don't know how "common" this is, but I would definitely call it a pitfall: trapping us in a place where we have to fight a monster who can only be hurt by a certain weapon we probably don't have and may not specialize in even if we do have it, and then giving that monster regenerating health. I've been fighting Kagour (sp?) on the Werewolf Island in Tales Of The Sword Coast, and frankly, he is impossible for my party to beat even with the Sword Of Balduran and using cheesy kiting tactics. Which wouldn't be so bad, if I had any other options than to fight him. But I'm stuck on the island, and the only way to move the story along is to fight a character I straight-up cannot defeat. At this point, I'm just going to give up and edit his entry in Shadowkeeper until I can beat the motherf***er. Does that bother you, Baldur's Gate grognards? It sure bothers me. I don't want to cheat, and I wouldn't, but the game cheated me first." The game didn't cheat. You just sucked at the game. Don't blame your failure on the game. It's a game. That means losing should be a possibility. As for you 'cheating'. Meh. It's a SP game. I don't care what you do in your copy as it don't effect me.

Actually, there's a way to fix the randomness but still have it though I don't what kind of scri[pt/computer power one would need to do it (I'll leave that to 'experts'). Why not have the 'random loot drop' be determined at the very first save/start of actual game. That way, if someone hates the loot drop they would have to retsrat the game. This will stop the savwe scumming. That said, people shouldn't be worried about other people save scumming in a SP game. It should not matter. It doesn't hurt you in any way.

"^i.e. eliminating death. Making death mean something other than "You're Dead because you failed". Consequently, this is basically the developer saying: "hey kiddo, if you recklessly and foolishly approach combat throwing all caution to the wind, don't worry about it. You, and your companions are immortal." ie: Neverwinter nights. " Only if you play it wrong. "But the Solution is NOT to reduce the challenge or reduce the penalties. The solution is to...Not Give a F*ck about the playing habits of crappy gamers." Agreed 100%.

My biggest issue with GOG is I'm addicted to it. I spam buy old games, play them for a while having fun, then stop them midstream. Wasted 100s of dollars on that silly site. L0L

"Not quite as bad, because you get one good hit before you're worthless." If you think a rogue is 'worthless' ina fight outside of backstab/sneak attack, your idea of 'worthless' is weird. A rogue as per DnD can do many things in battle. Just b/c their attack roll isn't as high as a warrior's doesn't mean they can't hit anything either. A fighter using a long sword does 1d8 damage while a rogue using a short sword does 1d6 damage (those are two 'stereotypical' weapons) so not much difference there then it depends on individual strength. Then yu throw in scroll/magic item ability. Heck, a rogue can read miror image, stoneskin, and other useful battle spells crolls to get an edge on the warrior. "PS. I'm also amused by the argument that rogues shouldn't be as good at combat as fighters because it makes everyone the same, but paladins and rangers and barbarians are totally fine" Paladins and rangers are special warrior classes. They have differences from fighters both 'good' and 'bad'. There's a reason why, originally, these classes equired more xp to level up... but, this unholy pursuit of balance in rpgs has changed the general mindset where all has to be equal. "That's weird. What, you think people would all just play as other classes and not the Rogue? For what reason would they possibly do that? Could it be due to some failing on the Rogue's part in some relativistic comparison to the other classes?" That's weird. Never once in my pnp life did I see a rogue not be played ebcause it was 'too weak'. In fact, it was often chosen because prferred it. Rogue has its ROLE in ROLE PLAYING GAMES. Now, people want a rogue to be basically a fighter. Why bother with the class then? That's the issue I have with the DA version of it. There's not enough of a difference between rogue and warrior to make a huge difference to matter. DA would have been served better with 2 classes - Adventurer and Mage. Period.

"Also each Class will have 2 starting Skills, which are more likely to be pre-determined for each Class, so a Rogue naturally begins with a free Stealth Specialization. But he will not be the only guy who can 'use stealth mode'." What's your point with this nonsense? This proves nothing nor is PE original in this approach. Just like the fighter isn't the only class that fights. POINT. NOT. FOUND.

Your point?

If you think a rogue should be limited to that stuff than you have no cocnept of the class works. But, hey, you are just spamming nonsense with no logic behind it.

Overland maps are cool.

"(Protip: Rogues are thieves in the same way that Rangers are forest marshals, which is to say it's only a small part of their job description)." What are you talking. Rogue vs thief in terms of name is irrelevant since it is describing the same class. 'Thief' was always a misnomer since not every member of the thief/rogyue style classes are actually *thieves* which is why DnD and other systems changed the name. But, that's irrelevant to this discussion.

"but don't make them good at everything." Who claims they want wizards to be good at everything'?

"^ FYI, if you hit the "quote" button, you can separate your words from the other person's words, instead of having to rely on quotation marks." FYI, I use quotes when I quote someone. That's the way it is supposed to be done.

And, it works. That's the best strategy.

One of the weaknesses of the game. Turning fighters into mages. No need for classes.

"Not very classy of Sawyer not to comment in this thread." Why? He doesn't need to do anything. "First off, you CAN be a Berserker-Mage." You cannot be a Mage Berserker. You have to be a fighter. Yiou can start as a Fighter(Berserker) than MULTI CLASS to mage. That is NOT the same thing. When you are a berserker you cannot cast spells and aren't treated as a mage. You are treated as a fighter because your kit is part of the fighter class. Why is this so complicated for you? "Oh, I wouldn't say that Bio called them kits just for giggles. Calling them kits solves a ton of logistical and categorization issues. Most of which are completely irrelevant to this discussion that we're having, though." But, that's the thing. You are being ignorant. BIO did not name them. DnD did. Kits are seperated by class. Only fighters can take the barbarian kit, only bards can take the skald kit, etc., etc. Kits are kits. Classes are classes. HUGE difference. "I've got to say tht Stun is right about the kits being classes. If a paladin is a class (where in reality he's a LG fighter with cleric spells and restrictions in charisma), then a kit with specific mechanics that are distinct with equal restrictions, equal bonuses to combat with maluses to "balance" are "classes" regardless of what a game wants to call them." No. he's wrong and ignorant on how the game and how it and the rules it is based on work. You can be a paladin who decides to take a kit or not but try to take one of the paladin kits without being a paladin. I dare you. Oh yeah, you can't. Because they are kits. And, sionce it needs stressing, BIO did not invent the word kit or seperate classes and kits for giggles. That was DnD, and it was did for a good reason. Kits don't exist without classes. Anyone can take a class without a kit but in order to take a certain class you have to be a specific class. Only fighters can be berserkers. PERIOD.

"'ve never quite understood this. Why is it that so many people insist that rogues shouldn't be as good in combat as fighters? Is it because of the name (in which case I'd wonder why magic users get to be better than fighters)? Is it because that's how AD&D did it? Or is it something else? I'm genuinely curious." It has little to do with DnD. Classes are supposed to be different. If a rogue is as good as a fighter in a fight than what's the point of a fighter? It's like if the fighter was as good as a rogue/thief/scout at opening locked doors, stealing, and sneaking then what would be the point of a rogue. If you want classes to be equal in all things then perhaps a classless system is your preference. And, nothing wrong with that, because there are examples of very good classless character systems. But, if you are going to have classes they should be different and have their own role. As for why mages being more powerful than fighters.. That should be obvious - they use MAGIC. They create something out of nothing or manipulate things to create weird stuff. But, even then, mages can be beat and they are different. This idea of equality between the classes is lame. A rogue should not be a fighter and a fighter should not be a rogue. L A M E

"See? I'm playing this thing right now, and scanning the spell descriptions like an illuminated text, and still simple stuff like this escapes me. And I am in the target audience!" \Then, take the time to learn. Geez.. It's not complicated. Just pay attention, read, and learn. I know, I know. Reading and learning is the hard. And, are you the target audience? If so, they may be targeting the wrong audience. Just sayin'.

No, they're called kits because that is what theya re and BIO didn't 'decide' to name them that. 2nd Edition, which BG2 is based on, called them kits and which 3E's PrC are just a different form of them. And, they do have a parent prerequsite lass. Can you be a mage berserker? no. You have to be a fighter. The fact you actually think BIO called them kits and not classes just for giggles shows you really don't know the game or genre you are discussing.

"Lolwut? Baldur's Gate is widely recognized as single-handedly reviving the CRPG genre and both games were universally acclaimed for setting new standards and raising the bar." Popularity does not equal innovative. btw, I love BG2 and enjoyed BG1 in spite its flaws immense ly. BG2 is still top 3 in my book, and BG1 is definitely up there as well. But, that doesn't make them 'innovative'. They're D&D games for Bhaal's Sake. "Technical. The 2D combined with 3D lighting and volumetric effects backgrounds are innovative. At least I don't think I've seen anything exactly like that anywhere, and they promise to take the top-down isometric experience to entirely new visual heights. Mechanical. The game mechanics design goals of P:E are pretty damn ambitious. It wants to be both diverse and balanced, eliminate cookie-cutter builds and parties while producing genuinely different gameplay for different builds and party compositions. Breaking out of the "fighters are strong but dumb, wizards are smart but fragile" mold counts as fairly major innovation in my book. Lore. The whole soul magic thing is original and highly intriguing IMO, and it looks like they've thought it through extremely thoroughly, from in-world explanations for the supernatural abilities various classes have, to magical materials like skein steel, to the politics of animancy, to its history, and so on. Time period/history. There haven't been many cRPG's set in the Renaissance/Age of Discovery period, and fewer still in a 'colonial' setting where a new culture arriving from overseas collides with older, established cultures. Even better, it looks like they're doing this in a way that avoids making it a transparent allegory for how it went down in our world; for one thing it appears that the cultures are on a much more equal technological/military footing. Languages. I don't recall seeing many cRPG's make even a slightly credible attempt at conlangs; fantasy names are usually just vaguely Celtic syllables strung together at random. P:E's have structure and feel and flavor. (That's a big, big deal for me personally BTW.) Funding and production model. Doing something of this scale through Kickstarter is pretty innovative in itself, even if they weren't quite the first to do it. What's even more interesting IMO is the way they're using and sharing assets. Unity is largely OSS, and they're sharing both their tech and some of their people with a 'friendly competitor,' i.e. inXile. I find that pretty damn cool because it's a win-win situation." None of this innovative or original. btw, 'Weren't the first to do it' means it wasn't innovative. You do know what innovative means, right? I believe PE will be a good and fun game despite my gripes (as my things I like about it outnumbers those) but innovative? Nah.

"^I challenge you to find a SINGLE cRPG created after 2007 that offers even 1/6th of BG2's character build options." Why is 2007 your cutoff date? What's so special about that year when BG2 was released well before that? And, the fact that you listed weapons and weapon styles as 'evidence' is laughable. And, 33 classes? Come on, now. BG2 does not have 33 classes. Kits are NOT classes. That's why they are called kits. *SIGH*

K.

Owning a castle is one thing, getting the loot there should be another.

No, no it isn't. Balance is illogical, unfun, unoriginal, uninnovative, boring, and too much of 'everyone is a winner!' which is a huge plague in modern scoiety. A thief (rogue) should NEVER be the equal of a FIGHTER! in a fight. It's silly talk.

"Put your trust in those guys that think very much like you" I trust that they'll likely make a game I'll enjoy and have fun with. However, they do NOT think like that I do. if they did, they wouldn't be doing things for casual players OR 'grognards'. nor would they be making a game with the multi headed monster as an option. They also wouldn't be having unlimited super duper vaccaum mass teleporting inventiory into castle. There are tons of things I like about this game announced so far (DWARVES!) but there are things that are mightily dissapointing.(fake halflings!).