Jediphile

Canon matters only in the greater perspective of Star Wars lore and history of the Expanded Universe in its entirety. Within the games it matters not in the slightest. For example, the exile always has an always will be male to me, when I play the games. Period. Nothing will change that (and if KotOR3 did, I would consider that discrimination, since Revan's gender was optional in TSL). However, if the exile appears in the KotOR comic book or is referred to by material set in a later time period, then the character will be female. Still, given how far LA has gone to dodge defining Revan's gender in published material, I doubt that will happen. After all, Revan might be male and light-sided at the end of KotOR, but that still doesn't tell us what he really looked like. Did he have long hair or any at all? Did he have a beard? What was his skincolour? Canon has not decided that, and so while Revan has appeared in the KotOR comic, he (or even she) has always been robed so that the character was unrecognizable, even when it comes to gender.

She tells the exile he is not a jedi, because he was cast out by the order. She then tells him that she is the last jedi...

Besides, while we might think they are so close and have so little left to fix on the mod, the other way to look at it is that they are now stuck with only those problems that have been really hard to fix. Putting the finishing touches on a mod as massive as TLSRP must be daunting in itself, I should think. Here's hoping you're still at it and haven't lost your stride, Team Gizka.

Because the Sith Lords of the game thinking that the Exile is the last jedi is the reason they are hunting him down, so that the jedi will be extinct.

Well, that could change, I guess... I mean, Bioware also said they would develop only their own IP, yet now they're working on something for LA... Besides, time and potential lack of money/jobs might make Bungie reconsider, couldn't it? Unless Microsoft holds a grudge, of course.

It's a fair question. After all, where does the balance lie? I mean, on the one hand, you might want a game that lets you play the character you can imagine (which none of the incarnations of D&D have done well so far...), but on the other hand, you also need to make the rules mean something - if someone wants cover more areas, then it has to cost somewhere. Otherwise it smells like the rules are catering to munchkinism rather than attempting any sort of balanced and fair play. The wizard/warrior combination is the extreme example, since those are exactly the two archetypes that are the furthest apart. Add to that how the basic principle of not just RPGs but, well, anything really is that you can either be decent at lots of things, or you can be really good at something while being terrible at something else. Most RPGs are built toward that, either by enforcing fixed archetypes (as in D&D) or by setting up rules that lets you excel at something only if you focus the development of the character exclusively toward that goal while sacrificing others (like 5th edition Call of Cthulhu, GURPS, or pretty much any of White Wolf's games). Those who say that 2e had problems in that regard are not wrong IMHO, which isn't to say that it couldn't be forced to not be wrong through houserules or similar (which I did IMC). It's not really fair to have an elven fighter/mage, who is almost a good a wizard as the human who chose to focus exclusively on that class while giving up the benefits of armor and weaponry. That's the exact reason I thought 3e multi-class rules were better than in 2e. They did not permit characters to convert if made under the old rules, however, and they also punished all the multi-class options about equally (not counting the "outside preferred racial multi-class combination" rules), which might be a bit over the top. I mean, I already put severe restrictions on the warrior/wizard combination in my 2e campaign (and might have had none for that reason), but a fighter/thief isn't quite as unbalancing, nor is the fighter/cleric, if you consider that there is already a paladin in the game... 4e seems to revert more towards 2e, however, which is also not the right idea IMHO. I've had players who wanted to do fighter/wizard combinations for the sake of basically having a character similar to the 3e arcane archer. If such a character were limited magic that affects fired arrows and similar as well as limiting his warrior abilities to the bow, that does not sound so bad. Then again, another player wanted a wizard/thief so he could enhance his thieving skills with magic spells. That may not sound so bad, but then again, how can I allow a combination that allows the multi-classed thief/mage to have better thieving skills that the single-classed thief who dedicated his development exclusively toward that class?

Does anybody like any ^ in general? I hear Microsoft does...

It's not their decision, but LA's. Bioware didn't want to do TSL, and have said they were not and would not develop KotOR3. Then again, they've also said they wanted to work only their own IP, and whatever they are doing for LA, it would seem to be an IP owned by LA, as that would be the only reason to collaborate on it. Obsidian, however, has stated repeatedly that they wanted to do KotOR3. If I understand Feargus Urquhart's comments correctly, then "being busy with something else" is not an issue. So it would seem to be because LA is holding back for whatever reason. My personal theory is that they are still embarrassed/in denial about who they fouled up TSL by forcing the deadline...

or maybe its done and they're just letting us sweat...laughing at us. As long as the project hasn't died, that's fine by me.

2e had rules for creating your own classes from scratch - no bloody need for prestige classes (which would force you to go through a core class first). Sure, it was a trade-off - the more powerful the class got, the more it cost to reach the next level of experience - but then doing it any other way would have been unbalanced.

Really? Well, I might even agree with that, but 4e rules would not, it seems:

No, it wouldn't. Looking only at levels, it would make him a 12th-level character, since you cannot convert xp values directly between 2e and 3e, as they are too different. However, in your example that still leaves us with the problem of the character magically losing the ability to cast 4th, 5th, and 6th level spells in the transition. For a new "edition" of the "same game", that does not seem particularly elegant to me. I had a on-going campaign of several years at the time 2e went to 3e, and since the rules would not allow smooth conversion, there was no choice, even if I had liked 3e. So it was an easy choice. If the rules force the choice, then the rules lose. Period. Besides, none of the players asked for the change. Those of them who like and play 3e today still don't.

This is true, of course. But 2e Player Option rules allowed a lot of the classes to "infringe" a bit on the territory of other classes. A priest could take weapon specialization, but he would lose spell potential for it. A rogue could take the warrior's to-hit progression, if he was willing to sacrifice some of his usual thieving skills in the deal. It wasn't a classless game, but it was the step just before it. 3e, however, made the classes more rigid than 2e did. In 2e, you could take proficiencies outside your class, you just had to pay a bit more for the first increase, whereas in 3e, you have to pay double for the cross-class skills for each increase in rank, making it very clear that you really shouldn't take skills outside your class. And if you do, they really won't be much good anyway, since skills "scale" in 3e, unlike in 2e. In 2e, using a proficiency was always at the same basic level, meaning that if you got it to a decent value, you did not have to increase it more to keep it useful. Getting it there could be costly, but that's the price, of course. Not so in 3e. In 3e, everything is progressive, even skills, so if you want a skill to be useful, then you must build it to the maximum constantly - your 5 ranks of concentration might have been pretty good, when you were level 6, but once you reach level 12, it's virtually useless. And since skill ranks are linked to class and level in 3e, the progress is forced on the player. That's one thing that really bugs me in 3e. 2e and even the original D&D might have been just a rigid, but they were at least up-front and honest about it - no denying it. 3e, however, imposes these restrictions clandesinely under the guise of wanting to appear flexible in the spirit of "hey, if you don't want to build that skill, then you don't have to". No, but it'll just be a useless waste of skill points if you don't, which the rules don't bother to tell you...

Fine. How do I convert an dwarven fighter/cleric level 11/11 from 2e to 3e? Answer: You can't. The character does not have enough experience to be level 22, which is what 3e rules would dictate, so he would either lose a lot of his warrior skill in an effort to make him a cleric of a comparable level, or he would have to lose a lot of spell-potential from his priest class in order to give him decent warrior ability. Yes, I like 3e multi-class rules better, but they are not compatible with the earlier games called D&D. Then there is the minotaur fighter. Both 2e and 3e allow that, but they are totally different. In 2e, the character was just a fighter with some massive modifiers (good and bad). In 3e, however, being a minotaur counts as having eight or so levels, reducing the level potential proportionately. The character was built specifically towards using a large weapon in each hand in combat, which required traits/abilities like ambidexterity. Beyond that, the character had focus on Strength and Constitution, and in order to achieve that goal, other stats were sacrificed, including Dexterity, which was fairly low (7, IIRC). However, in 3e, you cannot take ambidexterity feat unless you have a fairly high Dex, and since the characer would lose fighter levels in the exchange as well, the player did not want to convert, and I can't blame him. Oh, and this is a person who plays and enjoys 3.5e today, I should add. 2e-to-3e conversion works only for single-classed characters that do stray from the basic norms in any way. As soon as you look to multi-class or odd race/class combinations (which are allowed in 2e), the option to convert goes south quickly. Besides, given the highly average quality of 3e, there wasn't much point... Converting to a new edition is not a goal onto itself to me. Especially not when it forces me to choose between my campaign and the new rules. In that case, the new rules will always, always lose.

Who says it was better? Of course we needed a 3e. 2e was horribly outdated. Trouble is: 1. 3e was a different game (and I know people who play and like 3e who say so) 2. While it fixed some of the notably crap parts of 2e, it easily introduced as many new ones... 3. While 2e can be excused to some extend for its age, 3e was still horribly, inexcusably outdated for its time. I can accept a horribly rigid, inflexible system coming out in the late 90s. I cannot accept a horribly rigid, inflexible system coming out in 2000. And frankly, 2e Player Option rules were less rigid than 3e and 3.5e. Looks to be less rigid than 4e, too, from what I can tell... 4. 3e did not feel as much like a revolution as it did an inquisition, with 2e material being exorcised from the pages of Dungeon and Dragon in the holy war against those who would not convert...

If you give people a choice, then they'll pick the one they like better, canon be damned. Especially in Revan's case...

There are people who still PLAY 2e. Not because it's good, but because, frankly, 3e just isn't better... And because there was no way to convert on-going 2e campaigns to 3e without screwing the players over royally.

Interesting. In fact, very interesting. Assuming that is a correct quote, it means that Lucasarts have now actually told us, that whatever Bioware is working on for them is NEITHER KotOR3 nor KotOR MMORPG. That is news to me, since it's the first time I hear Lucasarts confirm that this is NOT KotOR in any way. I thought at one point that the talk might be about Indiana Jones, but I doubt that now, since that movie is much closer now, and surely LA would then have lifted the veil about the game at the same time that they revealed details about the movie itself. And note that while LA said this was not KotOR, they did not say it was not Star Wars. Bioware's involvement in this project has puzzled me, because while they have said in the past, that they are not doing KotOR3, they have also said they were interested in doing only their own IP. However, that cannot be the case here, since I doubt LA would have been involved in that case. It seems obvious to me that whatever this project is, it is tied to a franchise owned by LA. I also suspect the announcement about the project was made only because people noticed that the site lucasartsbioware.com had been registered, in which case it's best to make a statement to either confirm or deny the inevitable speculation that follows. I mean, it's almost five months since they made the statement, and we still don't know what this game is? Very odd. Unless, of course, the collaboration was unveiled before it was intended. Despite recent rumors to the contrary, I'm beginnig to think that this is indeed Bioware's MMORPG to be set in the Star Wars universe. Why is it not announced yet? Well, there is already a Star Wars MMORPG. However, it's popularity is questionable at best. And IIRC, SOE has the licence for Galaxies only until 2009, which just happens to also be the time when the Star Wars live-action tv-series set between Episodes III and IV is rumored to hit the screens. Hmmm....

The only good thing about 4e? Now lots of people will understand how those of us who played 2e felt seven to eight years ago...

http://forums.obsidianent.com/index.php?s=...st&p=830781

While I don't like "Squinquargesimus" as a surname for Malak either, you cannot hold the comic book responsible for that, since as of issue 25, that name has yet to appear in its pages. The comic book called the character "Squint" in issue 0, then had him tell one of the protagonists in issue 10 that they should call him Alek, because Squint was just a name they guys (presumably his fellow jedi) came up with because his "last name is a bit of a mouthful". So the comic book named him Alek with a long surname, which made people call him "Squint", but that's all. No, "Squinquargesimus" originates not from the comic book, but from "Jedi vs. Sith: The Essential Guide t the Force", which was also the source that identified Alek as Malak and The Revanchist as Revan. In the comic books, those characters are still known only as Alek/"Squint" and The Revanchist/Revanchist Leader.

Before people get too excited about Bioware doing KotOR3, Bioware has already debunked this rumor on their boards. http://swforums.bioware.com/viewpost.html?...6259&stag=0 Sorry. It appears KotOR3 remains vapourware in limbo...

Precisely. That's my problem with Alan's stance. Then again, you may be implying by the above that I have not tried 3e. Who says I haven't? I actually do own the 3e rules, I have played 3e, and I've even written a few adventures for 3e, because we wanted to attract people to Mystara. Writing for 3e gives you pretty good insight into the system, but the more I learned about it, the less I liked it. My initial skepticism did not go away. And at some point I have to acknowledge that 3e is just a bad system from where I'm sitting. It doesn't matter how much WOTC plug or how much people say it's wonderful and dandy - if I dislike it, then I have to admit that. That's what I did, and now I say why. I'm not saying people have to agree with me - I'm just described why I feel the way I do. If people then resort to direct or indirect trolling against my person rather than against my observations, then I don't exactly see that as support for their claims of 3e's quality... Well, let me take a classic example that illustrates why I dislike 3e. Say I want to play a cleric. His father was a fisherman, so he lived by the sea, and he swam in the ocean almost every day. When he became older, he became a cleric with the god of the sea as his patron. As a cleric he put most of his ability into Wisdom, and only a little into Strength (+1 modifier). Now the cleric goes on an adventure. One companion is a powerful half-orc warrior (Strength 18, possibly even higher), who comes from somewhere in the mountains. During the adventure, both the cleric and the warrior are thrown into a lake and have to swim to safety. The cleric has paid 4 skill points to max his skill, but since it's a cross-class skill for a cleric, he gets only to have 2 skill leves in it plus his +1 Strength modifier for a total of +3. The half-orc warrior has lived in the mountains all his life and never swam before, so he has no skill levels whatsoever. His strength gives him a massive +4 modifier, though, so he's actually a better swimmer than the cleric, who swam all his life... Now, as if that isn't bad enough, after the adventure, both the cleric and the warrior advance to level two. They both agree that swimming was really useful and want to be better at it. The half-orc can take up to five skill levels now, if he has the skill points for it, pushing his modifier to a whopping +9 on every check, even though he only just began swimming for the first time a few days before. The cleric, however, still has to fight the cross-class and gets to spend only 1 measely skill point on swimming, and it doesn't even improve his modifier, because it'll end at +3

My Mystara campaign runs under 2e Player Option rules with the tidbits of 3e I've already described and my own fairly extensive house rules that attempt to reconcile it all (44 pages in Word at the last count...). The campaign is likely to end soon, however, since the players are pushing level 16+, and under Player Option rules that makes them pretty powerful and difficult to challenge. What I'll be playing then is anybody's guess, though... GURPS, Call of Cthulhu 5th Ed., LUG Trek, Exalted, or even more AD&D 2e/Player Option are all being considered, but then maybe I just won't even have time to play anymore... Real life has a way of cutting in on my role-playing these days, and my work as GM is now continuing solely on the basis of preparations I made years ago.

I'd like to respond to this, but what would be the point - you'll just delete my posts...