why

I don't know if the devs read these threads, but people have posed several interesting ideas that have at least some potential, which is why I think the debate itself is healthy. That, and these threads don't exist in a vacuum. Ganrich, anameforobsidian, and I, among others, were arguing over spell components in another thread and I brought up Zenbane's idea of rune magic there as something I didn't like because it sounded like it would lead to frustration. I also saw someone's thread, I think it was evilcat, about a runecaster class. I don't know if any of these ideas will directly or indirectly influence anything in the design, but they might. I think I've read about such things happening previously. If something good comes out of this, then we should give yoomazir a big slap on the back, even if at times some people wanted to give him a punch to the jaw. As for the topic at hand, I think redneck and others pegged the problem so many people have with both rangers and chanters, namely that so many of their abilities are passive. I'd actually argue that this is not true for chanters, only that they interact with a significant pool of abilities before combat by designing their chant queues. That can make them seem passive during combat. At any rate, a character can be quite useful or even powerful without a lot of active abilities, but that comes across as boring to some players. As an aside, I think the lead designer made some sort of comment early in development that the chanter class represented not the Dungeons and Dragons bard, but the ancient school bards such as Homer and Virgil. That's why so many of the chants resemble Homeric epithets. Really, I would argue more like Virgil being contrived by one person and meant to honor prior artistry. Anyhow, I'm thinking of playing a chanter on my next run. I like Hana well enough. P.S. I also believe that chanters should have access to any weapons and armor in the game, even if they don't have the class specific perks of front line fighters to make them shine quite as brightly.

I never realized you were comparing it to mana. That's a tough one. I came down hard on the components idea, and I shudder at the idea at having to manually mix reagents over and over again a la Ultima IV, but I enjoyed finding out new recipies and mixing them at the right time. I think this is all crazy for Pillars of Eternity, but everything depends on presentation. For me, it's not a matter of in-game resources or trying to horde the mats. It's entirely a matter of not wanting to pull my hair out with the amount of time, clicking, and frustration with some of the material components schemes I've seen. It's the same thing with runes. I like the idea of rune-magic, but I see the irritation factor with a high potential. Nor am I a big fan of mana in a straight up RPG. I don't mind it in an action RPG, but it seems like cutting corners a lot of the time. I guess this is the circular argument you were warning us would happen, but it's also entertaining to see everyone shooting at everyone else at the same time. You never know what good ideas might spring from chaos. lol

I like Sannom's post about this. It doesn't create absolute restrictions, but it does still convey the advantage of mastery and makes that mastery easier to achieve for someone who specializes in that manner of combat. Granting martial classes benefits from perk choices is not the same as flat out denying druids the ability to use armor. I also agree about games being clearer generally. There are some things about Pillars still confuse me, but part of that is probably because the ruleset is new. Still, there's a lot to digest in the way things relate to one another.

I think that idea is workable, rjshae, although with the proviso that wizards could use the equipment but not cast spells or not have the equipment and have access to magic. In a moment of need, he might eschew his spellcasting for a period of time in order to wield a weapon. My gut instinct is that this is all hypothetical because I seriously doubt they suddenly put in such restrictions in a sequel. Allowing freedom to access weapons and armor for all classes isn't a light decision. From what little I know of the lead designer, it seems this feature is central to his philosophy in this design.

That's fair enough, T_W. It's also a cogent argument for your case. As a counter argument, I would cite the points others have already made regarding distinctions and role playing scenarios already created by character abilities. There are already tons of restrictions on characters in the game. My priest of Eothas can't cast wizard spells. Her buddy Aloth can't use Cipher powers. Grieving Mother doesn't have an animal companion. Gear is a poor restriction and strains credulity. The best argument for restrictions on wizard's use of armor and weapons is training. I'll own that. Of course, a practicing doctor, having gone through years of college and medical school, may still join the Society for Creative Anachronism. He can still learn how to wear armor and fight with a sword and shield. That's not even a fantasy game. That's real life today. So, there's no real reason that a wizard can't use a weapon and having the game put a restriction on such use is non-sensical. Why should it? There is plenty enough to restrict in other ways. Hell, can't play a dragon. I can't fly around in a spaceship. I'm not the living avatar of Ganesh. The player doesn't have complete freedom. Just enough freedom to enjoy the mechanics in the way I like best. Conversely, if we're going to restrict weapons and armor just because someone wears a pointy hat and then pretend there's some sort of coherent rationale for it, shouldn't we also restrict being able to pick up any weapon or armor dropped by an NPC of any sex, race, height, weight, etc and throw it on as if it had been fit and sized by a master blacksmith?

I get you, Sedrefilos, but that line of reasoning leads straight into an echo chamber. New ideas are good as long as the design team can contexualize those ideas and distill them into something useful. I would suggest even something that, to me, has as little merit as suggesting hard coded weapon and armor restrictions could nevertheless possibly lead to interesting, novel, or, dare I say, elegant ideas. preferably all three from time to time. Even Dungeons and Dragons benefited from people suggesting such changes. I think the problem with the OP is mostly stylistic on one hand and the fact that most folks actually seem to enjoy the approach the developers took. It is probably one of the few criticisms that I think has monumental disagreement by the mass. There are several people around here who criticize the game regularly from what I've seen. So, even though the criticism seems a little whacky to me, I don't mind the guy making it. He just needs to keep his left up and stop leading with his chin is all. Of course, he could just be trolling, but I think he really does seem to hate the freedom of characters to use weapons and armor regardless of class.

I've been hitting Od Nua's old hideaway pretty hard lately on my current run and both of these things hit me in a way. Not exactly the godlike powers thing, but I was worried that by helping the Vithrack, which I didn't do on my other run, might end up making them too powerful and dangerous to the kith. The other thing that made me wonder was the whole thing about that Fampyr talking about how he had limited resources left and was also worrying about running out of Adra since the beetles were eating up everything else. This was clearly a concern, but he seemed unable or unwilling to act other than cutting off his former buddies and hording the remaining arm for his own consumption. The Vithrack were a nobler and entertaining bunch than that rat bastard Fampyr, to be sure.

It's certainly my favorite game. It's up there with New Vegas and Zork. Those are the games that I'll immediately say without having to thinka about it, which should be the single biggest criterion for anyone who is a real aficionado. Otherwise, we could think up more and more games all day and never get to the end.

I'm actually trying to be charitable with the OP's arguments. There are some areas for common ground, but I agree with Teioh_White that the discussion is too disjointed. You can't establish common ground if it's always shifting. Instead of fighting on all fronts, the OP should focus on those areas where he can at least develop some consensus with other posters. That's why I tried to break the lore argument away from hard wired restrictions, and I still think that's a losing argument here, but at least it's an easier argument to make. I simply can't get behind hard coded class restrictions. I think it was anameforobsidian who pointed out the absurdity of mages being commanded not to use weapons in darksun or some such. That's just clumsy.

I'm with Rheingold. There is no class that cannot succeed in Pillars. The party makes the most difference. Moreover, from what I've seen, just about any build can win in a single player game no matter what the class. Getting into vendetta's regarding which class is over powered or not is silly. If you think about what you're doing, every build can win in a single player main character build. Sorry, a little bit slow tonight, but I still stand by my position. I've made plenty of sub standard PC buids that have managed to muddle through just fine.

I notice that they have a modding forum. I don't know how mod friendly Pillars is, but you could take a gander: http://forums.obsidian.net/forum/110-pillars-of-eternity-modding-spoiler-warning/ I suppose, if modding were easy enough, you could create a mod that would restrict weapons and armor for your characters. I would think there are so many other things that would make for interesting mods, but that's just me. After all, it's a single player game. If you don't like monks using armor and weapons, don't put armor and weapons on them. That's a player defined role, which is the best role playing around!

The irony is that explaining class restrictions usually comes across as needless and/or non-sensical, but other restrictions, such as those based on sex, race, or region, can seem perfectly reasonable and explained with more felicity by use of lore. Why is it only elves can use the fabled fairy ring of yore? Because the Elf King made a pact with the fairy goddess, that's why! lol Grimrock is an excellent franchise. I hope they come out with a third installment. Can't do the same thing with stats and weight in Pillars, though. Not only are the attributes a little off-kilter (and on purpose), but so is inventory. Of all of this, the inventory took some time for me to get used to it.

I think you have a good point about lore, yoomazir, but now the discussion has boiled down to actual restrictions al Dungeons and Dragons and it's difficult to extricate the lore idea from the hard and fast restriction idea. I agree that the player, the other characters, and the game world as a whole should generally expect a monk in a particular order to eschew prohibited weapons, armor, and other activities. I also understand that the game world, in the same way as the real world, should expect some monks to cheat on their oaths and convictions from time to time. Some of them more and some of them less and few of them never. Find a way to let the story reflect those transgressions if possible, but there will be some point where it's not worth the effort to reflect these choices or the effort is actually detrimental to the overall vision and design. I was going to bring up the many many problems with simulationist thinking in terms of training requirements, such as the fact that an orlan can drop plate armor that a human can immediately don like a pair of shrink to fit jeans, but that's a big can of worms. The fact is, there is no logical argument for restrictions that doesn't fly out the window in the face of the game mechanics of just about any CRPG on the market. Other than personal preference, there's no completely solid argument to be made for equipment restrictions based on class. You'd be better off making arguments for strength requirements, and the attribute system throws that idea out the window, which is actually okay by me since I enjoy the way the game plays.

I disagree with the OP entirely about putting a straightjacket on the characters through artificial restrictions. However, I can get the point about game based restrictions. It's not that monks cant wear armor, but perhaps their order oaths compel them to forgo armor. Even then, I don't think the game should be hardwired to prevent such use. If the monk runs into other people from his or her order, then there could be consequences. That's much better to my mind than having the arbitrary restriction. If a religious order prevents the use of edged weapons, then the player will be compelled to choose blunt weapons for his or her cleric, but a desperate priest might pick up a dagger if there's no other weapon. Perhaps that draws the attention of his deity. Perhaps, in a desperate situation, the cleric stands firm in his or her oaths and fights unarmed rather than break his vows. That likewise might draw the attention of his or her deity. These scenarios actually reward role playing as opposed to restricting player choice and calling that restriction itself role playing.

I don't think everyone is against rest spamming, Mord. I don't even think most people care about it. Once again, I could be wrong, but with the tens of thousands of backers and even more players, it doesn't seem to be the burning issue on the tip of everyone's tongue. It seems to be a major complaint for some people, and I'm all for them bitching about it. From my perspective, however, rest spamming isn't an issue. When I play, I tend to try to conserve my inn/stronghold resting bonus and play to the convenience of the number of resting supplies I have. I don't want to 'rest spam' (an entirely ridiculous concept that's almost elitist gamer jargon) because it's more fun to progress the story than to rest every other encounter. Some areas are a lot tougher/higher level and require more resting. Other areas require more time to whittle down the player's health enough to require resting. I'm willing to let the material component argument rest. I don't agree but I agree with Ganrich, I don't want to argue in circles. I'm also not completely averse to the idea of some resource management for spell casting, just not onerous micromanagement. Resource management isn't really a difficulty setting per se. It's a convenience setting for the most part. As far as the potions, scrolls, and other consumables, having played the hell out of all of the IE games and sunk a lot of hours into Pillars, I don't see any difference. Yes, I horde items, but not because of their costs. Well, maybe a little. Mostly, though, I just forget I have them. If anything, in Pillars, I've started making scrolls and having my front line use them for convenience sake whereas in the IE games I tended to forget about consumables except for the hardest of fights usually encountered at lower level than intended.

Substitute cooking for enchanting then. Food is the quintessential temporary benefit. :D I think I read somewhere someone complaining about how food is overpowered. lol I actually don't disagree that there's a commodity trade that discourages material components. I just think it goes beyond the in game resources and rather reflects players not wanting to take real life time for it. I don't like the idea of a material component mechanic, but it's not because I'm afraid of spending too much money in the game. Maybe I'm atypical, but I've been playing these games for a long time and I've never had any problem with spending cash on the mats. I didn't mind the 100gp for casting ID in the Temple of Elemental Evil. The fact that it screwed over the player if he or she didn't yank out his DM's guide to read what the items were, but the gold didn't bug me all that much. On the other hand, having had my say, I'll let it go.

I would bet that most players are biologically hard-wired to hate reagent systems, because of loss aversion. This doesn't make sense. By this logic, people would hate the material components for enchanting in the game. It's also making a more reaching assumption while bypassing what I imagine is much more of a concern than fantasy game money, namely time and convenience. I would bet, since we're both making assumptions about player psychology, that players would be more willing to drop more gold as an abstraction of casting spells than would be willing to use fewer resources gathering spell casting materials. I understand that some people like the resource management of spell components, and it's probably all a matter of where they draw the line, but attributing the underlying psychology to loss aversion goes out of the way to find causality that can be reasonably pegged closer at hand. Why do people seem okay with gathering mats or buying mats for enchanting but not want to do the same for spell casting? Once again, pretending I'm a psychiatrist, which seems to me a fantasy we're sharing at the moment, I would say that spell casting has a more immediate feel to the player. He or she wants to feel a certain instant access to spell-casting, particularly in battle. Along these lines, I don't think most folks would mind paying gold or using resources to cast out of combat spells nearly so much as in combat spells. Also, enchanting seems like much more of a process while spellcasting has been increasingly seen as a personal ability intimately part of the player him or herself. Once again, I believe that's much more the case for combat casting. Finally, enchanting is both optional and relatively uncommon in comparison to spell casting. I remember being forced to spend a significant amount of real world time combing reagents in Ultima IV. The cost didn't mean much to me in the game, particularly after I had so much money I could buy more than enough reagents. Even before then, it was just one more thing on which I was forced to spend money. I didn't mind paying for weapons or armor. I didn't mind paying to sleep at an inn. The theory of loss aversion contends that people will be averse to loss more than they will seek gain, which may work in a real world setting where both are felt long term. That makes sense as gaining an extra week of food is certainly less of a gain than losing my current week of food and starving. In a game setting, this isn't the same. There is almost always an abundance of monetary resources early on in just about any CRPG I've played in a long long time. Now, what I wouldn't mind, as long as they did it right, is spell components abstracted. Maybe like Ultima IV where you needed to find the right recipes and even combine them at the right times, but make the whole scenario more convenient because I will remain convinced it's not the resources that people mind. It's the time and convenience.

He didn't say it was in the IE games, but was referencing the AD&D rules themselves. I kind of thought so, which is why I put in the part that Pillars isn't and cannot be AD&D. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I take the advocacy of spell materials even less seriously than the idea that the game isn't enough like the IE games. Even in table top dungeons and dragons, I thought the material components were jarring. Having a bunch (or even a relatively small) number of material components necessary for spells made for a level of complexity that a lot of players found off-putting. Bioware and Black Isle Studios could have included material components in the games if they had so chosen, but decided not to do it. The idea of grinding out components a la Ultima IV, say, is stultifyingly dismaying. However, if the idea is to artificially limit rest in yet one more way (because the thing that some people seem to hate about the game is the ability of some player to rest if he or she wants) why not just abstract the material components into gold. That would also be another gold sink. I think any or all of these ideas are crazy. I can't speak for anyone else, but my opinion is that most players wouldn't want to have to worry about these things. If we're going to do that, I would say the ammunition situation is actually a little bit jarring to me. I don't mind it, but at least I notice it. The lack of material components isn't even a blip on my radar and the idea of them implementing it would worry me if I thought Obsidian would do it.

Doesn't seem simple to me. It seems more complex. However, I wronged Archangel because it was someone other guy who mentioned the rts idea, and I think. I think he might have been joking about it now that I read it again, although Archangel responded nicely. That's probably why I thought of Archangel when I wrote about the rts idea. Google Civcraft, new RPG/RTS currently in Early Access. Or use this link: http://www.civcraftgame.com/ I actually think most of Archangel's ideas are pretty good as long as the emissary doesn't bring overly complex quest lines since the stronghold in and of itself would already provide them. If the emissary did, I would say have those plot lines supplant the bounty hunter quests. Those are cool, only a little bit out of place in my opinion. Also, using trade as a reference is a nice idea as long as it begins and ends there. I see the idea of the stronghold as more or solid. It just needs sprucing up. If that's where we all are, then I guess I'm with you guys, not against you. I don't want the stronghold scrapped, that's for sure. I like having some place to call my own. Now, in Pillars 2, if they want to make the stronghold more substantial with some of the OP's ideas, I'm good on that too. That will entirely depend on how they present it. Baldur's Gate 2 had extremely complex strongholds compared to Pillars, but if I remember it right, each were down class exclusive lines, which means a lot of work that most players won't see. All this was a long time ago and I haven't played in forever, so maybe I'm just not remembering everything right?

It's been a while, but I don't recall materials in the IEgames. I remember ToEE had some sort of system like that. At least it cost a hundred gold to cast Identification, which only gave you the name and no information about the item. Of course, that was a feature. At any rate, Pillars is no Dungeons and Dragons and couldn't be even if Obsidian wanted it to be.

For someone who played a lot of the IE games, I would say you could safely start on hard, but keep in mind that the ruleset is different. Don't rely on the same tactics as Baldur's Gate, but the same sort of strategic awareness that serves you well in the IE games will likewise do you some good in Pillars. The mechanics thing kind of confuses me also. I'm in a hard run right now and I'd read somewhere that my priestly seals use mechanics, so my mechanics is high for my main. However, I don't need to rely on my seals much. I think PrimeJunta is right about the outlook generally, but I also think that the game isn't brutal enough on hard to warrant worrying about it much if you didn't make the optimal skill decisions. When I d​o cast seals, it might help, but I never vetted that information in the first place so it might be entirely a waste of points. I'm already well into act two and 9 levels down in the stronghold and things seem to be going smoothly, so I'll just be more careful about things when I play on Path next time.

I like the stronghold. Maybe a little more interactivity? Maybe something more substantial than 'grand quest' with 2 'moderately powerful items' or whatever it is? I'd like a little more fanfare. Still, color me somewhere inbetween the 'let's make this an rts castle building game' some people suggest and the 'burn it with fire' that others suggest. I'd also point out that people comparing Pillars of Eternity to every single game in the IE collection is unreasonable. This is the first game in hopefully a series of games. The combat mechanics are new. The setting is new. There's room for improvement and Obsidian has already shown a great deal of willingness to look for improvements and to listen to suggestions for improvements. Towards that end, I would suggest making the stronghold more reactive to the world. Have the condition and ownership of your stronghold be a minor topic in conversations generally and maybe a source of specific discussion on some occasions. Give quests names but still allow us to dispatch our at home NPCs to accomplish those quests. I would probably scrap the bounty-hunter but instead have a related quest line that originates in the stronghold that relates to the outside world in the same way the dungeon turns inwardly. What I wouldn't do is make a sweeping and grand mini-game out of the stronghold. I wouldn't scrap it either. Maybe I'm the only person who enjoys the stronghold, but I'd also keep in mind that sometimes the people with the smallest grief cause the biggest outcry. It's possible that Archangel would sing the praises of the game only if and if only the stronghold had a complex trade and kingdom building mini-game. I'm all for anyone asking for anything, but I don't think some of the more grandiose plans in this thread would make the stronghold better. I think they'd make it a chore and detract from the main game.

To the point both of them make, the IE multiplayer would be widely derided today in a game advertised as supporting multiplayer. It would deserve it. It was fine for then, but the sophistication of multiple player games has changed considerably in a way that single player games has not. Sure, the programs have become more advanced, but the basic elements are essentially the same. Multiple Player games have become something more than a single player game with a tacked on ability to have more people playing. Games simply should not be designed for multiplayer unless the developer has the commitment to make a fully functional multiple player product. My problem with multiple player functionality is that I'll either use it extremely rarely or, more likely, never use the MP function for the game at all. As much as I want everyone to have the game he or she wants, I'm here to promote the game I want, and I want every red cent to go to what Obsidian already does so well, namely a great single player experience. If the cost were minimal, I wouldn't mind people getting an IE style MP function, but that level of design would give Obsidian a bad reputation and would only true MP fans angry.

I liked Defiance Bay. Of course, despite the flaws, I liked the City of Baldur's Gate. Those flaws are certainly not the same in every way, so maybe the reality is that I'm just easy. Also, completely agree about BG2. I've had the same feeling about PS:T. I loved the game and it's still on my top five, but my 40+ year old eye sees flaws that could use correction that I missed or simply accepted in my early twenties. Great game, though, and I still enjoy it immensely.

I think Bioware wanted people to get the feeling of exploring and provided opportunities. I guess they also wanted to make it more 'real' in that there were houses with working doors. That doesn't seem as useful to me because it still amounted to a Hollywood set with a few props. It was difficult to completely buy in to the idea that this was a vibrant and living city just because there were a lot of doors leading to more or less empty locations with sterile environments. However, I think it was a great attempt. It was an experiment that didn't work out as well in theory as it might have seemed when conceived. For my purposes, I can't help but think that sometimes trying to create a more vibrant feel by promising more exploration that amounts to aimless wandering works counter to the plan. A world where I'm allowed to go anywhere only to find that most places are in the middle of nowhere with nothing much to do only draws attention to the fact that it's all fabricated, kind of like walking out of the bar on Cheers only to see the cameras and work crews. Of course, if you could go into those houses and rest long enough to learn your spells, you would have a perfect hideway to practice your Vancian magic!