Tale

You're being silly. Elves are a sapient race like any other. They do magic, they live, they love, they fight, they have souls. It's those lazy no-good Halflings that are probably without. On that note, I do hope there's some significant racial distinctions. It sounds like it, but we'll see.

I haven't heard anything about it being unrated. I swear one of the interviews mentioned them going for an M rating.

Seen the movie, have it installed on my computer. Have not made time for it, however.

There's numerous ways that evolutionary paths can go. One path leading to a dead end doesn't imply stasis is the solution. Bioware's changes were largely around becoming cinematic. Cutscenes and voices and all these things set to focus on a limited set of emotional outcomes enhanced by sight and sound. And because it makes for better screenshots that marketing loves. Everything spiraled out of that. Better spell effects mean fewer spells. Better armor graphics mean fewer armors. More voice means less dialogue. I haven't seen the word cinematic come out as a direction for this project once. Bioware wasn't trying to improve the gameplay of the genre. They were sacrificing it for 3D graphics and dynamic camera angles. The best example of this is how they completely abandoned tactical party control for ceilings.

Are you wishing to imply the problem with DA2 is a lack of tedium?

No, that's a face imploding.

Both Vampire: The Masquerade: Bloodlines: Revenge of the Colon and Divinity 2 have done things in this regard. And yeah, it provides new and easy solutions to some quests. Heck, Arcanum let you speak to the dead, which was tremendously helpful in finding out who killed him. With people who have DM experience at the helm, I hope they can fit it in the scope.

Torment didn't have Bards. And the one Paladin in it was evil. It specifically avoided or defied many tropes.

There is a certain mindset amongst certain players that Paladins are a useless, pointless, stupid class. Usually amongst players of rogues or necromancers, or generally evil aligned players... or players who hate alignment. "Lawful stupid" I'm sure you've heard before. Lawful Stupid is a player, not a class. Paladins aren't Lawful Stupid. Spectacularly bad Paladin players can be.

But that doesn't mean we can't have some original and unique. I don't see it as all or nothing. I'm not sold. "Classic classes" aren't old school. They're every school. Even new RPGs still have mages, fighters, rogues, bards, and the like. They still have elves and dwarves. They're standard today, not just yesterday. You won't find new classes in new RPGs either. But what we had yesterday that we lost today is Planescape and Dark Sun. Settings that were different.

I'm going to be a broken record here. When the question is asked, I always push for new. Bards and Paladins aren't new. The classes we already have announced aren't new either, but that's a lost battle for me. I've only played one computer fantasy roleplaying game that had psionics in it, so as far as I'm concerned that's pretty exciting. I'm not against using classics, don't get me wrong. But if we only have two possible classes left, I want to see something I haven't seen as much before. I'll still be excited and hopeful for the game if all the classes and races are things I've seen before. So until that's set in stone, I'm going to push for new things. Because if I can carve out just a tiny little hole where there's a four-armed insectoid race or playable blob and a class where the theme is throwing furniture or long-distance spitting, I'll be ecstatic. Not to say that I should derail this thread with nay-saying. But you asked why not.

I like dilemmas. I hate forced dilemmas. I think the distinction comes from approach. If you you start off with a simple concept then say "I want this to be difficult" you're working against yourself. Like a bank robbery. This can be pretty simple. The robbers are bad guys. If you try and force a twist into it where the robbers are good guys, the bank is evil, you might not end up doing something good. Maybe you will, but your starting place worked against you. A good dilemma starts with the understanding that everyone has their own stance that is right for them. A conflict over limited resources that can't please everyone. But each group doesn't want their people to be without. And this leads to conflict. Even the bank robbers have something like this, they each have families to feed and they don't care about the bank. It all depends on where you start. Do you understand that the situation is naturally complex? Or are you looking to complicate it?

Poll added at OP request.

That is a fascinating observation. I like it. And I might like to take it further than you. I think this kind of intersects with the "personal story" idea that people talk about. Planescape, Baldur's Gate, and Mask of the Betrayer all have this "something bad is threatening me, I need to deal with it" scenario. But all three Mass Effects, both Dragon Ages, and at least the original campaigns of both Neverwinter Nights, have this "something bad is threatening the city/galaxy, with the mandate given to me by the leaders (or by overthrowing the leaders if they will not help me), I will deal with it." The Bhaalspawn deals with Sarevok because Sarevok killed Gorion and threatens him. He deals with Irenicus because Irenicus kidnapped Imoen and threatens him. Nameless One seeks to discover himself and find out what is threatening him. The Knight Captain is cursed and must deal with that. There's no council, no king, no organization that you must answer to. I'm not trying to derail this into personal/saving the world. But I think I'm seeing a connection. The factions come about because, perhaps, the writers see a need for a greater presence and support for a greater threat. A personal threat does not need the backing of king or country.

I'd prefer to just see a minimal portrait next to each line. Colors would be awkward, if not garish.

Not really. I would like to see attitudes and behaviors. Something with more variety. Maybe Barbarians hate mages and all beeline for mages. Maybe another type of enemy likes to prioritize party members in heavy armor. And maybe some base it off how much damage is being done to them. This kind of information could be revealed in a beastiary.

They should react to what you do, not what your class label is. The common person shouldn't even know what that means. They shouldn't have some instinctive knowledge of the difference between a preacher, a warrior priest, and a Paladin. They should know "he's going on and on about his god while being a jerk to me and waving a bloody sword in my face." Ciphers are quite distinct from Wizards. They're more control based and mental. They're magical sure, but they seem to be mostly about controlling enemies, which is a mechanical distinction. It's not an attitude distinction. Barbarians is a fair point, however. They do seem like a pretty narrow warrior archetype. However, there's been good work in making them mechanically distinct elsewhere with the implementation of barbarian rage. A class defining feature in D&D. Paladins get Lay On Hands as major feature distinguishing them from Clerics. Which I struggle to see as class defining. Wait, hold on a second, I seem to have caught myself here. Paladin auras! YES. Those are pretty interesting and unique mechanics for Paladins.

Paladin has always seemed, to me, to be just a sub-group of Priests/Clerics. They're like a corner archetype of this broader archetype. The distinction between the two is mostly attitude. Which seems like something the player should be responsible for to begin with. D&D 4E tried to make them distinct by making them the tank class to the Cleric's healer class. But if they're keeping them broad enough that the Priest can tank or heal, I'm not sure a specialist is accomplishing anything. That doesn't sound like something you should need a specific class for. Otherwise I might need to start campaigning for Warlocks, because the default Wizard archetype isn't abrasive enough. Bard has enough unique going for him that I can't dismiss him similarly. He would kind of round out the selection. Two martial experts, two magical specialists, two religious types. But only one underworld/town based archetype.

It really does sound like an attempt to reinvent alignment, when alignment's not all that great an idea to begin with. It's not just the implementation of alignment that's a problem, it's this systematic labeling and judgement of player characters that is.

I voted yes, but only on higher difficulties. That's not precisely my interest. My interest is long-term being only about a single outing. Something that afflicts a character until they return to town, where it can then be fully healed. It would also have to be pretty minor in the short term to tempt the player to push on through it. Like a single point of reduced max HP. And that could perhaps build up to worse affliction through a trek. I'm not all in on the idea. But it sounds neat.

Allow me, I'd like some less common classes included. Whether it be something like a Geomancer or Shadowdancer.

Is that a wizard in the picture? I thought I was looking at a D&D warlock. But a wizard able to use light armor and a sword suits me just fine. I guess Cadegund is likely a priest.

My favorite class in D&D is still the Wild Mage. Well, 2E Wild Mage. 4E Wild Mage bored me.

Alright yes, the thread is derailed. Pat yourselves on the back, everyone who participated.

Obsidian will make the best decision with our opinions. I think cooldowns have pros and cons. I just don't know enough system detail to know precisely what those are. I don't love or hate them, they are a means to an end. If Sawyer thinks it can do what he wants, yay. If others disagree and make a compelling argument, I hope Sawyer takes heed and weighs that. Just kind of chiming in on the poll from the topic you may have noticed just got merged with this one.