FlintlockJazz

Death to all dark elves, just to be sure!!

Ideally the game would know when your characters would know that they are entering a combat situation and allow them to pre-buff in those situations but not allow them in other cases but I'm not sure on the feasibility of such a thing, nor on the potential problems it could cause.

Yep, I have commented in that thread but not voted, since my personal take on it is that if they get extra money and want to try it sure but not bind themselves to definitely doing it when it could end up being better spent elsewhere. I also wouldn't personally up my pledge amount now, spent way too much on it as it is! (More than my actual pledge level shows, I also donated via GameBanshee's one as well).

Yeah, it's opened my eyes too - I now realise I could play a Godlike Cipher too, completely forgot the Godlikes for some bizarre reason.

That actually sounds good. It wouldn't be that much of a drain on the budget too (unless I'm wrong about that). I also realize that someone said earlier that not everyone will play everything. I agree to an extent; when I played through BG2 I never went Druid or Monk, so I never got to see their fortress/stronghold content. Wait a second, while I have not done all the class strongholds either I can usually guess which ones are for which classes (such as the Grove in the wild areas outside Trademeet being for the Druid), yet I have no idea at all what would be the monk one! I never even realised I didn't know this until now, and it's gotten me intrigued as a result. Gonna have to look this up!

Aha, found a mention of it in update 50! https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/obsidian/project-eternity/posts/456460 I'm sure there was a better mention of it somewhere, that specifically mentioned making characters passive use and active use dependent on how much time you want to invest controlling them but there's over 70 updates and I'm but one imp, so it's taking time to find it!!

From what I have heard as a demented imp on these forums, I recall reading somewhere that you can build most classes as either active use or passive use characters. What I mean is that if you don't want to really focus on controlling the fighter in your party then as he levels up you pick the abilities that require little interaction from you, I'm guessing things like passive damage or armour boosts and the like, allowing you to focus instead on characters that you do want to focus on more, by taking more active use abilities for those characters, such as spamable abilities. And you can mix and match on a character, so if you find yourself starting to get overwhelmed by the options you already have you can mix in some passive abilities for active use characters and stay at the level of interaction you find you can handle for that character. This was stuff I read on these forums anyway, will have a look at the updates as I'm sure there was stuff on this in there and will link it if I find it. If I'm right about this, then people complaining about too many abilities in testing will just get told to not swamp themselves with active abilities if they can't handle it.

Why? Making smart decisions and superior knowledge of the game and its mechanics should be essential for that. Because it would be nicer if there's some (marginal) incentive for doing so, other than shooting yourself in the foot and masochism. It doesn't even need to be split into 6 parts. One solution would be to increase XP gain by 15% for each empty party slot, instead of splitting it among party members. Your system could work but I think an easier system would be to do what Baldur's Gate 2 actually did: you still split party xp gained but then some quests awarded each character xp on top of the party xp specific for that character which would not change regardless of how many other characters you had. For instance, completing the Trademeet quest got you 2000xp for completing the quest that was split between the party and then each character in the party got 1000xp each (not the correct numbers, can't remember the exact quest rewards). That way the actual xp award doesn't actually change so the quest log can report '1000xp + 2000xp personal' or something if you are told of the reward beforehand nor have to do math to work it out for your character size. EDIT: Plus the devs could do alter the xp reward based on whether they think a smaller party would find the quest particularly more difficult or larger party would find it a cakewalk, by increasing the party xp reward for the quest while reducing the personal xp award.

This. Pretty much the definition for a ranger has traditionally been wilderness warrior, with the non-combat skills being taking takeable by anyone the things that distinguish the classes now is mainly how they fight. If I want to play a 'ranger' who fights with two handed swords and travels around hunting enemies of the wilderness using martial strength then I'd pick a fighter or quite possibly a rogue or barbarian instead and take the appropriate skills. I have no problem with the way they have done the ranger here and actually I think the animal companion part takes it back to it's roots somewhat.

I'm honestly no longer sure. I was going to choose Human Cipher the first time I played, with Orlan Paladin and Human Wizard for later playthroughs, but now I find myself seriously considering gun-wielding Orlan Ranger with big-ass pet, Elven Cipher, Human Wizard moved up to potentially first as well, Paladin of some sort, maybe even a Druid if they turn out awesome. Not a monk though, somethings can never be forgiven...

I think they are trying to avoid scenarios that involve only one path for success. There is also stealth, a valid path that is neither combat nor diplomacy. Outside of those 3 major options, perhaps specific cases allow you to use particular skills or spells to get by without combat. I am certain all quests will be solvable through combat in some way... Not sure if the other paths will always be viable but an alternative should exist. Sigh. I hate games where stealth/diplomacy is a waste and only works half the time whereas shooting people has a 100% success rate. Look at the trial in NWN2. If you're a fighter, than you just go straight to trial by combat. If you're a rogue who invested points in social skills, then you spend a lot of time faffing about before you end up in the trial by combat anyway, even though the fighter got to skip the stuff he sucked at. Well there are certain advantages to using stealth prior to combat (scouting, backstabbing/flanking opponents, or simply circumventing them altogether if you can). Diplomacy might give you an advantage (gain allies or avoid combat altogether). But at the end of the day, fighting will solve most situations in a typical RPG quest, so it makes sense to make it the lowest common denominator a majority of the time. It isn't exactly a good thing if stealth or diplomacy always gives you a 100% chance to complete a quest. Player skill gets taken into account during stealth, so if you are not careful in your movements, it might be your own fault you fail. And I know they are trying to avoid "one button win" scenarios with diplomacy, though maybe a few of those will still be in the game when it makes sense. I sort of remember the trial example you are referring to, but I don't remember the outcomes. From how you describe it, I am sure they will be avoiding such scenarios in this game, though logical outcomes should always trump player desire; sometimes a fight will break out, no matter how skilled you are at sweet talking or sneaking. It all depends on the context of the situation. The outcomes of that arc were: You fail the trial in under five seconds, and end up having to do trial by combat instead. This is the option for combat monsters. You win the trial after large amounts of investigation and debate, and end up having to do trial by combat instead. This is the option for wizards who put cross-class ranks in diplomacy because they expected better of the man who wrote Planescape: Torment. It also determined which feat you got at the end (Guilty, Wrongfully Accused or Master Orator). They had no mechanical effect but I think they may have altered slightly some conversations later. Not that you're wrong, it should have allowed you to skip the battle at least by doing the social stuff, I suspect that they got worried that most players would feel cheated since the sudden use of social skills in a pretty much just combat focused game was a bit of a curveball for some (since up to that point social skills had barely any influence at all and then all of a sudden they were vital some people would have neglected them quite fairly thinking they were not that important and then feel cheated if the non-violent method gave better stuff), the game really should have had more social-based challenges before the trial to show the importance of the skills to the player. Since Eternity isn't using social skills but rather attributes instead I don't think we need to worry about this though, since the character's social options will be determined by attributes not skills a player who has spent most of the game just fighting will still be able to get good options when engaging in social activities (which is also closer to the PS:T method as well since that didn't use social skills either but attributs).

I've always wanted to play this kind of warden/ranger in tabletop myself actually.

Judging the Ranger class based on a couple of pre-built Bioware NPCs will not give you an accurate picture. Kivan was an archery beast because Archery itself was unusually powerful in BG1. Ironically though, Kivan was good at archery despite the fact that he wasn't optimally built for it. (didn't he only have 16 Dex?) As for Valygar, well, he was a beastmaster. One of the more difficult kits to play in BG2. They're not that great at anything. But Minsc was a good tank. Especially in the second game. 18/93 STR; you get him nice and early so you can fully control his level advancement; He can wear Heavy armor; Favored Enemy is Vampire (very useful in BG2), and he just so happened to start the game with a double proficiency in maces (for the mace of disruption...ahem... vampires) and 2-h swords. But even he wasn't optimally built. The player can build a far better ranger. Actually, Valygar was a Stalker, which is arguable the best Ranger kit, play him as a backstabber and he was damn effective. Kivan had a dex of 17, which was damn good except that he was an elf and could have had a dex of 19 instead but had one of the highest strength scores in the game, meaning that he could wear the heaviest armour as well to compensate somewhat for the fact that he didn't get a constitution bonus to his hit points. Was not the best archer or tank you could get but he could switch between range and melee and inflict lots of damage either way (with the reach of his halberd Kivan could stand behind better AC charaacters and deal a lot of damage still). None of these things were abilities granted by his ranger class however. Rangers have had the problem in the D&D of not really knowing who they were. In 2nd ed they kinda got hijacked by that bastard Drzzt who turned them all into his dual wielding clones, making it awkward to play the more Aragorn sort, and this carried over to 3rd ed too where they were made even less able to tank in 3.5 and made more bits of everything (stealthy like a rogue but without the trap detection feats, a bit of druid with the spells but a normal druid was better for that role, their animal companion feature they had in 2nd edition was not only given to the druid as well in 3rd but the ranger got the weaker version of it too) which, like the bard, made them a jack of all trades which in a party game isn't that great.

If you get the extra money you need for it then go ahead but I wouldn't put it as binding as a stretch goal, as I'd rather you divert that money to something else should you find it impossible to do it right. In other words, if you get the extra money and it all works fine then go ahead, if you get the extra money but it doesn't work out then go ahead and use it to implement some other feature instead. Also, remember, each back you get extra may mean less actual sales as they already get the game. I'll be certain to pressgang friends into buying it but I myself am already getting the collector's boxset, just a thought.

Yeah, it was ages ago when I read it and to be honest not only have I got a bad memory but I probably misunderstood what they said now that I think about it.

Classes will have bonuses to specific skills like Indira mentioned, and they will apparently be quite large bonuses as well that level up with the character (not a flat +1 no matter what level you are then). The skill bonus will be applied even if the character spent no points on it and will, from what I heard about a year ago, be big enough that a character that only has a skill bonus and no spent points in a skill will still rival a character that has no class bonus to the skill but has spent their points in it. Dunno how accurate or true that is or if it's changed now or what, but that's what I recall.

Wizards and Druids, because I want to see how wizards will play out in this considering I like playing them and Druids because I have heard so very little about them but would like to know more. I noticed that Paladins and Monks are not an option there, any particular reason or are they just last on the list (and hasn't the monk already been done actually? Recall reading an update about their powers and how they work, but not one on Paladins).

Whatever I am, I am a lazy bastard!

I was wondering the same thing. I suppose it shows that if you can still get the same xp for killing a dragon in two turns using clever use of spells as you would for actually battling it for 15 minutes or however long it takes most people then why shouldn't you also get the xp for cleverly overcoming the dragon without resorting to combat at all, proving that objective XP is the best for this situation! Whether you spend hours battling something, come up with an ingenious combination of spells, or work out a method of neutralising it without direct conflict then you have still won!

Pantheon? Nah, more like a bestiary!

Interresting, so it's kinda like the discovery of America technology-wise but with the 'colonies' already having been established for a few hundred years at least? Interesting set up, could be very interesting, especially if the original settlers came across in more primitive boats that you can discover like viking longships or canoes or something. Hope they don't try and ramrod in George Washingtons or other American Independence things though, not all of us are from America or even know about those things much. This, I like. I seriously hope he is approaching the game like a DM, as that is what I really liked about the old IE games and how they felt like they had been designed and written as if for a D&D module or somesuch, and why I am not so impressed with later games and their 'cinematic experience' wherein they seem to have replaced the DM with a Director. Completely tangential I know but had to say it.

But hunting down all those trash mobs that I mention later in that post was not fun, it was mind-numbing boredom while I picked a nose it was that easy, and completely unnecessary as I had already done the quest, and so a perfect example of why degenerate gameplay like that is bad. I also proposed how killing Taugosz could still be rewarded in an objective xp system quite well, you just gotta think of it like an achievement system, you don't need a quest for it but doing outstanding stuff can still be recognised and rewarded.

I know. I get the argument. The problem is that there's no difference between directly getting XP for your kills, and directly getting XP for kills because "killing things was the objective". It's literally the same thing. Any time there is combat, killing will be one of the objectives. So.... why did Tim Cain feel the need to tell us that the game will not reward you for your body count? Was he just trying to put a spin on things for marketing sake? Also, I didn't want to bring this up because it'd muddle the discussion, but since the issue won't go away.... Are you guys actually OK with a game filled with bounty-hunter and "clear this area" quests? Because if killing things is going to be an objective, then those are the type of quests that will litter the game. Otherwise, you cannot expect combat to net you XP, and that would take us right back to the beginning of this discussion: no XP for killing things, except on rare occasions when killing is a quest objective. And woe to those who do all 15 levels of the megadungeon and don't get any XP for killing all its monsters until the very end. Not all objectives will be quests, in fact I suspect a large number will be unrelated to quests such as the explore an area ones, you just get them as you achieve them.

I have just been playing Baldur's Gate tonight and I felt what happened tonight actually highlights the situation here nicely. I was doing the bandit camp, I had managed to blag my way in and got into the main tent without any fights until then. Once I had finished and accomplished my goal I could leave, without having another fight, but then that would mean missing out on the xp and loot from all the guys outside, including a particularly hard fight and highly rewarding one with the leader of the Blacktalons. Now, objective xp would have given me the same xp for blagging past as it would have fighting them, and I would not then be able to 'cheat' more xp by just slotting everyone on the way out like I did tonight, for which I had no reason to do other than to Highlander their xp (I think we should call kill xp 'Highlandering it' from now on), but it would also mean missing out on a tough fight with a bossman. Now, it could be argued that getting into a fight after trying so hard to avoid it would be a failure anyway, so getting it for a failure is backwards, plus while I don't get the xp I DO get the loot, which was rather nice armour by the way. Another approach would be to say that killing this guy should be an optional objective xp, that if he was truly challenging that he should give xp for overcoming his optional challenge. Now, this sounds like just kill xp, except that it would be limited to just him and that it would not necessarily require turning on the whole camp to get maximum xp. I am not saying that you can instead poison him (though that could be an interesting and possibly hard method as well), but rather getting him to fight you without also drawing the entire camp in on you as well, maybe by antagonising him in some way so that he challenged you to a duel instead and everyone else just looked on with amusement. This would then mean avoiding having to fight the rest of the camp by doing something clever, and possibly got you more respect in the camp which may have lead to other gains. The bit about not having to fight the rest of the camp is important I think: after I had done the two big battles in BG2 today I then spent 30 minutes just going around the camp killing people. This did not require any skill on my part, nor did it lead to anything entertaining, I was controlling the action with one hand while I absent mindedly mined my nostril with the other hand pulling out a rather huge bogey, seriously I was quite chuffed with it though it got awkward wiping it in the bin under the desk, all while grinding these trash mobs. I did not overcome anything, I don't think I even lost a hit point while doing it, and there was certainly no reason to do it besides highlandering it and collecting scalps. Hell, I would have just done it for the scalps, no need for a xp reward for essentially walking over someone. They were trash mobs, nothing more than a time sink, which isn't needed in a singleplayer game. My face rolling over the keyboard would've sufficed.

*Backhands poster* Bad poster! Bad first post! Bad! No cookies for you today!!!!