FlintlockJazz

Sounds good,. though sticking both healing and damage on Might seems to make that stat more favourable to me, but then without actually knowing the whole system I cannot say whether that is true or not. I do wonder if Stamina and Healing should be switched around so that Might is Damage and Stamina while Con is Health and healing (so the larger your health pool is the better you are at healing up)? Again, dunno the system. I personally didn't mind Intelligence being the damager stat like some did, if they were worried that Might might cause such confusion then maybe naming it Body instead might have been better? Or having more than one stat contribute to a bonus, like both Might and Intelligence boosting damage? I'm sure they have already thought of this, but if they are having trouble finding a use for all the stats then they should feel free to cut down on the number of attributes there are rather than adding stuff. I wouldn't mind them combining Sterngth and Constitution into a Body stat for instance, or combining Perception and Dexterity into Hand-Eye coordination for instance, if they feel having them separate would be redundant, and have 'advantages' like 'Big-Boned' or 'Huge' to cover specific forms of it for the player. But then I ain't a games designer despite how much I like to theory-crafti and make random rants like this one on such things.

Then that must mean I've been getting more evil over the past few months. Is it that the facial hair grows evil roots into your brain or something?

I leave this place alone for a few months only to find upon my return a pink pokemon engaging in some bizarre sexual activity with a marshmallow... On a side note, playing around with the surveys on the backer site I see I could actually change my Obisidian Order title or at least put a different one in there than the one I'm using. Considering changing it from White Rabbit (since I no longer use that avatar pic of Max) to something like Drunken or Demented Seadog. Or maybe Swashbuckler. Something more apt for my name at least. Whaddaya think? Or should I just stick with what I already got? *Starts moping up pokemon juices*

I neither backed nor bought the Shadowrun game so I cannot comment there on what went on, but Broken Age I think was clearly going to have problems from the start, but not because of mismanagement of money or bad design or anything, but simply because it was caught in a really bad place: Double Fine had started the Kickstarter asking for only $40,000, they were not planning on making such a big game and they did not even have a basic premise to the game, with the idea being that it was more about the documentary than the actual game. No one at the time expected them to make that much money on KS, it wasn't until Broken Age did it that people had the realisation that it was possible at all, they were the first and being first put them in one hell of a predicament. They had backers who had backed a game that had not been defined beyond being an adventure game and so they had quite a diverse backer group who would never all agree on what the game should be about and were already on the back foot because they had not even designed the game yet. They had not planned for this and promptly shat their pants when it happened. We are all in unknown waters when it comes to Kickstarter, developers included. They may act like they know what they are doing, but really no one does, and they are all learning on how best to manage it.

A bearded elf. Possibly female.

Dunno, you could always role-play having a six-fingered hand. Roleplay? What's that? Wait, this is the CoD forums right...? I could, but I'd rather watch and admire him at work as he kills the guy, or gen myself up as him, hmm...

So you're gonna end up killing his father, eh? Nah, I haven't got a six-fingered hand, and you just got to have a six-fingered hand if you're gonna kill his father, how else will he track you down?

Monty Python rabbit pretty much, insta-kills any characters that comes too near and can only be killed by holy hand grenades. He'll also be a quest giver, but only so that people will get too close to him to find out what the quest is. And at the end of the game he is revealed to be the big bad that is the mastermind behind everything. Or my old larp character, an incompetent pirate alchemist named Bloody Bill (in a "bloody hell what have you done now?" kind of bloody as opposed to the scary kind), who managed to sink two ships, unfortunately the first one was one he was the navigator for and sailed them into the shore, and the second one he was in command of and wound up setting fire to it, totally deliberately to fight off the boarding party, honest he didn't just drop a bottle of rum by accident... EDIT: Or Inigo Montoya, just because.

I have to say, I did like having 'rounds' in the IE games. It meant that as soon as battle started I could pause, set everyone's action including spells, then unpause and watch the action before pausing again and queuing up their next actions. It's why I disliked cooldowns in DA: O, you had to keep checking each character to see whether their powers had cooled down yet or not, since they were on different timers, and often just gave up on trying to control them that well.

You called?

I'm looking forward to the whole game right up to when I have to create my character, at which point I will then enter angst mode and wail about having to choose between things and collapse in a indecisive heap.

Depends on what you mean by 'worst' of us. I suppose we are all the 'worst' to someone else. I would consider chainmail bikinis, boobplate, super-sized anime swords, rest-spamming , forever increasing attributes, and loads of levels is the 'worst', but then to another historically-correct armour, no eye-candy, 'puny' swords, and having to trek back to a campsite would be the 'worst'. Naturally, my opinion is the correct one of course, I'm not saying that these other people have actually any credibility or value to their opinion, but I thought I would be tactful today and be magnaminous to my inferiors.

Here's a thought. If the game takes place on the southerm hemisphere, and the Vailian Republics are more southern than the most of the other nations... then why they have darker skin tones? Shouldn't people living in cooler places have brighter skin, and vice versa? Or, is the *entire* nation based on colonialism? From my understanding, yes the Vailians are all colonials and settled there from elsewhere.

No what I meant was, you could always ask him about it. He usually replies although lately he hasn't been posting on formspring that much. I asked him on Something Awful so if he replies I'll post the quote. Ah okay, thanks. Easy to misinterprete people on forums so I thought I should make it clear. Cheers for the info, interesting about the ciphers.

The main thing I think it needs from the BG games is the sense of being an adventurer. BG made you feel like an adventurer, just walking the streets often led you to discovering adventures, and yet each one felt detailed and meaningful. The Elder Scroll games had many side quests, but they often feel generic and the characters lack personality, going for quantity and sandboxiness, while JRPGs often have big stories but very undeveloped side quests if at all. BG hit the sweet spot, I still remember the time I stumbled across a slaving ring in the Slums, just walking through the slums I came across a slave gang and after freeing the slaves was told that the local tavern was the base for the slave ring, something I could also find out by talking to the harlots there. Or how I came across the murders going on in the bridge district with the skinchanger, the murderer I then discovered again in Trademeet. How each dungeon felt like the centre of it's own epic quest rather than a random cave in the middle of nowhere. This is the strength of the BG games, the sense of being an adventurer in a tabletop game. That's my opinion anyway.

If you trawl through J.E. Sawyer's formspring, posts on this forum and SA posts you'll find most of the info regarding what I said. If you're still unsatisfied, you could always send him a formspring question. I'm not questioning your info, sorry if it came across as that, it's just my interpretation of what the info could imply.

From what I have read, the bonus is supposedly 'enough' that if the character puts no points in the skill he is supposed as good or almost as good as someone who doesn't have the bonus but has put max points into it. My question is that, will someone need to put max points into the skill and have the bonus to be able to be able to deal with everything in that field or will there be very little point to invest so heavily? I hope it's the former but then I hope more than one class covers each skill. I also hope that other classes can be built to fulfill the damage dealer role as well, but the way they have spoken about the rogue it sounds like it's THE damage class and that if you don't have a rogue you'll "miss out on dealing huge damage!" I suspect this may just be salesmanship, they are trying to big it up to sell us on the concept and that it's not going to be as extreme as it sounds, so I probably shouldn't worry. It's just so damn awkward seeing segments of the game concept separate from each other and not being able to compare, plus I've always said that us players never know what they really want! :D Ranger. And there's probably other classes not far behind if built correctly. Well, we don't know how close the ranger comes to the rogue except that the latter is the best at single hit damage. We also don't know how well other classes can be built to do the same, see my response to KP for further details. This is just the impression I have got from reading what they have put out and am aware that it's probably nothing.

Only with the right makeup... What has lipstick got to do with anything?

Well, my first party would go something like this: Me as Cipher The other Cipher dude who sounds interesting and for maximum cipherness Fighter/Barbarian Wizard Ranger/Rogue (preferably Ranger) Priest/Paladin/Druid Ideally I'll have stealth for all my characters, and we'll act like a special ops team. Ninj our way in like Arnie does in Conan the Barbarian, have the wizard cast some sort of silence spell over the area the first bunch of enemies are in, party dives in and assassinates them all with pollaxes to the face while the monsters in the rest of the dungeon get to have a legitimate reason why they don't hear or suspect anything. Take them out silently. Second party: Me as Orlan Paladin or Barbarian Fighter Wizard Ranger/Rogue Priest/Paladin Chanter With this party we then smash the system!!!! I'm thinking the opposite, since there does seem to be quite some differences in the classes to normal I'm thinking I'll be learning regardless and at least with the Cipher I won't have any preconceptions getting in the way of learning the class.

Nope. I like it better too. The 3rd edition seemed to me to give the illusion of more flexibility, but the XP progression was exponential, so, if you were a level 10 fighter you could become a level 11 fighter or spend the (exponentially high number of) points to be a fighter10/<someotherclass>1 which is a relatively weaker character considering the cost. Using 2ed. dual classing, you pay once in decreased abilities while you regain your old class using the point progression of the new class (that is, paying fewer points per level), or, using multiclassing divide points by 2 (or three for a triple class) and use the progressions from all of your classes (division by a constant over an exponentially increasing series = 'good' ). You never pay a giant number of points for a tiny increase. That said, I have approximately no experience actually using 3rd ed. so maybe it doesn't turn out bad in practice. I prefer the atmosphere to 2nd ed, it just felt more colourful and had more defined roles in it's classes while not getting stupid with the multi-classing, but taking another level in a class you already had actually wasn't better than taking a level in another class no matter how high. This was because although the levels increased in xp needed to get to a higher one the actual benefits you gained per level did not increase much if at all whereas the first level in a class often gave you more stuff. People often switched from fighter after level 12 for instance because at that level you unlocked the last weapon specialisation level and then only got fighter feats after that (many multiclassed before it as well depending on the type of class they were going for, some even only took one level in fighter to get all the armour and weapon proficiencies and then moved to another class).

I agree, rogues should be renamed weaponmasters or wardancers and the bonus to roguish skills should be passed to more appropriate characters. I think this shows that the role of 'thief' or 'rogue' is more a mindset than a particular fighting style, and doesn't really fit as a class.

I agree, some of the names no longer adequately describes the class anymore or pigeon-holes them to a concept when it can now apply to other concepts too I feel. The rogue is one in particular I'm feeling this for. I'm going to go on a tangent here but bear with me as I will come to the topic of the thread. If you read any of my posts in a thread about the rogue that was going a while back before we knew what the PE rogue was going to be you know that I have some 'issues' with rogues as they have been in games before: I find many of the 'features' of the rogue to be skills that every adventurer should have or at least have access to but have been 'ring-fenced' off to just the rogue. Stealth is something every class would find useful, even a mighty warrior needs to be able to get into position for ambushes and a wizard would want to take the route of discretion in some cases, and I have always viewed the typical adventuring party as a small strike force that would realistically need to be stealthy when invading dungeons or infiltrating enemy strongholds. Backstab or sneak attack is something that I view any warrior with any skill should be able to pull off since taking someone by surprise should give you a bonus regardless. Not only does the rogue typically call dibs on these skills to define itself but it also doesn't allow other classes in many of the games they are in to 'fill in' for them like you can do with for instance a barbarian taking the place of a fighter (a barbarian might not be as effective or work the same way as a fighter in a fighter role but he can compensate for it). If you want to disarm traps or pick locks you inevitable have to take a rogue/thief, despite a ranger being ideal for also being a trap disarmer or a bard being perfect for having the pick locks skill (in D&D 3.5 the bard can only pick pockets, not locks). This makes it awkward in computer RPGs because by making all these skills rogue-only you then either have to build the game assuming the player will have rogue, putting in traps and locks that needs the rogue touch in order to progress or get the decent stuff, forcing the player to take one along, or assume that player doesn't have a rogue and just make all the traps and chests bypassable or even just ignorable and make the rogue irrelevant. The latter occurred in NWN2 official campaign: since unless you were playing a rogue you only had Neeshka who was a rogue and so the campaign couldn't assume you would be taking her along all the time, making many of her features irrelevant. The rogue needs to ring fence these skills because they are often all that defines it, give them to other classes and it becomes apparent that the rogue not only doesn't really have a role but that the role it had could have been fulfilled by a dexterity-focused fighter with skill points. By balancing classes so that they are all equal in combat and out of combat Obsidian have actually shown this, the rogue was a specialised fighter that should not have really been considered a 'core class' all this time like the other three. They've needed to find a role for the rogue in combat and unfortunately they seem to have gone the MMO route of DPS, while relegating the role of fighter to tank. Despite all those sword and sorcery stories in which the warrior faces off against the evil wizard or demon or whatever one on one RPGs these days instead seem to stick him in the role of tank, being a punchbag that for some reason everyone will focus on instead of the more threatening classes around him. Meanwhile, the rogue seems to have become the damage dealer, and ironically seems to be less of a 'rogue' than ever. Really, what the class is now appears to be more 'offensive fighter' to the fighter's 'defensive fighter'. I would say the name should be changed to something like 'Duelist' or 'Weaponmaster' or something and have the 'rogue skills' like pick locks detached as specialist skills for it so that it can instead be used for a wider range of character concepts instead of 'dodgy guy', especially since apparently they are supposedly great with two-handed weapons like estocs and pollaxes now. And speaking of the specialist skills, they raise the question: will you need the bonus the class gives to those skills like pick locks, or can you make do with a class that just invests points in without the bonus? It's the same old problem you had when the rogue had exclusive lockdown on those skills, unless other classes also get a bonus to those skills, like the ranger getting a bonus to disarming traps like I mentioned they should get earlier. Now, I'm not totally opposed to a rogue or similar class being the 'damage dealer', and I understand the need to make all the classes useful in combat, and that the fighter should not be the ultimate class that can do everything in combat, but lets not make the mistake of having the one class be the only one for that role like it was with the rogue and rogue stuff, lets have another class that can do huge single person damage too so that we have a choice! EDIT: In short, I think 'rogue' is more a mindset than a class, and that if you want to play a roguish character you just build your class with a specialisation in that direction. Makes making roguish mages easier for example. That's my opinion anyway, take from it what you will.

You are. @FlintlockJazz, in a BW, you would romance the cake. BW=Bioware right? In that case, you'd need both a male and female cake to cater for all! I dunno if you're joking, but, if you aren't, I also didn't get it for a while. Then, I realized, it makes a lot more sense if you use, say, money, instead of cake. If it was "you can't spend your money and keep it, too." It's saying that if you want there to be cake available for noms, you have to leave the cake there. If you eat the cake (because immediate satisfaction), then you no longer possess it. Anywho... I think aside from the fact (I'm pretty sure it's been confirmed?) that P:E isn't being designed with multi-classing in mind at all, I just don't think multi-classing fits super well into the rest of P:E's particular design/lore/etc. as well as it does in a lot of other games. Also, this is necessary to say: LEELOO DALLAS, MULTI-CLASS!!! Yeah, the money one makes more sense. You're still 'having' the cake when you eat it, but then maybe I'm being pedantic heh. Pretty much how I see it as well. I generally don't like the way multiclassing works, if you want to give the players the freedom to be anything they want make it classless. If you want clearly defined classes don't muddy the waters with multiclassing. Yep, agree 100%. If you want to give players the ability to customise and change the characters then give them the option within the class, as suggested by others in this thread.

Personally I believe that a system should either be classless or only allow one class per character (with flexibility in that class). Multi-classing seems to me to be wanting its cake and eat it (never got that saying, what else do you do with cake?) and ends up breaking the game, watering it down, etc. Thats my opinion anyway for what its worth.

Or Brian Blessed! They need Brian!