FlintlockJazz

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!

Since you can't fathom, read the interviews and posts in my sig. No. I'm just saying it would add a lot to the game, I know at least two people who are going to get it off pirate bay rather than buy it because of the lack of multiplayer.Then they are pathetic. There is no reason to cater to people who will look for any excuse to pirate a game, especially a kickstarter game. Just because a game does not have a specific feature does not mean they get to pirate it nor use the threat of piracy to get what they want over others. Tell them that I think they are dickless liars please. Wait a sec, I get told to play nice in the sandbox and this so and so comes back with this vitriol and mods dont bat an eyelid? Well Sir you are entitled to your opinion, I don't see why you call them liars, it's out of context, but thats just me. In reply to your other point, it's not a threat, if a game doesnt have the features you want then you dont have to buy it. If you download it and delete it rather than purchasing it you've created interest where there was none before but not enough for someone to part with their dollars/euro/yen/rupees. If a game is worth playing then it has the features you want. The lack of multiplayer is just an excuse, a lie used to try to justify their actions, hence they are liars. You don't get to choose whether you pay for a game dependent on the features it has... Osvir and others have explained better I'm on a phone so awkward to write more indepth.

Since you can't fathom, read the interviews and posts in my sig. No. I'm just saying it would add a lot to the game, I know at least two people who are going to get it off pirate bay rather than buy it because of the lack of multiplayer. Then they are pathetic. There is no reason to cater to people who will look for any excuse to pirate a game, especially a kickstarter game. Just because a game does not have a specific feature does not mean they get to pirate it nor use the threat of piracy to get what they want over others. Tell them that I think they are dickless liars please.

Bull****. The poll has been rigged by having both 'yes' and 'possibly' lumped together into one. How many of those 'yes' votes were actually 'I don't care for multiplayer but not against it'? 40% do not want multiplayer, they just don't give a toss, and yet even with the blatant rigging of the polls the 'yes' campain is still losing...

Thank you, I couldn't think of the best way to describe it but caricature is basically what I was thinking off. I'd say BG1 is better because the proportions are not out of whack like they are in BG2, and it doesn't look deliberate but rather like they were just drawn badly. Style is subjective, but if you paid me to draw a portrait of yourself and I gave you a badly drawn stick man picture you wouldn't accept that it's badness is subjective you'd ask for your money back. Anyway, we all know my opinion is the important one here, because I'm right and everything should be done according to my whims!

As others have said, Project Eternity is just the project title, we actually don't know what the game will be called. It could be anything, like Master Spaffington's Spaffingly Spiffy Advetnures into Spaffing on People's Faces with Spaff. Which would be awesome.

Really? That's kinda depressing. I wonder if the original 'pre-scarred' versions can still be found on the interwebz, be interesting to see if some of the facial deformation was a result of these changes. It's a matter of preference and chosen style and atmosphere. Also BG2 Imone >>> BG1 Imoen. BG2 Jaheria does look distorted, I'll give you that. Okay, there is this saying that there's no accounting for taste. For me BG1 Imoen will always be a redneck and BG2 Imoen will be an adventurer. And yes, BG2 Jaheira probably was to be drawn more bad-ass, yet someone went over the top and overdid it. But, as many people, so as many different opinions. No accounting for taste indeed, for instance I really can't see where people get the redneck thing from, she looks like a cheeky but confident bar maid (which she is, she worked for Winthrop after all) and BG2 looks like an adventurer? Nah, ignoring the fact that her head doesn't seem to go with the rest of her neck and body she looks like a gaunt 14 year old with a bland expressionless face who doesn't look like she could handle adventuring. But regardless, whether they are a 'best fit' or not for a specific character is not the point, the point was that the portraits for BG1 were just done better quality, whereas BG2 looked like they were done by an amateur. I know someone will try and claim it was the 'style' or somesuch, that it's an artistic thing, well I'm sorry but the 'style' looks ****. Sure, subjective opinion and all with art, but would you consider any subjective opinion that my drawing of a stick figure is better than the Mona Lisa? And I can tell you, my drawing sucks so bad that my stick figures are bad.

Let's compare: Baldur's Gate 1 Portraits Baldur's Gate 2 Portraits I'm sorry, but no offense to the artist who did them but the second lot just do not match up with the first lot. First off, WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED TO JAHEIRA'S FACE???!!! It's not that she looks different from the first game, it's that she looks like she had her face driven into by a truck and then had her facial reconstruction seriously messed up by a stoned back street surgeon. I played BG2 first by the way, and even without knowing what her first incarnation was like, I felt that there was something really wrong with her face, her eyes don't line up for a start. In fact, all the facial expressions seem off on them all, the eyes misplaced, necks extremely wrong etc. They also all look like they are having mug shots taken of themselves, whereas the first ones seem more natural, the first ones seem more interesting whereas the latter are just staring lifelessly at you, zombies have more character. And as Mr. Magniloquent said, what's with the dreadlocks dude? The first ones have a greater degree of detail I find, and they just seem better quality, like they were done by a more skilled artist, more professional. The world they paint also seems better and more cohesive. So, in short, what we've learnt here today folks is that I think the BG2 portraits suck compared to BG1 portraits. Does this help the thread? Probably not, but it's been a while since I could get on these forums on an actual computer instead of my phone and stick pics up.

I have to say, I prefered the Baldur's Gate 1 portraits over BG2 portraits, the latter actually seemed really bad and horrible to me with their faces actually looking disfigured due to the proportions used, while the former seemed more colourful and detailed, conveying the characters more.