FlintlockJazz

But THA was never tied to a deity, its creed was "Only the pure of heart can wield me", and in d&d that meant paladins. I don't know I guess I'm biased, because I love paladins and THA. I guess we should wait and see what kind of world this is going to be, and then go from there.Paladins in PE are going to be more like warlords than paladins. They'll each have a cause, but being pure of heart or following a paladin code doesn't appear to be on the cards. Likewise, clerics seem to be different from the usual paradigm, being crusaders instead of priests, and a sword that is called HOLY avenger definitely has divine implications, the line about pure of heart sounds like it could easily refer to someone who is pure on the eyes of god. As paladins in D&D are tied to the gods even when they don't follow one specific god (and in Forgotten Realms I think they did need to be tied to a specific god to get their powers) this is the conclusion I came to.

I would like the holy avenger, but due to the changes in the roles of the classes I don't think they should be paladin weapons as the class has been disassociated from the religious holiness side of the things and is now more warlordy. I reckon the holy avenger should be a cleric weapon instead now since clerics are now the holy templar class instead.

Kind of agree, but for some reason it always stuck with me. Maybe because the art is awesome. That third armor, is anti-back stab armor. XD As for the exposed skin, I don't know man, now that they can animate proper character models, I wouldn't be against showing some skin on the lightly armored classes, it can be done to great effect (imagine glowing tattoos and stuff like that(and it would help differentiate the different races)). I mean if they can make the different types of armor look unique, then sure go for the realistic approach, but considering that this is a fantasy game I wouldn't be against an unrealistic look. What I'm trying to say is that they now have a chance to make the character models look as great as the 2d backgrounds, and I just don't know how that would look with the plain armor I have seen in this thread. (which is not to say that it's not good looking, but to me it doesn't translate that fantasy feel) Its subjective: to me the pics you put up are bland and plain, the typical fantasy stuff you see put out everywhere and kinda becomes background noise to me, which is why I find realistic looking armour better because its not done so much and carries more cultural designs, you get a sense they come from a wider culture that has fashions and trends of their own. Plus they just look so much more badass when they actually look like capable warriors rather than looking like they are nothing more than fap-material to me.

Is this still going? Bloody hell. Calling it now: PE will have homosexual romances only and they will all be torturous greek tragedies that end horrifically. I have spoken and so shall it be.

And you think that people made couples becouse sex of teen romances from entire time ? You think that 2 people can't be in "love" or deep relationship witch sexual desire with not going to "bawdy house". If you think so then i deeply sorry for you ... and let me have this irrational illusion ... you got fire ball i got romance Sorry but this sounds like you are making a strawman argument here. He never claimed any of the things you have stated.

No New Game+ please. It's artificial and more for console RPGs (not an attack on consoles, just that's where this feature is used, not in PC games). Having an artificial limit applied to a game where your choices should matter does not fit. I do not get why people would want such a feature when the game should already offer replayability via alternate character classes.

I want it to have it's own atmosphere and feeling. Of course, the kickstarter was sold to us on the premise that it would be like the old IE games, but that does not mean it can't make it's own themes and style, especially since the IE games themselves were so different to one another. As to the discussion about white, black and grey morality: having a white and black morality is very limiting, and is usually the morality of the developers or D&D alignment system type of morality, and I often feel like I am being preached to in such games that I must adhere to someone else's concept of right and wrong. On the other hand, grey choices are often perceived as requiring no easy answer, that everything must come at a cost blah blah blah and often feel forced too, trying to make you choose between two things only because it's been cornily set up to be like that, see Virmire choice as an example of this bollocks. This is not what grey choices in my mind should be, rather they should be a choice of what you or your character believes to be the right thing.

I like it. The shoulder pads are a bit much but not too bad and isn't a woman-only problem. Pretty damn good in fact.

I was wondering if someone saw that. I'll leave THIS here. http://janpospisil.blogspot.cz/2013/05/in-semi-defense-of-boobplate.html I think the comment at the end is worth reading and sums up my own feelings on the matter. The article itself suffers too much from assumptions, lack of understanding and outright incorrect facts to be able to make a good case either way.

As spudud and Lephys have said sapience is not sentience and is believed to be only held by humans. A cow can be aware of its own existence but lacks the capability for abstract thought that sapience brings. A cow would not understand that the leather armour you are wearing is the skin of its kin nor would it understand that staying in that field will eventually lead to it being taken to a slaughterhouse and killed even if it sees other cows being taken and not coming back, but kill a member of its herd in front of it and it will realise its life is in danger and get upset. Most animals have a sense of self preservation in order for the species to survive, otherwise they would die off when threatened with one that does. Humanity's success comes from its ability to deduce possibilities that they have not seen. Until a cow sees a two-legged kill another cow with that axe thing it does not understand that an axe can be used to kill it, while a human can look at a rhino for the first time and realise that not only could the horn be used to skewer him but that if he was to somehow break it off he could use it himself to kill his neighbour Ugg and take his woman, or that the guy carrying a knife might be up to trouble. Apes can be taught tool use beyond their normal capabilities, but only if they are shown it, humans can work out new uses for themselves. EDIT: In short, humans can work out consequences and connect the dots, a cow cannot unless it sees it and even then it only makes the link if it the consequence occurs immediately.

Heh yeah she might think she looks sexy in that but it all it would do would be to get stabbed in her neckline and then raped (if she's lucky she'll be dead before the raping starts). People have claimed that looking sexy would help distract your enemy but really it would just guarantee a more horrific death.

Which is why I was using the caveat sapient, if they are not sapient then it wouldn't matter since it would be just like cows. If a sapient species didn't care that people would want to wear your skin as armour then it shows a lack of self preservation on their part. If they don't care then there would have to be a reason as it implies lack of rational though, and humans themselves might have issues with wearing something that they had just been talking to five minutes before. Take the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, they have sapient talking animals that want to be eaten and will talk to you while being ate, but thats because they were engineered that way, and some people found it to be quite horrifying. Essentially if dragons are sapient then I think it will be a missed opportunity to ignore this potential ingame debate like most other games do. I think it could bring more to the game to have such things brought up than just ignoring it as always.

Yes, because then my "evil" PCs would have a valid reason for butchering elves other than they suck.Ah but if your characters are "evil" then you don't want it to be fine because then they get to be vicious, scary to others in their elf-armour and those pesky good guys will be at a disadvantage when fighting you because they won't wear elf-armour!

And if they are as smart as cows? Leatehr armor is fine but dragon scale is not? Because dragons are more inteligent (maybe, maybe not)? Kinda odd to say "If you're inteligence score is greater than 5, it's ok to skin you. Otherwise it's not" Thats how it works in real life. We skin animals because they are not considered sapient but get upset if someone skins a person. In a world in which multiple sapient species coexist then skinning one another would probably not go down well. Again, why is skinning a sapient dragon often considered okay but not elves in most settings? Is it possibly because elves look like us while dragons do not? I would like to see some sort of reaction from dragons on this, a questioning of the morality of it. If a society had no qualms with skinning sapient dragons then dragons, as a sapient species with an interest in self preservation, would likely consider said society as evil and fear being hunted down and flayed for profit. I mean, would you trust being around someone who has no qualms skinning and wearing you?

Well I was talking about fully sapient dragons otherwise it would be no different from wearing any other animal so at least as smart as a human. If elven skin bestowed protection against magic would it be fine to skin dead elves and wear their skin as armour? Or would it be expected to find other forms of protection that doesn't involve skinning people instead?

Also I'd like to see dragons get upset when they see people wearing dragonskin armour. I want them to react like a human would if they saw you wearing humanskin armour, and for the game to raise the question of ethics of wearing a sapient creature's skin as armour (who truly is the monster, the bigass creature who breathes fire or the guy wearing the skin of people?)

I say include dragons, even make them look like the archetype dragon but drop the whole lizard thing. Not everything that has scales is reptillian, and dragons are clearly portrayed as warm-blooded these days. I say make them their own class (as in biology class like mammals and reptiles) that is perhaps defined as innately magical (with wyverns perhaps portrayed as apes are to humans perhaps, and other monstrously magical races being grouped in with them like how cats, dogs and humans are all grouped together as mammals). This would make more sense to me and divorces them from being big lizards. If they really want to make them different looking, they could give them manes! Not a mane like a lion but more like a horse's mane perhaps?

If that was the case, we should also have males running around in chainmal speedos. Wait..why chainmail? It would chaif. Let's just enchant a silk thong or a big codepiece. Hm..come to think of it, if magical protective any-shape fields like that exist, why even bother with heavy swords? Let's have an enchanted ring that projects a magical sword-shaped field with steel durabiltiy and sharpness.. Wait, I got a better idea. If rings can be enchanted...if any obejct can be enchanted..why not simply enchant the body..or a tatoo? Let's have a mass of naked people running around in invisible armor fighting with invisible weapons. Very cheap on the art department to boot. Becase MAGIC is the solution to all problems. I was going to post the exact same thing. If a chainmail bikini protects the same as a full suit why would anyone wear the latter, everyone would run around in chainmail bikinis and speedos! Your mighty warrior will stride into battle wearing nothing but a thong, his balls swaying free in the wind as nature intended! As Minsc would say, thongs for everyone!

Trashman, I gotta say you have the patience of a saint to still be posting without killing anyone. I would have gone on a killing spree by now or at least put my head through a wall! :D

In regards to the posts stating that you wouldn't wear plate while adventuring, the spanish conquisitors, historical real life adventurers, wore plate while exploring south america. Plate was not that heavy also, there was a reason it became the de facto best choice of armour wanted by everyone.

What characters I hope they don't use for inspiration? Gosh, where to begin? I'm like a candy in a kid's store, wait have I got that wrong? No matter, here's my list of characters that I despise, not for being unlikeable characters (since that would imply they were good characters) but simply being bad in some form or another (opinion of course, but mine is always right obviously): Morrigan (DAO) Qara (NWN2) Zaeed (ME2) Morinth (ME2) Miranda (ME2) Duncan (DAO guy, the one who recruits you into the wardens) Jack (ME2) Kratos (God of War) Bishop (NWN2) That guardsman who lets you walk off with the bloody amulet after the emperor dies (TES 4: Oblivion) Thrall (Warcraft 3) Aerie (BG2) These are characters that I feel for one reason or another are badly designed, one-dimensional, cliched, forced upon you or are obviously the creators pet mary-sue, and didn't compensate for this flaw with being an enjoyable character to have around.

I hope there are no cutscenes. One of the arguments in favor of voice and why having a silent protagonist feels weird is because such cutscenes are geared up for voice, seeing someone talking but hearing no sound makes it feel like something is missing. Since PE is not going to be voiced beyond what the old IE games were (catch phrases in combat and the occasional line perhaps, though I have no problems with it just being the battle catch phrases), which I think is a good thing (voice costs so much and causes so much to be lost in favor of it that I don't consider it worth it), and so dialogue boxes would be the better way to go (not to mention that zooming in to show faces would be awkward since the game is isometric with 2D backdrops).

How to ensure good writing in PE? Get a court order banning Bioware from coming within 50 miles of PE! Ba-dum tish! Sorry, it must be that time of the month for me.

You could ride horses and even carts in TES 2 Daggerfall actually, and Oblivion was just return to that feature.

Funnily enough, I only now think of what the names would be in finnish. (Won't be a translated version and I wouldn't play one if there was) Ranger = Metsänvartija = literally forest guardian, or forest keeper In RPG's it'd probably be Metsästäjä = hunter, or Metsämies = Forest-man or forest dweller And about Tolkien, silly or not but that's how it goes and what we're stuck with. D&D is a pretty direct rip-off, with elves and orcs and hobbits (ehh.. make that halflings or kenders because of copyright). Ranger was just given bow and 2 weapon fighting because ranger is just like fighter, only worse, doesn't really give much incentive to play one. 2-weapon fighting was a stupid thing to give them to begin with, but I guess that was because the mental image of a ranger with shield is just wrong. But yeah, hope it's a hunter in polish version so everybody's happy. (btw, is the word really hunter in polish as well? google says so. They gave rangers two weapon fighting because of the popularity of Drzz't. The class started off as based on Aragorn but has drifted so far from it and become more based on that accursed dark elf as they tried to find a proper niche for the class. The name really depends on whst exactly the class gets really. If they plan on making all rangers have pets and survival skills then ranger suits or maybe nomad. If they plan on the class being defined as a long range attacker that can be equally be built as an urbanite as a wilderness guy then something like archer might fit better.