FlintlockJazz

You know what I hate? How not only are they dying/leaving the world, but that everyone in the world accepts it as fate and a good thing because its the 'Time of Man' or some other bollocks and that elves who reject this are viewed as evil even by humans. Yet if the situation was reversed, if it was humanity who were dying off it would be the heroic quest to save them, to fight against fate! I find this one sided, hypocritical and basically wank. Even the The Witcher series portray the elven fight for freedom in a bad light. If we have to have this in the game then I want to see the elves fighting to save themselves, portrayed in a heroic light as they fight the human scum! Humans shouldn't have a monopoly over heroic fights for survival.

I can't answer this yet as I'm torn between the following characters: Paladin, because the PE depiction of them as warlords sounds interesting and fits as party commander. Wizard, my usual favourite class and now that they can wear armour and weapons I can indulge in mage with sword. Cipher, because medieval psyker sounds awesome!

It amuses me. Its clearly intended as a piss take and has you collecting poolboys in order to win.

I like it. They are more like knights now instead of a poor fighter cleric hybrid that didn't really make sense. I'm sure you'll still get Paladin orders they'll just be more Knightly types now.

Why does an X gain an ability when a Y does not? We're using a class-based system in part because every IE game also used class-based systems. One of the things that class-based systems do to differentiate classes is give them exclusive capabilities. It just so happens that prior to 3E (including most 2nd Ed. thief kits), thieves were generally terrible in combat. Source: playing and DMing literally dozens of thieves in 1st and 2nd Ed. AD&D. The one thing in their favor once combat started (or before combat started) was backstab. It was unreliable, but it's been kept in one form or another over the years. It seems like an obvious thing for them to retain. We're not going to make rogues pure utility characters and we've stated this from the start. For us, the question is not, "Should rogues be able to hold their own in combat?" For us, the question is, "What are the different ways in which rogues should be able to hold their own in combat?" There are many potential answers to that question, but if ideas get shot down because fighters have to consistently smash everyone else to pieces in melee without exception, it's going to be difficult to answer. I don't suppose you'll be able to answer this question yet but is there plans to allow builds that won't bother with the backstab or will all rogues require the use of backstab to get the most out of them?

Anthros are lazy design, instead of designing a new race from scratch they mush two already existing races together and then use the beast traits as an excuse for personality. I'd rather strange ones like the guild of Weavers from Loom (they were supposedly human but don't look under their hoods), jawas (yes the ones with sand crawlers, guess I have a thing for hoods and glowing eyes, as thats two races with them now), fae like the Sidhe (proper ones, not like the elves), skeksis and mystics from the Dark Crystal etc.

Steampunk?? I was wondering that myself! :D

I think alot of people have misunderstood the OP. He doesn't mean they are level 1 but that they haven't been autoleveled, requiring you to manually level them up from level 1 to whatever level they have already reached so that you get to choose their skills for them. In other words, level 1 but with the experience points for whatever level you are.

You're nitpicking. The point is that it's an explicitly and obviously theistic universe so atheism or agnosticism wouldn't really be rational choices. Also IIRC there are one or two gods in Faerun that are pretty analogous the the gods of the major monotheistic religions here, omnipotent world creators and all that. P.S. This is pretty much a complete digression from discussing "mature themes" so if no one objects why don't we get back on topic. P.P.S. Also Sacred Path, what you're suggesting in your last post above isn't really atheism or skepticism its more like anti-theism, which is fine (see my comment about Hyperion) provided the gods aren't just going to up and smite/curse the poor bastard for mouthing off. No I'm not. If aliens come to earth now would you worship them because they had awesome powers? Is Lucifer an evil god or a devil? What's the difference? A man can exist in a world where there are beings that are considered 'gods' and still believe that there is no god if he does not believe those beings are gods, he may instead consider them very powerful spirits instead. The pharaoh of Egypt considered himself an incarnation of the god Horus, but even if that had been true would that have made him a god just because? Magic and the powers deities have in mythology are explicitly supernatural, defying natural laws etc. This is distinct from someone with strange (but natural) abilities or high technology like you're describing. You're essentially comparing things that don't actually exist (D&D magic/gods/planes etc) with things that could potentially exist and be scientifically explicable in the real world (aliens, advanced technology etc) P.S. Just disagreeing that the omnipotent beings other people called gods should be called that (or are worthy of worship) would not make one an atheist, doubting their existence would. The whole idea of a "god" is an abstraction invented by literature anyway. All I'm saying is that since in the universe in question "gods" however you define them, definitely exist, doubting their existence would be pretty stupid. Ah, so you're saying a wizard is a god then! The point that just because something has immense power and calls itself a god does not mean that it is a god. Saying that it is a god because the setting says it's a god is misses the opportunity to explore the definition of godhood. Our own world had very different standards of godhood between cultures from the greek family of gods to the all-powerful Abrahamic god, and they would often argue over whose were the actual god(s) and whose were demons, who says PE does not have the same? You're missing the point. A god is whatever the setting defines it as. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe that "gods" exist at all. if "gods" obviously exist, however the setting defines them, then it doesn't make much sense to be an atheist. Quibbling over whether something that you agree exists is a "god" or a "demon" or deserves to be called such, isn't atheism, neither is debating the definition of "godhood" All I'm saying is that the idea of a character who doubts the existence of god/gods in a universe where there is obvious physical proof of their existence is stupid. Its one thing if he doubts their motives or that they are what they say they are, thats fine, but don't have him pontificating about how "thats just a myth" with zeus or whoever standing right behind him. Actually, you're the one whose been missing the point. PE has stated that there are beings considered to be gods by the it's inhabitants, that does not mean that they are gods or that everyone accepts them as such. Refusing to believe that something is divine while accepting that it exists is athiesm if they believe that there isn't a god just powerful beings. A cult leader is considered a god by some, yet others don't deny his existence even as they refuse to believe in his divinity. As to the last line, I don't know why the **** you brought that up since no one's been arguing for there to be people refusing to believe in the existence of those beings even as they manifest behind them, seems a case of false dichotomy to me.

You're nitpicking. The point is that it's an explicitly and obviously theistic universe so atheism or agnosticism wouldn't really be rational choices. Also IIRC there are one or two gods in Faerun that are pretty analogous the the gods of the major monotheistic religions here, omnipotent world creators and all that. P.S. This is pretty much a complete digression from discussing "mature themes" so if no one objects why don't we get back on topic. P.P.S. Also Sacred Path, what you're suggesting in your last post above isn't really atheism or skepticism its more like anti-theism, which is fine (see my comment about Hyperion) provided the gods aren't just going to up and smite/curse the poor bastard for mouthing off. No I'm not. If aliens come to earth now would you worship them because they had awesome powers? Is Lucifer an evil god or a devil? What's the difference? A man can exist in a world where there are beings that are considered 'gods' and still believe that there is no god if he does not believe those beings are gods, he may instead consider them very powerful spirits instead. The pharaoh of Egypt considered himself an incarnation of the god Horus, but even if that had been true would that have made him a god just because? Magic and the powers deities have in mythology are explicitly supernatural, defying natural laws etc. This is distinct from someone with strange (but natural) abilities or high technology like you're describing. You're essentially comparing things that don't actually exist (D&D magic/gods/planes etc) with things that could potentially exist and be scientifically explicable in the real world (aliens, advanced technology etc) P.S. Just disagreeing that the omnipotent beings other people called gods should be called that (or are worthy of worship) would not make one an atheist, doubting their existence would. The whole idea of a "god" is an abstraction invented by literature anyway. All I'm saying is that since in the universe in question "gods" however you define them, definitely exist, doubting their existence would be pretty stupid. Ah, so you're saying a wizard is a god then! The point that just because something has immense power and calls itself a god does not mean that it is a god. Saying that it is a god because the setting says it's a god is misses the opportunity to explore the definition of godhood. Our own world had very different standards of godhood between cultures from the greek family of gods to the all-powerful Abrahamic god, and they would often argue over whose were the actual god(s) and whose were demons, who says PE does not have the same?

OK, here's the question then, what do you propose as an alternative? If you are going to take it out sneak attacking as the primary option, what are you adding back in to make rogues more than a cut rate fighter? The ability to do dirty tricks, to shut down mages as they cast spells by distracting them, increased battlefield mobility allowing them to get around the battlefield in order to take out high priority targets (and not by dealing huge damage but by being able to actually get to them), CC abilities etc. The fighters should not be relegated to the role of 'tank', and if they are and there is aggro management like taunts then I will lose interest. Obsidian have already said that they want lightly armoured fighters to be viable, which means that they need to be something other than just a soak to damage. The rogues were described thusly in the Kickstarter: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/obsidian/project-eternity/posts/321413 So my view of the rogue is of one who can get into and out of situations, so they'll appear and lay into the mage just as he is casting a spell, disrupting it and poisoning the mage to boot, and then disappearing while ensuring the same thing doesn't happen to his party's mage. Hell, reading the above I actually wonder if Obsidian plan on the rogue being able to tank somewhat themselves, as it mentions taunting enemies to stop them attacking allies, though I hope it's not a simple aggro taunt.

You're nitpicking. The point is that it's an explicitly and obviously theistic universe so atheism or agnosticism wouldn't really be rational choices. Also IIRC there are one or two gods in Faerun that are pretty analogous the the gods of the major monotheistic religions here, omnipotent world creators and all that. P.S. This is pretty much a complete digression from discussing "mature themes" so if no one objects why don't we get back on topic. P.P.S. Also Sacred Path, what you're suggesting in your last post above isn't really atheism or skepticism its more like anti-theism, which is fine (see my comment about Hyperion) provided the gods aren't just going to up and smite/curse the poor bastard for mouthing off. No I'm not. If aliens come to earth now would you worship them because they had awesome powers? Is Lucifer an evil god or a devil? What's the difference? A man can exist in a world where there are beings that are considered 'gods' and still believe that there is no god if he does not believe those beings are gods, he may instead consider them very powerful spirits instead. The pharaoh of Egypt considered himself an incarnation of the god Horus, but even if that had been true would that have made him a god just because?

Exactly, if the greek gods existed and turned up suddenly today I doubt people worship them as gods, rather they would they consider them people with strange powers and huge egos, after all they are not even really immortal in the truest sense of the word (it is possible for them to die) and were clearly fallible. So why couldn't someone look at the gods in the PE universe and come to the conclusion that they are just really powerful spirits? That's my thinking anyway.

Now that you mention it...does PE have druids? Anyway, the Monk class despite its namesake is not synonymous with a cleric. Religion is not the main driving force in a monk's life, it's just some philosophy or discipline. I don't think the Monk class needs to be expanded, or at least not in that direction, because at that point you start encroaching on other territory I don't mean expand the monk's role, I mean expand the types of people who would be monks to those outside the stereotypical temple monks you normally see. I mentioned druids in order to try to explain that I was refering more to the kooky old man type of hermit (such as Herman Toothrot) rather than the druidic type. And having said that, who agrees that Herman Toothrot would make an awesome monk! :D Also, I wasn't sure on whether the druid had been added either, but I had read posts that seem to indicate that it was and having just checked the Kickstarter updates to make sure it appears that the druid is indeed in PE and was even added quite early on (it's mentioned as one of the first seven classes, so probably the first or second class added after the original five).

Agree with your views on the matter! Really? Who would be crazy enough to do that?! Exactly, if the explanation is that the monks are from some other place then I would expect their weapons to be used by those from that other place even if they are not monks (and therefore the weapons to be valid weapons for other classes too), while being hard to come by outside those places and for 'home-grown' monks to adapt their abilities to the clothes and weapons of the local area. I was thinking something similar: that the weapons they use are the manifestation of their wills or souls, as each monk could then have their 'weapon' manifest in different ways that is symbolic to them in some way (and allow for character customisation). So Forton's 'weapons' manifest as some sort of gauntlet or sheath around his hands, another as claws and yet another as an abstract geometric shape that changes dependent on his mood. I like it, though that's just my personal preference. I think the concept of monks needs to be expanded outside the usual shaolin monk to include others such as the crazed old hermit guy in the woods (and I'm not just talking about the old drunken Zen master here, but all hermit types across all cultures, such as the druidic type as well though obviously actual druids are already covered by their class).

How about what defines a god? Awesome powers? We have the capability to do things today that people a few centuries ago would consider godlike. We know there are 'gods' in the setting, but do they deserve such a title? Are they just really powerful individuals or do they possess some innate 'divine-ness' that warrants them to be treated like a god? In short, does having power warrant worship? What about if they created the world, does that warrant you worshipping them or are they still fallible beings? It has been said by the devs that the gods have withheld knowledge on certain things, are they afraid that mortals may become like them? So you would believe that they are gods because they said so and have awesome powers? Most of the Faerunian gods weren't even involved in the creation of the world, and seem rather petty...

Right, let me explain my position for what it's worth on the subject. I feel that the problem I have, and which many others I believe have, is that the monk as it's usually portrayed doesn't mesh well in most settings they are used in. Now before anyone starts accusing me of 'not wanting asian in the setting' or claiming that it's a fantasy setting and therefore anything goes (anything doesn't go but that's a topic for another time), the default fantasy is very western-influenced, with the societies portrayed in them based on western societies and ideals whether we like them or not, and more importantly for this discussion so are the weapons: real-life monks used their fists and 'special monk weapons' because the cultures they were in restricted the use of weapons, hence why many of the monk weapons are actually re-purposed peasant tools. And this is the actual problem, it's not that they use these weapons but that they use these weapons and other trappings without any consideration to how it fits with the world around them. People never seem to adapt the monk to the setting they are being used for, they are just dumped wholesale with their monk robes and sandals with no attempt to adapt them to the setting or to explain their role within that society. Why do monks dress like that when no one around them have remotely similar clothes? Why use those weapons when no one else seems to? Take Neverwinter Nights 2: the monks there follow Tyr, yet why would a follower of Tyr seek enlightenment by fighting with their fists and wearing robes, what has that got to do with Justice? And why would they restrict themselves to those weapons? Now before anyone says "But Obsidian will do them right!" we have no guarantee that they will: they are, after all, still only human and can still make mistakes, hell I'd argue that it was the ego-stroking of it's fans that encouraged Bioware to become what they are today, so I will wait to see what Obsidian come out with before I declare it okay. In the meantime I will express my distaste for how the standard monk is shoehorned into any setting regardless of where it fits. Now, having said this, I am not totally opposed to a sort of monk-like character being available, as long as it is properly adapted to the setting, and would point to one character that I feel embodies what I mean the best: Dak'kon, from Planescape Torment. This guy, while not using his fists, embodies the true essence of what it is to be a monk while being adapted perfectly to his setting: he seeks enlightenment by *knowing* oneself, and his weapon actually embodies this ideal perfectly, being an extension of his will. He doesn't preach like those self-absorbed zen master-wannabes who think reciting haikus make one wise (waxing yourself off is not a sign of enlightenment), instead he encourages you (well the Nameless One) to learn to know yourself and then learns from you later. He embodies the essence of 'Monkdom' while not clinging to the trappings that people seem desperate to shoehorn in. People anyone complains about 'changing the class' well guess what: the fighter class has already been altered drastically with the addition of soul powers, as have the rogues and the paladins, all of which have often been portrayed in very different ways in other game systems other than D&D, and so I see no reason why the monk should be special. It's like if a group of people got together to run a gritty game set in World War 1 except for one who demands to play a time travelling rabbit-monkey, and they insist on playing this character in every game they run.

One thing I would have thought would be great for Rangers was the idea that, instead of a 'Favoured Enemy' they got bonuses against, the instead got the ability to study enemies. Like the Witcher, they could slowly learn the weak spots of an enemy the more they fought them and the more they studied them in books and in the wild and such like.

Edair looks older as well, but he actually looks older in a 'competent, world weary' way to me. I like having older characters in games, especially as I get older myself, just not ones that look like Forton...

Love it! Gotta say, it looks a lot better on my monitor than it does squeezed down on my phone! :D Still looked good either way!

If the game is trying to sell itself as mature it usually has at least one, usually two of them chucked in: Dragon Age Origins had sex, rape and racism all thrown in. The Witcher 2 also had sex, rape and racism. The Witcher had sex and racism in there, possibly rape but I cannot recall any point it may have done so. God of War trilogy had sex in it. Lollipop Chainsaw, well I doubt I have to explain that one. The new Tomb Raider has rape as 'character development'. Alpha Protocol has sex and rape in it (yes there is a potential rape sequence in there). Overlord 2 has sex in them. Mass Effect trilogy has sex and racism in them. Fahrenheit (Indigo Prophecy to you yanks) has sex in it. Skyrim deals with sex and racism (yes, even with it's barebones writing there is racism in there, such as that dealt with by the Khajiit). Arcanum has racism. So in short, sex is put in a shedload of games, most of which do not portray it maturely and use it as a marketing gimmick, and that rape is, surprising even to me, in a lot of games and usually handled poorly in them. I never said anything about ignoring their existence, I said that they are usually put in as an attempt to look mature and gritty in a juvenile way, which they are. If they stem from the story naturally then fine, the mature way would be to deal with them realistically, but their inclusion does not equate maturity automatically as some seem to believe, and mature themes are neither restricted to them nor require them for all cases. In short, mature writing comes from how those things are handled, not by their automatic inclusion.

I'm going to disappoint myself again and fall for being incited into a response. I try to stop myself from doing so often but alas I am a man of passion it seems. I'm actually going to apologise here: I thought you were AlKim, the guy I was responding to originally, and so your post was read in a completely different light, which is why I felt you were ignoring my points I was making about his points. I still feel my whole post actually answers the points you raised, and I'm suspicious how you have cut my response there so that it looked like I was just upset at being cut down and not because I felt I was being taken out of context, but I guess that must be down to you not understanding why I got upset (since it must have looked weird), so again I apologise. Enjoy this moment while you can. What bothers me is when I'm trying to have a honest discussion with someone on a gaming forum and they resort to quoting out of context and ignoring the questions I raised in my post, trying to manipulate it to look like I am arguing for something I wasn't. I now realise that you weren't, so um just take it as a warning as to what I'll do if you or any of the lowlifes in this forum tries something like that: explode in rage and hulk-smash you all! I disagree that it is a defining feature, but my main argument before was against it being THE defining feature as the post I was arguing against was claiming that. For reference, here is the post I was responding to: I've bolded the important bits, I was arguing that sneak attack should not be used to define the class, and that it was actually a weakness to do so. I do not consider sneak attack to be a defining feature of a rogue at all. An attacker of opportunity, yes, but that should be because they have skills that enable them to get into that position, and not because they get to do burst dps. Then why not make it available to all classes if it's all about options? If any character is in the situation that they can attempt a sneak attack why shouldn't they be allowed it? If you are so insistent that it be a class skill then why limit it to rogues? Shouldn't all classes be allowed to learn it? Rename it Targeted Strike: Vitals and let it do increased damage at the cost of a hefty to-hit penalty that can be offset by bonuses such as flanking or surprise. As I mentioned in my original post, if Sneak Attack does not enable the rogue to be able to compete in damage dealing with a fighter then what's the point of it, and if it does let them compete then you either have overlap or the poor warrior gets relegated to meat shield again. Sometimes adding options to one class destroys options for another is what I am pretty much saying I guess. Whatever happens, I do not want Sneak Attack built into a rogue as standard: it then means to get the most out of the rogue you need to make use of sneak attacks, as they are balanced for it's use and are often useless in combat otherwise. Even when Sneak Attack is an option it's blatantly obvious the devs expect you to take it sooner or later for the class, or you are limited to dual-wielding sneak attacker and bowman (I'm looking at you DAO). Again, I see no reason why it should also be limited to rogues.

Numbered your quotes for responses: 1. You can make positioning and flanking useful for all characters without taking away sneak attack. I believe D&D did this in at least one of their versions by applying penalties to the one being flanked, as well as bonuses to those attacking. This was in ADDITION to the fact that most characters don't get their dex bonus while being flanked. So, in essence, positioning is already useful against challenging opponents for almost all classes. 2. Having an ability that doesn't work well against every single enemy doesn't mean that the ability shouldn't exist. I don't see people arguing to take turn undead away from paladins and clerics, even though it doesn't work on 80% of opponents. Paladins and clerics are FAR more useful in combat against undead than against beasts or other living foes. Rogue's sneak attack is far more useful against the living than the undead/constructs. All this means is that using positioning and sneak attack is a tactical decision, to be used in the circumstances that call for it. It's a tool in the toolbox. Just because you're using a thumb tack to hang up a picture THIS TIME, that doesn't mean you throw away the hammer. You didn't just numbered my quotes, you ignored the vast majority of my post, deleting the vast majority of it in your quote, and focused on two points. Considering the fact that the rest of my post dealt with the points you use in your response I am led to believe that either you didn't bother to read my post in full or knew that the rest of my post dealt with your points and so chose deliberately to ignore them, ignoring the whole point I was trying to make in doing so and attempting to make it look like I was arguing for something completely different. Considering the fact that I took the time to address each of your points in turn, something I now consider a waste of my time, only to get this as a response, well I can't be bothered to address your points any more. EDIT: Changed my mind, I will address one point and then I'm done: you are the one claiming that sneak attack is the one defining feature of Rogues! You are the one claiming that there is no reason to take a rogue if they have no sneak attack! No one has argued for or against taking turn undead from clerics or paladins, because they are not the defining feature of those classes and in fact there has been no sign that those features are in the game! Considering how the Turn Undead abilities are not only not those classes' sole defining feature in combat, but most people seem to consider them rather useless anyway unless you take something like Divine Might feats to increase their use! I am arguing for giving the rogue something more than just burst dps, especially considering the situational requirements, and your own posting has actually proven that Sneak Attack is often a useless feature! Oh, and this game isn't D&D.

Deconstruction and reconstruction of typical fantasy stuff. As in, taking certain aspects of fantasy and then applying them to a more realistic setting and seeing how they would impact such a world. What effect would magic have on a real world economy? It could fuel or stump progression, depending on how widespread and easy it is compared to normal technology. What about the adventurers' impact on actual settlements? And the existence of monsters? How about how the gods being provable and actually giving aide to their worshippers would impact theology and how mortals view the divine? Those are the kind of things I'd like to see. Rape? Rascism? Sex? Usually put in as a juvenile attempt at appearing mature and gritty.

No to multiclassing. First, it's a new system they are making, let's just focus on getting the classes working right by themselves first for the first game! Second, with mages being able to wield swords and armour anyway, and with the differences between the classes being how they manipulate the power of their souls differently, I'm not sure if it's needed or will fit. Plus multi-classing tends to lead to cludgy weird **** and ceases to make the classes truly unique any more. Seems like it would be better for classes at most to be able to add certain features of other classes like taking weapon proficiencies within their own class, but maybe with a unique spin on it for that class due to the differences in the sources of their power.