FlintlockJazz

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.

And here are my thoughts on your thoughts! First being: this isn't D&D 3.5 and therefore your experience in that system or others may not be relevant or can be changed. The devs have already stated that non-combat skills will be developed separately from combat skills for each character: each class will develop fighting skills and non-fighting skills separately from each other, so you can't make an all combat or all-talkie character, each class will be equal points combat and non-combat with all others. Therefore, this is irrelevant as all characters will be equal 'skill beasts'. No, the D&D rogue has limited weapon selection, there has been no mention of the same rules being applied here. On the contrary, since mages are now able to wear armour I think it's safe to assume that the rogue weapon selection will be different, if limited at all. Then again, I never needed Sneak Attack for most of my rogues to feel useful, so... Should rogue's combat role be in competition for dishing out or taking damage? This is what the discussion has been about, and so your claim that the rogue can't compete in those roles anyway even with sneak attack raises the question "What's the point of sneak attack anyway?" Those arguing against sneak attacks are those who are trying to define a better role in combat for rogues, as the disrupter to combat. If you don't understand why we believe removing sneak attack from rogues makes sense then you have not read the many posts on the matter, even if you don't agree with them you should understand why people believe that just as I understand but don't agree with those supporting backstab. We want positioning to be important for all characters not just the one 'speshul' class. The last sentence is just not worth bothering with, and is an attempt at strawmanning. At which point the rogue then has no combat utility whatsoever, resulting in the NWN2 situation that rogues were often useless. If sneak attack is their 'combat role' then you are again putting the rogue in the situation of having nothing worthwhile to contribute to combat. Hell, this point is one against sneak attack and not for as you had intended! No one has said to replace it with nothing, the whole discussion is about what roles the rogue could conceivable fulfill. Your example of how the sneak attack rogue can be rendered useless is a prime example of how the sneak attack ability is worthless for giving the rogue a consistent role in combat, and that it should instead focus on something else.

No cheap melodrama please, we're British.

I don't friggin care about 300, what I talk about is the early hellenic era, or later about the poor/peasant warriors which were the majority of armies then, even in the early period of hoplite warfare shield and weapon was way more important than actual armor, and this came a bit back with the phalanx formation where the spear and shield often meant more than what you would wear on body (although by that time there always was some kind of armor used) Also, I didn't speak of the early hellenic era alone, there are for centuries/thousands of years places in America, Asia, Africa where metal armor never really got a foothold, especially in Asia and America. As "SophosTheWise" pointed out, while classic medieval can be fun, I also prefer a mix of many cultures and traditions, even more true uniqueness in my RPG-s, which got somewhat borng by most of the time building on the very same core concepts in regards of armament. Bring me vikings, aztecs and incas, camel riders or mongols, samurais and ninjas, martial artists! Throw into the pot new unique cultures and magic for the setting (not to mention non-human races), and you see what multitude and diverse weaponry and armor list you can get from it. Ironically its wanting to incorporate everything that makes settings bland. DnD basically rips from anything and everything, and everyone else rips from DnD. More =/= better, on the contrary it tends to lead to a homogenous bore imho.

+1000000000 Likes to the Inigo pics! He is the epitome of mustachio awesome! I do think people need to distinguish more between beards and mustaches more: a beard is as different to mustaches as it is to theclean shaven. A mustache implies manliness and sophistication, a man who knows how to groom himself. A beard is only considered cool by teenagers, who lack the subtlety and grace to comprehend the superiority of the 'tache. I didn't particularly care for Forton originally but your work has made him into the most awesome one of the lot! Seriously, the hat monocle and mo suit him..

Its generally decent here, there are the occasional ruckus between egos and there were some who seem intent on being bastards but those latter ones don't seem to stay long. I am a bit concerned at the use of some language that is derogatory to certain forms of roleplaying due to misconceptions (for instance the misuse of LARP for derogatory activities) especially considering that RPGs as a whole is a hobby often looked down upon by others that we really don't need to turn on each other...

The manliness of this thread has reached epic proportions with all the moustache loving pictures. You know, if James Bond grows a moustache then every damn hero needs one! As to the size issue that's easy: as Hormalakh has said you could just increase the size of the head, or as I like to call the Moustache Holder. Hell, forget the head, just have massive mos on all of them!

Is it wrong to admit that Sagani suits the Mo so much? That is some awesome mohancements you made there! :D

This thread is being filled with pure awesome, or rather Mosome! I hope the devs are taking note, they need Tom Selleck to give this game that final push to mosome!

There must be a church in the game that reacts to such heretic statements with ultra violence The violence of the Disgruntled Mo!

So are you saying that all old people are high level then? Classes and levels are arbitrary and unrealistic, do you get level 20 bakers? Most PCs seem to reach epic level before reaching 25 years of age. So saying that being old and level 1 is unrealistic isn't really a problem as its just a game mechanic. Its simple enough to assume the character has had no reason to go adventuring before.

Picard is a prime example of how pure awesome can still be made even more awesome with the addition of a fine mo!

Yes see how both those pictures are made more awesome and manly with the addition of a fine mo! I would post more up if I wasn't stuck writing this on a phone! As to the mention of beards... we are talking elegant moustaches here! A savage chin growth? Inconceivable!

All this argumentation about silly things like boning your companions, vancian vs mana etc has overlooked the one essential factor that will make or break this game: moustaches! We all know moustaches make things manly, and so I propose we make Obsidian put moustaches on everything: men, women, children, dogs, cats, donkeys, even trees! All resources should be directed to this effort! Whose with me?

*Suddenly stormtroopers burst in, subduing everyone in the room and handing out random beatings. Then they stand to attention as the White Rabbit enters the room, paws clasped behind his back as he inspects each poster's thoughts on the situation of rogues, weighing up their worth* "backstab" has been changed, to sneak attack, in the DnD world a long time ago. Sneak attack is an important part of being a rogue and a lot of their skills are geared around it. Eliminating this skill just because you want to see a fighter do higher damage in a fight all the time would be silly. This game and past crpg's are based around combat which really restricts a LOT of skills a rogue and the player can effectively use. Thus making combat skills a higher priority for a rogue to have to ensure that they server a purpose in a party. In a perfect world/game a rogue could scale the walls and throw his voice to confuse his enemies so that he could sneak by. Always avoiding combat unless he has the clear advantage on his target. No, I don't want to eliminate the skill because I want a fighter to do more damage. I want to re-do the class so it makes more sense and gets more character and depth. By your own admission in a perfect game a rogue would play differenlty. So why not try and make hte rogue play better? It's not impossible. The D&D system isn't perfect and beyond improvements. Clearly some progress can be made. Again - it all boils down to game/encounter/level design. You CAN make it balanced for a rogue. Also, a lot of people - you included - seem to have a very narrow definition of what makes a class usefull. You're thinking strictly in the lines of battlefield lethality (DPS) and complety ignore battlefield utility. What a rouge should be able to do outside of battle: - scout areas - set traps - use varioues devices, pick locks, etc... - sneak (but not in broad daylight. Sneaking is often done rather poorly. I'm all for having to keep to darker corners and taking the longer way around. Also possibly dousing out light sources. Visibility AND sound matter.) - get around various ostables (climb walls, jump over chasms, walk on ledges, etc..) - sneak up on a unsuspecting guard and preform a insta-kill (knife to the back of the skull) Inside of battle: - move around fast, flank and confuse opponents. they should NOT become magicly invisible and do sneak attacks then. Only normal flanking. Their speed and sliperyness is a great asset on a truly tactical battlefield in itself. Of course, such a system is not easy to pull off I like this one. It lines up with my own thoughts on the matter. Rogues should not be DPSers or magic stalkers, but with the supposed importance of formations they should have the ability of battlefield mobility: able to get past enemies on the battlefield in order to take out key targets, such as being able to acrobatically evade a shield wall of fighters to get at the delicious mages and healers behind. They should be able to lock down the key targets as well, blinding them or tripping them up. I actually think the Witch Hunters in WAR actually worked well as the general theme for a rogue: evasion of enemy front lines to take out the back lines. Invisibility or 'stealth' as some call it isn't actually necessary for this, just the ability to evade and high mobility. Because then he'd be a Fighter. Really, any heroic class could be considered special forces. They are all specialists who are called upon do go beyond what common soldiers would need to do. I'm not sure you intended it to be taken this way, but I quite like the idea of the whole party being considered as a special forces squad. There was a discussion on the GURPS forums as to what basic skills should every adventurer have, and it was pointed out that your typically adventuring party would realistically be built like a spec ops team and should all share skills like stealth as they invade the enemies' strongholds, but that your typical DnD style system undermines it: everyone accepts that every class should have a combat skill yet other skills such as stealth and climbing are not considered as essential skills when they should, instead considered niche skills for specific roles. Think of the original Conan the Barbarian film: all three characters (Conan, Conan's shag piece and archer guy with moustache) use stealth throughout most of the film. They stealthily enter the bad guy's tower, they stealthily enter his main temple (repeatedly), and yet they also fight like brutal warriors. I'd love to do a game like that, one where you actually felt like you were raiding the bad guys homes like a crack team of specialists and not just walking in with no concept for stealth like you do in most games. But I've digressed. *Suddenly a stormtrooper runs up to the White Rabbit* Stormtrooper: Sir, we have reports that people are claiming false things about plate armour again! Me: Do they never learn? Well, I think we were done here anyway. Everyone, remember to vote White Rabbit for a human-free tomorrow. Come Minions. *White Rabbit and Minions stride out*

*looks at poll options* Its a trap!

These helmets were mostly used to provide additional protection from the lance while charging into battle on horseback. I doubt very much that there will be the cavalry in P:E, so I gues there will be no much real usage for topfhelms. But still, it's not "stupidly" heavy. It's heavy, but it can save your head from becoming a kebab. I think he may be refering to the big horn things coming out the sided of the helmet but don't quote me on that...

Then I think all that there is to be said is that we have very different ideas about what makes for a strong storyline. I've had plenty of RPGs in which there is some cackling bad guy at the end, blatantly there to be opposed and nothing else. Just about any Bioware RPG you could name fits into this pattern, often with villains so ludicrously over-the-top in their evilness that I can never take them even half-way seriously. To me, it gets old. I'm not saying that every faction should be just as nasty as every other faction, nor that some factions shouldn't be much more on the light shade of grey even as others tend towards the black, but I like to be challenged in regards to what I believe is right...or, more appropriately, what my character believes is right. I like my moral dilemmas complex, as complex as the real world, because I've already played a ton of escapist RPGs during my life where any and every problem can be solved by hitting the evil people with swords, whereas I've played only a few that actually made me think things through before I made my choices. But that's not really thinking. Its more appeal to the emotions. No matter who he is, what archetype he falls under, you still aren't required to put much thought into, say, Sarevok beyond, 'Here is bad guy. Kill.' And yet how spotless does a faction need to be before you can call it the 'heroic' side? You obviously didn't like the options presented by the NCR, Mr. House, Caesar's Legion or even the Yes Man ending. The NCR and Yes Man endings, especially, struck me as having a lot more good stuff than bad stuff. Do they need to be completely white for you to care if they win? Ahh, but whatever. I suspect this is just a difference in taste which can't really be logically argued. You like clean and straight forward good vs. evil, I like grey and tough choices about who to support. Never the twain shall meet and all that. What you seem to want is DA2! No offense, but grey choices do not always equal thought provoking and clear cut sides can have thought provoking issues presented, its the writing that matter not the style or genre. Also grey does not need to have 'evil' in eberyone: TW2 had some clearly good intentioned characters in despite being grey.

I like 'em independent, makes it more satisfying for when I finally break them in, crushing their wills beneath my boot as I destroy everything they value. On a more serious note, I think there needs to be an option between the first two for me: I like to control them in combat (it's an IE type game, isometric for managing your party, of course you should be able to control them), but will take their own share of the loot (not like how it was done in ToEE with them always taking the loot straight away and the items before you get a chance, more they get a set amount of money and get to ask if they can have certain items, we'll then haggle).

As a side note, Conan of books (as opposed to conan of movies and comics) actually wore full body chain armor and considered those who didn't, to be morons. (and he was kind of half barbarian half rogue multiclass as well) Aye I was actually thinking of Conan and how different he is in the book as I wrote that! I really need to get to reading my way through those books one of these days...

I.....must have this hat. I needs this hat. Where do I get that hat? It's a selfmade-hat, albeit a very easy one. Get cardboard, cut a circle out of it, also a circle where your head should be. Use felt in as many colours as you want and put it around the cardboard. Buy a lot of feathers and there you go :D Sir, that is a most awesome hat sir. I weep that such headgear is not worn nowadays. Thank you! Yes, and therefore it MUST be in Project Eternity! Vote for Landsknechts and Reisläufer! You can count on my vote! Proper medieval and renaissance clothing would be actually refreshing!