FlintlockJazz

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!

I'm going to say no. As much as I like to see the muscles on my fighter grow and my wizards grow more wizened it is implemented too much like a case of ego stroking these days that I'd rather they didn't bother.

No.

That's a safe bet I think. Example from history - it is believed (someone may correct me if that's not the case) that Germanic mercenary cavalrymen would wear Roman masked helmets into combat, despite them being intended for sports/ritual use. They're super creepy, so I kinda get it. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/63/Roman_cavalry_reenactment_Carnuntum_2008_12.jpg Thats so cool! :D And I really get the creepy look, seeing that serene expression on someones face as they come riding at me... I do think that armour looking different on different classes would be a cool way to go. Or to tske the 'culture' armour idea people have given instead of it being 'super' hides or something they are instead still plate but adapted to a 'barbaric' style and use, perhaps emphasizing different attributes?

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.

I agree. My answer to the question quoted below is that it'd make perfect sense if said barbarian/ranger was forced to forgo using obsolete armour if circumstance demanded it. That'd make the world more believable. Exactly and it shows a sense of progression culturally as well as level wise: Thug the Barbarian, after adventuring in the Civilised lands has adapted and learnt the techniques used there rather than remaining static and unchanging. If my western character travelled to the east I would expect him to adapt to the culture there, much like how the crusaders changed their style f dress while in the Holy Land. Differing outfits help to differentiate characters though for aesthetic purposes, and as far as realism is concerned all of your party is not necessarily going to want to wear plate mail all the time. Hide armor may protect less, but I assume it would also be lighter, quieter, and more agile, easier to get in and out of, as well as less stifling depending on the climate, and less expensive for the poorer members of your party. If you are talking about real life hide armour then your assumptions would be wrong on most of those counts. As for aesthetics: that can be done without forcing people to use specific armour to 'portray' their character. A barbarian who refuses to learn and use plate armour isn't being barbaric, he's being a moron. A real barbarian would put that plate on then decorate it with the tribal wards and markings of his homeland, showing that he is not a static stereotype but an actual person capable of growing and learning, adapting what he has learnt on his travels to his own culture.