FlintlockJazz

Stop right there, that is bull spread by Hollywood! No knight had to be lifted onto horseback and could run and move fine (it was the heat that was the problem, plate is actually quite light for armour). The only person who had to be lifted onto his horse was a french king who was lifted because he was too FAT! Please, before you lecture go and do some actual research first, most of what you learn from RPGs and films is actually complete bull (don't get me started on studded leather). Hey that's quite cool. So, please do get started on studded leather - sounds interesting!? NOOOO I CANNOT!!! The short version is that it never existed. There was brigandine, which was leather or felt with rivets visible on the outside that held metal plates on the inside in place, and faux brigandine that was fake brigandine worn for court (it was rather stylish armour). Studded leather would not work as armour, the blows would drive the studs into you and focus the force of the blow, the opposite of what you would want.

Actually I've been thinking about it and I think the biggest problem I have is the lore behind the class: fighting monks is pretty much a Asian thing and developed from the society at the time and its religious beliefs. I would rather see it adapted to the way the society its supposed to be from, so for instance instead of being developed by monks it could be developed by slaves much like capoeira was developed in the real world. This would probably mean that they would no longer be actual monks but then as chanters are pretty much bards with their singing I see nothing wrong with altering the fundamental features of a class like that.

Stop right there, that is bull spread by Hollywood! No knight had to be lifted onto horseback and could run and move fine (it was the heat that was the problem, plate is actually quite light for armour). The only person who had to be lifted onto his horse was a french king who was lifted because he was too FAT! Please, before you lecture go and do some actual research first, most of what you learn from RPGs and films is actually complete bull (don't get me started on studded leather).

I agree with pretty much this entire post, as cool as kung fu monks look in kung fu films they just seem out of place in this setting to me and would like to see european style monks for once (which ironically would be quite unusual for a standard fantasy setting). The new Chanters class in fact would fit European monks well I think, as real life monks collected and preserved many books and sang hymns.

And just like that they shatter all my theorycrafting. All for the best, I was pulling most of it out of my arse. :D

Right-o, off my phone and on my actual PC now. When I mentioned fighters requiring a feat to unlock the paladin stuff I was thinking it was something they either had to start with (and so it would be like starting as paladin anyway, a fallen paladin becomes a fighter after all, so it would be like a specialisation) or having to 'earn' it by behaving in a just and paladin-like way so that you could join a paladin order that would give you the feat, hence why I went on about different kinds of reputation later on. In my mind the paladin would have to continue acting in a paladin like way or else the order would strip his paladin status from him and refuse to train him any more. Does this sound good? Or rubbish? The need for more reputation meters would probably get confusing unfortunately and might be a bit much however, not too sure on it myself. I'm guessing it's the lack of alignment system that I reckon they might not be doing paladins, since you no longer have a meter there for the paladin to fail on. As to whether priests could be paladins: while priests in a lot of games are portrayed as scholarly squishes who just heal, the clerics in DnD were actually more combat focused and I believe inspired as templars rather than vicars with spells that buffed themselves up for combat and the like, and so I have always seen the line between paladin and cleric as a bit blurry: the paladins kinda usurped the cleric's role as a battle-caster with a more martial bent. In fact, I always saw the paladin as a mash up between two different classes: the zealous crusader priest and the chivalrous knight. Personally I wouldn't mind seeing them split up, getting a knight class or specialisation and a 'crusader' type whose a martial priest.

Just a thought: This jilting you feel you're getting might have something to do with the fact that with every single one of your posts here, you've approached this thread as if it was a "DA:O vs. IE" discussion. Even though it's not. At all. Did you even read the OP? Just a thought: maybe you should take your own advice? I completed DAO with two separate characters and started four others two of which got halfway through the game. Does that sound like someone who despised DAO to you? I think DAO was a decent game but as the 'spiritual successor' to Baldur's Gate I think it failed and that many of the features people are praising would not make PE achieve it either, not without being reworked at least, and yes I do believe DAO failed in certain regards and do not want to see the same thing happening here. If you are unwilling to accept disagreement, and instead of putting forward an argument you accuse others of having questionable motives, then I suggest you take a look at yourself because you are not going to incite me with ad hominem attacks like you seem to be trying. EDIT: For instance, I would love for someone to prove to me that they would work well in PE and improve the game. I went into DAO expecting them to be this great thing they had promised and was let down by the fact that they were pretty much nothing more than gimmicks, I would love to be proven wrong on whether they would work in PE, please do, just don't expect me to believe that they were great as is in DAO.

I disagree, BG1 is more enjoyable to me and in some ways better than BG2 as an RPG: it has better exploration for a start, allowing you to pretty much randomly explore areas and find interesting stuff and quests. For me it was a better mix of freeform and storytelling than the later games but lacked the detail and stronger plot for quests that BG2 had.

Interesting stuff, I'm on my phone atm so will hold off on writing a full response until I get home when I'll be able to write a clearer response but I agree Adhin being a paladin should be important and my history feat idea is actually intended to make it so I'll try to write a better explanation later.

So instead of debating the points posters are now resorting to accusations of rose coloured glasses and only wanting BG clones in order to try undermining others it seems. I never liked the Vancian system in the IE games but since I don't consider DAO awesome and prefer the IE games I guess that must mean I don't want it changed? And that all my points are invalid because the DAO fans say so? Well, thanks for letting me know, whar a relief!

Guess my ideas were so bad it killed the thread...

I agree with others who say that Paladins and barbarians are pretty much specialisations of fighter class, and also that sub-classes are not really needed. I'll repeat the example I gave in another thread in which they were asking for new classes like a Knight class: what is a knight but a fighter with social skills wearing plate? I'd say make paladin-like skill tree for fighters to specialise in instead. What could be interesting however is perhaps something like the history feats in NWN2 which could be used to distinguish whether your fighter is a high class noble paladin or blackguard for those who meet him, and maybe have the skill trees require the feat in order to unlock them (perhaps even making some mutually exclusive, so if you take the paladin feat you can't take the Blackguard feat for example). Not sure whether it would be good to require you to take it at character creation or let you gain them in play though, if you're meant to define your character with them then it could get silly for people to go around 'collecting' them, but on the other hand entering an order that unlocks a set of skills could be fun. Perhaps a mixture, so if you want barbarian you have to take it at character creation (to reflect that it's something you are born to) but you can gain paladin later? Another bad idea of mine is to make a change to the faction rep system used in games: instead of gaining rep with one single faction you have different reputation 'bars' for different kinds of actions, so if you are nice to people you gain 'nice guy' rep points and if you are just you gain 'chivalric' rep points, and the reactions of factions towards you are determined by what combination of different reputations they value instead of just one bar for them (so you could actually gain reputation for them without actually working for them if you behave in a way they approve). This could then determine whether you are a 'paladin' or a 'blackguard' by the way you act.

No, not at all for this type of game. Even big AAA budget games are screwed by VA as it vastly reduces the amount of dialogue and reactivity in the game. For linear games like a normal adventure game its fine and adds to it but for RPGs the drawbacks outweigh the benefits.

The other poster made a claim about character creation and I posted a response disagreeing with them, which last I checked I'm allowed to do. I am not arguing whether DAO was a good game or not but disagreeing with a statement and it flowed naturally from the conversation, if that upsets you because we are not staying on topic then I'm sorry but you are not a moderator and so it is not your right to complain about what we wish to discuss. However, if you really 'must' have a reason then consider this: my argument is that the Origins failed in helping to create their character because they had very little impact on the rest of the story and they actually suffered as a result of the main plot, therefore if PE has them then it needs to incorporate them as they were marketed as, by having an actual impact on the whole game or not to bother at all with them. All or nothing. Personally, I don't think Origin stories are a good idea, not only do they require an impact that may be difficult to do (though easier than in DAO since there's no voice acting) but they limit your character choices. Leaving it vague lets the player create the type of character he wishes, except for the background feats from Neverwinter Nights 2, as that let you define a response from those your character grew up with without limiting your options. Perhaps different starting points, but not full Origins that end just when they were getting good. I liked the Origin stories by the way, better than the main quest (which is why I hated Duncan so much, interfering in the fun), and had it been a collection of short campaigns revolving around these Origins instead (with you playing a different character in each) then I think it would have played better, and given a better chance at establishing the world by letting players see it from six different perspectives, but I guess this would probably be unpopular with most people.

Well, unless you were a dwarf Noble, then just about every single NPC in Orzammar, including the main plot givers, changed their dialogues to reflect the fact that this is a homecoming. Oh, and unless you were a Human Noble, in which case, the entire Storming of the Royal Palace changed to reflect the fact that you were getting revenge. Or unless you were a Circle mage, then all the dialogue with Irving, Uldred, Gregoir, Cullen, Wynne etc. drastically changed to refect that homecoming, as well. Nope, you can't, in the spirit of honest debate, short-change this. DA:O has a billion flaws, but this isn't one of them. Yes I can actually, don't try and claim that I am being dishonest because that is bollocks: I played a human noble and you do NOT get the game portraying it as revenge. You get the odd line and that's it, even Tim Curry's death doesn't have any changes whatsoever between you playing a human noble or anything else, he says the exact same thing and dies the exact same way. And I played a mage too and aside from some dialogue line changes it means absolutely nothing, again everything plays out the exact same way. You are free to argue differently, that the dialogue changes mean something to you and changed the experience of the game in a meaningful way for you, but don't try to claim that I am not arguing honestly as I am talking from my own experience with the game, and my experience was that the Origins were sold as something game changing that were not.

You have to be very very careful about where you get your source of information from when regarding medieval arms and armour. Many of the 'modern' suits of chain mail people use for testing is cheap rubbish made from Asia and other places, and having spoken to some experts they are not only completely rubbish when compared to authentic mail but is completely useless for testing purposes since it's not even made the same way. There's a lot of videos like that which really upset those I know who have actually dealt with the stuff, good quality mail from the period would not fail like that, that is cheap crap they are using in that video and you shouldn't take anything from it to be honest. They also show the sword as weighing 15lbs? I call bollocks on the reliability of that video to be bluntly honest.

We must have been in completely different forums then, since all the threads I've read had people against it and all the polls were too. People were arguing about whether or not to use Vancian or Mana-based magic in the threads I read about spells, not cooldowns, and since Mana-based systems have been used in RPGs for years (GURPS used it in 1980) it's not exactly modern. Maybe, I just don't really recall that many people saying anything other than they hope cooldowns are not in, anyone saying differently were few in number and jumped on immediately lol. Then again, maybe my memory is going in my old age...

I like putting things in comparison/perspective. The old school games didn't even HAVE different prologues dependent on the type of character you made. At the very very Most, you got some games that slightly altered their beginnings to reflect either your class or your alignment, but it was so suble as to have no relevance whatsoever to the rest of the game. For example: Temple of Elementa Evil's opening vignettes. So Lets compare DA:O's Origins, with TOEE's Origins. Oh wait. There is no comparison. TOEE's "vignettes", lasted approx 2 minutes and contained about 3 lines of content. DA:O's were actually background stories, with about a half hour's worth of content, combat, and introduction/ties to NPCs that influenced the rest of the game. DA:O completely hit it out of the park with that feature alone. And the moment Ostagar hits the Origins mean absolutely ****-all. They were entertaining and better than the main plotline, such a shame they had to end and the Warden crap had to barge in... Character creation, DAO has a very simple system, therefore the actual character creation and defining who your character was is very limited. Playing a human warrior? You get a choice of two-hander, dual wielding and shield skill trees and that's it...

This was driven home especially for me the first time I encountered whatshisface, twithead, Zevran that's it: the moment the woman came running up to me shouting for help the very first thing that crossed my mind was "IT'S A TRAP!" Hung back and watched her run off to the bunch of guys just stood there hanging around the caravan, obviously not in danger, then looked around and immediately saw a trap planted on the ground. Went to try and disarm it and the others before heading into the obvious trap and what happens? CUTSCENE!!!! Forced to watch as my character bimbles up to the assassins instead...

I'm not sure any faction was arguing in favour of cooldowns. In fact, most people were against it...

Rabbit says no.

I want it to be as medieval as it needs to in order to have more people wearing padded armour rather than the leather armour people think was worn in medieval Europe but really wasn't (and to show that padded armour was actually generally better than leather despite the misconception otherwise). Plus, padded gambesons look cool! Plus, don't kettle hats look awesome?

I like it, but I hope it isn't tied to a stat that favors any specific class. I hate when intelligence is a dialogue stat and a mage stat. I get it, mages are smart. But it annoys me that mages don't have to sacrifice a combat stat for conversation options while every other class does. I hope it is tied to a stat that favours classes, but that's because I hope all the stats influence conversation choices, which is why I want to avoid the stat inflation of games like DAO. So the mage gets Int that ties into his class and for the smart dialogue options? That's fine, because your burly warrior might not get those but he will get the Strength-related dialogue choices, and the priest will get the wisdom ones etc. Charisma as a straight stat I'm not so sure on, I mean what is charisma? The ability to get friendly with someone? Surely a wise character would be able to work out what to say to appease someone too? I mean, isn't charisma more of a combination of other stats and qualities in a way? I'd prefer charisma to either be a leadership stat that influences the other stats to some degree in dialogue, providing a bonus where it applies to the another stat that is used, or a skill you can develop called Charm along with others like Manipulation.

I'm hoping that if they have a candlekeep it's because it's necessary: that there are so much you can do in combat (such as grappling and the importance of formations to actually win) that you need to go through the tutorial and they need to ensure that you go through it and don't make the mistake of thinking you can work it out for yourself because the combat is so subtly complex that you may not even realise you're losing because you are not using all your options. Not complicated for the sake of being complicated, but having options we just never even thought of before let alone had. Sort've like how Witcher 2 needed to add the tutorial because players were just so used to being able to dive in they were finding it difficult to get started and use all the options they had despite the actual combat being rather straightforward.

I do like dragons, but they are overused in that regard. Still hope there are dragons, but that's because I'm one of those people who love dragons a bit too much, in that when I see one the first thing that crosses my mind isn't "Lets kills it!" but "I want to jump on it's back and ride it!" Obviously, I'm not keen on dragons being the bad guys you have to slaughter wholesale, but rather ride through the air or give big hugs to... I'm weird I know. Random thought: I'd find it hilarious to have a dragon get horrified at the sight of a PC wearing dragon scale and shout out "You're wearing Bob you bastard!!!!" or to be wearing human skin armour and call you a hypocrite when you complain (seriously think about it, if wearing human skin armour gave great bonuses would you find it acceptable to wear it? If Dragons are a sapient race is wearing their skin not horrific as well?).