FlintlockJazz

then don't use this option. But whether they use the option or not, the option being there influences the design since the devs will not put in any description that can wind up not being true due to this mechanic, resulting in your desires affecting his game. Just putting it out.

I don't want to use a New Game+ but I wouldn't mind others having and using it as long as it doesn't affect my own subsequent playthroughs on new characters. DAO did impact my subsequent playthroughs by having the prestige classes (forget what they were actually called) that you unlock in one playthrough become unlocked in all of them, so if you got Templar on one playthrough you'd start with the option for it on a new playthrough. I do NOT want this, as I like to keep what my characters do separate. I know someone will say that I don't have to take something just because it's unlocked, but then it means keeping track of which character actually unlocked what and makes the whole thing feel 'videogamey' (plus I'm certain they set the specialisation points based on it being unlocked on other playthroughs too).

It was a fun game, and although I'd agree it would have been improved with more areas to explore, in my view it would have been improved even more with a greater number of side quests. It certainly never felt like there were too many quests in the game. I love games with hundreds of quests, the more the better, even if they take place in some of the same areas. Aye as I have seen others on these forums say I found the sheer number and quality of side quests in chapter 2 of Baldur's Gate 2 to be one of the best things about it that I spent as much time doing that than actual main plot (though I personally usually waited until you get back from the Underdark to do them to avoid Imoen who I always feel obligated to bring along doesn't fall to far behind). DAO's side quests, what there were of them, consisted of "While you're doing the main quest, could you pick up this item that you'll find yourself falling over anyway for me? Thanks!" You didn't get areas like Trademeet that were entirely side quest only and yet were still incredibly detailed and had amazing characters and events, though DAO did help me realise just what it was I liked about the Baldur's Gate games in that respect. The detailed side quests and their storylines as opposed to the main plot like I used to think .

Yeah I'm with you, would be nice to have people acknowledge and even have some things locked out (and other things unlocked) due to race.

Nice! Look forward to all that! And it sounds they have some very firm ideas on the races (enough to know it's too hard to go into yet) which is good to know.

Thanks! What was your old avatar? A Max one too?

What the hell did I do??!

I'm not going to express a preference for an artist or demand that they hire so-and-so. I will say that I agree with what others have said, the female armour in the OP looks great except for the boobplates. Nay to boobplates, yay for awesome armour.

Dunno but still a little bit of courage and creativity works wonders. My favorite game when it comes to companions (and overall) is PS:T, not just because they have a unique background but also their looks and behaviours are magnificiently well drawn and unique. Oh of course, I'm just saying that people shouldn't just dismiss the usual races out of hand or demand that they be subverted to make them unique. At the end of the day it's the characters we get to meet and how well defined they are that makes or breaks the game in my mind, and how memorable they are indeed!

Aye, sadly not done enough but I do like it when you get to turn on the quest giver instead and gain the opposing quest by rejecting one instead of going along with it like you're 'supposed' to. Every play Divinity 2? There were a couple of quests that worked like that, the one that springs to mind is when a pig farmer asks you to 'save' his pigs from the guards who have taken it to feed a starving town elsewhere, by rejecting the quest you could then tell the guard captain and get an even bigger reward than if you had gone along with the quest and for less effort too!

I feel the same way about classes as I do about races: while some new ones might be good deliberately trying to get away from the traditional classes is often detrimental and self-defeating. Quite often you still end up with the same classes just with different names (warriors being called Doommolesters and mages called Wangmerchants) or very constrained classes that are not actually fun to play. Instead you should just look at the setting and create classes based on what fits, if that means warrior and mage classes then so be it. There is a reason why those classes are used so much: they are quite wide in just what can fit into them while still fitting to their role. I mean, take one of the 'new' classes being proposed here, the knight: it's nothing more than a warrior with some social skills wearing plate! A lot of the suggestions being presented here are, to be blunt, specialisations in my mind more than actual standalone classes. Really, the only way you're going to get away from the archetypes is if the setting changes how they work at a fundamental level, which can be done: Earth Dawn was a tabletop game in which all classes, whether they were a mage type or rogue or a swordmaster, utilised magic in some degree due to the way the world worked, and then you still had the same type of classes just with special powers. Just the random ramblings of a crazed rabbit, nothing more.

Right, here are my thoughts on the matter. Long post so you might want to go make yourself a cup of tea and come back after I'm finished talking, I know I wouldn't listen to me. First off, as much as people are tired of the 'same old' races, most attempts to either subvert them or create new ones usually end up worse in my opinion. They end up defined by that one subversion, or the new race is clearly just elves in a furry suit. Rather, I'd say go back to first basics and work from there: what is an elf? Well, they tend to live in woods, have good hearing, dextrous, have often been associated with the moon right? In that case maybe they should be nocturnal, with cat-like eyes for low light vision? Since they are often associated with the moon maybe they can be influenced it, like a full moon makes them more energetic and a no-moon makes them lazy (racial time of the month)? Since they're built for speed and good hunters, maybe they are descended from carnivorous predators, and have a very predatory and unnerving perspective and love the taste of fresh red meat? Already they're starting to be more unique while still being thematically the same. Now consider the problem that the dwarves, halflings and gnomes have: they are essentially the klingons of the fantasy world, which means that they have been typecast into a very specific role and personality type as a whole race (hence why they are klingons, as klingons as a race are essentially 'boastful warriors' and little else). Less people play them as a result since they really only fit as one specific type of character, such as the dwarvern fighter or gnome illusionist, unless the player is playing a subversion, which is fun the first time but gets just as boring as the standard combination after that. Even elves have more variation in their standard personality types than each of these races do. I would solve this problem, along with the additional problem of having too many races, by merging all three into one race so that they are all different personality types of the same race, which I would call gnomes since it sounds fantasy and like an actual race as opposed to dwarves and halflings which sounds more like a descriptor (I know dwarves used to be taller in real world lore, but these days its synominous with short). The typical dwarvern personality would fit for the working class members of the race, gnome personality for the more scholarly members and so forth, and then encourage players to mix and match to create characters like the 'working class tinkerer' who yells and swears like a dwarf and is obsessive like a gnome, or the 'posh, beer swigging knight' who is always polite despite being sloshed all the time. To be blunt, creating 'new' races often doesn't work out as great as people think, especially since usually they are still derived from typical fantasy anyway. These are my random thoughts anyway, take it how you all want.

I'm with Monkcrab, it should track what you say to each character and how you actually act and then have the characters call you out on your BS when you don't act as you say or when you say one thing to one person and the opposite to another.

I voted demonic but only because it was the closest to planar beings and planetouched I could get.

Welcome to the new members! May you be Obsidiany in your Orderyness!

Love it! Immediately gain 100000000000000 internet cred and cookies from this rabbit. Don't spend it all in one forum!

Fellow humans. No pure evil races just individual bad people. Or monster races that are just completely alien in their mindset that you can't reason with them, like cthulhu monsters.

Could you write a wiki about that? Think I might want to get in on that action. I'd like to second that...

If there's going to be romance let me state my ground rules: 1. No Mills and Boon romances. I'm fed up with the teeny lovey romances that has you fawning over each other like little kids before bumping uglies. 2. Just because I don't want want to bang someone doesn't mean I don't want to get to know them. Being told to **** off by Jack because I didn't want to solve all her problems with my **** was damn irritating. 3. Make characters have preferences so they don't go for anyone: gay characters should not be attracted to people of the opposite gender and that tart over there who only likes burly men should not get it on with my mage character. 4. Don't make me fawn all over a character and agree with their opinions to get them into bed. And don't make shagging them the 'point' and goal of it all. Essentially this is how I see it going down: PC: Hey baby we're both mages and you're hot lets get it on! Female Mage: Sorry but I only go for real men, those with muscles and big swords and who will smack me around because they love me! PC: What? But I said everything right and am the PC! Orc Warrior: Me like delicate mage types! PC: *being carried off by orc* Please be gentle...

Dislike the OP's prefered pic immensely, sorry. I also see no reason to hate on the awesomeness of the gandalf hat, done right they are awesome! According to the aforementioned interviews I expect to see mages wearing some plate and chain (perhaps hidden under their robes) which would be awesome since I never got the whole 'mages cant wear armour!' thing. "Dresses" though isn't that bad a thing since men historically wore skirts and the like all the time.

31 coming up to 32. When did I get old enough to fall into the oldest age bracket in online forum polls...? Typing this on my phone, so won't go into detail on my RPG preferences yet.

Aye, the sword was a great all round weapon that could be used in most situations which was why it was carried as the perfect sidearm and backup, but I think that on the battlefield the knights' primary weapon was the lance? Though with a good charge on horseback it doesn't really matter to that footsoldier whether you hit him with a lance or sword. :D

Yes, I think you have a good point here. Sure, it can be argued that the 'real' villain was Sovereign but the way it was done made Saren completely neutered not only as a threat but as a person. You want them to have flaws but not to the extent that they not only cease to be a credible threat but actually become comical.

I want a villain that has shades of grey (though not 50, sorry had to be done), but not a 'magnificent bastard' type that ends up with even the devs who made him falling in love with him and turning him into a mouthpiece for how awesome his plan was and how he is so cool which is something I've seen done a few too many times, especially when the villain's plan wasn't really as clever as the writers think. I think the best villains are the ones that draw a reaction, make you want to chase them whether it be for revenge or just to find out what the hell they're up to, though to be honest, I'm not sure if a 'villain' is what is needed, I mean [spoiler alert for those who may not have played it, crazy though they may be] Planescape Torment pretty much doesn't really have a villain, as the 'bad guy' is essentially yourself and the goal is to find out what is going on. I also like it when there's more than one villain, operating at cross-purposes to one another. Truly alien-minds like the suggestion of the alien from Aliens also work when done right for me. It's why I like Ravel but not Flemeth/Morrigan despite their similarities as 'ancient powers' in their world: Ravel is truly alien while also not actually omniscient and doesn't claim to have the right philosophy on life (because she was too busy taking your intestines out), instead just doing what the hell she wanted, whereas F/M just came across as slightly kooky arrogant humans who had access to the writers' plotline and who dictated their life-philosophies to you, but I digress. And I suppose that would be make for one of the scariest villains: someone who does what they do 'because they can'.

You wouldn't use a sword against plate or brigandine anyway, regardless of type, more a sidearm weapon really. Rapiers were slightly later than that as well, 16th century as opposed to 15th century which is what I think late middle ages are but don't quote me on that, I'm definitely no expert. Longsword would probably fit better there for the late middle ages. I don't wanna be immodest, but I'm pretty competent in this matter. I studied medieval warfare and I also had one or two sessions of historical fencing. Rapiers are definitely late middle-ages weapons. Maybe I'm missing the english word for "stocchi" (sing. stocco), but I guess I'm correct calling them rapiers. Anyway, linguistic diversions apart, "stocchi" and bastard swords were used against plate armor in a very specific way, a technique called "mezzalama" (half-blade). The technique consist in putting one hand on the hilt and the other hand on the lover part of the blade (that usually isn't sharp), using the sword like a lance and trying to hit the weak spots of the armor (not covered by plates). I've heard of half-blading, didn't know it was used for that but makes sense, thanks. From my understanding, most people used swords as backup weapons on the battlefield for when they lost their primary weapons, except for specialised weapons such as the Landsknecht two-handers which were used against pikes I believe, so I'm guessing that if they are being 'authentic' then the guy in the pic may be geared up for fighting more lightly armoured people than you would find on a historical battlefield. I'm pretty certain rapiers were not around until the 16th century, though there may have been an intermediate weapon before then and the 'stocchi' name you use sounds familiar, so yeah we're probably discussing different weapons there.