Nonek

I think it would be interesting to implement however in a game, to play someone like Trias the Betrayer, struck down from heaven and once more mortal or something similar. Saint Waidwen and the other gods of Eternity seem very interesting, and perhaps a powerful and charismatic character, one judged as a hero by all and sundry, could be chosen as a gods mouthpiece. Edit: Raises interesting ideas, of the deity recalling the world it once lived in (if it did,) the changes that have occured, and how it sees things now. How would one use its power and when would one be allowed to, as the god is surely the master in that situation. Would a lot of freedom be taken away from the player, or would the god no longer care so long as its influence and church did not wane? Would the presence of the god in the avatars body be almost another npc in the game? Many as One springs to mind unsurprisingly.

Personally i'd make either the poison or the weirdwood bolt in the above example clues, and also for a smart player a chance to devise a counter or antidote. Like Silverthorn in the old Feist book of the same name. The first link in a chain leading to the antagonist, and a chance to become used to his modes of operation. Level twenty footmen is I agree a very silly thing, rather let us have one feared and extremely potent assassin, whose trap is an entire adventure in itself, who is waiting for you to hunt him down by following the clues he's laid. Demigods i'm not so sure of, one would imagine the gathering of worshippers, establishment of a cult/church and the ascent to godhood as well as the shedding of flesh, is a convoluted and time consuming process. Though i'm sure Obsidian would be able to pull off some form of Faustian pact, leaching power from some slumbering and titanic Lovecraftian outer god, or perhaps even becoming an avatar for a deity like Saint Waidwen before his fall at Godhammer.

Personally I like there to be counters available for a well prepared antagonist, the archmage striding along secure in his many spells of protection is suddenly struck by a crossbow bolt, crafted of rare weirdwood that kills magic and nearly kills him. The noble lord, master of the land and great hero is scratched on the hand while accepting obeisance, and begins to sicken and die of an exotic poison. Emphasise that for all our power and preparation we are all mortal, and a crafty opponent can affect us just as much as we can affect him, power and life are both fleeting. Eventually it becomes a chess game, move and counter move, where each misstep and success breeds consequences that one must live with or die from.

Buy any game on GOG over the next week and you'll recieve the first Witcher game for free. Sorry Drudanae.

I don't really have a problem with Rogues and Rangers being the superior fighters, but I always saw them as invaluable because of their usefulness. They were respectively kings of their enviroment, Ranger obviously in the wilderness and Rogue in the city. With their animal companions, mage and druid spells and various abilities Rangers were a tremendously useful class, that were virtually obligatory when one ventured beyond the bounds of the city. Content and optional paths almost wrote themselves when a Ranger was present, and in combat he could hold his own, especially with the extra d8 at first level. Don't really see a need to also make him inflict massive damage, in fact I didn't know that he did, I wonder why he does so now? Rogues, well there were a million uses, paths and schemes that a cunning rogue could make use of. For one his quick level progression usually kept him a level or two beyond everybody else, two his skills and role as a scout usually meant that he was hoovering up the majority of experience in any given scenario, three his skills could open up alternate pathways and reveal hidden information that was enormously useful. I could go on but in short the Thief usually served as the most active and involved member of the party, especially when one hit the city, where his skills would dominate all others players and really dictate the gameplay. I saw no need to make them any more effective in combat, they were allready the masters of their enviroment, especially with the acrobat skills that Unearthed Arcana introduced.

Oh to be a young man without the responsibilities of kith and kin again.

Good Lord, could they get Not Garret's voice to be any more dull and generic? Almost fell asleep listening to that emo with the corset drone on.

I'll justify my suggestions somewhat, in the name of clarity. Both Fighter and Warrior to me speak of the most skill with weapons, armour and fighting techniques obviously. They conjure up the class whose main job is the killing of opponents, champions and such whose skill is unmatched and who know the most about weak points and fighting styles. Warwise if you will. However the aim of Eternity's Fighters seems to be to that of a classical tank, to be hit, to soak up damage and draw (if not pin down, which is a great addition) enemy attention, their skill would seem to be more in holding the line than doing damage. Thus the alternative suggestions, highlighting the more defensive nature of the class. Whereas with mechanical and stealth skills being made universal, what stands out about Eternity's Rogues to my mind is their superior skill at dealing damage, and thus their obvious superior training with weapons, familiarity with armour and means of making the two interact fatally. Therefore the suggestions to re-classify them with a more suitable name, probably (and i'll admit this) for the satisfaction of old grognards like myself who are not familiar with WOW/4th edition and the new fashion in which all Rogues are treated. That being said it does seem also to be a more logical terminology, especially with the increased combat focus. However I can also see the case for keeping old names as a lot of people know and like WOW and other games where this standard is used, and ease of use is an attractive quality, saving a player much confusion and precious time in his choice of a class and role.

He actually mentions quite a few times that he was creating a list of games that have held up well on modern computers, and not one of those looks all that good today. They may not look good, in fact Betrayal at Krondor which i'm currently playing looks positively horrible, but I would argue their quality and gameplay is undiminished. And the graphics do their job, successfully conveying the designers intent so i'm content with them. Also the list of features included is staggering when compared to games he mentions such as Torchlight 2 and Deus Ex, though I enjoyed both of those. Still all a matter of opinion what.

Well I agree that DA2 certainly tried to do that but making both sides incompetent idiots, and then undermining that by revealing the plot was really about the red McGuffin, and having the protagonist be an errand boy for both sides rather than have at least even a little agency, somewhat spoiled what they were going for. Thus I would say it was less political intrigue, more farcical tale of a number of fools.

She did in fact used to be a man, she worked as a valet/martial arts instructor for an inspector of the Paris Surete, and was often labelled a fool by said individual.

Not one Ultima, no Betrayal at Krondor, no gold box game, not even EOB 2 or Pool of Radiance? I'm sorry internet list, I really didn't wish to do this but i'm afraid that I will have to shake my head and tut. There serves you right.

King of Dragon Pass?

Unfortunately i've never particularly cared for multi classing/dual classing, in point of fact I far prefer a classless system.

Well it seems it's mainly a personal matter then, and it's my failure to embrace the Rogue as the superior fighter which is the problem, probably a hold over from my own days of pen and paper where my Rogues only survived by preparing, planning and adapting, where backstabs were rare and they were not the main damage dealers. To be honest however I don't think that the definition of Rogue matches the dedicated combat role that Eternity's Rogue will embrace, but that's neither here nor there.

Following on from a discussion in Sensuki's Class primer thread, myself and Malekith both found a dissonance present in the presentation of the Rogue as the superior damage dealer when compared to the Fighter. We both came to the conclusion that this dissonance is present because of terminology, a Rogue presents a certain image of thievery, stealth and misdeeds, while a Fighter suggests an expertise in the art of Fighting. Thus I believe a suggestion thread for alternate Class names seemed appropriate. Obviously this is a personal and biased opinion, and my respectful suggestions are simply that, and I might add that I am aware of being a curmudgeonly old relic out of touch with modern norms. So with the aforementioned disclaimer I present an alternate list of names for the classes which are personally problematic. Fighter: Soldier, Legionnary, Guardian, Defender, Shieldbearer, Warden. Rogue: Assassin, Blademaster, Swordmaster, Weaponmaster, Killer. Barbarian: Dervish, Wardancer, Brave. Obviously this makes the profession of Thief no longer associated with what was previously the Rogue class, but that to my mind makes sense, in Eternity anyone can sneak, handle mechanical devices etcetera. In reality anybody can steal, muggers are not expert pickpockets or particularly stealthy, and thieves do not conform to one role. Please feel free to suggest alternate Class names or deride my misguided efforts.

Oh I would add that the intelligence of ones opponents needs to escalate, an Emperor or King in this time period is not the spoiled snob of modern nobility, he is born into power and danger, and drinks down ruthlessness and duplicity with his mothers milk. Not as an arrogant affectation, but as a means of survival, because walking the path of power is a life or death stroll. Thus make such opponents forward thinking, potent and very dangerous, no more so than when they feel threatened.

Drop the trash combat, make each foe memorable, difficult and intrinsically wrapped up in the narrative. Open up new vistas of gameplay, whether that be adjudicating on the rule of law, governing a fiefdom, maintaining a standing army, opposing or fostering a rebellion or becoming embroiled in byzantine politics, etcetera. Make choices and consequences extremely important, New Vegas style, so we know that we are important and no longer itinerant sellswords. Keep the world grounded in its own reality, so that we still face very real and human problems. Open up more possibilities on how to deal with situations. Start learning the secrets of the gameworld, and possibly what lies beyond. But let those secrets birth a hundred questions, so that as our wisdom grows we realise that our ignorance will too. Gather rare components, ores and such so that your Wizard might begin crafting great and powerful artifacts alongside a skilled craftsman. Introduce foes against whom there is no victory, there is only a possibility of containment at a price, and the risk of madness and corruption then. Tharizdun, Lovecraft, etcetera. Start having ones soul bleed over into the weapons, armour and accoutrements that the character weilds. Strengthening but more importantly personalising them. Recognise the characters potency, but still recognise that he is mortal and his mistakes and stupidities will have results. Additionally, facing mortality and either raging against it or accepting that limitation, for a caster class or a great individual this might be particularly galling. Kresselack the Black Wolf and the Nameless One spring to mind. Edit: Well that's what i'd consider interesting anyway.

I'm being silly, don't particularly like this modern representation of Fighters and Rogues that every game has to use, but it's not really a serious matter as i'll just avoid using them in game.

Being in WOW is a fairly good reason for excluding something isn't it?

I agree totally, the terminology is the problem, though I would say Knights were just as famous for breaking lines and performing as shock troops rather than holding the line. I suppose Soldier or Legionnary would also be a good description of the Fighter.

A leading English professor explains the subject of nationhood succinctly: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CS1cUIxBVg

Symbiosis with Monk? Wound him to generate focus and power his melee abilities?

Knight and Warrior I wouldn't use for Eternity's Fighter, they both speak of being skilled with weapons and warfare as Knights and Warriors were, whereas the Fighters preferred role is to soak up damage and hold. Personally i'd use Shieldbearer, Guardian or Defender for the meatshield. Assassin sounds perfect, or perhaps swordmaster/blademaster?

Expanding on the above idea, if a Fighter has rendered an opponent unconscious or a Wizard has done likewise through arcane means, could the Cipher cut up the incapacitated individual to garner focus, or do they need to be conscious? Might a Cipher delivering a coup de grace earn a bonus amount of focus as the soul flees the mortal coil? Rather morbid turn of thought.