Sabotin

You are going to have multiple second chances however you turn it, the question is how to best implement that to keep players concerned with gaming and not metagaming.

Maybe it's just so that they can get a bonus one time . I'd guess outsourcing stuff would also qualify, like this Paradox thing and those wilderness areas?

It's part of the IE experience, so it will be included, I'm sure. Or maybe just for expert mode. In all seriousness though, from what we've seen so far various corridors and such seem much wider, though whether that's from wanting to make movement easier or to counterbalanced the changed camera angle (or just an unrepresentative sample) I don't know.

Some areas presented in screenshots look pretty foggy. We also know there is some depth data for the areas, so maybe...

Mostly the problem with all these is that the game ends when the main character dies. Otherwise you'd technically be able to retreat and come again prepared. I wonder if anyone ever got through THIS encounter without a reload?

Isn't that an issue with the hero then, that he went to WK without a soul? I think the key thing is to have the direct connections not be plot holes or unanswered questions. They should have a closed function in the main game itself, with the expansion then only building upon them. I as a player should not recognize them for what they are until they are used.

I think it depends on the specific skill checks to be honest. Being unable to open a door seems reasonable. The thing I'd like to avoid though is a 15min backtrack through a three level maze of a dungeon to reach that one shiny chest that I was unable to open while clearing it. So I'd prefer if world interactions in general be of two kinds: content gate or content choices. An example of the first would be if you can't yet open the complex gate to a deeper level of the dungeon or fix the machine that would finish a quest. The second I mean stuff like rigging a trap for an incoming patrol or being able to talk yourself past; different approaches and/or help for an encounter. What I think would be interesting is also to play a bit with the difficulties. I think it's standard practice to rather max out x skills than to only half invest into 2x of them? This might be already in the "lots of skills with little use vs. few skills with heavy use" territory, but I think lower checks with more varied skills would be a welcome change of pace. Perhaps the answer would be to make them more complex, too, requiring combinations of skills. Thinking of the stealth system, perhaps even going so far as to have group skill checks at times. For instance if you're trying to get access to the castle while disguising as a troupe of entertainers you could only fool the guards if most of your party member can show off some dextrous feat? Another aspect that I'm not sure was addressed yet: will dialogue options/actions be simply hidden if conditions are not met or have a pass/fail scenario only after the attempt? I'm in two minds about this: being able to attempt something feels more natural, but it could also be nice to have a slightly different narrative experience with different party setups, connecting better the crunch and the fluff so to speak.

For me the most satisfying encounters would be those for which I know some key feature (if there is any) in advance and I can then build on that myself. It provides the feeling that you're fighting something stronger than it is in practice and that you can outsmart it, too. Encounters can also be more difficult, without feeling cheap. The other statistics that you have to adapt to on the fly (armor types, enemy numbers/attacks changing, intentional surprises) should just remain obfuscated. They could also have all of those types but just use them at different times. I think it would be nice if encounter design could also be used to improve atmosphere. It's one thing when you're raiding a bandit camp and another when you're exploring some ancient ruins you know nothing about or entering a dragon's lair.

I don't think it's so bad to have some flexibility and overlapping with classes. In my opinion players will make whatever they want to make, the only difference being how hard it is and what compromises they're forced to take due to the ruleset. So at the end of the day it will be the same-ish if it's a fighter/wizard, a ftr/wiz/bladesinger/wpnmaster or a wizard with gish spells/talents picked. Next, you mustn't look at the ability pool in a vacuum, there's (usually) strings attached. You can only pick a certain number from the whole, thus limiting your options on the role. You also have to take into account the efficiency. Maybe the fighter can do the "big smash" for the same damage as a rogue's backstab, but only 1/day and with 3 talents taken for it as opposed to the rogue which only relies on circumstance and is otherwise "free"?. Playing into that there's also availability. Tenser is what, a 6th lv spell? Who's gonna tank the first 10 levels or if a fight is longer than the spell duration or if it gets dispelled, etc? I think a soft limit on class functionality is a good idea, where you're not necessairly limited, but just better at certain stuff. I'm not sure how it will turn out in PE, but classes being different with their play dynamics also sounds like a good idea, to prevent that feeling of sameness you've mentioned with wizards and fighters with active abilities. There was already a lot of discussion regarding classes on these forums I think. It became pretty obvious that everyone has their own opinion on how they should work though.

For some reason that spell instantly made me think of Grim Fandango xD . Oh, also, it's desacration only from the human point of view, death and decay are a part of nature otherwise. I'm glad that there's such spells also and also hoping this will be a view druids have and will provide some roleplay opportunities, especially connected to souls.

No offense to the backer of whom the pohoto was used, but that blue guy is pure nightmare fuel. That smile *shudder*... Paradox thing.... could be fun I guess? Wizards sound ok, very flexible in potential builds. For druids I'm a little disappointed they don't have a mechanical theme, although they do seem to be richer on the zoning spells so I guess that's ok, too. Need priest info, too, to compare . Please animate the dangly bits on the stag transformation!

Check Mr. Mackey's shop at the community center.

I like those things very much. I think they add a lot to stuff like plates and chains, to make them less monotone, without the need for more fantastic armor designs.

Sorry to disappoint you, but it was mentioned that companions wouldn't have any AI to speak of.

I don't think romances are a bad thing per se, but I do question their placement. I think a romance requires a certain degree of emotional commitment, which can only be achieved through time and dedication and just plain compatibility. Without that it seems shallow or forced upon the player. The thing is, while rpgs provide a good environment for it (what better way to bring two people together than epic adventures), they do not provide the right focus. In real life, when you're involved with someone it takes a major part of your time and thoughts. But rpgs are usually about other stuff in which case what I would consider a properly implemented romance would cannibalize on interactions with other characters and companions. I think it would also make a markedly different experience for players that chose to partake in romances and those that didn't. And reading through all the strong opinions here just reinforces the thought. I may just be guessing incorrectly, but I think in for example Mass Effect, the most popular romances were those that were (in the player's eyes) built throughout the whole 3 games (Liara, Tali,...)? With DA2 romances for example I felt that the game was pretty much requiring me to fall in love at first sight and then rush through it and forget about it... One aspect that I can't explain though, I would think that open world games would be very receptive of romances. They're extremely long, with loads of goings on and usually lack focus of more linear counterparts. They accentuate the freedom of the players and their power to influence the world and its inhabitants.

From the time PE was announced I kept thinking of the Thayan academy in MotB. I hope there's some place like that. Specially these undead, I can think of a lot of questions about their workings. Why does eating human flesh restore an undead's body? Even with the dead stomach still there I don't think stuff would be metabolized? How about other meats, why don't those work? If you'd bind a dog's soul to it's body (if they have any) would it crave dog flesh? What about a human soul to an animal's body, does that change the rules? How exactly do you differentiate between the stages of the undead? It seems to just be a continuous progression, yet there are stages to it. What happens if you forcibly strip the flesh off of an earlier stage undead, do you get a smart skeleton? How do undead move or even just stay together? If you cut an undead to pieces which piece will be the one with the soul. Or is the soul cut up? Does it permeate the entire body? What happens if the rich guy that got his soul bound got an artificial leg, does that also count as part of his body? If he replaced various parts of his body so that he had less flesh, would he then have to eat less as well? What if you put together the whole person from artificial parts and bound the soul of someone to it. Why is the last thing remaining of an undead's psyche a murderous rage, is that the natural state of a naked soul? If you put together parts of multiple undead would they work together or each on its own? What if the person with the bound soul got resuscitated, does it make any difference? How about the manner of death of the person, if you cut off the head which part will be undead? Can you use embalming techniques to preserve the body? Would the psyche then still degrade? Do undead feel anything? If yes the rotting body sounds pretty bad, if not then how do they even function in the world? What if you replace undead parts with living parts or vice-versa? I'll trust that this stuff will be presented as mysteries and not plot holes . I think these animancers would need pretty large laboratories to conduct experiments, too and would probably have every do-gooder in the region on their ass :D . Opportunities aplenty for the classic horror themed asylums/hospitals/orphanages/prisons etc.

Which is it? Magic? Or Physics? If it's just an arbitrary "plate is weaker to shock magic just because it's magic" (like Runescape, but only for shock and nothing else?) then sure, it shouldn't bother anyone. If it's physics then there's a problem there. The lightning is going to go through your armour, through you and into the ground no matter what - and if you're wearing plate then there will always be metallic bits of armour in parallel with parts of your body, reducing the amount of electricity flowing through those parts of your body. Even if we drop all those details due to abstraction, I don't see a physical reason why it should suddenly make you more susceptible to shock damage. Indeed I believe this is coming purely from the gameplay side of things. As far as I know, there isn't any special elemental resistances and DT from armor is applied to everything (not always full amount). So this looks like an attempt to make physical and magical effects interact more (since they use the same mechanic). I would also like to know more about other similar effects. It would seem weird if this was the only one.

it's magic, does it really bother you that much? Metal is less resistive, allowing more energy to pass through into the body, thus increasing damage? Or maybe for the same reason the magic lightning naturally gravitates towards the target, making it easier to hit?

It's about the smoothness of animation. Which I think might not be such a small deal in this game. I'd imagine it would help a lot with the visual blending of 2d and 3d elements.

I didn't really like that "big choice" at all. I can respect what they were doing, but to me that felt as much of a choice as a result of a coin flip is. For me the more important part of choices/consequences is the player's agency in the story/game, regardless of whether the character itself is an extension of the player or premade and the consequences being dramatic or not.

I think it's totally fine like this. Building the systems from the ground up I get the feeling they're getting the bones to stand up first, before adding the flesh and fur so to speak, which is probably a good thing. There's 7 damage types, which is quite a lot already, especially considering as far as we've seen there will be combinations of these on both weapons and spells. I believe the intention is to balance the importance damage types with other game functions, so as to not have the player looking solely at that. For example in DA2 you wouldn't think twice to equip your entire party with suboptimal weapons that did a certain damage type, because that meant double damage and the difference between a 10min fight and a 1min fight (this game needs its own textbook, it comes up so often...). PE will be more about efficiency than absolutes, so I think this fits with that. The inherent effects can be tricky to balance if systematic, as in you change something in it and it changes everything where the effect is present. It is entirely possible however than certain damage types will tend to have certain effects. I believe it was mentioned that blunt weapons are more effective against armor? This way it's also easier to make similar spells with different functions. For example you have a fireball that blasts stuff instantly and you may have incendiary cloud that does burn damage over time. The unnamed stuff may not be in fact doing damage, but rather have some debuff effect (e.g. poison/disease in 3e lowered your base stats).

Well, I don't really mind either way. I guess it's better to not make it if they're not feeling up to the task of doing it right, since so many people feel strongly about romances.

Maybe related to this, I'd like to see a bit of a "telephone" effect as well, events becoming skewed with each retelling, stuff passing into myth through time etc. More than just an out-there interpretation from the get go. Also, information should taking time to travel. Maybe not the whole faction instantly knows what happened at the other corner of the map and about your involvement .

Maybe not really part of the IE world, but I smiled from ear to ear at the start of MotB. I know that "show, don't tell" bit, but I think it really adds something to the scenes when certain details are told when they can't be shown or just accentuated without making them stand out to be visible.

Well I'm expecting modability to be along the lines of IE games (without the need for WeiDU and ToBEx and stuff though). That's different than what NWN had though, cause there you could make a whole new game, areas and all. Although there are some campaign type mods out there for IE, but I think they're usually applied as total conversions?