Merin

I don't know... the more I think about it, the more I think that including the expansion pack as a reward for the digital tier but at the same time saying that the KS campaign isn't funding the expansion.... is extremely problematic. They have created something of a Gordian knot here. It was probably a big mistake.

The six Origins of Dragon Age: Origins were very well done. The companions were interesting. The music was great. The twists on some tropes I found to be well handled. It played out in mostly the standard BioWare plot-line (pre-story, intro to what group you are now part of, hub, several places to explore in any order to gather stuff important to plot, hub, final location) but that's neither good nor bad IMO. For the most part the writing was spot on. And it felt like you had significant control over meaningful choices at key points in the story. Character creation was a bit sparse for me, yet there were way too many abilities (especially for mages at higher levels) so the game mechanics around that desperately needed an overhaul. Far too many iron daggers and the like. The crafting system was mostly meh. Deep Roads was too long. Too much reliance on loot and potions overall, but that's a D&D problem for most cRPGs (and table top games if the DM isn't careful.) I think DA:O was, on balance, a great game. And PE could do far worse than look at some of how stuff was done here.

And the ignore list grows.... (not the people I'm responding to down here) I guess killing is not as wrong as stealing, then? Apples. Oranges. On two levels. I'm not going to get into the "which criminal act is worst" discussion as it's a non-sequitor. The real apples / oranges I will briefly address is - my point was "I don't play this, but I'm not saying it shouldn't be in the game for people who do like doing this" which has nothing to do with "playing this way is WRONG, and you should feel bad" which I didn't say. When trolled as being a "button mashing dudebro" I responded as to why I don't like rogues. I was trolled, I shouldn't have responded, it was wrong of me, and I learned my lesson. In any case - I'm not telling you that you are bad for liking rogues, if that is why you are reacting. Please return the favor and not judge me for liking to play Paladins, cool? Different strokes, different tastes, yada yada. Cool? The stealing mechanics in most cRPGs are boring anyway. But I have said in other threads about this that I just ignore traps in most cRPGs. You can usually run through them and heal later (who cares if you got hurt and healed - I pretend it never happened) or spot them and go around them. It's a trope of fantasy games I never used as a DM, never cared about as a player, and do my best to just ignore in cRPGs (traps.) Yeah, I've played one rogue once. Dragon Age: Origins. And loved it - for story/RP reasons. Combat wise, she was basically a light-armored dual-wielding fighter who could disarm traps and pick locks. I never bothered with positioning for backstabs (in real time games I'm just not a fan of flanking and such, unless it's a Total War game and then I'm all about calvary flanks!)

an rpg without rogues...? >confirmed as a button mashing DudeBro. Today I've been subjected to quite a bit of people who don't know me at all making wild assumptions about what I know, like, etc. And it's growing quite tiresome. I dislike rogues for several reasons: 1 - I don't like stealing. Even pretend stealing. Even inside of a fantasy game. Don't enjoy it. Don't play GTA style games because of it. I don't like being the bad guy, and rogue (or, it's original name from earlier D&D, Thief) just isn't the kind of person I want to pretend to be. 2 - I don't like stealth in games. With the rare exceptions of Alpha Protocol and Arkham Asylum, stealth usually equals slow moving boredom to me. As I already find travel my characters across maps in real time tedious, slowing their movement even more due to stealth mechanics in most games bore the heck out of me. 3 - Back-stabbing, assassins, "anti-heroes".... everything the rogue represents (save, perhaps, the swashbuckler and the bard... which I'd argue share similarities with a thief but aren't the same thing) is anathema to me. Yes, I like playing the good guy, helping people, saving the day. Favorite class is Paladin. It has nothing to do with "button mashing" - I dislike rogues before there were buttons to mash, really (does the Pong controller count?)

*sigh* Here we go again with the ad hominem attacks.... I did. Cleric and priest are used fairly interchangeably in fantasy RPGs. I said cleric - the official title, so far, is priest. You say tomato... I have read every update as they were released. Just correcting that there for you... youre powers of observation and deduction leave quite a bit to be desired since you came to quite an erroneous conclusion. Of course, ad hominem attacks aren't often based on truths, but there it is. And your knowledge sure shows gaping holes when your reasoning reads as thus - The irony of your statement. Remarkable.

There is a major benefit to planning an expansion before the main game is finished, and even knowing that it will happen while you are working on the main game. You can leave plot hooks. Hints. Doorways and NPCs that lead into the expansion once the expansion is installed. I think this is awesome news, and I think they are doing it just right. This isn't "deadline isn't being reached - cut that content and we'll finish it later to sell as DLC" or, worse, "let's see what content we can plan that will add-into the main game, but be separate enough that we can sell it separately on day one for extra money".... ... this is "we've gathered enough funds, think our main game is funded quite well, and now as the extra funds roll in we'll add the enticement of an expansion!" It's more game, just giving them a longer window to give us that extra content. We get the main game sooner because the newer content is released later. Win-win!

Expansions pre-paid that are released months after main game is release != Day One DLC Not. Even. Close.

There are no clerics in PE, it have priests. Also, rangers aren't cultural at all, it's a real job turned into a fantasy class, pretty much every country on the planet have rangers in their park/protected forest. Finally, I know games where the monk class is of the medieval Europe type and it's called a monk. Not everything needs to be based on D&D interpretation you know. Right, so the idea that paladins can just be subclasses of priests is even more silly if you say that priests aren't clerics.... Monks of medieval Europe were ascetics, gardeners, scribes and scholars. Not martial artists. Any game that includes them with unarmed combat is NOT using European monks. Finally... there are also models of vehicles called "rangers"... but the "ranger" of fantasy is not the Walker, Texas Ranger nor the Airborne Ranger variety ... they are the Strider / Aragorn variety from Tolkien. Weak argument is weak.

Re: necromancers... if they started adding mage schools (since we're clearly stuck in a D&D mindset here) but don't include paladins and bards... blech.

Good update. As this one misses me on several angles I'm hard-pressed to cheer it on too much... but I think Brian Fargo is being really generous here, and Obsidian pledging to Kick It Forward is very heartening. Already have copies of W2 coming, but I guess I get one more.... .... bah, spoke too soon. I don't want the digital only tier. Guess I'll be buying the expansion the old-fashioned way.

I could really do without the 2.0, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5 goals... and I could do without elves and rogues as well. But, you know, I can accept that the entire game isn't designed precisely towards my own personal interests, tastes and idiosyncrasies.

Adventurer Hall is more important to me than pretty much all the rest of the stretch goals combined. Pretty much. I personally am growing a bit sad at the number of threads started about "I don't like this OPTIONAL feature being added to the game, don't include it, give ME more of what I want." There are things in this game (quite a few) that I won't use and won't care about... but I'm not about to go and tell the devs to not include stuff that will make other people have fun just because it's outside of my interest. I'm waiting for a Mac user to create a thread about there shouldn't be PC support.

For some of us it's a major selling point. You would have to be a fan of the Icewind Dale games to appreciate it though. BIG selling point for me. Uhm, there is a monk.

Paladin and Bard classes would be nice, but I actually don't want them to add any more classes or companions at this point. If they are doing a 2.7, though, Paladin and Bard. Otherwise I agree with the sentiment of a $3 million goal. I disagree about posting a $4 million goal, though - we aren't likely to reach it at this point. It's POSSIBLE, but unlikely. There's no point in putting up unreachable goals, it kind of leaves a minor downer at the end of the campaign. I think, best for the PE campaign, a $3 million goal period. And I still think that should be an expansion. If there MUST be a 2.7 - then Paladin and Bard.

Yep, I agree. The Bard and Paladin are culturally oriented classes, much like the Ninja and Samurai. Unique classes that are particular to this world could roughly incorporate the premise of the Bard and Paladin, but with their own unique interpretation and capabilities. They already have rangers, barbarians and monks, clerics even - these are all "culturally oriented" - clerics are medieval Europe, for example.... and monks are Asian (these are not occidental monks in fantasy.) Silly argument is silly.

I'm finally just going to jump in here and say that Dragon Age: Origins is in my top ten all time favorite video games. Number one on that list, though, is Wasteland. And Pools of Darkness (representative of all the Gold Box games) is above DA:O. There are some things not so great about DA:O. And that statement applies to every game I've ever played.

I think you are confused. This is what happened with 2nd ED. Upset fans, ones who never went back to D&D, TSR burrying... no, no, wait - that was 3rd. WotC buys TSR, changes the game horribly, D&D fans not happy and never come back... no, wait, it was 4th... no,no, wait... it's 5th. This happens each addition. New company or not. I find it extremely funny, the 3E fans, who say how WotC ruined it with 4. The same company. Which, in it's previous edition, drastically changed the game. Just admit - you like 3E. You didn't want it to change from that. Everything else is hyperbolic "my team vs. there team" nonsense. I should have known better than to get into this "discussion." It's as bad as most other topics on here, like Vancian. I'm so tired of the snide comments and insults. Carry on the 4E bashing to your hearts content.

If it's like 1st or 2nd ED D&D... I'd have no problem with multi-classing. Or 4E's version, even. I can see someone who's been a thief all their life spending some time training with monks and getting some of their abilities, but at a lesser skill level and not all of them (like 4E), or a long-lived race being able to focus on training two skill-sets are once, but doing so very, very slowly (1st and 2nd) or even the dual-classing of old D&D (when you start your new class, your old class stops advancing... if you use abilities from your old class, you don't get XP as your aren't training in your new class.) Running around for weeks casting spells, and saying that the experience (XP) of doing such suddenly means you know how to wear heavy armor and swing a halberd is très stupide.

It's not tanking in the sense you mean. For one, the company as a whole made several really bad calls. One, they ended their skirmish game support for their mini's. I never played the skirmish game, but they cut out half the reason for getting the figures. Two, they introduced stupid products like the pre-printed power cards (which, yes, looked cool, but if you ever tried to use them you'll realize quickly why they aren't useful) and very expensive dice sets. Three, they killed their magazines and placed them behind a pay-wall - that paywall, DDI, being the biggest mistake of all. Four, they left a HUGE opening with OGL for hard-core 3E fans to not have to try to adjust to 4E - ergo, Pathfinder for the 4E haters. All of those blunders ended up "coinciding with" (I'm not saying caused, but it's certainly possible they did cause) some shake-ups in the people in charge. Different designers get in charge, they have different visions. Look at DA:O to DA2 for a prime example. Different people in charge have different design ideas. WotC was doing fine, sales wise, with 4E. Yes, Pathfinder grew to out sell it at times - but if you look at those times, 4E hadn't released books for a long time and therefore a big glut was open for new Pathfinder books to continue excitement. But the misstep of Essentials (not a tragic misstep, but a wholly unnecessary one) was followed by a driving desire (and this was absolutely wrongheaded) to "win back" 3E fans. Now, realize, I'm not defending WotC - it should be clear that I'm pretty close to bashing it openly. From 3E forward, with the exception of finding some of the mechanics and design aspects of 4E actually to be quite good. And... this is quite the thread derail... (checks the OP.... remembers that Mods are quite laissez faire here) ... never mind, let's continue the discussion!

I just don't understand this. For me, for decades, D&D was "human paladins" , multi-classing was a non-human, limited affair. When you made a character you could just role-play that he could ride a horse or tie a knot or smith his own tools. And classes stood on their own. Leveling up, unless you were a spell-caster who picked your new spells, took seconds. 3E introduced Feats, Skills, and virtually unlimited multi-classing. Any race could be any class. It certainly doesn't feel like D&D to me, if we're talking mechanically. *shrug* I guess it's what your priorities are. If the powers systems, boiling down of the alignment system, and removal of unlimited multi-classing makes it "not D&D" to you, so be it.

I'm only familiar with 2ed, so your first statement makes me laugh. Min-max as I know it is about pure specialization (vertical), never about hybridizing across competencies (horizontal). Unless we're using different meanings. Okay, so let me give you a very brief example of 3E munchkin character building. "I'll take a level of this, it gives me these bonuses. And now I'll take a level of this, as it gives me these abilities. Now I'll take more levels of this third class, as it has the best bang for it's buck... until it's fourth level, at which later additions don't add anything... and now I'll take this prestige class, as it's abilities add well with what I have to make a killer build!" In 3E a lot of the classes give a lot of their bonuses and abilities at the first level - so, for example, grab just one level of Monk for some great stuff! There are also almost no restrictions on multi-classing, certainly not what you had in 2nd ED and earlier. Any race can be any class, and there's no limit to how many classes you can take. And there are prestige classes. 2nd ED is a very different game than 3E. Or, to put it another way - go look on any forums or talk to any hardcore 3E players - you'll have a tough time finding anyone who'll advocate you taking a straight class build. This isn't to say there aren't players out there who do it for fun or RP reasons... there are. But they aren't the majority of the people I ran into.

No. If anything, it was the "Magic the Gathering-ing" of 3E that I disliked. 3E is such a major departure from the D&D that came before it's not even funny. I always find it amusing that 3E fans call 4E "not D&D"... all the big changes from earlier D&D to 3E are still in 4E. Feats, Skills, any race being any class, paladins of any alignment.... Tipping my hand. I like clearly delineated classes. I like races feeling special, being more than just some bonuses added on top of human. I don't like multi-classing. 3E is a munchkinners dream. If people want to play that way, that's cool, but I don't want to play with people playing that way. Every 3E game I played was a big mess of "my character can kill your character" or each player doing his own separate story and each of us taking turns... or that horrible experience with all the random encounters, random loot rolls.... *shudder* - I know the random tables are from earlier editions, too, but we almost never used any of that stuff before. My favorite game system ever was TSR's Marvel Super Heroes RPG. My favorite setting was Palladium's Rifts. For more modern systems I've got a tie between Eden Studios or the Cortex system (great for storytelling.)

When I first heard about it, my friends and I were excited. "Here's a real-life version of Dragon Poker!" I played it for about a year with my friends - we're talking, uhm, like 1994. It got old pretty fast after that. Especially when I hit college and started to see the "competitive" scene (and I'm not even talking tournaments - I just mean players who read magazines (pre-web here) or went to BBS's and got "killer deck builds") I was absolutely turned off. My circle of friends for gaming only had one min/maxer who joined early in our gaming and we beat it out of him, so the "win at any cost" dynamic is a huge turn-off for me. So, yes, I played for about a year back when the game was fairly new nearly twenty years ago. Why?

Multi-classing just feels all about min/maxing and is almost never about role-playing. I'm strongly against it - especially the ridiculous mess that is in 3E. If it's handled like 1st ED D&D or 4th ED, maybe I'd be okay with it. But, overall, I'd just say no. Make each class stand on it's own.

It's my favorite edition of D&D, just edging out 2nd ED (which is where the majority of my playing was spent, even though I started in the Red Box.) Anything I dislike in 4E was stuff that 3E introduced.