Merin

You know if I were ever to make my own fantasy setting, I'd just make up random words for the classes just so avoid some of the prior conceptions, or realistic conceptions, of what they should be based off of X or Y or Z and all that. These class discussions have all brought me to that conclussion. I'll let you know when my current high fantasy novel is finished, then.

There are two identifiable camps in this discussion, clearly - A - Those focused on mechanics (who should then admit that there need only be two camps - physical vs. spells - since the mechanics for barbarians, rangers, rogues, fighters and monks will be the same, whereas the mechanics for clerics, wizards and ciphers will be the same... with any odd cases (stealth, rage, animal companion) crossing the two (stealth is an invisibility spell ability for rogues, animal companions is a familiar or summon animal ability for rangers, etc.) B - Those focused on lore, purpose and role-playing (who think that each class and sub-class bring something vitally different to the table.) Camp A is logically correct that paladins can be created using priests or fighters. But they need to admit the same for all the other non core 4 (or, more mechanics wise,core 2 IMO.) Camp B is esthetically correct that paladins are vastly different than priests or fighters. And they have on their side that we already have a slew of sub-classes to prove the devs seemingly agree with the B view.

If only this could be true.

At least we'll get an honorable mention - "once, long ago, there was a class of people known as Paladins.... they fought for order, justice, protecting the weak and innocent, and sought out the greatest evils to slay... but then the last of their order was eaten, as were all his fellows, by the ravenous incursion of Kerfluffles gelatinous cubes.... civilization was saved, but at the cost of all it's greatest defenders"

I think, at worst, you had a group of people who weren't for or against it, but indifferent. Maybe some who'd prefer it to Vancian, but that doesn't equate to liking it. For example, I don't want Vancian, I wouldn't mind cool downs depending on how they are implemented. But if it were Vancian I'd still play and enjoy the game despite it, like many years of AD&D games, SSI Gold Box games and IE games.

But in regards to "hordes of pant-wetting Buffy fans", I are confuzed... ? Care to explain that one? Yeah, I somewhat take offense at that one. Are fans of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and other fine Joss Whedon shows people who can't control their bladder?

I don't want D&D. I certainly don't want 3E D&D. A different set of attributes, with something outside taht 3-18 range. And no multi-classing, for the love of Commodore 64!

I think I actually, weighing one against the other, prefer the companions getting back up after a fight than the assumption that losing a fight and reloading to try again is desired. If there's one thing I hate about games with staggered save points, or most platformers... is doing the same thing over and over again, trying to get it right. I don't mind failing. If I lose badly and have to reload, so be it. But advocating fail / reload to redo / rinse / repeat as a positive? Uhm, no.

Without going King Arthur, unfortunately, or Don Quixote, I really can't think of film paladin references....

Cool. How about this - http://youtu.be/_IjA8U9MCL4 But I guess this is the traditional bard, right? http://youtu.be/WrdtUDxiDn4

I'm assuming this is a thread about not allowing "beaten" companions to just pop back up after the end of combat? If that's the gist of the message - I'll add a +1 to the sentiment. There could be a "casual" difficulty that allowed it, I'd be okay with that. But, yeah, dying in a fight should be possible.

*considers posting in thread* *considers who started the thread* *wants to add to conversation* *doesn't want to engage with certain individuals...* Uhm, I guess I'll just say I don't fit any of the "groupings" I've seen yet.

Wonders what 2 seconds of internet searching can do for ignorance - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paladin Since you obviously have not read that article, let me point out the third sentence to you: "The paladins and their associated exploits are largely later fictional inventions". You're welcome. ... You're serious? What is your point? That monks, ciphers and mages ARE real and not fictional? No, of course not. That because something is part of literature it isn't historical? I think that's what you mean. Now, here's the problem... I don't think anyone, anywhere, was claiming that there were REAL paladins, especially the kind you find in D&D. Just like there weren't rangers or druids or bards like you find in D&D. But that there is precedence, historically in literature, of paladins before D&D. That's what I meant. Paladins are as fictional, as much literary constructions, as KNIGHTS. The "knighted" people, the lowest level of aristocracy of the medieval period, were not heroes, protectors of the people, or any such nonsense. They were warlords, people with the most powerful weapons of their day, who lorded over people by the point of their sword. The romantic notion of knighthood and chivalry was invented by the church to try and instill a sense of morality in the nobility - and it failed. Paladins are as real as knights. In any case, thanks for not understanding that historical doesn't have to refer to real people - it can refer to literature and ideas and beliefs.

Wonders what 2 seconds of internet searching can do for ignorance - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paladin *sigh* please don't use Wikipedia as a reference for anything but how incredibly stupid the human race is becoming Please stop the conspiracy theory that wikipedia is useless. Like any piece of writing, check the references. Here are the references on the wikipedia page for Paladins - ---- References ^ a b c d e f g "Paladin". From the Oxford English Dictionary. Retrieved November 23, 2008. ^ a b "Palatine". From the Oxford English Dictionary. Retrieved November 23, 2008. ^ Wilson, Peter H. The Thirty Years War; Europe's Tragedy, Harvard University Press, 2009 ^ Dutton, Paul Edward, ed. and trans. Charlemagne's Courtier: The Complete Einhard, pp. 21-22. Peterborough, Ontario, Canada: Broadview Press, 1998. ^ Conradus the priest (12th century), Song of Roland. ISBN 3-920153-02-2 ^ Frank, Grace, La Passion du Palatinus : mystère du XIVe siècle, in : Les Classiques français du moyen âge (30) Paris 1922. ^ The Divine Comedy, Canto XXXII. ---- So, what you are saying is that, what, the human race is incredibly stupid for trusting the Oxford English Dictionary, a book published by the Harvard University Press, and the Song of Roland? .... Right. I think you questioning the credibility of wikipedia... ... is ironic.

Wonders what 2 seconds of internet searching can do for ignorance - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paladin

Boy, am I late to the game. 1) Big Goals: Two words: Expansion, sequel. I think it is a mistake to build up this first indie project too big, and to expect sales to pay for a sequel. I think we've just about reached the top-out goal for adding content with the mega dungeon and adventurer's hall. I'd love to see paladin and bard added, but I don't actually think more companions or classes or races at this point is probably a good idea. So I would strongly suggest that if the game hits $3 million you will promise an expansion, old school IE kind (Tales of the Sword Coast, Heart of Winter, Trial of the Luremaster)... but that the stretch goals between 2.6 or 2.7 be nothing until $3 million. And anyone who pitched in $25 or more (getting a copy of the game) will also get a copy of the expansion for free. at $4 million, full-on sequel is added. Like Fallout 2, Icewind Dale 2, etc. Will that million between 3 and 4 pay for it? Not likely... but will 1 million plus sales of PE pay for a sequel? Magic 8 ball keeps coming up "almost certainly." 2) Backer Rewards: You have to watch costs, and physical items are bad after a certain point. It's probably best to now look at providing design notes, digital images of characters, and other low cost, no shipping involved, additional tiers. Unless you mean "we hit X number of backers, now we add this!" For that - I don't know. It seems a weird goal to shoot for... I mean, more backers, more the word spreads, sure. But maybe it should represent what more backers would mean? If an increase in backers is what you want, the reward should support those backers I would say... those increased numbers. So I would suggest something BioWare did with the BSN and Dragon Age: Origins, or what Saints Row the Third did... allow uploading of character and story to the Obsidian Forums - a new website addition for Project Eternity. Something along that line would make more sense to me - larger community, a reward that represents the large community. 3) Other Stretch/Backer Feedback?: Well, again, I think there's a point where, despite knowing you COULD do more, that you should stop and be satisfied with getting done what you've already put on the itinerary. More stretch goals should be outside the main game at this point. Backer enticement - new reward tiers, especially ones designed just a few dollars above the glutted tiers to entice a few more bucks out of people, need to provide nice special goodies that aren't physical items that need to be shipped, but would garner people to throw a few dollars more in the pot - again, exclusive images as digital files is good, design notes, short stories (I know this stuff will still take time and effort to make, but I cannot stress how big the shipping nightmare is on back rewards!) Other than that... my advice is only reveal stretch goals as the previous ones are hit (don't put big ones that are too far out there out too earlier), and create more reward tiers to draw up from the overcrowded tiers. That's the best way, IMO, to raise more money.

I've just finally been playing Mask of the Betrayer.... and while I have physical copies of NWN 2 and MoB... I bought SoZ online somewhere. And I can't figure it out, either... so now if I erase it, or have to reformat my drive or something... I'll need to buy it again.

I'm not meaning to pick on you in particular, norolim, so don't take it personally - I'm just branching off of what you are saying here. Aren't doing well as compared to what? Most Kickstarter campaigns don't succeed. But let's put that aside for a moment. Of the game campaigns I've seen succeed, maybe a third hit their goal in a day. Many of them just barely squeaked by at the end, barely going over their requested amount, like Takedown, Leisure Suit Larry, Director's Cut, Shadowrun Online... most succesful KS campaigns don't raise double their goals. Seriously, look at Shadowrun Online and Takedown for good examples of how unpredictable it can be. Don't count out a campaign until the last day, and even then you never know. They are 1/10th of the way there with over 90% of their campaign left. It could fail, but there's nothing right now you can point to that would really project that it is going to.

Does this help anyone? http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/lootdrop/an-old-school-rpg-by-brenda-brathwaite-and-tom-hal/posts/322220 Personally, I love the sound of this concept. A lot.

Quote of the day: "I don't like a class, so they must be childish" ^^ But seriously, if you don't like Paladins, then that is okay. I don't really like Monks either, but I know that many people enjoy this class and that is why I think they should be in the game. It is as simple as that. Are we just voting on classes, and are limited to certain ones? If we're playing that game, I'm spending all my votes on getting rid of rogues. And I'll buy some votes, too. .... or, we could just let Obsidian see how many people want them and decide if the next (increasingly unlikely to be reached) stretch goal would make sense to include Bards & Paladins. I think that's better. Let us pay for it, and the "resources needed" will be the stretch goal.

Paladins are also divine spell casters and use auras in addition to being very good fighters. Barbarians are fighters with clothing issues and anger management problems. Druids are tree-hugging clerics. Rogues are light-armored fighters who prefer flanking, stealing and ducking behind corners.

Make the game so the default difficulty of completing the game without dying or feeling the need to reload is easily accomplished for the average player (more skilled than a newbie, nowhere near as versed and practiced as hardcore.) Make any of the tasks in the game easily identifiable as likely to succeed or likely to fail on a given attempt, so players know better than to try something they will constantly fail at, on the default setting for the average player. Remove any "succeed or die" and "succeed or never be allowed to try again" common tasks from the default setting for the average player. In short, do your best to design the game to create very few situations where abusing the game becomes desirable (or, in some cases, an almost necessity.) And then have different toggles and difficulty settings for those who actually want no notification of potential for success, and want the "succeed or else" conditions present. Default game should be "winnable" without death or reload for average player, and the difficulty settings and other sliders / mode can adjust that. Really should eliminate the concern about "abuse" as long as the game mechanics are well designed and tested for exploits. One really quick example - even if there's an infinite gold bug, or more likely, a pattern of buying from one merchant and selling to another for profit, make the distribution of normally found gold and treasure sufficient that it's easier, quicker and more fun to get the gold and items you need by playing the game right than by wasting the time exploiting the bug for unlimited funds that in the end really don't give you that much of an advantage.

There is a certain mindset amongst certain players that Paladins are a useless, pointless, stupid class. Usually amongst players of rogues or necromancers, or generally evil aligned players... or players who hate alignment. "Lawful stupid" I'm sure you've heard before.

But that doesn't mean we can't have some original and unique. I don't see it as all or nothing. True. I do think, however, the "original and unique" we will get is in implementation of tropes. In the world lore. Not in the basic D&D established fantasy role-playing nodes. And, honestly, they are quoting IE games and three in particular for inspiration. That's all D&D. It shouldn't be surprising. Obsidian will have their own unique spin on it. But I think the hopes for Geomancers or Pirates or Alchemists or Musketeers is probably forlorn hope.

Double Fine was a lot of big name support and Tim Schaeffer being funny, as well as being the first signs of "hey, maybe we can end run around publishers." Wasteland is an older game with a smaller cult following than Planescape: Torment, let alone Baldur's Gate, so this doesn't surprise me.