aluminiumtrioxid

While what I've seen (they can actually deliver a working game!) combined with what I've read in the Torment updates has me sleeping soundly.

Well, I think there is merit in not quantifying the mental faculties of a given character, and let conditional factors, like lore skills, culture, certain dialogues had/books read determine the dialogue options available, while trusting the player's own intellect to figure out the best option. In this case, having Perception remain Perception would be perfectly okay. But since PoE explicitly has an Intellect attribute, I think it's fair to assume that dialogues were written with this in mind, and it would require an inordinate amount of work to adjust for not having such an attribute anymore. Edit: alternatively, they could go the Dragon Age route, and call it Cunning, which is somewhat less of a mouthful than "Acuity". Other alternatives include the ideal-for-dialogue-applications-but-not-so-much-for-what-it-represents-mechanically "Wit", or same-league-as-Acuity-but-a-different-word "Astuteness".

On first playthrough, yes. But it's perfectly playable and fun with an asshat lone wolf Thorton who dumped all points into combat skills, too.

Which is a problem how? It punishes more intelligent solutions to quests by not giving the player nice items, so players won't tend to want to go for the non-combative option. It's arguable whether the more intelligent player is the one who avoids combat, or the one who succeeds in a tactically difficult combat. But that's largely irrelevant. - Firstly, because it's been stated that there will be enough stuff which can be obtained by nonviolent means. (Think of a large area littered with enemies, with the quest object in a locked chest, along with some cool items. You can kill them all, or you can sneak around and steal all the things from the chest - there will be loot on the enemies you'll miss, but you'll complete the objective, and probably gain sneaky reputation for doing it that specific way, which might later enable quests where you can obtain gear better suited for your playstyle, or access special merchants who offer that kind of stuff, etc.) - Secondly, because the sort of player who enjoys finding nonviolent solutions to problems will usually not get into fights that often, so he won't need combat gear and consumables that much.

Which is a problem how?

Nekem teljesen jó.

As an afterthought, if you're Hungarian (and why else would you know how to pronounce Csíkszentmihályi correctly?), our time zones are the same. (In which case, if you're interested, welcome aboard.)

Thank you, even though my actual contributions were very small (putting the ideas floating around into a coherent whole with the noncombat applications sorted out) On a second thought, in this version, Resolve should definitely be renamed to Composure. I'm very curious about what do the others think about it. Also, it would be really nice to hear Sawyer's opinion, but let's not get greedy. It definitely has some downsides: even though the attribute names better correspond to what they actually do, it's even less intuitive than the original version. Also, if the dialogues/noncombat screen thingies were written in a way that lets every attribute get nearly the same amount of spotlight (a daunting task; unlikely, but not impossible), splitting the benefits of Resolve three ways (seduction to Body, seduction/ intimidation /holding passionate speeches to Ferocity and lying/impressing someone by being unfazed to Composure) while lumping Perception and Intelligence together might cause balance issues. (I'm not particularly worried about the latter, there were many cases in FNV and KotOR 2 where having Intelligence and Perception, or Wisdom, Intelligence and Awareness simultaneously proved to be redundant.)

If we have to change things, I'd prefer this: Body: replaces strength, except it does nothing to intimidation, but represents physical attractiveness, too. Can help in displays of raw physical power, and seduction. This added utility might balance its generally perceived limited usefulness. Endurance: replaces Con. It can help in the cases where you need to withstand pain, hold your breath for a long time, fight poisons/diseases. I'd prefer if it was a useful ability outside of combat. Dexterity: no change. Acting quickly and doing thief-y stuff in dialogues. Acuity: replaces Per. Used both as Perception and Intelligence in dialogues, these are hard to separate anyways (well, to be more accurate, they've always had some overlap, and dialogue application usually depends on both simultaneously - if you're very intelligent, but don't really pay attention to the other person, you can fail just as easily as if you were perceptive, but didn't have the mental faculties to interpret the information correctly). Ferocity: replaces Int. Represents a will to act, passion, fighting spirit - regardless of whether you're fighting to save someone's life [doctors need to be competitive to 'beat' illnesses, after all], or a more literal fight involving beating the other guy with sharp sticks. Out of combat, it helps in intimidation, and generally you have a raw, magnetic energy around you, which certain people might find attractive/convincing, but others don't really care about it/might even find off-putting. To use a totally bull**** analogue, "being alpha". Resolve (or perhaps should be renamed to Composure): no change. Out of combat, entails composure, stoicity, strength of will, but not of passion; inner harmony. Charismatic options that lack the dangerous edge that needs to be lumped with Ferocity belong here, as does anything involving keeping a cool head and a straight face (including, but not limited to, lying - although complex lies might require some Acuity to initiate, but if you stumble, and make the other guy suspicious/they were suspicious to begin with, Resolve helps to save your ass). Now that I think about it, I even prefer this to the original. Thanks everybody for their contributions

Not for me I usually GM in a more down-to-Earth, Call of Cthulhu-meets-Paranoia-with-added-espionage-and-courtly-intrigue style, but yeah, the great thing about W40K is that you can tell any kind of story with it.

Dunno, early February? When I'll get some reactions out of the prospective players. But I think most of us have a pretty extensive (about 4 years for me) background in DH, so if you have any specific questions, you can ask in the game's main topic Shotgun's awesome. Just use the updated ruleset of Only War. Also, Arbitrators already have cover built in (nobody's gonna ask questions if an investigator-type appears investigating stuff, while the same can't be said about, say, a Scum), access to both combat-related and investigation/lore-oriented stuff, better pay than Guardsmen... only downside is their horrible Ag advance cost.

A lot of backers will be in the early beta test for the game so i suspect that final bug count will be minimal at the release. Just look how long WL2 is getting delayed because of this kind of testing and KS approach, and backers do not have much problem with that (at least I get this feeling). If I am not mistaken, originally WL2 should be released in 2013 and its not going to happen Personally I don't really care that much how buggy PoE will be. There will be lots of bugs. What I do care about is that Obsidian cares about them - enough to fix them whenever they are discovered. If it will be the sort of bugs I've encountered in the WL2 beta - game crashes whenever you're trying to access the world map, saves getting corrupted, fps drops to unplayable levels - I do care about whether they're in or not.

I stand corrected.

I think the godlike will be a race in itself, not a template you can apply to any race. As for me, first playthrough will probably be a sarcastic and somewhat merciful (although still self-serving and manipulative to an extent) human wizard (high Int and Per, fairly low Str and Con, middling Res and Dex), second a polite and cruel godlike paladin (high Str and Res, lower Per and Dex, middling Int and Con). Wizard's probably going to be the Switzerland of player characters, while the paladin will hold stronger beliefs.

Yeah, these seem sorta reasonable even when looking at them from an out-of-combat perspective.

Pretty much this. The outcome of a fight is usually not decided by the participants' strength, or intellect; sometimes even skill matters little. It usually comes down to a combination of willingness to cause real harm, and the ability to keep on going after getting hit a lot. I'd say these are even more important than strength or intellect; still, even the most rabid simulationists haven't been arguing for including Resolve in both damage and stamina. In short: forget already that damn "it doesn't make sense" argument; it's impossible to do a perfect simulation, and even if it approaches that level, it wouldn't be fun, or balanced. Another important point: aside from a select few, it's usually impossible to actually think in a fight. The adrenaline and the speed things are happening at prevents those who aren't accustomed to it (and still hinders those who are), while more experienced fighters usually rely too much on ingrained reflexes to think too much about what they are going to do next. So, no, Intellect doesn't increase damage because you know where and how to hit, and you can turn this into an advantage during the fight; it increases damage because you've been able to use your practice time more effectively.

And that would be useful/relevant in an encounter because...?

Well, it isn't unusual in RPGs (looking at you, anything post-3E D&D, Fallout, Wasteland) for Intelligence to increase skill points gained per level. Look at it this way: Intellect represents how much of his class' specific skillset a character has absorbed - therefore, healing-oriented characters gain a bonus to healing, while damage-dealing classes get a bonus for dealing damage. (But I don't really think the system Josh has proposed needs to be explained or rationalized. It works, and accomplishes its goals extremely well. You can fiddle around with it, but you can't really improve it without significant changes to the underlying mechanics, too.)

Bards are underpowered in every game they're in. Ever tried playing a bard in BG1? They're worthless. I remember playing a pretty awesome bard on NWN2 and its expansions, there's also a few power builds that feature the bard on that game. Just how many games have you tried to play as a bard? I've always found them extremely useful in both IWD games (mostly because of their regenerative song), and the Blade specialization in the BG series could be a real combat monster (a pity that the only official NPC having it was saddled with an abysmal Con, further aggravating the problem of low health).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demosthenes_%28general%29#References :D You mean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcibiades#References

I'm more interested whether there will be a point in bringing wizards with me at all. I mean, their whole point is to be able to do everything, but worse that classes specialized to do that specific thing, and only that. Druids and barbarians will be better at AoE, rangers and rogues will be better at single-target damage, monks and fighters will be better at tanking (although, just a hunch: anything will be better at tanking if given the same amount of tanking-oriented talents), paladins and priests will be better at buffing. (And, to add insult to injury, chanters will probably be better at being versatile. Still hasn't really figured out the point of ciphers.) Since I can have up to 5 companions, I don't really see the need to keep one that can do the stuff of the other classes, only worse - I can have a class for every role, and still have 2 slots free (one, if I count on needing two tanks). On the other hand, this versatility (and a probable class bonus to lore skills) may make the wizard ideal for being my first character, since that will be the only time where I don't know where I'll run into which companions, so flexibility could be useful. (After creating a borderline unplayable bard in NWN, I've decided I'll never ever experiment with singsong-y classes again.)

That sounds very Kreia Seems like an interesting chap, any idea where I could read more about him? (Aside from Wikipedia. Duh.)

I like the original system proposed by Josh simply because it has way more potential to use the stats outside of combats than these offshoots you people came up with. It's a lot more intuitive to say that "you have high Perception, so you can read body language and notice stuff easier", or "you have high Strength, so intimidation is easier for you", or "you have a high Dexterity, so you can do sleight of hand-type stuff" than thinking about when would "power" and when "vigor" apply, or whether pickpocketing should be a purview of Dexterity or Speed, or what to base intelligent or perceptive answers at all. His version was fairly intuitive and balanced from this standpoint (although Con's still useless).

Dunno, is it any different from the literally countless other free retroclones (New 52, LotFP, Tales of the Grotesque and the Dungeonesque, etc etc)?

Very well, IMO. I especially like the Effort mechanic; it gives tactical in-the-moment decisions a whole new dimension. I'm not sure how well Numenera rules would translate to a cRPG, though. Well, I'm not entirely sure it was a wise decision to make you expend your health in order to succeed at extraordinarily difficult tasks. Also, when I think of burly characters (invested in Might only) and the representation of massive damage by moving down on the damage track, I can't help but feel that it's a really bad mechanism. It leads to strong and tough types being actually the worst at withstanding grievous injuries, while their dodgier or more resolved brethren are way safer. It's kinda ridiculous that when you throw them off a cliff then drop an anvil on their heads (move down 2 steps on the damage track), the experienced warrior's barely alive, the charismatic rogue is hurt, but has some reserves to call upon, but the weedy geek's health pool's almost intact. Power/Might. I'd say it's OK - then again, I've seen systems where your five attributes are Cool, Hard, Sharp, Hot and Weird, or there's only two, Ice and Light, so... my tolerance for non-simulationism is pretty high.