Tamerlane

Dude. He gave you an explanation based on Things Obsidian Has Already Said. Don't be rude.

I'd just like to point out that Avellone (and others) have to sign, by my count, 2557 games/posters/books as part of the pledge rewards. Let the man rest his freaky-looking hands.

That's our understanding of things, yeah. The actual when of it is still a mystery, but I'm sure we can all... ... *endure*.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thumb#Variation

I feel like every Kickstarter should start throwing George Ziets and Chris Avellone on as a stretch goal, regardless of the actual purpose of the Kickstarter. Veronica Mars? Ziets and Avellone! Comfortable plus-sized women's wear? Ziets and Avellone! Wool hats with animal faces on them? Ziets and Avellone!

And don't forget... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MiMjQwd2VE

I hope she doesn't split my head in with her pulaski. Get it? Get it?

I do believe that the important piece in that picture is not the poor peasant's weapon or the knight's armour or even the plume on the helmet, but rather, that someone, somewhere, really wanted to make horses look like unicorns. I want to know more about that someone.

Mind-boggling post... Haven't played Dragon Age: Origins? Not even aware of it? Go play DA:O now. If it's not your cup of tea, fine, but playing on dislike of MMOs does *not* work as a dismissal of threat-based mechanics for a party-based game. But... that quote has nothing to do with threat mechanics?

No it isn't. I can't tell if you're disagreeing with explorability being the only thing in BG1's favour, in which case this would be the place where you mention things that you liked about it more than BG2, or you're disagreeing with my use of the word "debatable", which is just silly.

You remember correctly: BG2 blows the original out of the god damn water. Dialogue, quests, encounter design, environments... pretty much the only thing I could put in BG1's favour is "explorability", and even that is debatable. And also not a word.

The Broken Steel option was kinda dickish about it, too. "Heh, don't want to throw your life away for absolutely no reason? Fine, you ****ing coward."

A little from column A and a little from column B. It was a joke, but yeah, you are assuming too much about What Fighters Are Like in PE. Hell, when people talk about fighters in the IE games, "underpowered" is usually the word that gets thrown around, so I don't really get where this fear about fighters being too good at fighting comes from. Besides that, engagement is not a thing only fighters can do. Fighters have at least one feat that makes them better at engaging. They might have more and they might not. Other classes might have feats that improve how they engage or they might not. But as it stands - and if I'm mistaken, someone please tell me to shut the **** up - as it stands, anyone holding a melee weapon can engage another enemy.

It must be nice having such hands-on experience with games that don't yet exist. Hey, have you played the new Torment game yet? Debating whether or not I want to throw money at its Kickstarter campaign.

At present, they do not plan to animate disengagement attacks, just as opportunity attacks were not animated in NWN and NWN2 and extra attacks per round were not animated in the IE games. They've said that if they hope to find a more elegant solution, but don't hold your breath. It is this way specifically to avoid the problem of "what happens if someone disengages mid-swing?" And there are no hidden turns/rounds. It's entirely real-time.

Silk undershirts supposedly saw use by the Mongols. Good at binding up arrows, they say. 'Course, that could be a myth.

Um. Given that PE received about half of its money from Europeans, I'd expect that a good chunk of posters are not native English speakers. And you present a bizarre false dichotomy of either conversation-specific skills or railroaded dialogue.

Where was this stated? Between the Kickstarter updates, Formspring, interviews, and developer comments on two separate forums, I have no god damn idea where exactly I read/heard that. And of course, they could have changed their minds thrice over since then. That's just the last thing I heard on the topic.

I think it's not so much something that a mage gets close to a fighter to do as it is something that a mage does if a fighter gets close. And it's also not so much that they're hitting a fighter with a book as it is that they're hitting fighter with a big pile of magical exploding stuff that happens to be contained within a book.

Pretty sure they've already said that there won't be any manner of "persuasion" skills in the game, which is just fine by me.

I don't think "defense mode" is an inherent part of the fighter class, but rather, a feat they have to take.

You'll note that the Mongols were pretty damn careful not to get within skull-bashing range on their horses. Same for English archers and Parthian cavalry and whatever other historic examples. You can still kite, you just can't be right by someone (unless they aren't using a melee weapon or you use an ability that lets you disengage or you have someone to distract them). Kiting is not inherently a bad thing, but leading an enemy on a merry chase when he's in pig-sticker range of your back is a bad thing. So is being able to run by a sword dude without consequence just because his body his not physically occupying the exact space you want to go through. Even if it's not totally realistic - not differentiating between enemies at maximum effective melee range and minimum, for example - it's still a hell of a lot more realistic than the IE games or any of their spiritual successors thus far. If realism's your thang. EDIT: And I'd never claim to be particularly knowledgeable about the Battle of Agincourt, but... what? My understanding was that it was a combination of the longbow, horrible mud, and a crazy bottleneck, not any sort of attack-retreat tactic from the English that could be compared to "kiting".

Opportunity attacks are Good Things, and the fact that they can sort of "tie up" an opponent as opposed to just doing a bit of damage as they run by your fighter is particularly nice.

Eh, not necessarily. There's always room for XxX_CaSteR_SuPrEmAcY420_XxX, even with melee mages. Remember that DAO's best fighter was a mage with the arcane warrior specialization and BG2's best fighter took mage levels.

I was kind of mixed about a lot of things in The Walking Dead, but one of the things that made me happier than a ****-covered fly was the fact that the game often gave you the option of not saying anything. A lot of RPGs have this weird thing where they expect the PC to say something every few lines, even if their contribution to the conversation is just a pointless and unnatural "Go on."