Delterius

1) Spellcasters are still vital and a single well chosen spell can and will save your party. 2) Spellcasters reign supreme in higher level D&D games, I won't deny that. But you could solo BG with every class and kit, never bothered to try it with IWD though. 3) Being able to Sleep Spam is a flaw that should be removed, regardless you don't have to Sleep Spam at all. A regenerating mana bar has always invariably caused the death of all strategic resource management. I'd rather the magic system isn't just tactical.

Agreed, a Vancian-like system is a must have. They cited the Infinity Engine for inspiration, after all.

I kinda remember a party member failing a morale check. That was precisely what the bard song prevented in BG, but that certainly didn't happen often. Its a interesting idea, depending on how the player is supposed to prevent those morale failures.

Well, I can't add much. Except that I do think the rest mechanic was flawed in the IE games because of how dangerously un-lethal the ambushes were, but I spammed resting regardless. I played those games while only resting in between 'adventures' and the resource management that added is kinda of important to me. I'd be very happy if Eternity better implements that same resource management.

However, the point begins as why Mages do not hold political, economic and spiritual power in the first place. I can totally see the very concept of nobility promptly spelling about mage in a world like that. And I certainly don't know enough about the setting to answer that question reliably.

I'm against it because I'd rather they spend all their resources onto a single-player RPG. Especially if they want to make use of the 'central protagonist from Baldur's Gate'.

The Kickstarter video makes it sound that the setting isn't exactly Low Magic, but it doesn't sound exactly High Magic either. Something in between and that can mean a infinite amount of things. So while Magic (in IE games, at least) is certainly more powerful and more limited than in many recent RPGs (not just Storywise, but also Game Mechanics wise), I'd say it could certainly become both more powerful, more limited and less powerful at the same time. More limited because, maybe, we won't have as many magical items and as much spellcasting potential as even in the IE games. More powerful because 'lesser' spell effects, such as a Lightning Bolt, could be made closer to their expected destructive power (I for one don't expect common bandits to survive 5 of those without magic of their own). And still less powerful because 'higher' spell effects could be made unavaiable or extremely rare. I never liked the concept of Resurrection much. A game is never going to implement it rarely enough to be credible, and its clunky in the story. Mind you that Evil Magic corruption isn't really necessary. Power changes people and that storyline isn't particularly rare. However, given that Magic is now correlated to a person's Soul, Evil Magic is bound to be. I suppose same thing about Teleportation. If spellcasters are relatively rare; most people (spellcasters included) actually are low levelled; Levitation is treated as a powerful spell, particularly extrenuous and/or of limited duration, then not only most mages can't use it, but it isn't cost effective. I disagree. If Magic is neither costly nor limited, then magic is Nerfed to be in line with martial artists. I for one, consider it truly un-fun when I can constantly use Magic but its pathetically weak. Or worse, when Magic is powerful, true, but then non-Magical bushwackers are superhero entities from the start, capable of tearing the ground apart with their swords.

That's just me venting.

Glad I could help. The superior civilizations of the future will read that and reach the conclusion that the paltry forums of the Stone Age had issues of double posting. Or that this Delterius chap is stupid.

I'd say subversion if you consider design decisions that convenience gameplay with no regards to the story, therefore deliberately causing gameplay and story segregation while proud of it. Like that isn't a failure of video game story telling. Because, you know, gamers shouldn't be inconvenienced at all. Like shared party experience without a really good justification, or half of the genre's latest 'innovation'. But in a ideal world, that'd just be design striving to get better. I' Excellent point. Couldn't agree more. Oh. Is there a delete button? I can't find it. Otherwise there's my eternal shame.

I believe some good molds to break, are the newest ones.

In my experience, neither of these happened in the IE games. I could (and did) switch party members all the time in Shadows of Amn, only settling for a definitive 6 man party much later. Also, if class design is any good, a definitive party won't ever feel dull or repetitive. Furthermore, planning your party beforehand was a staple of D&D games, the IE games included. Show, don't tell. Or, should I say, let me play it, show or at the very least tell.

Oh, ok then.

Yes, of course. I should have emphasized that Eternity won't use the latest tech.

But I do wonder if the game's content won't actually be more than the more realistic (or pessimistic) or us are willing to expect. I'm no game developer, but I've read more than a few opinion pieces about how technology, middleware and stuff, also brings the costs down.

And, again, I do not rule out a sad misunderstanding but its unlikely.

Challenge may not be the best word, best to say Interesting. However, challenge most likely is necessary to keep things interesting. And yes, I should have said 'if combat is tedious, its because encounter design sucks'.

Yes, but if that's the case it can't just be left implied. What your inactive party members are doing should tie in with the overall plot.

I haven't finished NwN2 yet (I'm early on the campaign), but they described the feature as stronghold then. Now they are talking about Player Housing. Sure, I won't rule out a sad misunderstanding but these guys are writers, they know their words.

First of all, I believe that 'Player House' and 'Stronghold' have different meanings. 'Player House' (look no further than the Minecraft Heartfire DLC for Skyrim) implies a much more domestic connotation - kids, decorating and stuffies. This isn't what I remember from Baldur's Gate. In Amn, you'd take over a cool castle or a nice giant sphere of doomagics and follow a storyline based on it - fitting your choice of class, no less. You had 'Strongholds', something that's worthy of a chapter (or several) in a heroic fantasy book. So while I fear that 'Strongholds' may be outside the project's scope in terms of content, I believe that 'Player Housing' is beyond the project's scope in terms of inspiration.

Well, if it is difficult to know what is going going on, then there are issues. What should be challenging is to manage everything that is going on. It can also be tedious to play turn-based combat, which can play just as slowly. If things are happening slowly in a turn-based game and you're not thanking God that's the case, its because the game isn't challenging you. In my experience it means that encounter design has its issues.

Warden's Keep? Not to mention the sequel. You mean Vigil's Keep. You're forced to give away Warden's Keep. From what I can gather, 'Player Housing' (Skyrim) and 'Stronghold' (Baldur's Gate, Dragon Age) have different connotations. Player Housing implies a much more domestic functionality. Personally, Player Housing is part of this simulationism that a lot of people seem to like but I don't. I don't want or expect mundane details off of my heroic fantasy novels and stories.

Back when BioWare tried to make a rule system for DA:O they barely made the decent mark. A lot of people I know bitched about it, especially because BioWare couldn't even fully implement what they envisioned for the attributes and whatever, but I never expected much from it so it was enjoyable. The only thing DA:O really excelled at was quest design. Naivelly, I expected a improved system on the next game but nothing else needs to be said. Yes, I'd much prefer more classes and a nice 6 man party (if the correlation between the number of classes and the size of the party can be relied on here) but, then again, the Infinity Engine games were based on previous work of D&D, this is a new IP. This is why I think the comparison to BioWare's DA:O is valid. And I do believe we have a much different design vision in Eternity than even years ago on the Dragon Age project. We haven't seen anything, anything yet. If you had to jump the boat, you should have the moment they cited the Infinity Engine games as inspiration. Am I being apologetic? Well, after reading the BSN DA2 defense squad I can't believe I'm too obnoxious. However, I am no fool. Your criticism is valid and, yes, I surely hope they scrap 'player housing' and go back to strongholds. Except for the magic system. Really? Bitching about it because of the fluff? It may suck but that's jumping the gun.

It settles a setting's internal logic, which is entirely realistic.

That's where you lose me. No, that's where you lost yourself. The setting you estabilished on the last page made a point of equalizing men and women warriors, which most likely includes physical aptitude (after all, that's your argument for why women and men aren't equal in real life). For some reason, you choose to interprete that as armor having no inherent value anymore. Instead, as you should, its best to assume that, as physically men and women are similar, they should be able to wear similar armor. Therefore, there's no reason for the chainmail bikini. I see what you're saying, but my arguement is consistent though. Once you've established that a women are equal to combat to men, the whole idea of combat becomes unrealist (as if it was terribly realistic in RPGs to begin with). So it's a purely stylistic decision. A woman beating a man to death in full plate is not a whole lot more likely than a woman beating a man to death in underwear. That's a possible setting, yes, one where armor has no inherent value and both sexes have similar physical competence. It has a logic of its own that differs from reality, thus its fantasy. But most likely Eternity's setting, as with IE games' before it, do have sexes of similar physical competence and armor does have value.