sparklecat

As an addendum, I don't see how having the ability to build a character that will, in practice, be ineffective adds much. I don't need the freedom to discover five or ten hours in that I've inadvertently made my game unplayable.

A "no bad builds" system simply moves where it is that you can utterly screw up what you're doing from creating your character to playing your character. I do not think this is a bad thing, or reduces variation; quite the opposite, in fact, because any character I potentially create has some viable playstyle, if I can simply work out what it is and use that character effectively. It's a system that rewards understanding the mechanics involved over knowing a few narrow builds.

What I'm saying is that going to the very bottom should mean your character is handicapped in that area. No, it wouldn't. It would just mean that your character is handicapped in that particular area, but is more capable in other areas. Adjust your playstyle to match. The whole point of the "no bad builds" concept is that the other attributes can be useful too, which wasn't the case in the BG series. -- Sorry guys, unfortunately I'm leaving for work now and I can't continue this right now. I'm planning to start a new thread about diminishing returns and other related stuff later, because I've been having the same discussions in several places and frankly I think a lot of people just don't really understand the concept and its repercussions (not referring to you specifically). Let me just confirm that I'm understanding what you want properly - increasingly severe penalties as you lower attribute scores below some (presently undefined) average amount, and initially steep benefits from raising scores above average that eventually plateau? (now with not very good graph included!)

Not to my knowledge. Have I stated that? Anyway, I think you might be getting stuck on details and missing the actual point in the process. The real problem is the linearity of the stat progression, this leads almost inevitably to stat dumping and mindless min-maxing. In order to avoid that with linear stat progression you'd have to go for extreme penalties and bonuses, and that would be a nightmare to balance. What I'm getting at is why you're assuming that going under a certain amount is "dumping" a stat and means your character is handicapped in that area. Especially if you're pushing for a non-linear scale, what the zero point is matters.

Caerdon, has it been explicitly stated that ~10 is average?

I think we're dealing with a psychological effect here at least partly. It just feels "wrong" that dumped stats still give bonuses, even if they're small. I have a feeling that if you set the zero point to 10 and applied the adjustments as negatives below and positives above, a lot of people would be happier even if it ended up in the same place. (I do think the abilities ought to have more impact in absolute terms as well; I don't really feel I'm missing much from my dump stats or gaining much by pumping them. I would like it to sting if I dumped something to 3 so I'd have to adjust my tactics accordingly.) Except the impression I get is that the game is balanced around a low score being what's average for a person, rather than it being 10 or so, hence why going for some low value leaves your character build still viable. In which case ability scores not making a huge amount of difference is sensible. Assuming I'm correct, I wonder if it'd be better received to increase the effects of a point, drop how many we get to distribute, and state explicitly that 3 in an attribute (or whatever) is what the average person in the world will have?

Yes. More specifically, you're stealthed when you're scouting and the detection range circle around the character doesn't include enemies.

Utukka: More seriously, your specified old geezer is probably at least sufficiently strong to, say, carry a pack around and hike across the various maps, yeah? The lower limit we're allowed isn't necessarily "average", just "not crippingly far below average".

There are always, by virtue of the medium (i.e., not PnP), going to be limits on what type of character you can roleplay because they have to write dialogue and responses for us. I have no problem with a general lower limit being set on all our attributes. Just imagine that if they're below that minimum then the character is incapable of sufficiently functioning independently for this story or some such. But what about my old geezer who uses Tensers transformation/Polymorph to return to his glory days? Well the lack of Tenser's Transformation might be a bigger problem :D

Agree with the rest of what you said, but regarding this: There are always, by virtue of the medium (i.e., not PnP), going to be limits on what type of character you can roleplay because they have to write dialogue and responses for us. I have no problem with a general lower limit being set on all our attributes. Just imagine that if they're below that minimum then the character is incapable of sufficiently functioning independently for this story or some such.

Well said; I, too, have been incredibly pleased with how well my 4 year old system has been handling the game, especially when this is before all the optimisation. Need to test it out a bit more on my laptop, but even there I was expecting much worse in the way of loading times at this stage. I'm feeling fairly optimistic as well on this score. Also on the "oh no there isn't enough time for them to fix everything!" score; I think they are likely better placed to judge that than I am right now.

I have no problem with the idea that certain characters who are too far below average in various areas are simply not suited to the adventuring lifestyle, and thus not someone we can build in this game (and thus no problem with the idea of the minimum attribute score being the minimum required to function effectively in this context and every point we put in above that a bonus we gain). If I am literally too weak to smack something in the face with a club and hurt it, or too weak-willed to argue back with anyone... well. So go ahead and let every (low-level) character be able to be semi-competent at whatever; why wouldn't a travelling wizard wear armour and be able to swing a sword, especially if she's intending to travel somewhere she might reasonably expect to be physically attacked? People can be good at multiple things without that stopping them from being excellent in their chosen field!

As an aside, there's a pretty badass level 1 wizard spell which gives you a MASSIVE accuracy boost for a short time. You ought to be able make a pretty cool spellsword with intelligent use of that + Arcane Veil. Pump INT for the duration boost, use light armor so you act fast, cast spell, put Arcane Veil up, charge into melee, proceed to slice 'n dice. When it runs out, use one of those short-distance teleport spells to get to safety. Serious burst damage, with flair. Gotta try that, maybe with the next build. Incidentally, I like a lot of the ideas I've seen you coming up with for less archetypal character builds and your comments on how they (should) be built and played; it's very helpful for someone without as good a grasp of the mechanics at this point, so thanks!

That sounds good to me; I hate having some item I'm quite fond of wind up obsoleted, but I want a fair number of the items to feel special in the first place, rather than something that anyone with enough cash could just up and create. Something that you earned through your adventuring rather than bought, and by implication something limited in the world.

The difficulty there is figuring out just what, if anything, I need to do when it pauses. Better combat feedback would help, yes, but "Autopause: spell cast/ability used" or whatever coming up in the log while it selects the character that needs something new to do would, I imagine, significantly speed up combat (and help keep combat fun rather than a chore) as compared to manually checking every character every three seconds.

Have you tried it?

Nobody is saying the items need to be overpowered, but that doesn't mean the only alternative is that they all be the sort of generic stuff you can make yourself. I want unique items with history, interesting descriptions and backgrounds or at the very least interesting ways of gaining them. Like IWD2, with the slightly improved... dagger, I think it was, that you got in a roundabout fashion from the ghost at the starting inn. Not overpowered at all, but it sticks in your mind.

Unfortunately, no. Ranger gameplay is based on the shared health pool with Mr. Bear. The experience is completely different from playing a ranged fighter. I was going to say that rangers are weird hippies who hang out in forests with animals while fighters are dedicated weapon users/masters, but this works as a reply too :D eta: I really enjoyed my archer fighter in BG.

Do you realise that this is a beta and that they removed all story content including the real companions? Same goes for the combat, There is still lots of bugs and missing features. I'm sure it will improve in the coming months. Maybe you right. Well, at least i hope that you do. Because, first - i saw many betas, and they usually have part of the game, but not anything that will not be in game eventually. For example, beta of divinity contained 2 companions, and they was there in release too. But i do saw many party rpg with nameless-mob-team, one of them was even addon to the neverwinter 2, and i certainly do not want to see this kind of approach again. As for the battle system - well if it is not alpha, and really beta - i doubt that anyone will change it because of few people complain in forums. And that is the most sad thing, because it's the only thing that could actually not let me play this game because of my reflexes (that is why i mostly playing rpg, and avoiding action games). But they could at least add some "infinite slowmotion" option or something like that. Maybe speed slowing button. Check out the options menu - there's a key to slow down time.

Not as attractive if your focus is on how the character performs in combat, perhaps. Perfectly attractive if you're interested in opening up more conversation options. Regarding the OP, I generally (and tentatively) agree, but if there is going to be a change to make attribute scores more significant, I'd rather they be left alone and we got more points as we levelled, instead.

For combat? Yep. I've been in favour of RTwP since the beginning; I just was expecting more robust autopause settings. A per-action/per-character autopause would be fine, I think.

I haven't screwed around much yet with the fighter class; is it necessary for her to be a front-line combatant, or is it viable to use ranged weapons and have less survivability?

Or symptomatic of a player who finds quasi-turn based combat much easier to manage than anything in real time/a player who just plain has trouble keeping track of what's going on with six characters without it? For my part, it's especially important because I have ADHD; real-time combat with a single character can be hard to keep up with sometimes. Start adding more and it's hopeless; I have to have most of the characters auto-attacking while I try to manually manage one or maybe two. Comprehensive autopause settings give me the ability to play games like this, especially if I want to use any actual tactics or more than one or two abilities on my people. eta: Yeah, I'm sure it'd make combat quite slow and choppy. That's fine; people who don't like it don't have to use it!

Yup. This is basically what I was expecting Autopause: Spell Cast to do. Needs to be in.

My comments/suggestions as I went along: - The "Quicksave completed" text could be present a bit longer on the screen. - When I click the tab to collapse the dialogue log box, the tab to open it again moves rather far up the side; took me a bit of searching to find it to uncollapse the log. - Are the food/potions/scrolls in the crafting menu going to tell me what the item actually does? Maybe once I've used one of the item, if not before? - Why is it that I've put the same number of points into athletics and survival, but athletics is at 4 overall and survival at 3? Oh, apparently priests get +1 to athletics. It'd be nice if the skills screen and character sheet made explicit where the numbers were coming from; the latter simply says Athletics: 5 (Base) when I click on it. - I would like to be able to save extra skill points I don't want to use yet for the next time I level; if I don't have enough to hit the skill level up threshold, I'd prefer to wait and see what I want to do with the points by the time I do. - I would like clicking the god I chose for my priest (as well as my... racial subtype? Meadow Folk, etc.) to tell me what I'm getting from having chosen them, when I click them in the character screen. - Where can I get a look at all my priest spells? I found the grimoire, but it seems that's wizard only. Also, I think one's spell book/list of combat abilities is important enough that it should be part of the HUD along with inventory, etc., as well as starting off bound to a key. - The mouse wheel scrolling equivalent on my laptop trackpad doesn't zoom in and out like an actual mouse wheel would. And it seems I can't bind it to any keys, which is a problem. - Attempting to fight a group of lions when your party and the lions are all behind a large tree is very difficult.