Karkarov

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying I have an issue with weapons being in game that just plain suck for specific classes. Like a bladed fist weapon with "soul powah" that had limited sentience and just doesn't feel like anyone without the soul (class) of a monk is worthy of using it's power. So a fighter finds it, equips it, and etc. That doesn't mean he isn't getting penalized because it wants to be used by a monk. It only means the fighter "could" use it if they want to. See what I am saying? Also as far as the sword in the stone goes (AKA: Excalibur), it wouldn't let anyone other than Arthur draw it from the earth, true. But once it was "out of the earth" it wasn't quite so picky. Case in point Merlin is the one who put it in the stone in the first place after stealing it from Uther, Arthur's father. Reason being is he felt Uther was abusing Excalibur's power.

There are plenty of games out there already that do "realistic" combat in a fantasy RPG environment well. I put realistic in quotes for a obvious reason ;p. Do something insane and try to leave the comfort zone of isometric games and play something like Dark or Demon's Souls. Or even go for Mount and Blade Warband is you have to get really bare bones. Meanwhile look at the recent games like Chivalry and The War of Roses too. An isometric view, top down, party based game will never have "realistic" fantasy combat. For you to have the needed control in a game based on that type of combat mechanics you need to be considerably closer to the action and you can't do it while playing more than one character.

Weapon restrictions are stupid. Period. I don't care how much of a lilly livered sissy finger wiggler you are, you will be able to understand the concept of pick up sword, put pointy end in other guy. Now if you want to make "soul powah!" weapons that don't fully function, or have different effects depending on the soul (class) of who uses them? That's okay. But there should be no weapons at all that require X class to use.

Hmm, Im not so sure about that. If weve learned anything from prior "degenerative gameplay" discussions its that apparently most players are utterly incapable of controlling their actions and will always take the path of least resistance or whatever rewards the best loot, even if it destroys their own enjoyment of the game. If the only way to get those boss gauntlets is to pry them off his cold dead fingers then that's what everyone will do. That's perfectly fine. As long as they are okay with becoming enemies with most thieve guilds in the world and having a contract put on their heads and suffering random bounty hunter attacks and assassination attempts. You know how it is, whatever floats their boat.

This isn't D&D the "holy avenger" as you are referring to it is a D&D magic item. There is no reason for it to be in game. The devs can create their own unique magic gear and lore weapons, they will be cool enough for me.

Well said. Like I said before I personally have no issue with the concept of a "dump" stat as long as the player gets punished in some way for ignoring a stat. That said.... if choices aren't hard then they aren't choices at all and they lack any real meaning. So making stat distribution harder and something where you can't just choose to ignore one stat completely would probably be a better design and make for a more interesting game.

Personally I hope the game keeps grinding to a minimum. No EXP from combat? Who cares. Combat still has lots of perks. For example.... lets say there is a objective where you have to get a thief guild leader off a powerful merchants back for whatever reason. There could be all sorts of ways to do it..... for example: You could join the thieves guild, work your way up, and at high rank use your clout to call the guild off. You could break into the guild or the guild leaders home and steal evidence and use it to blackmail him. You could simply earn a crap ton of money and pay the guild leader off to leave him alone. Or you could charge into his hideout, scream "EAT COLD STEEL!!!" and kill everything that moves. All of them are viable choices and have different advantages and disadvantages. But only one of them ends up with you in possession of the Thief Guild Leader's gauntlets of stealth that enhance all rogue talents and his short sword +3.

Not really, no. It seems like you're trying to argue that Insta-death spells are some weird thing in a combat that stick out like a sore thumb. But the fact of the matter is that they, invariably, only rear their ugly heads at the high levels, when your party and your enemies already have a bajillion tools at their disposal. Thus, they do not affect game balance, nor do they impact combat enough to render it untactical. Actually it sounds like you almost did understand what I was saying. In a world of prismatic spray, black blade of disaster, chain lightning, fly, stoneskin, anti magic shell, bigby's crushing grasp, tenser's transformation, and god knows what else I would hope the lack of death magic has little to no impact on how you approach a fight with a powerful caster. There are a million ways to kill a character that are far more effective and way harder to stop than "power word kill". Taking instant death out of the game doesn't actually effect how you tactically approach a powerful caster at all does it? So if it only encourages a forced pre buff for no other reason than "just in case they cast that", and degenerate gameplay if they do and you aren't protected... I don't think the game really suffers for it's absence. It is just one less boring buff for me to waste time casting. That said I actually got real tired of the end game of BG2, because it became less about tactical fights and it became more "counter the mage: the game". Too bad countering the mage was all combat ever boiled down to a lot of the time at that point.

Can you provide a link to where they discuss aggro mechanics? I hadn't heard of that and am interested in reading up on how it will be handled. Considering even WoW doesn't use them anymore I hope they don't use them here and instead opt for good enemy AI. Understand when I say WoW doesn't use aggro anymore I don't mean it isn't in the game, it is just tanks are so good at generating aggro now holding threat over others is very very easy. When i quit at the end of Cataclysm it was at the point that my guild which was into end game raiding didn't even require you have one anymore. You just cant pull threat off a good tank anymore, unless it is a part of the fights mechanic and designed to happen.

Eh it is just going to be like a WoW rogue. Lots of prep, perfect positioning, unload with a set of specific skills.... then start prepping again so in 30-40 seconds you can do damage again. Meanwhile the guy with the two hander does steady reliable damage to multiple enemies the entire time. On a "pure damage" number crunch the two hander guy probably wins.... but the Rogue will still be better for one on one bursts of massive damage at a short time. In other words two hander is for trash killing, rogue is for precision strike on high threat target.

The point is magic is not clearly a combat or a non-combat skill. If it's similar to AD&D, it will be mostly, but not entirely, combat, but some will be non-combat related. Meaning they either need to shave off the non-combat spells as skills, or spellcasters really do have less combat utility than non-spellcasters. I don't think that is the case. Many classes are likely to have out of combat utility abilities. I imagine since the whole game is based on SOUL POWAH and not on spells and such there will be no memorization per se. Likely each "SOUL POWAH" for casters will just be categorized based on how powerful it is and for each different catagory of power you just have a limited number of uses per time frame. However inside that given time frame you have access to all the powers you actually know without needing to specifically prepare them. At least that's how I would do it for PE but who knows. I just know it isn't D&D so that system for spells likely won't apply.

This is kind of a non question. Obviously if you behave in a highly greedy, violent, and self centered way it should effect who is your friends (assuming you have any), what factions you can ally with, how the story plays out, etc etc. I don't think anyone will suggest anything else. The game shouldn't be "totally different" but there should be obvious and clear differences between the game of a person playing the uber good guy honor nut and the mentally disturbed in it for the thrill and money chap.

So yeah, just like every other ability or attack that takes all planning out of the equation I don't like Maze either. Also it isn't me who is deliberately missing the point. Take instant death out. Get rid of it. Now... I want you to tell me how you approach a fight with a high level caster knowing that he has no instant death attacks. Not maze, not power word kill, not anything like that. You have your plan? Okay. Now assume he has power word kill. Has your plan actually changed in any significant way? Do you understand what I am saying now?

Great post, and this is part of my point. In BG I paid for their inn rooms, I bought their arrows, I distributed and sometimes bought them gear. It wasn't like they weren't getting "rewarded". If Minsc doesn't like how he is getting treated he can just hand that full plate armor I bought him right back. If you really do want to do a game driven on the idea of soliders / adventurers for hire than they need their own cut sure. But they also need to be responsible for themselves. They need to buy their own gear, have their own inventory, and pay their own way. After all I am paying them a wage, they work for me. My boss doesn't pay for my lunch, he says he paid me and I can buy it myself. A system where an npc wants a wage AND wants me to front all their costs is just as ridiculous as one where a mercenary will take a one time 100 gold pay off and never ask for compensation again and let you totally control his inventory.

For sure. I was just trying to make a logic point on why respawns don't make much sense. Who wants to repopulate the area when a group of wandering death dealers is still sitting around. Leave and a week of in game time goes by? I could understand a full respawn then. But an 8 hour rest, while you are still in the same area? No way.

This isn't really how I would have said it but... yeah. Some respawn is fine, but you should not have total respawn because you rested. Not only is it not realistic, it makes on logical sense either. I am a bandit, I heard sounds of death and murder from the forest base we use... I go back there to find all my friends dead and butchered. 100 yards away 6 guys are napping. I may be a bandit, but I am not stupid, I aint hanging around to get the same treatment. Also limiting it to needing an item like a Tent or Cabin ala final fantasy is not a good idea. If you do that I will just buy tons of tents which defeats the whole purpose behind having them, I mean... that's what I did in Final Fantasy and it worked fine there. Keep it to limited resting spots, maybe have "some" respawn but not total. That's plenty.

You realize nothing you just posted has anything to do with instant death attacks? Silencing a Caster in D&D is a viable strategy regardless of what spells they are casting. Even if the best tool they got is "Magic Missile" having a rogue sneak up and stun them is still a reasonable thing to do. There is only one strategy for specifically dealing with instant death spells. Have a protection from death effect on the character. Removing instant death magic has no effect on the depth of combat, it just means I don't need to buff myself to specifically protect against death attacks anymore. I can still cast hold on casters, I can still surround casters with summons, I can still send my weakest party member to distract casters, I can still focus fire casters with ranged attacks, etc etc etc. None of that hinges on them having death spells. Fair enough Morgulon but my point is really simple. Death magic is a farce and actually adds no depth to the game. It just encourages save scumming or forces precasts of specific buffs "just in case". If it adds nothing worth having to the mix, it shouldn't be in game. Death magic doesn't add anything worth having.

No. First off by now after 20 years of friendship I have helped Carry the Cat Burglar more than enough times to make her plenty of money. Who do you think bought her the magical short sword she is using? Pauly the Pure tithes his own money, not other peoples, and as a holy knight probably plans to assault the Onyx Citadel with or without me. He smites evil, he isn't a church tax collector. Bob on the other hand will be great sure.... until we get into a situation that is near 100% assured death and he does the math and mentions how he isn't being paid to die leaving me Carry and Pauly high and dry. That photo posted a bit above here is hilariously ironic in this regard. It isn't like these guys are paying for inn rooms when we stay in them, or they buy the healing potions they quaff.

I am just checking to see if you noticed the lead designer of the game already posted saying they won't be including save or die mechanics in PE. It may just be me but I think you critically failed your disbelieve check and now think the illusion is real. The illusion being that save or die mechanics are interesting, fun, add any depth to gameplay, or have any chance of being included in the game. Tactics is not casting protection from fire when you know you are about to fight a fire elemental, that's called common sense. Tactics is using your fighter to taunt and lure it to a cliff edge, having your rogue stun it with a smoke bomb so it's dazed, getting your mage cast a freezing spell on it, then ordering your priest use a powerful divine spell that knocks enemies away to push it off the cliff.

Maelkith, Stun, Sensuki... First off you guys do realize replying with flames and personal insults makes you look like a bunch of third graders? Second.... Diablo 3... king of the mix/maxer lets eek out every little stat point and build the perfect toon designed to maximize every single aspect of combat games this gen... Has no combat log. When a game that is 100% about nothing but min/maxing and combat doesn't think it needs a combat log that speaks clearly to designers thoughts on how important a combat log really is. Lastly, specifically for you Sensuki. The first major forum uproar happened when Sawyer said there would be no experience from combat because they wanted to design a game that did not encourage degenerate gameplay such as killing everyone you could just because it got you the most EXP. He even said many objectives in the game could be completed without any combat at all. At one point they apparently actually played with the idea of making it possible to beat the entire game with no combat. I don't think they went that route, but they thought about it. That should tell you something about how "combat focused" the game really is. Combat will be important, no doubt, but it is not the be all end all of the game. Nor are people who don't stare at the combat log "casuals who are killing RPG's" because they don't need to see (roll=10 modifer +4+1+3=18 THAC0 14 Enemy AC -2 : hit) to notice they just hit a mob.

To me the issue is when an attribute is so fundamentally useless for any single class that every build will minimize it, there's very little point in including it for that class. That's a good point. I don't think dumb stats are a problem, but if you make a character who has a blatant weakness it should be exploited enough times in the game to make you feel regret at least a few times that you went with such a lop sided build.

Depends on the companion..... scratch that.... it depends on if they are a companion or a mercenary. If I am going to storm the Onyx Citadel I don't expect Pauly the Pure Paladin of the Holy Mother to start rubbing his fingers together and begin talking about how light his coin purse is. Likewise I don't expect Carry the Cat Burglar who is my childhood friend of 20 years whose life I have saved 7 times to do more than moan and complain a little. Bob McMoneygrubbins the Dwarven Sellsword though... I think it would reasonable for him to want some remuneration for taking on such a tough job. Of course if I were going to assault the bastion of death and plague that is the Onyx Citadel in what is likely to be a near suicide mission... I wouldn't want to take people motivated by money to begin with. Money is only useful if you aren't dead after all.

I am for new game plus under specific circumstances. 1: It has to make sense in the games lore and story. Games like Dark Souls or Dragon's Dogma having new game plus works thematically because of the type of world and story they are telling. The concepts of PE with the main character being unable to die possibly, the soul being the source of strength, etc... I could see the story working for new game plus. But we don't know enough for sure. 2: There has to be something new for new game plus. For example ... the Souls games make enemies stronger on each play through raising the challenge level and keeping the gameplay interesting. One of the best new game plus modes ever done was Chrono Trigger. There was nothing new added to the game on new game plus in it... but there was events, endings, and hidden things that you just could not do or see on the first play through. Maybe it was because you weren't strong enough for them, or you were missing a key item, but something prevented you on playthrough one. The game didn't change at all, you just have new options you didn't before. That one unwinnable fight from playthrough one suddenly might be winnable... that locked door you had no key for... might strangely be in your possession now. Etc etc. 3: The real catch 22 which probably makes this a pipe dream. For new game + to work well the game has to be designed around the idea of having new game + from the very beginning. It is not a feature you can really tack on as a stretch goal or something unless it is going to be nothing more than a shallow power trip.

Well said it before... say again... this isn't D&D so we don't know enough about stats and how they will work to know if a fixed or scaling with level system will work best. If it is going to end up being a similar system to D&D where stats are mostly fixed and rarely increase there should be no rolling involved. Just give everyone perfect middle stats (say 10 out of possible 20) in all stats, add in racial mods, and then give them X number of points to distribute plus the ability to lower the stats already in place if wanted. But mostly just to be sure it is out there.... please, no rolling.

HP changes are going to be pretty obvious on screen since the UI will have HP bars. Also I know asking is a waste of time, but why does knowing you rolled a 3 on and attack and missed matter? A miss is a miss, knowing you missed because of RNG doesn't make it any less of a miss. Nor do you need the log to "detect" RNG. Missing 15 attacks in a row isn't RNG, it's you are outmatched by your enemy. I also can't think of even one reason why you would want to know specifically how much HP you lost 5 rounds ago in a quasi real time game with pause. Either you need to do something to heal... or you don't. Knowing that 5 rounds ago you took 10 stamina damage from a wizards magic bolt makes no difference. You could argue you are trying to determine who the bigger threat is but again... three normal looking bandits and one guy in the back with a staff that has flames coming off it... I don't really need a combat log to tell who the biggest threat is. Lastly, I really don't care whose name is in the credit list as long as the game is good and isn't BG 1990 edition with new graphics. I believe the pot is calling the kettle black.