1varangian

being able to endure pain, recover quicker from wounds and make attacks more devastating through sheer will power (aka soul power) is in no way shape or form even remotely close to Dragon Ball Z...that's a terrible comparison and you should feel bad for making it and have you ever heard of Shadow Dancers? or a multitude of other high level rogue abilities? if those don't count as quasi-magical i can't conceive of your rationale for them. Shadowdancer is a PrC I don't have to take for my Rogue. Multiclassing into a Wizard or Shadowdancer in order to learn some magical tricks is fine. Turning a martial base class into a spellcaster by default is not.

Mind control and telepathy are things that would make designing quests properly extremely hard as they would almost always offer easy solutions or at least new options. Don't know how they could pull that off. On the other hand, if being a mind mage just means 'Fire damage is now Psychic damage' there's not much point to the class.

Making sense in the setting or not, If you start handing out magical powers to everyone there's a very thin line before you cross over to DragonballZ. Instead of making high level Fighters and Rogues comically powerful, I would rather tone down the high level spellcasters and the potency and abundancy of magic. That would be a refreshing take after all the 'awesome' anime RPG's where magic equals spamming nonstop fireworks. And Rogues using magic items is entirely different from Rogues being innately magical and using spell-like powers.

A telepath / telekinesis / illusion based caster sounds like a cool concept. But what's a Cipher? Sounds like a computer nerd. Call the class Mystic.

Classes sound good to me.. familiar yet flexible enough to build as you like. However, not too excited after finding out all classes get superhuman powers or magic-like talents. That to me sounds like superhero comics and the lameness of Dragon Age 2. When I play a Rogue or a Fighter I want them to be humans - ordinary, non-magical yet arse kicking humans with legendary skills. Magic-like talents take the edge off their coolness, in contrast to spellcasters, since they essentially become some kind of magic-users. So please, don't make Rogues magic-users. That's what Wizards and Priests are for. Pretty please? And I don't really get "Cipher". It sounds more like a secret agent or decryption specialist. How about "Mystic"?

There shouldn't even be a poll for this... Running out of arrows is good. Smart archers train a secondary weapon... and *omg* it forces the player to manage resources intelligently.. thinking in a game! *omg* how oldskool. /sarcasm

As long as you can build a Mage to be able to fight off at least some minions without spells it's all good. Sacrifice a little bit of magic potential to be able to fight a bit.

This is an important thread. I'm still traumatized by fighting some ridiculous buffed up level 15 wolves in Dragon Age Origins, otherwise a good game. A single stupid encounter like that just erases any feeling of progress you think you might have made. Fighting the same enemies after leveling up is the best indicator how much progress your party has made. So even if they would have some "reasonable level cap", I don't want enemies leveling up with me. At all. So indeed, encounters need to be adjusted instead of stats of individual enemies. Instead of level 2 bandits -> level 4 bandits -> level 6 bandits just have more bandits and throw in a bandit warlock and/or leader. On a related note, I would like a more patient power curve for the PC's in general so the encounters wouldn't have to be scaled as much to begin with. A high level warrior surrounded by 10 low level warriors should be a life threatening situation, instead of just launching one whirlwind attack to kill them all. That's the kind of realism that helps make the stories more believable as well - so no level 20 superhumans who are only challenged by giants, dragons and level 15 "bandits" please.

I would really like friendly fire to be taken to the next level. Firing arrows into melee should risk hitting your companions. There could be a Safe Shot type of feat that would slow down your rate of fire but eliminate the risk of hitting friendlies. Betrayal at Krondor had that as I recall. Realistic friendly fire just makes combat more engaging. Games these days are too dumbed down in this regard as they try so hard to be "fun" and "awesome". Well... having to use your head is fun and limitations are awesome.

That does sound like something the RPG community really wants but publishers probably won't be interested in. Maybe as a separate toolset / DM client project for Kickstarter. Obsidian would surely be the right people to do that. Will PE use pre-rendered 2d backgrounds though if the camera is fixed? Wouldn't that require a professional level artist to do the areas? NWN really needs to be brought to present day though. It was the greatest thing ever to happen to online CRPGs.

I would prefer some kind of a stamina system where getting hit for X damage doesn't necessarily mean getting injured. Hence you would get less actual injuries from combat and require less healing. Definitely don't want combat that revolves around drinking potions in melee. Healing potions should be for curing disease and poison only, and be more like medicine instead of instant magical cures. If potions absolutely must heal wounds, it should be done by speeding up regeneration instead of instant effects.

There's a really elegant solution to keeping magic magical while still having upgradeable gear. Upgradeable non-magical items. Materials - iron vs steel. Quality - regular vs. masterwork. And then when you have an enchanted item it can be unique with history and made for a purpose. ("Sting" that glows when orcs are near).. not just +1.

Mounts and mounted combat don't add enough to the game to justify their huge development time. I would much rather see that dev time go into things like more body types, heads, hair, armor and new combat animations.

Well that's just wrong. Who says mana / stamina has to regenerate after every encounter? Spellcasting can be limited in any magic system to keep spells powerful and fun. All vancian memorization really does is make spellcasting rigid and encourage rest spamming and metagaming (memorizing all the right spells when you know what lies ahead).

I don't really get how this is supposed to be playable. Sure some PnP games do this instead of having huge hp-pools and work fine, but that's because they let you parry and dodge almost all attacks, which would get statistically improbale to maintain given how many more fights you usually have in computer game comparet to tabletop. Lots of parrying, blocking and dodging sounds like much better combat than slowly depleting massive HP pools. Armor should be important, but blocking and dodging skills should be even more important.. unless you are surrounded - armor should be king when you can't defend you flank.

Good topic. I would also like the "power curve" to be more gentle. No one hitters at level 1, and still somewhat humanlike at max level. A high level warrior should always be in danger surrounded by a mob of low level creatures, so realistic in that sense. In DnD (3e) terms, instead of 1-20 I'd like it to be around 3-15.

Speaking of sustainables and defensive effects.. I really hate the "christmas tree" effect in NWN games where you spend 5 minutes buffing up after every rest. And the visuals stack up to obscure your character under a huge mess of runes and sparks and whatnot. Defensive spells should have short durations or have a cumulative cost to maintain so they would only be cast reactively. Or only one defensive spell at a time etc.. no christmas trees and buff-stacking tedium please. "I might encounter monsters so I'll just cast Mage Armor, Stoneskin, Bull's Strength, Cat's Grace, Protection from Elements, Spiderskin, Mirror Image, Protection from Arrows, Fox's Cunning, Ghostly Visage, Protection from Spells, Greater Resistance, Shield, Nightshield and Shadow Shield just in case and be on my merry way through the woods!"

I hope they will design and present the rules in a comprehensible way. - % ratings for chances to hit / miss / resist / succeed instead of thac0 calculations or saving throw charts - damage and damage reduction potential with single numbers that correlate with eachother instead of combinations of dice rolls (random elements can be kept under the hood) - UI that is clear on stats but does not reveal combat math with engineer level precision

I would be much more interested in seeing human subraces with their own cultural and physical traits and style. Elves and dwarves really are done to death and they unfortunately mainstream any attempt at an original setting. I would like to see races that have some built-in controversies. Like humans with demon blood. No funky horns or tails though but a more subtle approach. Inhuman strength, mildly allergic to silver, etc. Or say a culture where religious leaders have widely adopted dubious practises like drug abuse. With some interesting psychic side effects or revelations that outsiders view as insanity. That would be much more cool than "pointy ears, long life span, excellent archers".

The problem with your approach is that you end up hamstringing your party by not taking a Rogue along. I'd not mind having multiple solutions to each problem based on each class. A Rogue might use their knowledge of the criminal underworld where a mage might use a charm spell - in both situations, still provided that they possess the necessary skills. Likewise, a fighter OR rogue might try intimidation, while a mage might teleport and a rogue or ranger might use stealth or a fighter simple brute force and a mage might fling a fireball. The only pre-requisite, really, is that the devs put a bit of thought into each situation as to how each class and temperament might tackle a situation. Hamstringing your party by leaving a class out is entirely up to quest design. Forcing your way through everything without a Rogue should be an option. But in order to make the Rogue a class that deserves to exist, their skills must have a significant impact on the options available to you. So to me the main thing is that all 3 archetypes have an equal purpose in the game, even if spellcasters are my preferred class. Playing a mage who has a spell for everything is a bit boring. Overcoming obstacles is what games are about and it can't be too simple. Say there's a locked door you have to go through.. 1) Your mage has an open lock spell, you cast it and go through. Wasn't really an obstacle at all. 2) Your mage has no Rogue friends. But you can smash the door into splinters with telekinetic force. This will alert the guards and might affect your reputation if you are seen or leave survivors. 3) Your mage has a mind control spell and there's a person with a key. You can force him to open the door for you, but he will remember this and you have to deal with a morally complex choice whether to kill him or not. To me, options 2 and 3 are exponentially more interesting than option 1.

I'm all for non-combat magic.. it's an absolute must. That said, I don't want magic to be the answer for everything. Using the locked doors as an example, I think the Rogue should be the only class who could possess the skills for a stealthy approach. Fighters and Mages should be limited to bashing or blowing up the door. (Doors should have hit points and damage reduction) Socially, Rogues should be the ones with skills of persuasion to make NPC's act in a desired manner. The magic version would be forced mind control with appropriate consequences once it ends. Likewise, I would like to see scrying magic - but I don't want it to replace a stealthy scout. Magic could give you an impression of a threat level, a feeling of danger, but only a Rogue would be able to sneak into a room and tell you exactly what to expect. As for traveling, I like the idea of a Mage conjuring winds to make your ship sail faster, but I don't like the idea of simply teleporting to a remote destination unless it's hideously expensive, dangerous or draining for the mage so they basically never want to do it unless there's an emergency. I like the idea of magic providing alternate solutions to quests. Such as magically imprisoning or brainwashing a villain instead of killing him.

In most DnD titles combat was visually destroyed by the sheer number of attacks high level PC's could get. Trying to animate 6 attacks into a round that lasts 6 seconds is just a nightmare. If they go with a "one attack per round" principle it should be much easier to make combat look good. One thing that RPG's rarely get right is the impact of combat with blocks, dodges and hits animated properly. I hope this time combat will have a "real" feel to it instead of swords whooshing through enemies and floating numbers being the only real indicator of what's actually happening.

Poll options seem a bit biased. Damage types are good since they add tactical depth to combat. But 15 weapons, no. You can have talents like Precision Strike or Power Attack to penetrate heavy armor. And I don't want to see any alignment / race / material related stuff. Slash / Pierce / Blunt is enough for the most part and the fact that blunt and heavy weapons are generally better against heavy armor.

Let's see if gold had weight.... - you would need an easy way to drop the gold in every battle for free movement.. that would add a few mandatory clicks before every fight.. so it's better to abstract this - it would have to slow you down during world map travel which would be pointless unless there is some sense of urgency in the game - to be fair, there would have to be more gems and jewelry in the loot.. not necessarily a bad thing for those who like bartering and something for rogues to do.. then again bartering will exist also with weightless gold - leaving gold behind would be annoying and having to go back to get it would be even more annoying So.. I vote a definite "no".

I think I would be most happy if combat would take the following into account: - separate "HP" into stamina and health or actual injuries - injuries affect combat performance (no "still rocking at 1hp" and then suddenly die) - attack accuracy vs. dodge - attack power vs. armor - damage types (slashing / piercing / bludgeoning / fire / lightning etc.) and corresponding protection types (chain is good against slashing but weaker against blunt etc.) - attack modes (go slower and heavier, or slower and more accurate to bypass heavy armor) - trip / disarm / knockdown / shield bash... with some weapons more suited to certain moves than others - attack speed can be abstracted to 1 attack per round, but faster weapons can perform attacks of opportunity while slower ones can't