draft1983

I think anyone paying that kind of money is going to want their item to fit in... and none will have stupid ideas, if i was paying $5k on an adventuring party i know dmn well i would make sure it worked with the game, all of the people backing are fans of this type oif game and wouldnt want to ruin it.

The same holds true for a paladin. You have no idea how it would be designed NOR exactly what hte priest will have. Also, I think we already proven that the paladin and the priest are NOT mechanicly the same. But they have of yet to decide upon a single paladin class have they not?? whiles they have for the barbarian so obviously they feel the need for it to have it's own specific class, whiles most agree that paladin is a cleric in heavy armor. so get over it!

i like troller.

You're misrepresenting my posts, likely lumping me in together with other posters. I'm not dead set on the existence of a mechanical class in order to provide for a roleplaying niche. As far as roleplaying is concerned, I'd be perfectly happy to play a fighter in a knightly order for the same roleplaying (though not a temple soldier, because those are substantially different from each other). But mechanically, you could make as strong an argument for paladins as you could for barbarians, to cherry pick one of the specialist classes. The barbarian is traditionally identical to the fighter except for two key differences. They wear lighter armor, and they use rage mechanics. These two things by themselves can, and have, been folded into the standard warrior class in other rpgs. To justify a barbarian as a separate class, certain things get thumb-sucked that have novelty but aren't terribly meaningful; fast movement, uncanny dodge, and other small gimmicky things. Paladins traditionally differ from warriors and priests in at least as many mechanical respects as barbarians do from warriors. They aren't the pure melee specialists that fighters are, nor are they the defensive support spell-casters that priests generally are. Paladins traditionally sacrifice these things in exchange for the unique mechanics of passive auras, passive immunities, weapon blessings, and the like. If light armor and rage mechanics are enough to contrive an entire class for barbarian that is distinct from the fighter, an argument can definitely be made that passive immunities, auras, and weapon blessings are just as much cause to contrive a distinct class for the paladin. The roleplaying justification and the mechanical justification are separate though. But you have no idea how they are going to design a barbarian - could be alot of unique abilitys etc to them + little armor etc. The paladins abilitys are already in the priest/ cleric tree... you want a different class just for the name? seems silly to me, and i always play a dwarf paladin in bg2 and iwd2... always. seems they will be a sub tree build

Well im with the majority on the view that bard is a rogue subclass.... and as they have already stated wizards can wear heavy armor and use a broad sword if u so wish, then the same will go for the priest/cleric, paladin would be a subclass... you cna make it - seems most onyl care aboutt he name PALADIN- even though its he same- you can cover a turd in golden wrapping paper, but it's still a turd

sounds like my work

I'm in the same boat. I'm kinda curious to see the artwork that sprung the discussion. How was the armor? With a window like Power Girl costume or something like the Scarlet Witch costume? I'm in the same boat. I'm kinda curious to see the artwork that sprung the discussion. How was the armor? With a window like Power Girl costume or something like the Scarlet Witch costume? it really wasnt bad at all imo...

im at the $100, but will most likely up to the $140 before it ends, it hink the physical are good how they are as postage and physical costs come into it.

Pretty much, yes. Potential is there, and that doesn't change depending on social factors (which stem at least partially from it). Again, look at the top athletes or any sport there is. If a female PC is the top performer among woman, then the male PC is hte top performer among males, and should still physicly outperform the female PC...if you want to be realistic about it. And you still have to keep in mind that those athletes were not raised the same way. Diet, exercise, leisure activities, etc., diverge between boys and girls very early. For example, the suggested caloric intake are different for boys and girls just one year old, when there's practically no sexual dimorphism. A one year boy is certainly not stronger than a one year old girl and yet it's suggested that one year old boys have a 5% greater caloric intake than girls. A 5 year old boy is not likely to be much stronger than a 5 year old girl and yet it's suggested that 5 year old boys have a 10% greater caloric intake than girls. That difference increases to about 15% at the beginning of puberty, up to 20% during and after that. So while there may be a 40% difference in upper body strength and 30% difference in lower body strength between men and women in this society, would the difference be that great in a society in which men and women were raised the same? Are you seriously bringing your own conspiracy theory into this topic?? yeah because the reason women are said to intake less calories is to make sure they stay smaller and weaker than men!! omg, male domination, through how much calories the human body consumes?? ignore the fact it's due to the motabilism, hormones and men generally have a higher body mass index and higher % of muscle. yeah its because men want women to stay weaker?? REALLY? Women that follow your rule end up FAT. And its views like this that are the reason for men staying in power

Perhaps someone shouldn't bring ridiculous, feminist ideals into the thread then??? just maybe?? m'kay?

Ever heard "form follows function?". Social roles are not just a product of someone thinking "hey, this would be great". There's practical reasons behind it. Now I know some may think that the following will be chauvinistic/insulting. It is not. It's how things are. Physical prowes has no bearing on the individuals worth, so if anyone thinks I'm demeaning women or something, that is only because they place so much worth in physical attributes themselves. Do women think men are worth less because they aren't as good at multi-tasking? Do you hear us ever complaining about it? moving on... Let's take for example Delta Force. You have to be a prfect human speciment to get in. Recruits are usually taken from other special forces (whos tests are grueling as hell). And even then only 1 out of 10 pass. You heard me. Out of 100 special forces candidates only 10 pass. If you want some numbers (taken from the CRC data) Men have 40% higher upper body strength and roughly 20-30% higher lower body strength. During boot camp and regular training, women have shown to be twice as likely to sustain injuries (from training) because they have to strain themselves harder to keep it with the male counterparts. Most of those injuries are back injuries. And those are nothing to sneeze by, I assure you. You may think that physical strength or endurance don't have a big role in modern combat. But they do. If you have to run from cover to cover - speed matters. If you have to carry a wounded friend or lob grenades - strength matters. A lot. If you have to walk 70 miles across the desert in full comabt gear - everything matters. Women can be decent, even great soldiers, I said so before. But they are at a disadvantage and will remain so, no matter how hard they try and train. Becasue there will always be men who will train just as hard, and with their inborn advantage they will outperform a woman. And I never denied the fact that men and women are physically different. Nor did I make any statements about the worth of men or women based on their physical differences. My point was that the amount of difference has been affected by social factors. The statistics on the difference between men and women are not "absolute" differences because they are gathered in societies in which men and women have significantly different upbringings. The only way to know the real difference in physical, as well as mental, capabilities between men and women would be to conduct an experiment in which a sample of male and female infants are raised in the exact same environment and treated exactly the same. Of course, that's not ethical nor is it really possible. However, there have been societies in which men and women have been treated more similarly. For example, in some cultures that had slavery, many female slaves had very similar upbringings, similar diets, and had to perform the same type and amount of hard labor as the men. In fact, women were expected to maintain that level of labor for the first few months of pregnancy. If you took those people and compared their physical capabilities, would you expect the same amount of difference compared to men and women in today's society? sorry, but me and my sister were both raised exactly the same way, the same home, the same parents, the same food, the same education - and im about 10x as strong as her, and we have the same genes. I really do not understand your point?? i mean really, anyone trying to argue that men on avarage are not along way infront of women in the strength department needs to go down the pub and have an arm wrestling competition.

It's more due tot he weaker arms, not the ovaries!

Demon souls!!!! i completed that game, one ofthe onyl games i have bothered to complete over the last 5 years, due to the challange. very unforgiving game

money system is fine, but why not throw in a gem to sweeten the deal... people still do such things now.

i think the current stretch goals are fine. Additional content and larger and more polished game is what it is about.

i'd be fien with another kickstarter for expansion too, just no DLC please. i'm sure though that the devs want the initial kickstarter and game sales to be good enough so they don't have to do another kickstarter and they can self finance additional expansions and sequals

yes gimmie- and seeing as a gem worth 20g is in actual fact just 20g to me - add weight to gold too :DDDDDD

For me it's more to do with the principle - i find it stupid that for soem reason gold coins seem to ignore the law of physics and defy gravity. make helium coins and it's ok for them to be weightless.... job done

My goal was simply to end the argument now that you had decided to better explain and expand on it, but your asking for my view. Fair enough.... I'll laying down your views, how I understand them, You believe that the purpose of Inventory is for two things: 1. For combat usage (Im guessing this includes equiped items) 2. For items you will use later. Thus, the purpose of picking up items to sell them, is to you an incorrect use of inventory? But then you seem to talk about picking up items for selling.... (which to me seems contradicting of what your saying but this is your view, not mine we get to mine later) What you seem to be suggesting is: Players should only be able to carry out what they want and the rest of their weight should be dedicated to gold (then a few random items to fill where you don't have gold; that would take a lot of gold in every dungeon for people to abandon taking other items). We will skip the currency and hoarder definitional argument all together, since it really involves a lack of knowledge on your part. You also say weightless gold doesn't fix design issue (which are? You never stated them) and creates new ones (What are they? You don't seem to discuss them unless you mentioned it somewhere I missed) Honestly I think this isn't the best solution for what you seemingly want to do, but ok... You also seem to be contradicting your views in a few places. I disagree with this fundamentally, Inventory is there to store what ever the player wants to store and can store. The Developer creates a limit to inventory mainly for game balance purposes thus preventing players from buying 10,000 hand grenades for the final boss, but also not to break the players suspension of disbelief (which is critical to any sci-fi entertainment, fantasy included). Furthermore, Gold has always been worth more then the weight of items, because gold is highly demanded & scarce (highly priced), thus conveniently used for currency since its weight is minimal compared to its value. What you seem to suggest is that every dungeon would have a mountain of gold, but then gold wouldn't be that valuable would it? Gold is valuable because it is both scarce and demanded. As you stated if there was a mountain of gold in every dungeon, why would we even value gold or use it as currency? Gold should always be an immediate pick up, because (as I said) its price to weight ratio isn't equal to every other item and materials weight in world (its usually far greater) and since its highly unlikely you would ever find more then could be carried out by a party. The main argument I've seen for gold having weight, which seems to only be part of your argument unless I'm mistaken, is not giving gold weight DOES break their suspension of disbelief. Most people can suspend this belief because they don't want to toil with having to manage where all their gold is..... but to other people 10,000 gold coins should physically show their weight on the player. My suggestion to the devs would be to solve the problem the way Bethesda does. Make gold a physical part of your inventory, but leave it with no weight. Its quite easy for any modder to quickly go in and add weight. Players who are really dead set on giving gold weight will mod in the weight. That is if weight will be a factor in inventory management at all, in which case players will likely have to create a full weight mod. (it also seems to be going in that direction) Edit: This is the last I'm going to comment on this, mainly because I regret I've even gone this far... It either seems your grasping at an idea (about inventory management) that your having trouble describing or your just adding wind to your argument which isn't as complicated as you describe it. If its the former you should take your argument to another thread about inventory management in general. I really believe you are arguing just to argue. why is it ok to have weight on items that you only pick up to sell (which are now only the gold that you will get for the item) but it is not ok to have weight on the gold you pick up?? i really don't see what the big issue is apart from the "inconvenience". I dont see anymore inconvenience from having weighty currency than there is with weighted weapons, or armor... it's the same. it's really simple to understand the points this other guy is putting across but you seem to be playing a childs game.

You ahve a player house to deposit all your stuff so i really don;t see any issue of currency having weight

Thats like saying that having weight for other items is just to be realistic? Its not there just to be realistic it's there because it's always there and pretty much expected in an rpg. But for some reason gold coins having weight is not?? it gives another decision to make.. do i take the sword and drop gold? or do i not??? - if you was a looter and you found some treasure, you'd grab all you could carry wouldn't you?? wether it would be a gold coin, some gems, a weapon, a precious artifact... a gold coin is an item, just like all the others, so you feel you should be able to carry a few of one item and an unlimited amount of another item??? it's that that is stupid.... It's not just about the gold, it's about all currency, each coin is 1 item and should be treated that way.

Yeah that was what i was the point i was trying to make at first. They were great for mobility, for use with light weapons for the speed and protect the sword hand. One piece of text doesnt mean it was the unmovable object. It was good at what it was used for and that wasnt for blocking heavy weapons... but sometimes soem peopel can not be swayed from their view

LOL, actually i see you ahve already started on that video as well, and using the same information.. gwaaa ha haaaa

Where are you getting your information? sources/links? A buckler could be used with many different one-handed weapons, it wasn't restricted to short-swords or rapiers like you seem to think. On page 2 of that link I posted it specifically goes into the details about how knights used it and gives proof of this, many artworks from that actual time period showing it being used by full armored knights and others in battles, training, etc. "another similar painting depicting Charles of Blois being taken prisoner in 1347 (BNF FR 2643) portrays one of his knightly captors wearing at his left thigh a small colored buckler hanging upon his longsword. Over all, bucklers outnumber larger arm-worn shields by a ratio of roughly 5 to 1 in such 14th and 15th century artwork." As far as that video goes, it's two guys sparring in modern times. The guy using the buckler/sword isn't trying to get in close (where the spear guy is the weakest). It would take a dodge/block of his thrust (or grabbing his spear if he misses) and then rushing in close and the spear guy is useless with that spear. in the video the guy keeps at range (where the spear is the strongest) and never even tries this. if u actually read the comments on the vidoe you will see, both of the fighters are trainers at the club and one respondes to many questions about spears vs rapier/buckler.

Where are you getting your information? sources/links? A buckler could be used with many different one-handed weapons, it wasn't restricted to short-swords or rapiers like you seem to think. On page 2 of that link I posted it specifically goes into the details about how knights used it and gives proof of this, many artworks from that actual time period showing it being used by full armored knights and others in battles, training, etc. "another similar painting depicting Charles of Blois being taken prisoner in 1347 (BNF FR 2643) portrays one of his knightly captors wearing at his left thigh a small colored buckler hanging upon his longsword. Over all, bucklers outnumber larger arm-worn shields by a ratio of roughly 5 to 1 in such 14th and 15th century artwork." As far as that video goes, it's two guys sparring in modern times. The guy using the buckler/sword isn't trying to get in close (where the spear guy is the weakest). It would take a dodge/block of his thrust (or grabbing his spear if he misses) and then rushing in close and the spear guy is useless with that spear. in the video the guy keeps at range (where the spear is the strongest) and never even tries this. because it isn't easy to get in close when someone has a spear??? range advantage? the times he tries he gets a spear int he face. if you look on the web there is lots of sources that show what i am saying, but some people minds can not be changed form an opinion and dismiss even video evidence. so i tire of this *yawn*