Umberlin

I think I always prefered a well done turn based system, simply because it lends itself more, in my mind to real RPG mechanics. An RPG, in my mind, should never be about player skill like twitch, reflex. They should have input like, "you go here" or "you say this" but all their decisions, in my mind, should be a result of what their character would do, what their character 'statistically' can do. A turn based system with tile based movement, where a character can only move as their stats and mobility allow is a superior RPG system in my mind. A player moving their character around freely, in my mind, defies the limitations of a character's statistics. It's not about whatt you do, in an RPG, in my mind, it's about what the character can do. A turn based system that forcefully limits you to what a character can do is my preference. That said . . . a real time system can work too. You can limit that by statistics, as a developer, if you really want to. You can axe out player input like reflex, if you really want to. It's just most developers don't do that very well, or fully, or, in some cases, at all. I know it can be done well. There are some examples. And I know Obsidian are definitly going real time with pause, which a good way to go in my opinion, but I definitly wouldn't shed a tear if they dropped that and went full turn based tile combat that's fully limited, in every way, by characters and what they 'can' do statistically . . . not what the player can do. Like I said though, the system Obsidian are going with can work just fine too. I see no loss in the real time mode as long as it's done well.

I believe the Witcher 2's system, if I remember, really didn't feel different than the mind manipulation in KotOR II. Not exactly the same, but it came to the same thing in the end. It worked decently in both cases. I still liked the VtM Bloodlines style best, simply because you had multiple manners of persuasion in general, outside of the basic mind control from particular disciplines. And even within the disciplines you had different types. Domination versus Dementation. Sure, you could make a guy drop a gun, who was threatening you . . . or you could use dementation, and convince him that he was a bear and that the civilians around the area were fish . . . and let the cops take care of him after he started killing people as he ran around screaming that he is a bear and that he plans to eat the fishies. (That didn't really happen, just an example in case someone now wants to play it and doesn't want the good ones spoiled). Or you could just stand in the middle of the street arguing with a stop sign. (That one did happen). The question is how ciphers manipulate people. If their control comes from victim's soul then they very differ from wizzards. Soul manipulation may go far beyond mind tricks. Cut someone from his soul energy, make someone temporary possessed by random ghost and so on. Mhm, true, we really do need more information for a full fledged idea. Sadly . . . in depth descriptions and mechanics are likely a ways off.

Some of the AI on caster types in past RPGs . . . not just Obsidian, Troika and Black Isle games, but pretty much every one that had to deal with them . . . had okay AI for some class types (fighters and such) but terrible AI for casters (Wizards and the like). The problem was that many had no idea what spells to use, when to use them or even why. On one hand, I didn't mind because I tended to micromanage them anyways . . . but on the other hand I micromanaged them because they would not cast properly left to their own devices. No sense of priority on spells or the targets they used them on when/where/why. It's to be expected I suppose.

I can agree, to an extent, that death is important, but how death occurs, and what happens after are also important. Simple game over screens aren't as interesting as some of the . . . . shall we say 'postmortems' that many of the older games provided. An essential, "Why you failed" like watching the Fire Elemental destroy the city in QfG II if you don't stop it, or Iblis wreak havoc upon the land. Avoozl rising. That sort of stuff. Context sensitive death and game overs. I do wonder if . . . simply going unconscious in battle might lessen the impact of death. Dunno . . . maybe less 'unconsious' and more a downed state, a fight for your life time, a last ditch effort? I'm not sure that has a place either though. It's hard to decide. I see the reasoning, I'm just not sure of its impact.

You need to . . . reread . . . everything . . . slowly . . .

. . . what . . . Английское не ваш первичный язык? I see what you were talking about though. Well, yeah, I'm just not sure why you'd worry. It doesn't seem likely they'd do that at all.

I prefer very slow, very little, level progression.

It's not a D&D setting . . . we don't know what they'll have yet. You can be stripped of something you never had in the first place.

What are you on about? We don't know what philosophies the Monk of this setting abides by. It's a high fantasy setting for a game, not a historical documentary. Why would you think in the midst of a high fantasy setting you'd find Buddhism? Monks, and Monk styled classes, in most RPG settings you'll come across have philosophies unique to the setting. They aren't going to insert real world religion of any sort into the game. It's a fantasy game. Not a historical documentary. This isn't even a question, it's automatic. Which is just really neat to watch by the way. Actually even apart from the weapon training, one video is just a series of excersizes, mostly stretching, that are impressive in their own right.

You know, I never had an issue with Paladins in other settings really, but the only Paladin I ever actually liked . . . the Quest for Glory Paladin . . . probably wasn't very Paladin like (not religious). I still liked it better. It functioned off of an honor system rather than a system of divinity. It gained abilities as it performed honorable acts. It lost them for inactions that could be considered dishonorable/performing dishonorable acts. The abilities were interesting, if some not well implemented. I always liked the danger/evil sixth sense which was the first ability you earned. The idea was interesting because, in theory, you could use it to help you avoid danger . . . but it never actually worked like that in the game. Being able to light bring their sword alight with blue flame was also an ability tied to honor, along with the ability to heal and shield themselves from harm and other effects. They made a point of them being 'not magic really' by having things take up Stamina, rather than Mana. A sort of 'take of myself that you might be healed' mechanic. Sacrificial rather than magical, which, apart from honor, seemed a constant for Paladins you heard about in QfG, simply because almost all of their lives ended . . . badly. Except for Rakeesh, and you, obviously. Well, bad things could happen to Rakeesh too, potentially.

Hhmmm, there could be duration difference as well, and different ways of maintaining (or not having to maintain) the effect.

Good eye. Actually I'm sure it's a weapon, but I'm not sure whether it's a dagger/sword as you say, or a blunt weapon. In the large version I originally looked at the end looks more blunted, almost like a baton/nightstick design. It fits that we have something like this though, since the classes seem to pull a lot from D&D. Their Monks as I mentioned earlier had an unarmed build, as well as several builds using weapons, exotic weapons and such.

I don't get this 'Shaolin' thing people keep bringing up. If by Shaolin you mean, "He doesn't wear plate armor" which, yeah, he doesn't. He looks like he wears a combination of Cloth and Leather at the most. Which is quite apt for what the Class seems to be trying for. If by Shaolin you, "He doesn't use weapons, he uses his fist," then, yeah. He uses his fists. We have an example of the Monk in this setting, and a lore example of how magic can be used. This Monk in the art obviously enhances himself magically to have superhuman attributes. Though I'd note actual Shaolin Monks train with swords and other weapons as well (you can see some interesting video documentaries of it). I'd also just plain note that the Monk in P:E's art looks nothing like a Shaolin Monk. This is a picture of a Shaolin Monk: The picture of the adventurers, including the Monk, for P:E, looks nothing like the above. Well the Art we've been shown doesn't show them using Swords or Bows, and instead shows the Monk with fists sheathed in magical energy. Kind of speaks for itself what martial arts means in the context of 'this' Monk. Who says they don't? Even D&D a Monk used gear. It may not have been plate armor, or a sword, but it had to earned or bought just the same. Your issue seems to be created of pretending things don't exist . . . that do typically exist in any number of RPGs, even for Monk styled unarmed characters. In some settings the equipment they are are Focus styled items that help them focus their inner energies. In others the focus are a glove type item that helps them release melee range bursts of energy, or even direct longer ranged bursts. D&D handled it another way. That worked too. Honestly this Monk seems little different than the D&D Monk and the D&D Monk had several builds, some unarmed, and others used 'exotic' weapons like Kamas or other such weapons. There are plenty of ways a hand-to-hand combat Monk in a fantasy setting would use gear. Now if your issue is just going to be, "They don't have to buy plate and a sword" then . . . oh well, because they'll likely still have to buy gear of some sort. I really don't want to see another game Diablo III style where everyone ends up in Heavy Armor of some sort.

Maybe "The Sword of the Rings" where the only weapons are swords. Made of rings. I think what he's getting at is that there are quite a few Fantasy settings/stories of varying types where everything comes down to the power of either a special Sword or a special Ring. I could be wrong. It's not actually true in every single case, but, fantasy setting do have a habit of, "The one special object needed for X." Usually to defeat some dark lord or some such. Personally I don't find that very often in games, though, I do see a few too many RPGs where the best weapons, statistically, are all swords. Luckily that's not actually every game either, but it is something to think about.

Technically within the setting everyone is pulling the energies from their souls, and are simply able by nature, or trained/studied to use them differently. One uses those energies to craft spells. One uses those energies to manipulate minds. If the Wizard crafts spells to manipulate minds as well the question is, are they they same, and if so, are the efforts/components/words involved the same. For example if the Cipher's a purely mental effort, while the Wizard's an effort that requires a material component or a verbal one. Still, one would assume that there is difference beyond simply the effort involved. We haven't seen a full list of abilities, so the result may simply be that there is no cross over - that they do not have access to the same abilities.

Wizard is not close-combat specialist. He does't need to compete with fighters. Monk, on the other hand, is and does. I know what you think you're getting at, but your ignoring the mystical (defensive auras) and training (mobility, dodging, reaction times etc) elements common to most Monk/Martial Arts lore in Fiction to make the point. It comes down to the same thing, the Monk has multiple layers of defenses, most notably the mystical ones that often take the place or combine with martial training to make up for the lack of armor. Which would be pointed, if it were Martial Arts versus armor. Instead it's "melee range magic defensive and offensive capabilities versus armor" which is a very different thing. It's why a Wizard hurts an armored opponent. It's why a Cipher can still mess with your mind despite your armor. The art we saw of the Monk clearly demonstrates that this is a matter of magical enhancement, not of, "they can punch through armor" as his fists are sheathed in magical energies. They even get their magical abilities from the same place as Wizards/Ciphers, that being from their souls. As I said earlier in the thread, if you have an issue with Monks using magic to enhance themselves, defend themselves and damage their opponents . . . then your problem isn't with the Monk. It's with the existence of magic in the world period, in which case . . . why are you interested in an obviously high fantasy game at all? No, really, why? Magic drawn from the soul was one of the first bits of information they released, in addition to the points that it could result in anything from the superhuman to the explosively magical. Enhancing strength, speed and reflexes to super human levels, deflect blows with a defensive field, production of damaging energies and more aren't exactly new concepts, they're staples of various types of fiction be they through means magical or technological or what have you. This one is obviously a result of the magical, and fully explained in the lore of the world Obsidian have released so far. Heck before we even knew there was going to be a Monk, we were told about the use of those inner Soul energies to enhance yourself. People used a Monk as an example of this all the way back then, because it's a common concept. It's not confusing. It's not, "I just punch through armor" it's wholly transparently explained use of the soul to produce magical effects in different ways - the Monk (enhancing the body), the Wizard (crafting those energies into spells) and the Cipher (using them to affect the mind). For any martial training they have in this setting, the effectiveness on a defensive and offensive level is obviously a result of their Soul and the magical effects they're able to extract from it. It's only illogical if it makes no sense, but it's fully explained within the lore, and it's absolutely common in fiction. I honestly can't comprehend why people can tolerate magic from the Wizard or Cipher but then go nuts about how unrealistic or illogical or improbable for magic to be used in another way. Even though the way is not only founded in terms of other high fantasy works, but within the presented lore of this setting since using it to enhance a person to superhuman proportions was one of the very first concepts released.

You don't like it when enemies use parachutes to jump down out of the sky?! No Agreed . . . no more DA2 style enemy spawning please.

Can I sign my name in the Adventurer's Guild log book and read about the, possibly hilarious, efforts of other adventurers therein QFG style?

Overall . . . I feel both are important. A world being fleshed out I think of more than a visual, with its lore, people and places being a story or experience of its own, just as much as the plot. However, without the plot that world can quickly feel empty regardless. Still a well storied blank sheet of paper world . . . wouldn't be as fun to explore outside of the story. I have trouble deciding here because I really do feel both are important, neither should ever be neglected. I would say a plot is very important but the world and plot, in my mind, are tied, and one should not only exist with the other, but be tied with one always affecting the other.

Isn't savate something like a french version of kickbox? Well a nickname for it is essentiaily that.

The 1,000+ reward tiers . . . basically imagine someone that walked up and gave you ten-thousand USD . . . then imagine you told him right after that you didn't like his style. Boy that could get awkward.

So, every time something improbable comes along, we should just say "It's magic" and let is pass? How is it any less probable than the Wizard using their inner energy to craft spells? How is it any less probable than the Cipher using their inner energy to effect the mind? No, really, how? How is using your inner energies to enhance your body, to surround yourself in a defensive aura, to sheath your fists in offensive magical energies, any less probable? If I'd said simply, "It's magic" you'd have a point, but we've discussed this several times, and I've given outright examples of not only other games that have done it, but how it works in the context of this game, I've outright quoted Obsidian's own blurb on using those inner energies to produce effects from the "Superhuman" to the "Explosively Magical", and on top of that we've pointed out exactly how the concept art shows it to work. There's nothing improbably about it. If you think it's improbable, then you think every single magic using class in the game is improbable, and once again, you need to make that thread that you think is so comical, asking Obsidian to throw them all out. Because that's the argument you're making, you may not know you're making it, but essentially you're saying, "It's improbable for the Monk to use their inner energies in the exact way Obsidian described them as potentially being used." If you think it's improbable, your issue isn't with Monks, it's with the entire basis of their system of using souls to power magical effects - such as enhancing the body. I've addressed the only argument that you've repeated, over and over and over throughout this thread. I can quote every single instance of it. Your issue in each of these cases, which I have fully addressed, is how ridiculous you think it is for them to punch through armor - even though exactly why that occurs has been fully explained, and backed by Obsidian's own lore entry on how magic works in this world - that being that it can be used to enhance the body (Monks) and mind (Ciphers), as well as create actual spells (Wizards). All your other points? Why would I address them? When I did, and when others have, you completely dismissed their posts. You had literally nothing to say in response to every single person that addressed your other issues. So why would I? Why would anyone? You don't even see fit to bring those points up anymore. The only thing you keep bringing up is how ridiculous it is for a person to punch through armor, each time acting as if nothing magical is at work.

That's the point. It's just as comical to throw this one out, or change it, as the reasons for their success are pretty much the same. Magic.

Came off as more of a psionic/mentalist styled class in the description.

He's not punching through any manner of armor with his bare fist. Look at what we have, the Wizard shaping their inner energies (Soul) into spells. The Cipher wielding those same energies to effect the mind. The Monk, again, using those same inner energies, once again differently, to enhance their bodies. You aren't being hit with their fist, you're being hit with magic, offensive damaging energies that armor, and the person in it, is vulnerable to for the same reasons it is vulnerable to a fireball thrown by a Wizard. Honestly if you have a problem with this, and think the Monk doesn't belong in this incarnation then you need to make a thread asking them to throw out every class that accomplishes anything via magical means, or a thread insisting that all those magical effects be completely useless against armor. Regardless of how you put it, it doesn't make any sense to have a bias against one using magical energies when you haven't mentioned issue with any of the others. Again, he's not punching through armor with his bare fist, just look at the concept art, his fists are completely sheathed in magical energy. Having an issue with him being unarmored is just as pointless when we've already been told about magical shields, so a Monk forming a defensive aura around themselves to protect them isn't any less ridiculous. In the end it's just magic. Melee range magic, delivered by touch, but magic none the less.