Umberlin

I disagree completely with the whole mindset. Arbitrary rules and limitations are something I just hate in rpg systems "I'm a master swordsman, but don't know at all how to fight with a katana. Oh gee, seems I'm not even able to hold it in my hands" If that's what you got out of what I was saying then you read it wrong. That is all. You'd obviously still have your back pack. Could you have a larger bottle in your bag to refill the smaller vials on your belt? Sure. Obviously. Why do you think I even mentioned the DS1 method of using potions to refill your main vile in the first place? You just wouldn't be rummaging around in said backpack during combat, nor would rummaging around in said backpack pause the game. I really hate it when they put potions (or anything) on an arbitrary cooldown.

I concur, I liked that system as well.

Potion Belt, be it, essentially, an alchemist's spell book or whatever you want to call it is fine, I think the core 'limited number of slots' thing is the important thing to get through there. What it's called is less important. In the end, like you said, you'd still have make (or buy or find) the potions at your disposal to even put them on the belt, and you wouldn't be carrying all 100 you could make/buy/find (whatever) on your belt. Just a very limited number of them, combine that with ideas like, as you put it, potion failure (or potion drinking animation interruption for the way too long version) and it starts to shine brighter. In the end limiters like 'limited number on you', 'potion sicknesses from drinking too much of one potion, or combining certain potions', 'the ability for an enemy to interrupt drinking a potion' and all that . . . are important, in my mind, for the same reason that other mechanics have limiters (be they magic/melee/ranged or otherwise). To make the potion belt more interesting . . . I suppose the thing to do would be to have different kinds of potions. Say offensive potions, defensive potions and support potions, Let's say you have . . . four slots on your belt. Do you dedicate all four slots on your belt to offensive 'exploding' potions? Or do you put a healing potion in one of those slots? Perhaps a potion that cures poison or that covers your skin in stone temporarily. Choices that make you think, and sacrificing certain potions because you can't have them all on the belt up front. Even of those on the belt, you still need take care - potion sickness, and interruption while attempting to drink a potion. So that even outside of the belt itself, in combat, you need to think tactically, and thus aren't just chugging a potion in the middle of battle constantly. Any element that adds more tactical thought to combat, in my mind, is a good way to go for any mechanic, be it potions or otherwise. I'm not a fan of axing something just because other people have done them badly or in flawed ways before. That's the Bioware ME2 mindset I disliked, "Our ME1 inventory was terrible, in ME2 we could fix it, and make it right . . . but nah, that'd take thought and effort, let's just axe it." That sort of thinking is definitely what I don't want to see.

I think I'd bring up several potion system, from various games, that I like that - I think - make potions a bit more interesting: DS1: Drinking a potion doesn't empty the bottle, you only drink a certain amount and one potion bottle can have multiple uses, you can even drain additional potions into your partially full potion bottle, and carry around less potion bottles as a result. You could also get potion bottles of increased size (within reason), which meant, again, less need for tons of potion bottles clogging up your inventory. Various Games: Potion sickness. While potions can have beneficial results in most games, some of them take into account that: "too much of a good thing" mentality and, as a result, note that drinking to many of a particular potion, or drinking a mix of different potions, could have bad results. Potion sickness in some games lowers your stats, some of them prevent you from drinking further potions, while others allow you to keep drinking potions for less result and stacking statistical penalties. Still further games brought in more than such things and over drinking potions could cause a DoT effect to slowly wittle away your health while making potions no longer effect you (but they could stack further penalties). Hunter the Demon's Forge: Personally I didn't like this game much, but it did bring something to the table. The Potion Belt. You could only carry so many potions, and you carried them on your belt. A limited number of potions in total, and their rarity in the game made things a bit more interesting . . . but let's face it nothing was going to save that game. Still, a limited belt or bar of inventory slots that acted as the only way you could access potions in combat was, of course, a decent idea. Gothic II: In contrast Gothic II, if you went into your inventory . . . the game didn't pause, and your attempt to drink your potions stuck in your inventory would likely just get you killed. The game even required the character go into a 'drinking the potion' animation which, if interrupted, would cause the character to fail to drink the potion. Hence in combat drinking of potions was . . . not impossible, but highly impractical by design. I felt this was a good thing, as potions became things you used before combat or after. Before combat you might plan for a damage type you might experience. After combat you'd heal your wounds and treat poisons. - A good developer might combine aspects of Hunter's potion belt with Gothic II's mentality, and keep in that 'drinking animation' aspect that, if interrupted, fails the potion drinking. So, you'd have quick access to two or three select potions on your belt, but, you'd still have to take the time to drink them. You could easily just waste a potion. - While different games handle potions in different ways, I think most problems with potions aren't an issue with potions themselves, but rather with their implementation. None of the things I mentioned encompass all the possibilities, and, of course, they had their own hiccups, but I prefer such things. I especially prefer them to the idea of a 'potion cooldown' which, in my mind, makes less sense than a potion sickness mechanic of some sort. Even a mechanic that notes combining certain positive potions (drinking a bunch at once) together could have negative results. Sure that anti disease and anti cold potion might be great on their own, but drink them together and you go blind. I think potions, if handled well, are a perfectly fine thing to bring into a game.

DAoC, and other RPGs out there, used a consentration system to address such issues. You could only maintain so many buffs at once, and thus you had to pick and choose which buffs were applied, and to who, intelligently. The consentration system made it so that the effects of buffs lasted until the character chose to remove them from those they'd applied them to, however, if the character that did the buffing died, all buffs would be lost. In terms of buff effects . . . I like a more active effects, rather than passive % effects. D&D actually did this, to an extent, mundane weapons wouldn't work on some enemies. And you had different levels of magical weapons, that acted as a melee weapons ability to overcome certain defenses - as such a +4 magical sword might not work on an opponent, but a +5 magical sword would. So your melee could have issues with such things, much like the magic user.

Indeed. Not that such a fact has stopped multiple requests for said function, despite being confirmed as an option . . . nor has it stopped requests that all modes have aspects of ironman mode forced upon them.

So after awhile of thinking on this thread, I stick by my original post, in regard to P:E However, if we were talking about making a new system from the ground up, I would use age difference in a mechanical sense. I would use Age to replace the usual 'difficulty' options. In my mind Age represents more than years, it represents how long you’ve been acquiring experience, as well as the potential state of your body. I'd, quite simply, have the hardest difficulty setting be someone that chose to play as a child, very weak statistically, capable of learning a lot, and quite fast, but always weaker than a full grown adult. I'd further supplement that difficulty by forcing the game to take note of a character's age, in the form of laws and character views. A person might just let you walk into a place as an adult character, but as a child character you'd have to jump through hoops to even enter, and, of course, you wouldn't be able to walk around freely inside - you're not supposed to be there. Little things like that to make the experience more difficult and challenging, forcing you to think and find ways around, instead of meeting obstacles head on - because you are weaker, whatever your skill set. Of course people would expect different things of a character based on their age, and going outside of cultural views created for different areas of the game world the game world/its people would punish you for going outside of those expectation. For example a irresponsable adult character, in a place where a lot is expected of an adult, especially where honor or responsibility are concerned, would be punished. If not in terms of actual outright punishment then in terms of people ignoring you, not telling you things, not giving you things, not helping you or actively trying to do things to make your life harder. Essentially acting outside expectations would supplement difficulty by the world and its people making your life harder the way a boss at a job would make a person's life harder for not fulfilling expectations of their work ethic or attire and so on. Then, statistically, you'd have a ramp up effect, you'd start out with better statistics (more points to spend) the older you were, and start out with a larger skillset up front, though in game you'd acquire new abilities much slower the older you chose your character to be. So teenagers, young adults, adults and middle aged adults would have a statistical advantage, a growing one, and, the older you were, the more skills you'd start out with to represent the fact that you were older. Hence your difficulty setting is your age. At the far end up of the spectrum you'd also have the old characters, here you'd see a new difficulty setting in the form of your statistic would start to become lower again, instead of higher, but you'd have the large skill set. However, as this is a new difficulty level, in the form of age, you'd have chances to randomly forget, and remember, bits and pieces of your skillset. Your ability to acquire new skills would be the lowest, but your starting pool, provided you could remember them in game, would be the largest. This forget/remember mechanic combined with stat numbers and how the world views the aged character would combine to make this the most difficult setting, with the child setting being the second most difficult. The adult settings being the easiest with teenager and middle aged being your middle ground. I would do all this purely for the sake of the system being somewhat different than the normal forms of difficulty setting, and to build the difficulty setting directly into the game logic at a base. Would it be realistic or make absolute sense? No. Would everyone like it? Definitely not. However, this thread did inspire this random assortment of ideas that will never actually be used, and shouldn't be used for a variety of reasons, so I thought I'd share them here.

Age is an interesting thing to talk about in context of RPGs. If your character, in your mind, is 60, asking why he looks 20 isn't an unjustified question. Asking why a 60 year old character is level one with absolutely no skillset is also a good question. Age in RPGs suffers from issues like that. I think Final Fantasy: Tactics is one of the few games I've ever come across that your character (and characters you interacted with) aged up as the years went by. Still, that was a strategy RPG, and you weren't really creating that character, so it was pre-determined. They could get away with things a true RPG, with full customization, can't without adding in further systems. An RPG would, quite literally, have to allow you to create your character at different ages to escape that, "He's sixty now but he still looks twenty" issue. Custom age presents problems that, most developers, have found avoidable by . . . simply not allowing for it, or not mentioning related subjects. It's interesting to talk about and think about, but I can't help but feel I agree with developers that just side-step the issue. Addressing it head on goes into the two camps (and I say two camps because the following are the typical results) of: "Extra work for the developer with little return for the player" or "It's in but to a lesser extent, in such a way that players are unhappy with it, and complain about things like their character's actual age and visual age not matching up." So, yeah, maybe just avoiding the issue entirely by glossing over it, or not making it an issue at all by simply not allowing it are best . . . but that's Obsidian's call. Whatever they think they can handle is fine by me.

Adding in Respeccing is essentially saying, "Throw the role-playing elements out." Your statistics, skills, feats and particular abilities/spells are what define your character in a D&D styled RPG, and, while P:E is not a D&D game, it is a role-playing game. Just like statistics are there to limit you, to force you to play as, 'that' character and not just 'do whatever you want' if you can just respec . . . then what's the point of any of it? Got a problem your current build can't instantly deal with up front? Oh well, no sense trying to figure out how 'the character' would find a way around the problem, just respec to the right role to solve the problem instead of actually role-playing the character, and figuring out how they would handle the situation with the statistics, skills, feats and abilities/spells that they actually have. Bleh.

The idea we got from Obsidian wasn't that the Monk in P:E whips himself, in fact, if you look at the concept art we have so far, what he seems to actually practice is a form of scarification. There are no scars we see in the art that suggests he whips himself bloodly with various objects. What Obsidian have told us, specifically, doesn't point to self flagellation either, though, obviously, as I said, the concept art does support the idea of scarification. The patterned scars on his body look very particular, artistic, and not random. I don't see how it fits. Sawyer said in PC Gamer that Forton is a big believer in mortification of the flesh... reading up on that it doesn't at all equal that you beat yourself up physically only, but mentally as well. So this goes, mostly, to myself: do your homework http://en.wikipedia....the_flesh#Forms Sounds about right. I have to imagine the scar patterns in the artwork factor in somehow though it's a lot of visual detail to pen in the artwork for it just to be there for the heck of it, but who knows. Well, they probably do, but, yeah. Them and their zippy lips.

I think it's important to note that your statistics; Wisdom, Charisma, Intelligence and so in a D&D setting are not simply meant to create a line of dialogue that's better. I've talked about it before, but these things effect how you interact in the first place. In a well made game, arguably, every line of dialogue would be different based on how high or low your statistics were. And your low, low intelligence guy would sound like it in every line of dialogue. This isn't a bad thing. It's making sure you play the character you've created. No wrong option persay, jjust the limitation that forces you to actually play out a situation as that character would. I like using the Green Mile example of John Coffey as a low intelligence, high wisdom, character who may come off as simple but has great wisdom to offer. If thought of as a D&D character his dialogue options would all reflect a low intelligence but high wisdom. Not just one random dialogue option that was supposedly better than the others. Those low statistical numbers on intelligence aren't necessarily a bad thing, they're a part of the character. Dialogue, in my mind, should be a reflection of the character. In V:tM - Bloodlines the Malkavian was a great example of their dialogue options reflecting the character as hand. Now instead of one clan, apply that to low, average and high statistical values instead. Possibly very low and very high as well, but, obviously, you have to stop somewhere.

I remember playing through as a Paladin in SoU, which is a fairly strange for me (I don't tend toward melee classes at all) and thought it was interesting to see an area, within an area, open up that had never done so before. I believe it netted me a Holy Avenger. It wasn't even big, just a small aside. Just enough. Made the playthrough feel different, in the midst of most things, obviously, remaining the same.

The idea we got from Obsidian wasn't that the Monk in P:E whips himself, in fact, if you look at the concept art we have so far, what he seems to actually practice is a form of scarification. There are no scars we see in the art that suggests he whips himself bloodly with various objects. What Obsidian have told us, specifically, doesn't point to self flagellation either, though, obviously, as I said, the concept art does support the idea of scarification. The patterned scars on his body look very particular, artistic, and not random. I don't see how it fits.

I don't disagree. Why stop anywhere? Like I said nothing would make me happier than if they axed every last traditional element, and did a lot of things different . . . but in the end that's not my call. I'm more concerned witht he quality of what's present than what is actually present. This is their decision and it obviously fits into their world and lore somehow. They wouldn't be doing it if it didn't. A Monk is what Obsidian details them as, and nothing more, our preconceptions don't matter and the reality of a Monk doesn't matter either. The benefits you lay out only are beneficial to some, and you, nor I, have any conception of the community reaction beyond a handful of people in this thread that are particularly against one aspect of the Monk, or another, or just plain all of it. This thread is full of a vocal few that don't like the Monk in one aspect or another, yet, you may not have noticed, Monk styled characters are very popular. Use your head and think about what replacing the Monk could potentially result in. Most of what's being asked for sound like completely different Classes regardless, or, even worse, existing classes. Most people against the Monk, in this thread, would have been better off creating a, "I have an idea for a new class" thread. Discussing what you like is one thing, people getting up on high thrones and acting like they know better than Obsidian is another, going to far as to shame them like they high some manner of higher ground, and, no, I'm not talking about you, but I can quote several that have. I explained this. In detail. The only way you don't get that is if you are trying to not get it. True, but it doesn't change other aspects that some people here feel are out of place, as I explained in detailed, very specifically. As you explained it, nearly everything remaining in your idea still was something someone here had a problem with, and, on top of that, it creates a new problem, that being there are, if you noticed, people that want the Monk. So not only does it not do enough to please those that didn't like the Monk, it creates a new pool if people that are no longer pleased.

But then again, elves are human with pointy ears, orcs with greenskin and so on. So how about a cRPG in which you play as a insect or somekinda non-humanoid character? Not just Humanoids, but races that are, no matter how you turn it, Human themselves, just with an Elf or Dwarf name and visual applied to what is almost always just a twist on, or inspired by, an actual Human culture with Human or Human-like motivations, practices and beliefs. This is why, prior to race announcement, I called for alternative races that were nothing like Humans, that may as well have been the fantasy equivalent of aliens, in that their way of living/thinking/everything was just unthinkable.

That's a very good example for anyone familiar with the Malkavian knowledge of the unknown, and its lovely application in Troika's Vampire: the Masquerade - Bloodlines. Of course they could fall back on outright insanity to help keep things shadowed, that they didn't want revealed yet with the Malkavian. I imagine it's a much harder task when considering a wholly sane protagonist. It's not the best example, since the Malkavian in VtMB is not reading minds. It is more like receiving information through the madness network. But even so the Malkavian protagonist's profound knowledge of what is really going on is inexplicable at times. However, it's always good to have checks and social skills for understanding true motives of other characters. Playing a genre-savvy protagonist is always fun. If ciphers are better at it than the other classes, it's no big deal. True but it suffers from a lot of the same design issues, that essentially being, "They know more than other characters, how do you address this?" Malkavian dialogue managed to do that, because it often relied on the Malkavian's gibberish making you work your brain for the detail - sometimes. Given I've seen few games bother, at all, let alone that much, it seems as good a starting point as any. It could easily have been not a lot of fun to play if they'd done it wrong . . . but . . .The Malkavian potentially having access to more information didn't really make them unfun to play, nor did it give them advantage beyond the other Clans. It was, as it should be, mostly flavor, with some dementation options sprinkled about that had actual effect, and not just flavor.

As long as your character is truly dead, and doesn't show up in the DLC alive and well with no explanation... I'm looking at you Dragon Age. But yes, if you had to sacrifice your character at the end of P:E1, then it'd be great to have references to your dead character in the story for PE:2 so you as a player get that feeling of accomplishment and recognition for your sacrifice. Bleh . . . I'd almost forgotten that happened.

The only thing I'd feel need to note here is that, given Obsidian are far, far, from releasing all the details on the world, society (various) in it, their cultures, few or many beliefs, and so on - there is lots of information we don't have beyond that - . . . I wouldn't feel comfortable talking about what's consistent internally yet.

That's a very good example for anyone familiar with the Malkavian knowledge of the unknown, and its lovely application in Troika's Vampire: the Masquerade - Bloodlines. Of course they could fall back on outright insanity to help keep things shadowed, that they didn't want revealed yet with the Malkavian. I imagine it's a much harder task when considering a wholly sane protagonist.

I remember the first time I finished Colonel's Bequest only to be told on no uncertain terms that, while I had finished the game, I had come to the wrong conclussion. Being a little kid that had only been exposed to games you either 'won' or 'lost' prior a was amazed at this turn out and promptly started the entire game over again. It brings me to wonder if a well done mystery has to be solved correctly to be an enjoyable session of play. I finished the game that first time, surely, even if I came to the wrong conclussions, but despite being wrong I wasn't turned off of the game. In fact it made me want to play the whole thing over again, start to finish, even more, to see what else could happen. In short, there being more than a simple, "wrong or right" and "you win or you lose" aspect to a mystery . . . in my mind is something well worth thinking about. That's my little tid bit to add to this discussion.

Except it doesn't. Not even the D&D Paladin fits that. It's changed in more than a few ways to fit the setting, and P:E's version is massively changed beyond any point of argument. I can't name a fantasy RPG in which a Paladin in any way matches its actual origin. And I have no problem with it, even in the settings where they start healing wounds, flinging around magic and so on and so forth. A Paladin in D&D is a very fictional rendition, and nothing like the reality beyond some possible trace inspirations. In that same sense a Paladin in RPGs is a separate thing, part of a separate language - much like a slang word versus typical use of the same word. You just automatically accept that it's not meant to be the same with the Paladin. In that same sense you should just accept that the name Monk in RPGs has, in fact, for a very long time now, held a separate meaning when used in the context of RPGs. That's just a fact, not even an opinion, if it were an opinion I couldn't point at the countless RPGs out there that use Monk to reference something in a manner that is anything but the tradition, real world, application. It's not real. It's fiction, and if you think, "It's fiction" isn't a plausible argument then kick out every last class name you can think of that has a different real world application. You won't have many left standing. That's debatable, using names other than the Monk for such classes isn't original either. That's also been done. Repeatedly. The only people it speaks to are the few in this thread that would like such a change. That's it's only definite positive application. You have no idea of how it will be recieved beyond that. It doesn't have to be, but that's not my call. My call wouldn't have left a single traditional element standing. Obsidian's call has a roster of classes with nothing but D&D parallels that have been changed just enough to say they aren't the same. The Paladin, oddly, seeming to be the one most unlike its D&D parallel. Why not change the name of every last class? Why use any of the traditional classes at all? True. They could, but they didn't. And if they did change the name? Nothing would really change. You could make them religious, faith based, instead of pulling spiritual aspects to enhance themselves. Then you'd have people complaining about that. You could call them Dancers. People would complain about that. In the end Obsidian gave us lore up front about using the Soul to superhuman effect, enhancement of the body and other aspects of the Soul. After they had established that, they gave us a Monk who was fighting barehanded and enhancing their punches magically, one assumes by drawing upon their soul. Of all the things they could have done, they seem to have gone with something that they set up before the class was even announced. In the end no matter what they did people would complain. They'll complain about the name, the martial arts, that its not western, that it's not realistic, that its not this that or another thing and so on. I could spend all day complaining that the game isn't shaping up to how I'd have done every little detail too . . . but what's the point? I'm more concerned about the quality of what they choose to do, rather than exactly 'what' they choose to do. If they do the Monk well, fit it in their setting, and all that, sure, I won't play it still . . . but what do I care? I'll play a class I actually have interest in like the Wizard or Cipher. Then you'd still have the people complaining they weren't wearing full armor, and wielding weapons. Of note a lot of the complaints in this thread I can quote, that have issue with the Monk, cite, as their issue, just about everything you came up for this Dancer (not wearing full armor, not using weapons, using martial arts at all, doing things that are unrealistic and so on [note: these are from various posters collected - not just one poster]). Personally, if the Monk became your Dancer, my deal would be the same as with the Monk. I wouldn't play it, but my concern wouldn't be that it was there, it'd be that Obsidian did it well - not what but how. As long as it fits within their world, and they decide that, not any of us, they've done their job well. It's their writing, their story and they define what fits in this world. And no amount of, "I'm so disappointed in you Obsdian" style posts, from certain posters in this thread, that seem to think they know better/more than Obsidian about Obsidian's own trade, will change that. Again, you don't decide what's consistent within a fictional setting like this. The writers, the creators, do. They decide what is fitting, consistent, for the area of this fantasy world we're in. As for walls of text, I'm sorry, but a wall of text is a massive unbroken thing; lacking paragraphs, a true wall a block. I realize you're just trying to demean my side of things, to make it look lesser through the only manner you can, since you don't actually have anything worthwhile to add. So . . . yeah . . . your use of the term doesn't have to be accurate. I would even say, that while I disagree with him, he can actually discuss something without resorting to indirect insult . . . but . . . Apparently not. I'm sorry, but I've put you both on ignore. Please do the same to me, since the manner in which I post seems to offend your superior sensibilities so.

"four extra skill points !" might be useful when playing with a DM.. (: Heh. Still an extra feat, four extra skill points at creation 'and' one extra skill point with every level gained actually adds up to a lot. Over 20 levels that's quite a bit. Little things add up.

I'd agree that they're overused, especially in Spider Den 'lots of smaller spiders swarming you' manners. I much prefer the idea of a Giant Spider as a lone hunter stalking you. A challenging, dangerous fight rather than a fight against fodder swarms. Spiders aren't ants or bees.

A Cipher Detective going around solving an unfolding mystery sounds like a game into itself. And I'd play it.

That bonus feat, and four extra skillpoints (plus an additional one skill point every level beyond creation), for being a Human at creation, hardly felt baseline to me.