eimatshya

I can go either way on Draconoids. I've thought they were cool in some settings and less so in others. I was never that interested in the Sarnak in EQ, but I think the Dracha from Arcana Unearthed/Arcana Evolved just look really cool: I don't find their lore/culture that interesting, but if Obsidian were to create a race of Dragonoids that looked that awesome, I'm sure they could come up with some interesting cultures for them. Also, for me at least, Dragonoids would feel much more appropriate for medieval fantasy than an insectoid race or lizard men.

I too am a fan of the friendly fire mechanic, but I have no problem with there being the option to disable it (different strokes for different folks and all that).

With very few exceptions, I've never been into crafting in games. As such, I would be somewhat annoying if I had to go through a complex crafting process to have any sort of gear (unless the game isn't gear-centric, but that seems unlikely given its genre and inspirations). If there was the option to take the pieces of ancient magic artifacts to NPC crafters to have them reforged, rather than having to do it yourself, I would be OK with that. But I would rather not have to craft every piece of equipment I use myself (unless crafting was extremely simple, but that would probably make it seem like a gimmick to waste time, rather than a way to deepen the game). I find looting and sorting through my inventory to be tedious enough; I don't really need more boring stuff to do.

I actually found the system of VO used in the IE games to be a bit annoying at times. When a character has a line of dialogue that's three sentences long, and only the first sentence is voiced, the abruptness of the sudden switch to silence part way through the line always felt really jarring. Same, to a lesser degree, with dialogues in which the entirety of the first line is voiced but then the rest of the dialogue is text only. If they insist on putting in voice-overs, I would prefer to have select dialogues (e.g. the first dialogue with a character to set the tone and only key plot scenes thereafter) entirely voiced and the rest entirely voiceless. While great voice acting made some of the scenes in the IE games extra cool, like the scene when the mages come to arrest Irenicus and Imoen for using magic or when you first meet Deionarra in Torment, I really don't think it's necessary to have VO at all. Even as a kid, I found text only stories like Final Fantasy Tactics to be very engrossing. I could vividly imagine how all the characters would deliver their lines and what sorts of voices and accents they would have. I would have no problem characterizing the characters in P:E with outthe assistance of recorded dialogue. That said, since the devs have said that it will be limited VO, I hope that they at least distribute the VO better so that it's sudden absence will be less intrusive than it was in the Infinity Engine games.

I always wiped all the tactics options from my companions so that they wouldn't start doing something other than what I wanted at a critical moment. Maybe it's because I got my start at party-based, tactical combat in fully turn-based games, but I usually dislike not having complete control over what my chess pieces are doing. It works sometimes if it's a character quirk, like when Buzz would occasionally get bloodthirsty and go full-auto on everyone in JA2, but in as a general rule, I want to be the one in control of the troops. Still, it takes all kinds, so if you guys want such a system, it's inclusion wouldn't bother me since I won't have to use it (assuming it's toggleable like in the IE and DA games).

Yeah, one of the devs, I think Sawyer, said in an interview that they have a bunch of possible names written down on a whiteboard, but haven't decided on one yet. So for now, it's working title is Project Eternity.

You had some pretty serious race-based reaction modifiers in Everquest (and also religion-based reaction mods, but that's a different topic). Sometimes it just meant vendors wouldn't sell to you, but other times it meant you were kill on sight until you raised your faction with the city in question. Being able to raise your faction standing with a city was kind of a neat touch because it meant that you occasionally would see a Dark Elf hanging out in the Wood Elf city. One time my Wood Elf teamed up with this Ogre Shaman who was roleplaying a good Ogre and we worked together to kill enough Orcs to get his faction standing up enough to where the elven guards wouldn't attack him on sight. It was going pretty well until some other players came by and were like, "an Ogre; kill it!" He ended up respawning back on his home continent and didn't feel like making the rather dangerous, 1-2 hour long journey to come back. So that was the end of that quest. Anyway, having racial reaction modifiers can be fun as long as there's a way to change people's opinions of you. I remember having to flatter people a lot to get them to give me the time of day in Arcanum; it added a lot of depth to the interaction. Since P:E isn't an MMO, the system should probably be more like Arcanum than Everquest (having some city where only certain races are kill on sight would be tedious in a story-based game).

Hah, those are pretty neat! I wish they were real, I'd totally want one as pet. Thanks for sharing!

I've been thinking about different possible races that they could come up with through their soul mechanic, but they usually end up as stuff that wouldn't really be a race (like the suggestion I made in my original post). One possibility might be something like the following (this is the legend they tell of their origin, which may or may not be true): Long ago, the mage-lords of some forgotten civilization enacted a new punishment for those who attempted to overthrow them. They were taken to the caverns below the capital where a primordial being of untold might had died and infused the rocks themselves with his power. Drawing on the great energies of that place, the mage-lords would level a terrible curse that ripped the souls from its subjects but left them mysteriously alive. Overtime, either due to the loss of their souls or because of some property of the curse, the Anathema (as they became known) began to change. Their bodies contorted and they became monstrous, hunch-backed creatures. They lost the ability to empathize with other beings or to work together as a group. They felt only a hollowness and sense of being incomplete. Despite their hideous appearances, many sought a way to fill the emptiness inside of themselves through sex. Strangely, but perhaps as part of the curse's design, the Anathema found that they could still reproduce but that their offspring were just as soulless and twisted as they were. As such, generations after the rebellion that lead to their creation, the monstrous descendents of the original rebels were still around to remind the other citizens of the price of rising up against the mage-lords. The Anathema were housed in public cages when they weren't being forced to toil away at the most degrading jobs the mage-lords could find for them. This all changed when a rival nation invaded. When their troops stormed the capital, there was so much chaos that many Anathema escaped and fled into the wilds where they scattered (due to being unable to work in any unified way without some outside power forcing them). One of the Anathema encountered a Shaman who began teaching him an art called Kshar (or something, I don't know; that's what popped into my head). This art consisted of both meditation as well as the study and recitation of a series of mantras on right action. Through this art, this Anathema found that he could satiate the sense of loss inside himself. He still felt no empathy, however, the Mantras served as a form of guidance for his interactions with other beings. Although the Anathema could not feel compassion, he could fake it by adhering to the detailed code presented in the Mantras. His studies of Kshar and its mantras led him to believe that what would be right and compassionate must be to train other Anathema in Kshar. He left the Shaman to search for other Anathema and began teaching them. In time, many of the Anathema learned the art and through it gained focus. Eventually, these Ksharha, or followers of Kshar, founded their own settlement, which in time grew into a civilization. The Anathema who did not learn Kshar never overcame their hunger and many became wicked creatures who preyed on the helpless. Some sought to quell their emptiness by trying to steal the souls of others. Enough of these rogue Anathema have survived over the centuries and managed to interbreed during brief, and dangerous encounters with others of their race to perpetuate the non-Ksharha element of the race, whose number is at time increased by Anathema who fail to learn the Ksharha and are forced to flee the Ksharha nation. The Ksharha themselves are an unusual culture. Their soulless nature necessitates the strict incorporation of the Kshar in every aspect of their lives, as their dedication to it essentially turns it into a pseudo-soul. Since their entire society would quickly break down if any significant number of them ceased adhering to Kshar, group meditation and study are mandatory parts of every day. A special monastic order serves as law enforcement to deal with any Anathema that reject Kshar. If Ksharha slip up and kill someone, they have no sense of guilt over the action (they cannot feel guilt). They would know that the act was, probably, against the Mantras and would try to do better in the future if they wish to continue being Ksharha, instead of empty Anathema, but there would be no remorse. Ksharha who serve in violent professions such as soldiers walk a fine line as it is easy for them to move from killing out of defensive necessity and killing for more casual reasons. Consequently, Ksharha soldiers tend to study the Mantras even more strenuously than their brethren to keep themselves from losing Kshar. As they lack souls, Anathema cannot use magic, however hard they may study the Kshar. Anyway, I don't know if this would actually fit in with how souls work in P:E. We don't know what exactly a soul does for a person, other than make it possible to use magic. Still, it was fun to come up with.

I've seen a few people mention Dopplegangers and Werecreatures. I think those would both be fun, but in the case of Dopplegangers, I think that might work better in a game with a set protagonist who is a Doppleganger. That way they could focus on integrating his ability to take on the appearance of other people into the narrative, which I think would make it much more fulfilling (sort of like how the Nameless One's immortality and the Harborman's Soul Eating were fully integrated into PST and MotB). As for the second option, there might be some interesting things they could do with a society of were-creatures. They could develop rights of passage that everyone needed to go through to learn how to control the beast in them. Maybe the race came into existence when the awakened soul of a human or similar being was reincarnated in the body of an animal. The awakened soul carried with it some of the magic it possessed in its former life and its desire to be human again (or elven or whatever) caused a metamorphosis in the animal and it began to shift between human and animal form. Eventually, it learned how to control the transformation, and became a true shape shifter. He then began hunting down similarly afflicted individuals and teaching them to control their shifting. That story could be improved on, but my point is that I think there would be some interesting things that they could do with were-creatures. I don't know if that would be a great race though, since it would involve humans, elves, and dwarves (the same problem people noticed in my Deathborn idea in the OP). It might work better if it was a follower, rather than a playable race.

Of course, and I'm not trying to tell them how to do their jobs nor do I expect them to read every thread that goes up on the forums. Still, it's (1) fun to speculate and weigh in on stuff we are passionate about and (2) I imagine getting an idea of what the fans are interested in would be helpful for a developer. When I plan out pen and paper campaigns, I often ask the players for their opinions on stuff that I'm considering putting in the campaign, and after each game I make notes of what seemed to resonate well with them and what didn't. I want the players to enjoy the game I run, after all. That doesn't mean I do everything they suggest, I still retain executive control over the project, but I find it helpful to get an idea of what they want, so I can make a campaign that we will all enjoy. It seems reasonable that Obsidian might take a similar approach. Even if they aren't taking such an approach, or if they are but aren't following this thread, (1) still holds.

I don't really like it when games try to categorize your actions as either good or evil because such a system frequently fails to take into account the myriad factors that would actually have to be considered to judge your actions. This is exacerbated when your alignment affects gameplay since it penalizes roleplaying in favor of gaming the system. For example, in Star Wars:TOR I played as a Sith Inquisitor. The inquisitor back story is that she was a slave, but when it was discovered that she was force sensitive, she was sent to Korriban to train at the Sith Academy there. Since I was a Twi'lek who had until recently been enslaved by a bunch of xenophobic imperials who treated me like garbage, I reasoned that I probably wouldn't be overly fond of the Empire or the Sith. As such, when I had the option to hurt or humiliate an imperial, I usually took it. The game usually seemed to consider this "Light Side behavior", even though they were vengeful actions motivated by hatred and resentment (which seemed like straight up Dark Side to me). Apparently killing Sith automatically equals Light Side behavior, regardless of the motivations behind it. *EDIT* For example, early in the game I met this peasant who was complaining that someone was murdering other peasants. I doubted my Sith would give a **** about a bunch of peasants, but then I found out that it was a bunch of rich Sith students who were hunting peasants for sport. I was then given the option to kill the peasant to shut him up about the whole thing, or to tag some other Sith as hunting targets so that the rich Sith kids would accidentally attack other Sith, which is officially taboo. I figured my character would find it infinitely more amusing to trick a bunch of pompous, rich Sith into accidentally getting themselves executed, or at least humiliated, than to kill some random peasant who hadn't done anything to her. So, I chose to target the Sith. Even though the reasons behind my decision were definitely malicious, not altruistic, I got Light Side points. This probably made sense to the writers, given that I was stopping the sport hunting of humans, but it obviously failed to capture the nuances involved in people's decision making. *END OF EDIT* Anyway, since I often made Dark Side decisions in a number of other situations, my alignment meter had me pegged as mildly light side, even though I was roleplaying her as bitter and angry. Since the thought process behind my decisions did not line up with what the writers had envisioned, the game failed to accurately calculate her alignment. As such, I think it is better to allow players to decide whether their actions are good or evil, rather than the game. That said, I do like having the option to take more than one moral stance on an issue (for convenience, let's say good, evil, and neutral options). I tried playing the public beta of Age of Decadence, and it seemed like the game was forcing you to be a self-serving opportunist. You didn't have the option of trying to rise above the decadence of the setting. I could see why the devs might want to write the game that way, but I found it boring to be forced to follow a set viewpoint. So, I want the choices the game gives me to be varied enough for me to be good, evil, or neutral, but I don't want the game to interpret my actions for me, and give me good or evil points accordingly. I doubt we have to worry, though. The devs have already said they aren't going to use alignments, only reputations, and Obsidian has a great track record when it comes to capturing the complex nature of morality.

In general I would prefer the "Refer to the Manual" approach, but given that many people will be getting this game in digital only form, I don't think that it will be the optimal approach for P:E. Personally, I kind of like having tool-tips, as long as you can turn them off, because they refresh your memory as you go along through the game. Overall, however, I don't care that much what kind of tutorial they use as long as you can skip it without feeling like you're missing out on part of the story (or on XP). For example, the tutorial in VtM:B can be skipped, but it introduces you to Smiling Jack, the Sabbat, and the Sheriff (or at least shows you what a bad mofo he is). Most importantly, it gives you XP. As such, I always feel like I need to play through it, even though it is tedious, so that my character knows about this stuff and doesn't miss out on XP. The tutorial shouldn't introduce anything other than mechanics and shouldn't give XP. Either that, or it should be so subtly worked into the game that you don't know it's there.

He also posts this: "They're not boring infodumps because information is boring. They're boring infodumps when they're written in a boring fashion. Filler dialogue should be considered equivalent to filler combat. If a designer is implementing it, he or she should really ask themselves if they're improving the player's experience and understanding of the world and the people in it." So, within the paradigm of what he's saying I don't think it's impossible to talk about random things. Their answers should just be written in such a way so that it helps characterize the NPC. By filtering the information that NPCs tell you through their respective perspectives, you get a deeper understanding of the characters and how people in general view the world. Dialogue could still give you lots of random information, but the information would come from an in-game perspective, meaning that it isn't purely filler text; it helps develop the characters involved, even if the topic may seem unimportant or inane. Such dialogue, while on the surface of little importance, furthers "player or NPC characterization."

Yeah, I've been thinking about the possibility of a construct race, too. I know Eberron has a construct race called the Warforged, but having never played an Eberron campaign, I don't know much about them. One possibility for such a race would be that they were constructs created in some magocratic nation to serve as laborers. To make them more capable, their creators imbued them with increasing levels of intelligence and animacy. Still, they remained submissive and obedient due to their soulless nature. Then, strangely, souls started being reborn into the bodies of the constructs. The precise reason for this would be a topic of debate amongst scholars and theorists. Did the increased sapience of the constructs make them viable vessels for souls? Did the gods do it as a punishment for the mage's hubris in creating life, a power the gods considered theirs alone? Whatever the case, now that they were imbued with souls many of the constructs developed the willpower and desire to resist their masters and found their own societies. Others chose to remain in their subservient posts, seeing the security offered as preferable to the uncertain future that awaited their brethren who sought to carve out a new place for themselves in a dangerous world. Alternately, it may have been necessary for the mages to give the constructs souls in order to animate their lifeless husks. Anyway, it might be an interesting race to explore. Are they a dying race due to their inability to reproduce? Or have they discovered the method to make new constructs that will be imbued with souls, thereby allowing them to make their own children? If not, do they turn to stealing the souls of members of other races and placing them in new constructs? How would they view biological beings? Do they have societal splits as a result of differing opinions on this issue? How cohesive are their societies? Do they work well together or are they individualistic (or do they not have any predisposition towards either)? Or maybe they would be too much like a machine race from Sci-fi; I don't know.

It's funny, I was against the idea of an insectoid race because I was thinking of something like the Thri-kreen, but a playable, Drider-like race would be pretty cool (which would technically be arachnoid, so I guess I'm not a total hypocrite for liking the idea). Given the emphasis on creating a variety of cultures for each race, the devs would be able to come up with a bunch of interesting societies for these spider-people to have formed.

I thought being the Chosen One in Fallout 2 was pretty funny, given that from a meta-game perspective you knew from the beginning that you were just some random schmo. It also was fun to introduce yourself as the Chosen One and see people's reactions. In general, though, I'm not a big fan of being told that some higher power has decreed that I'm the chosen one, destined for great things, blah, blah, blah. I think it can do interesting things for a narrative, but it usually doesn't. That said, I think there is an important distinction to be made between embarking on your quest because you're told that it's your destiny and embarking on an epic quest because of a variety of factors coming to a head and inducing you to do so (which still could be destiny, I suppose, but you and your character are not aware of whether this is or is not the case, and it doesn't factor into the narrative). For instance, in the examples given by OP, you end up embarking on your quests out of necessity born from something your character had done prior to the start of the game (Torment and the Sith Lords) or something that had befallen your character (the shard getting lodged in your chest in NWN 2). In all of these cases, your supernatural condition forces you into an epic quest, but you aren't the chosen one. You're just the right person for the job. I don't mind this sort of "special" since it's your very specialness that both created the central conflict and that allows you to end it. In contrast, when you're a general hero who is told by the gods, or whoever, that he is destined to save the world, that seems superfluous. Why does he need the destiny? It's usually a better story if circumstances throw him into the conflict, rather than some higher power beyond his ken or control.

Pretty much my feelings on the matter. Given its prevalence in ancient societies, I don't think it would be odd to see it in Project Eternity, but I probably wouldn't miss it if it wasn't. In the end, it can be interesting, but it doesn't strike me as a critical feature to make the cultures seem alive.

I've seen other threads on Project Eternity's races, but they seem to all be arguments over whether or not to have Elves and Dwarves. So, since it sounds like Project Eternity will have Elves and Dwarves, what would you like the other race or races to be? So far we have Human, Elf, Dwarf, and possibly the Godlike. That's four out of the five playable races. What else would you like to see? They've mentioned the possibility of an insect race; personally, I'm not that interested in having one. I've seen interesting insect races in some pen and paper games (Ashen Stars and Dark Sun), but I'm not sure an insect race really fits a medieval Europe themed setting (assuming that's what we are going to get with P:E). I would like the races to fit the world (although I suppose there could be parts of P:E's world where giant sapient insects would feel more appropriate). I liked all the bizarre races that we had in Planescape, but they seemed appropriate in the setting. I think the bizarre factor needs to be toned down in a more conventional setting (i.e. European inspired fantasy). Anyway, I think it might be interesting for the fifth race to be people who were born with souls that had somehow carried with them traces of their previous incarnations' deaths (maybe only in instances where the deaths were especially traumatic). As such, the soul would taint the new incarnation with an element of death, meaning that, while technically a member of their parent's race, these beings would be part mortal and part undead. This would leave them pale and sickly looking but would give them extended lifespans and heightened immunity to diseases and death magic. Their connection to death would also give them a greater sensitivity to the souls of others. Perhaps they could tell whether the soul was whole, fragmented, awakened, etc. This sensitivity would also make them more aware of the presence of concealed individuals (bonus to perception checks to spot hiding or invisible people) and possibly of ghosts, if they exist in this setting. Due to their cadaverous appearance, they might have penalties to social interaction, especially in societies in which they were stigmatized. I'm not really sure what to call them, the Deathborn? Deathwalkers? I got the idea from the Shade race in Shadowbane, so maybe they could be called that, although that would probably be a copyright violation. http://shadowbaneemulator.com/page.php?d=4&n=Shades I suppose these wouldn't be a "race", so to speak, since their condition wouldn't be hereditary and their offspring, assuming they aren't all sterile, would probably be normal members of their grandparents' race (unless they had the misfortune to be born with a tainted soul, as well). If Obsidian decides to go with something more traditional, I would be interested in playing a member of a stereotypically brutish race like an Orc, Troll, or Minotaur (the Minotaurs in Shadowbane were pretty cool). Anyway, what ideas do you guys have for the fifth race?

There was a thread about classes a while back: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/60292-classes/page__hl__classes Anyway, here's a modified version of what I proposed (I'm not sure if this system would be too detailed for the scope of P:E, but here it is anyway): Warrior - Relies on martial techniques. The Warrior subclasses/specializations would be: Knight - Uses heavy arms and armor; has abilities focused on direct attacks and damage mitigation Auxiliary - Uses light arms and armor; has abilities focused on teamwork with other party members and damage avoidance Archer - Uses bows and crossbows; has abilities related to ranged combat and escaping from attackers who close to melee range Wizard - Relies on magic in combat; the Wizard specializations are: Necromancer - uses death magic to harm or heal and to communicate with/summon dead souls who have not yet been reincarnated Animist - communes with the spirits infusing the world and manipulates spirit energy; can draw out spirit energy to heal wounds Elementalist - harnesses the power of the elements Sorcerer - affects the minds of others with his magic (can hypnotize/dominate enemies, put people to sleep, or drive them mad) Rogue - relies on stealth and trickery to debilitate or incapacitate foes; the Rogue specialties are: Thief - can hinder foes through an assortment of dirty tricks; can steal items Assassin - uses precise strikes to vital points to quickly fell adversaries; can make poisons Ranger - lives in the wild places and uses traps and ranged attacks to overcome enemies; can make curative poultices Templar - A character who mixes martial and magical techniques in combat Holy Knight - a paladin who uses martial might to slay adversaries and white magic to heal the wounded Hell Knight - the Holy Knight's dark mirror; uses martial might to devastate foes and black magic to siphon life from one being to another (usually him/herself, but it could be used to heal others) Berserker - Draw spirits of war into themselves to attain a state of singleminded fury wherein they become killing machines who are almost immune to pain or injury Warden - A fighter who protects the wild places; can use nature magic and can take the form of various animals Alchemist - A character who uses a mix of magic and technology (e.g. bombs, guns, potions, mutagens) Chemist - Can create bombs and potions for any situation Witch - Ingests mutagens to temporarily gain superhuman martial abilities in combat Artificer - Design and use magic infused contraptions to give themselves an edge in battle (think of the tech skills in Arcanum; the artificer can fuse magic and technology to make things like the Chapeau of Magnetic Inversion) The Artificer may not be setting appropriate, but I came up with it when we know almost nothing about the world other than that it would have dwarf rangers. Anyway, I also think it would be interesting to get some unconventional classes, as well.

This was a point I liked a lot about your suggestion. Normally I hate it when an antagonist suddenly shows up in a scripted plot event and foils whatever you were doing, regardless of how well you are doing in the game. In your idea, however, said scripted event would be avoidable, or even turn out in your favor, depending on your actions. This to me is the key element of the proposal since otherwise the events would just be the writers messing with you, which would be aggravating, rather than fun (think the Kai Leng sequences in Mass Effect 3). Having the final confrontation being a debate, instead of a fight, would be awesome (although there should be the option for the final confrontation to be resolved through violence, rather than diplomacy, depending on your play style). The fact that with high wisdom you could literally talk your nemesis to death was one of the most memorable aspects of PS:T.

Actually in Pathfinder 1 point in a skill does equal 1 point in that skill for all classes. Pathfinder doesn't have D&D 3E's penalty for cross-class skills. The only difference between a class skill and a non-class skill is that you have a +3 bonus to use the class skill. Buying one rank in any skill always costs 1 point, and you can have as many ranks as your total hit dice. So, the only difference between a class skill and a non-class skill is the +3 bonus. I agree that it can be annoying to have to buy the Skill Focus feat to excel at a non-class skill that you feel you should have, but there are often alternatives to spending a feat. If you want to make a diplomatic warrior, there are a few ways to go about it. If you are a human or halfling you could take a racial trait to make diplomacy a class skill (World Traveler for humans and Well Informed for halflings). If you aren't from either of those races, you can take the Adopted trait and then one of those racial traits. If your fighter grew up in a religious environment, you could potentially get the Ease of Faith trait. If none of those options work for roleplaying reasons, you can still take either the Cosmopolitan feat (which will give you two extra class skills and two extra languages) or the Skill Focus feat to approximate the bonus you would have gotten if Diplomacy was a class skill. If you are a half-elf you get a free Skill Focus feat through the race's Adaptability feature. So, to make a warrior with Diplomacy as a class skill could take only one of your two starting traits or, at most, 1 feat (and warriors get a ton of feats). That one would be more problematic. I wouldn't say it would require an enormous amount of feats (probably two feats + your two traits, depending on your race and religion), but it would definitely take a big bite out of your key abilities. So, yeah, I agree that Pathfinder would make it hard to play a character like that. I had a similar problem creating my current Pathfinder character, a half-orc fighter who, due to her upbringing (which I won't get into here since it's pretty complex), is a classically trained singer and is well educated in the academic fields. I eventually just paid the feats to make her the way I wanted, and figured her combat abilities will catch up as I level up. Anyway, the point I was trying to make was that it is possible to have a class-based system with a fair degree of flexibility. In Pathfinder, excelling in a single, non-class skill is pretty easy and won't generally intrude much on your core proficiencies. You are correct, however, that its system still restricts your ability to come up with complex, unconventional backgrounds. There are some class systems that give you almost as much freedom as a purely skill based system, like the True20 system and the old Cyberpunk 2020 (IIRC, it's been a while since I've played it), but a completely skill based system like WEG's D6 system, Chaosium's Basic Roleplaying System, or White Wolf's Storyteller and Storytelling systems will always give you more freedom to come up with creative characters. However, since Obsidian is clearly planning to make a class-based game, I wanted to point out that, while such a system may not be ideal, it does not necessarily preclude the possibility of making non-conventional characters (just reduces the possibilities, somewhat).

I'm thrilled to see that there are people under 20 who are interested in games like Project Eternity. Gives me hope for the future of gaming. Anyway, I'm 26. My top five favorite cRPGs are: 1. Fallout 2 (my first cRPG, so it sort of set the standard for me; 14 years later, I still play it fairly regularly) 2. Vampire: the Masquerade - Bloodlines 3. Knights of the Old Republic II: the Sith Lords 4. Alpha Protocol 5. [vacancy] (used to be Mass Effect 2, but Mass Effect 3 sort of ruined my enthusiasm for the series; I haven't figured out what to replace it with yet; there are so many great RPGs). Back in the late 90s/early 2000s (when I first got into RPGs), my favorites were Fallout 1 and 2, Baldur's Gate 1 and 2, and Daggerfall. When it comes to strategic combat (rather than their roleplaying potential), my favorites are Final Fantasy Tactics, Temple of Elemental Evil, and Jagged Alliance 2. My favorite MMORPG was Everquest (for the first three years; I quit shortly after the launch of Luclin), although old-school Star Wars: Galaxies and Shadowbane deserve shout-outs as well (Shadowbane for having the coolest races and classes I've seen in an MMO and SWG for general awesomeness). I recently finished Persona 3 for the first time, and since then I have been replaying my old Infinity Engine games (currently on Icewind Dale), trying the Final Nights mod for VTM:B, and dabbling in the Secret World.

My experience from having played a ridiculous amount of Vampire: the Masquerade - Bloodlines (my second favorite game of all time), is that I still tend to kill a lot of stuff. The difference is that the mentality behind it changes. I no longer feel compelled to kill stuff so that I don't miss out on XP. Instead, the decision to enter combat is based on other considerations. For example, in an early mission, you are tasked with infiltrating a warehouse run by a group of violent and chaotic vampires. It is quite possible to sneak in and out without confronting all of the guards, but since this faction is characterized as being a bunch of blood crazed psychos, I often feel that it's safer not to leave any alive. Regardless of your bodycount, you get the same amount of XP at the end of the mission, so there is no intrinsic reward to killing the guards. I do it because (1) in many cases it's easier than sneaking around them and (2) from an RP perspective, I generally don't want to have a bunch of violently crazed nutjobs based right down the street from my apartment. In other situations, were I may not want to kill anyone, I do not miss out on XP for doing so. For example, another mission has you breaking into a museum to steal an ancient artifact, and the museum is guarded by a surprisingly large staff of security guards. Unlike the previous group of crazed psychos, I don't want to kill a bunch of security guards for just doing their job, so I try to get through without killing any of them. I don't lose out on any XP for doing this since whatever approach I use, the XP I get will be from retrieving the artifact. This gives me the freedom to kill or not kill the security guards based on RP considerations, rather than based on what will level me up the most. Having a goal-based system just gives you have a lot of freedom on how to play the game. If you are confronted by assassins, your goal becomes "survive the assassins." But the how is left up to you. If you think talking your way out of difficult situations is fun, you won't feel like you're gimping your XP by using a persuade check to convince the assassins that you aren't the people they're looking for. Likewise, if you like killing assassins, you won't feel like you are missing out on the XP reward for solving the situation diplomatically. Or if you just want to run away from the assassins, you can do that too. All three approaches lead to same outcome "survived the assassins" and the same XP reward. Since you don't get any XP for kills, your concerns are what will be the most fun, easy, challenging, or RP appropriate course of action, rather than the meta-game concern of "what will net me the most XP?"

While in general I prefer classless, skill-based systems, there are plenty of class-based systems that provide a lot of freedom while still preserving the unique feel of having a class. Pathfinder, the 13th Age, and Iron Heroes all open up third edition D&D's system by giving more feats and somewhat doing away with class-skills. In Pathfinder, your class does give you a bonus to certain skills, but all skills have the same cap and cost the same amount of points to raise, irrespective of class. As such, classes that favor a certain skill will have an advantage in that area, but if you are set on being a charismatic, persuasive fighter, you can do so through choosing the right feats and background traits. I ran a Witch with 14 dex who could outstealth the party's ranger, who had 18 dex, by a significant margin because I had decided to specialize in that skill, even though it wasn't a class-skill for witches. I'm sure it would be possible to make a Fighter whose Diplomacy skill was as high as a Bard's. In Iron Heroes, there are no class skills at all, just skill groups that make it cheaper to improve in areas related to your class. As such, a Berserker could put as many points into diplomacy as any other class. In one campaign we had a Man-at-Arms whose primary attribute was charisma (he started with 18), and he was the spokesperson for the party. He also put a lot of points into perform, and bought feats that would allow him to gain a following and manipulate people through his music. My point is, just because second edition AD&D was very restrictive with its class system, doesn't mean that all class systems work that way. Obsidian could definitely design a D&D style class system that offers a great amount of flexibility. Furthermore, I think it would be the best way to incorporate the system proposed in Update 7 where spending points on combat skills doesn't reduce your ability to spend points on non-combat skills. Basically, when you level up you could go through a screen where you spend points on combat abilities and a screen where you spend points on non-combat abilities. For each screen at level up, you would get a certain number of points and/or feats (the number being determined by your class) and could buy what you want. You would have a separate pool of points for each, so spending the combat feat you get at second level on Shield Bash wouldn't prevent you from spending your second level non-combat feat on Empathic Awareness. Basically, it would work like the dichotomy between spending ability points to raise your intelligence and skill points to raise your tumble skill in D&D. *EDIT* after thinking about it a bit, I suppose you could have something similar with a point buy system. Assuming you got experience for completing objectives, like in Vampire: the Masquerade - Bloodlines, all experience gains would feed into two equal pools: one to spend on combat skills and one to spend on non-combat skills. You could then purchase skills from one area without impacting your ability to purchase skills from the other.