Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Kilroy_Was_Here

  1. By listing the goals for various funding milestones the devs (who should have experience budgeting this kind of thing) are telling us 'given the time and money we will have this feature will be included'. Now, something could come along and derail that feature, despite Obsidian's best intentions and they would be forced to more forward without it.


    Now not only will this cause a firestorm among the fanbase, it creates a credibility gap with the fans: "Why should I support your future game that you claim will have features X, Y and Z? For all I know you cut Y down to an afterthought and removed Z entirely!" Obsidian already has this problem to some extent because some of their past releases (NWN2, KOTOR2, VTMB) were in a very buggy/unfinished state on release. I am hoping that this won't be an issue here because there won't be any pressure to release an incomplete game (aside from us of course).


    Personally I expect the release date to slide before they would consider cutting things out to make the 4/14 date, which is already only an estimate.

  2. As a standalone random place to battle enemies for prizes... no.


    As an uninspired sidequest to beat X named losers to win a belt/prove your status as a bad dude... no.


    As part of something more interesting (I need you to find out about my brother. He signed up to fight in the arena but I was told he died somehow before fighting a single match. If you become a gladiator you can access the restricted parts of the arena and search for clues!)... maybe


    -I stole my idea (more or less) from the 'Age of Worms' 3e adventure path from Dragon magazine. The arena idea was one of the few things I liked about that campaign, esp the way that part of the story ended.

  3. I have the same comment on this idea as I previous posted in the 'Trickster' thread. Pretty much everything being discussed would be a noncombat proficiency. Since it has been announced that those abilities are purchased seperately there is nothing ruling out the possibiltiy that any class could have some kind of enchanting/forging/enamelwaring as described here. No need for a dedicated PC class.

  4. It depends on what you want to get as a result. If you want to have a great game, then plotline is more important. If you want to have a great series of games (with the possibilities of sequels and spinoffs) then world is more important.


    Really it depends on whether you take a short-term or a long-term view of it. It is kind of ironic that caring more about a game not scheduled to come out until Q2 2014 is short-term, but that's how I see it...

  5. What if these Godlike races were actually subraces of the standard races?


    Planetouched Elves or Dwarves anyone?


    You know, I never thought of that but you are absolutely correct. DnD planetouched races are always based off of humans because EVERY hybrid race in DnD (halfelves/halforcs) are part human. There is no logical reason why that should be the case unless the gods are like the Greek pantheon and take a liking to humans (and only humans) when they decide to step off of Mt Olympus for some action.

    • Like 1
  6. Since I think the idea of a bard having signifcant buffing/debuffing effects in a combat situation to be hard to swallow (outside of the Macross/Robotech universe) I will put that aside. Since we have already been told that combat and non-combat skills will be acquired seperately there is no reason to limit the diplomatic/street smart/music playing role to only one class. Therefore, IMO there is no need for a bard.


    The paladin might already exists as a subclass (remember those?) of the warrior, priest, or perhaps the 'traditional' paladin powers might be divided among multiple subclasses. The reason why paladins are part of DnD (and similar) lore is that they were the martial force of the gods on earth (well, not 'earth' earth, but you get the idea). If I recall correctly the gods in PE are much less concerned with the day-to-day lives of the people, so it would make less sense for them to have mortal followers with the sole purpose of roughing up their enemies.

  7. Since there are subraces, I always assumed that the godlike races would be 'good' aligned (aasimar) 'evil' aligned (tiefling) or elemental aligned (the various genasi) from the beginning.


    These races would have stat/skill bonuses, but have associated penalties from people's expectations of them. Negative stereotypes are common enough, but what about positive ones: "What do you mean you can't bring my parent/lover/child back from the dead? I've heard that your kind can do anything." That kind of reaction could make for interesting story possiblities.

  8. Remember the one random white guy in Jade Empire? He had a British accent, a (British) imperial outlook, and a blunderbuss! In an eastern martial arts game all about well... monks! None of the people who met him were really sure how to deal with him. And yet it made sense in the context because the 'world map' made no pretention of really being a map of the world but only the world that people in the game are familiar with.


    In Jade Empire you could debate that guy (can't remember his name) and could make him join your party (become your companion) or give you his firearm (learn his fighting style). Who's to say that PE can't do something similar in reverse with the monk. Maybe the NPC monk that joins you is the only one people have ever seen and it's a big deal wherever they go. "Wow, did you see that guy/girl? Their fist lit on fire and then they punched that armored thug and there was an explosion or something!"


    Depending on how it's written there can be a lot of life in the concept of the monk even if its based on the same stereotypes we've seen elsewhere.

  9. I think that the Adventurer's Hall makes sense as a logical solution. In most story-centric party based games you only get to create one character. (BG, KOTOR, DA, NWN2) In the BG series you could if you wanted make an entire party, but you missed out on the intra-party interactions (and conflicts) that game the games much of their charm.


    Still, it makes sense to have it as an option, especially in a game with relatively few joinable companions like this one. It was actually a concern that I had; what if my character isn't a priest but can't get along with/is morally opposed to/killed off the priest that was supposed to join me? The possibility of having other possiblities adds to the depth of the game, rather than forcing you to have certain party members tag along despite personal distaste for them (looking at you Alistair).

  10. Don't know why people always get hung up on their experiences in previous games. Just because a 'monk' usually refers to an Eastern philosophical warrior who fights with bare hands and doesn't wear armor doesn't make that the entirety of the concept. Just while reading this thread I've come up with some different concepts for monks to give them more variety:


    Tattooed Monk: Various designs would give large bonuses in some areas but penalties in others. Bonus to damage in exchange for never being allowed to decline a one-on-one challenge for example. Obviously tattoos are not changable in the field (if at all).

    Drunken Master: Somewhat similar to a barbarian's rage, you would have large bonuses when combat starts, but cumulative penalties would start to add up as the fight dragged on.

    Weapons Master: Use something longer ranged like a staff to harass enemies in a larger area than a fighter with a sword.

    Debilitator: My 3e monk played like this. The ability to disarm, trip, stun, sunder etc can turn the tide against a heavily armored opponent.

    Master of the Self: Able to focus the soul to create temporary buffs (self only, which would be different from the kind of buffs a priest can probably give).


    None of these ideas require a Buddhist outlook or an arbitration to fists as weapons and bare skin as armor.

  11. What I want, and what I haven't seen much mention of, is the assumed arbitrary limitation of romances to companions. Why does this need to be the case? As a supporter of romances of all kinds, it worries me how it will work given the small number of companions available in this game. Is there a reason why you can't have any kind of relationship (friendship, rivalry, romance or otherwise) with any of the other NPCs you come across in the game? Not all of them need to be fully defined arcs, just some recognition on the level of 'Hey, I remember that guy/girl! They saved me from bandits the other day. All their drinks are on me!'


    The same could be true for romances. Where are the flings? The one night stands? The adventurer with a girl in every town? These kinds of things don't need much characterization or voiceovers.


    And for a more long lasting relationship: Why not the haughty princess? The lonely tavern owner? The widower militia captain? The travelling merchant? Just because they don't put their lives on hold to save the world with you doesn't mean they can't be interesting characters.

  • Create New...