teknoman2

if your goal is to kill everything that moves and can't climb a tree, they could add the genocide goal, given to you if you clear the entire population of a town, and equal to the xp of the quests in the town. however you only get it after you killed all guards, civilians, animals, and reinforcements sent to the town and only if you have not done any quest in the town. obviously, since you take the xp at the end of it all, if you start the fight at lv1, you will have to finish it at lv1... no level increases during the process to make it easier.

icewind dale 1 and 2 were 100% dungeon crawlers with the bare minimum of role play and npc interaction outside of combat. you didn't get to choose who or what you wanted to be, you were an adventurer in shearch for monsters and loot baldur's gate 1 and 2 were more than just combat, had a fair (but limited) amount of role play but were still more combat oriented than not. you could choose to be a hero or a vilain but it was all fairly black and white and 90% of the time there was no option to avoid combat planescape torment was more rpg than the rest, because it was more about the characters and the the role you chose for them, than the body count. you could be the "hulk smash" warrior or the politician who could walk away from anything with just words, and you could stick to your choice of play style for the whole game without getting penalized. the point of PE is to be an RPG, so role play is the first thing to consider. and if to keep role play from being abused they have to remove parts that may bring meta gaming into the equation so be it. and combat xp is one of these things

Indeed. Will this be a sneaking/diplomacy simulator or a game that's advertised to have tactical combat as one of its main strengths? why no xp for killing has to mean no reward for combat? if you kill Drizzt in BG and get his super gear but no xp, will you feel like you gained nothing out of it, even if you have taken items that are as rare as they can be? the same goes for PE. you may not get xp, but you get loot for combat. and loot means items you may not be able to get in any other way or extra money to buy that nice armor that the pacifist cant afford

when you kill the dragon he will drop the blood anyway. so even if you dont have the related quest, you will eventually meet the mage and get your xp. now if it is a random dragon in a dungeon you explore and is unrelated to any quest, then you get xp for killing it because its a goal set for this dungeon or he is just the boss and by his death you get the "dungeon exploration complete" xp reward. killing is a means to reach a goal not a goal in itself, so i dont see why the xp for killing a dragon or any other enemy should be separate. now if your goal is to kill everything that moves and can't climb a tree, they could just add the genocide goal, given to you if you clear the entire population of a town, and equal to the xp of the quests in the town. however you only get it after you killed all guards, civilians, animals, and reinforcements sent to the town and only if you have not done any quest in the town. obviously, since you take the xp at the end of it all, if you start the fight at lv1, you will have to finish it at lv1... no level increases during the process to make it easier.

i dont think they call it endurance and not hp for no reason. if you read the barbarian's description it says he fights furiously and recklessly, draining his endurance fast. so i think endurance is not just the measure of the damage you can sustain, but also the "mana pool" for your skills. and if i read between the lines right, you lose hp besides endurance during the fight and that means your max endurance drops, based on the amount of hp you miss. and since hp does not regenerate, your total efficiency drops the more you get hurt

Well, if there were be a red dragon in the game (let's hope not, I'm sick of them already) it would probably be tied to a quest. This is also why I believe that the distinction of regular and epic monsters is useless when the quests and encounters are properly designed. Well, there were a few dragons in BGII, that weren't tied to any quests. You could kill them but you didn't have to. And associating all "epic monsters" with quest doesn't solve the problem, either. What if I don't want to do the quest related to a dragon I'm about to kill? What if the quest is given by a faction I don't want to help, e.g. Evil mage: "bring me th head of that dragon and I'll make a artifact, thaht will destroy this town"? In that case I get no XP for killing the dragon. My party learns nothing in the process. It's a bit of a problem. wrong. the evil mage asks you to kill the silver dragon and bring the blood. 1. you accept, kill the dragon, return to mage, get xp 2. you accept, go to dragon, convince him to give you some blood without a fight, go to mage, get xp 3. you accept, go to dragon, betray the mage, get xp 4. you say no, go to dragon, get a quest from the dragon, do it in one of 4 different ways, get xp 5. you kill the mage, get his formula, get the blood with the 1 or 2 method, make the item your self. no xp but a legendary item. pretty easy isnt it? if they implement an alternative for any decision you make that denies you a reward, in the end you will still get the xp, without having to change the way you play

indeed. most people here just misinterpret it. not getting xp from a fight does not mean that fighting is useless. i may not get xp for killing that loaded merchant and his guards, but i do get to loot them and get me all the valuable gear they have. see? combat reward... it doesnt have to be xp

you will probably get xp in that situation, but not because you killed them but because you passed the encounter alive.

Do you mean the official mod or the homebrew one? Would you mind linking to your post? It sounds interesting. why my post looks like this? the point of what i said is to get 1 point of mana for each point of the main attribute of the spellcaster, such as intelligence for wizards and wisdom for priests, and 1 point for each level you have in the spellcasting class. the cost of casting the spells would be equal to the spell level. so a lv1 wizard with 16 intelligence would have 17 mana, meaning he could cast 17 lv1 spells a level 20 wizard with 21 intelligence would have 42 mana and could cast up to 4 lv9 spells, remaining with 6 mana or 8 lv5 and be with 2 mana left or 42 lv1 spells and so on the regeneration rate of the mana would be 1 for every 1 in game hour spent out of combat or full recovery after rest. no mana potions, but potions or items that increase intelligence or wisdom would increase the max mana (also adding temporary mana to the missing pool just like the aid spell in dnd does with the hp)

i have never heard of this mod you say, but i did describe something like this in an older topic about magic.<p>a lv1 wizard%2

3 is fine so long as it has some contact with the game itself. in mass effect, you would get a quest at some point based on Shepard's past. earthborn would get a quest with a member of his old gang, colony born would get to speak with a suicidal girl from his old home and i dont know the last. but i definetly dont want it like arcanum where the biography would alter some stats at the start of the game, but then it was like you just dropped in from another world. you had no connection with anything or anyone in the whole world, even if you were an elf or dwarf that lived in this world for a few hundred years. you knew no one and no one knew you im fine with any of the other 3

kill it with fire my bro plays a strategy-rpg game that has 4 difficulty settings and you have to finish it on one to play the next. and at each difficulty there are 2 extra mission not available in the previous and all the story elements that go with them. so to see the whole story of the game you have to finish it 4 times, each time on a harder setting. so he finished it 3 times already and keeps playing to finish the extremelly hard setting, to play the real final mission and see the real ending. and for that reason he had to put on hold playing other games he wanted it's a forceful waste of the player's time to change the game itself based on difficulty. if you want replayability, give variety so that the player will have to play again to see stuff his last play style didnt let him see

i need to search 4chan for a suitable image

the whole thing could be fixed with realistic line of sight. instead of having our characters able to see things up to 50-60 feet away (so standing in the center of a 100x100 feet room you cant see the walls), they should be able to see as far as the eye goes so long as there are no obstructions, and keep a 60-70 feet area for indentifying things around the character. to make it simple, you are in a 100x100 room. you get to see the whole room (no black fog) as long as there are no columns, bookcases, and so on that block the view, but you get a "grey" fog after 70ft so you can't see the enemy if he is not in that range (or speaking of external areas, you can see the house from 500ft away, but you cant see the kids playing in front of it unless you get closer) and if you press tab you can highlight what's in that 70ft circle. also you get a 30ft circle for spoting traps and hidden doors, meaning the character must be 30ft or less from the trap to spot it.

story based unwinnable fights should be like those on jrpg. you start the fight, you may or may not get to attack the enemy and on his first attack he brings down the whole party and the game proceeds (you dont even get the ilusion of having a chance), then you get to fight again in 15-20 levels or several days-weeks (game time) and you can win. battles where the enemy you face is about the same level as you but you cant defeat him, then 10 minutes later you fight again and he goes down like a rat, NO! the cheap trick of killing one and another one comes through the door til you die, NO! winning the battle and getting a cutscene where one of the party says "he is too strong, retreat", ABSOLUTELLY NOT!!!

yes and no. i accept the presence of enemies i cant defeat because they are too strong and i have to come back later. i accept the presence of beings that cannot die so long as i know beforehand that they are imortal. but making someone imune to my attacks for no apparent reason, other than just because he must be hard to defeat or because i must not kill him is unacceptable. like in BG2, that some enemies were completely imune to certain magics just because they were bosses. they didnt roll a save, they didnt have any resistance etc, they just ignored the magic because if it worked on them the game would be too easy

hyperion

using the spike holding bricks of the bridge and the first carvings of the columns as reference points to draw straight lines you get this the image posted before used lines without reference points. for example the top line started from the first carving of the rightmost column and passed trough the corner of the floor to end in the river

i think it's just an optical illusion created by the positioning of the camera. there is no actual depth in the image and the lines you used to show what it looked like to you are wrong you forgot to consider the Y axis when drawing them.

well considering the rendering technology and the power of modern video cards, i'd say it shouldn't be a problem. come to think of it, even IE games had a lighting cycle... limited but it was there

i sure hope not. i prefer to keep it strictly action - reaction based so i can make things the way i want, without a stat that predetermines and limits my options.

no need to worry about that anyway... there will be no combat xp as stated in one of first updates. you get xp for making progress in the main quest, for doing side quests, for clearing dungeons, for exploring and so on but not for body count and other menial tasks

keep it simple... simple i say! getting xp by results is a very time consuming process to implement right and in the end, as it has been said, some party members may never really get xp or may hoard all of the xp if killing a wolf get's you 200xp, and you have 4 members you should get a message "the party gained 200xp" that is divided by 4 and each gets 50, or you get the message "XP gained 50", meaning that each party member got 50xp

i dont really care. if they can do it i'm all for it. if they can't im fine as i was in all IE games

maybe they want to use a final fantasy style aproach to some enviroments for added effect. in FF7-9 they used 2D backgrounds with 3D characters, positioning the camera at various angles. so in eternity they may add some transisional screens where there is no combat or other encounters, where the camera is at a different angle than usual in order to show some pretty scenery, or the presence of something you need to reach in the distance oh and