Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About KateM

  • Rank
    (1) Prestidigitator
  1. That's why I specified a particularly heavy two-handed longsword. And the sword would be able to cleave bone, since its energy is being distributed along a narrow band, not over the surface area of the sledge's head. Yet for some reason it is able to cut through human bones, but not magical skeleton bones? I'm sorry that I don't have as much experience as you do with fighting hordes of animated skeletons, I guess.
  2. I don't like the idea of misfires, especially when you already have a chance to miss and probably the longest reload time in the game. A musket takes 10-15 seconds to reload in real life. If I recall correctly some spells in BG2 could take that long to cast. If you are able to keep your firearms character out of melee I think that justifies being able to reload and deliver a high-damage attack two or three times during the fight.
  3. In BG2 you'd carry around tens of thousands of gold coins at a time. Gold was cheaper than dirt. In reality, a one ounce gold coin is worth about $1850 today. If inflation has not run so rampant in PE that a loaf of bread costs 5 gold coins, the weight should never be an issue, just because you'll never have enough coins in the first place.
  4. A 10lb dagger would be a particuarly heavy two-handed longsword, which would be just as capable of smashing a skeleton as a sledge- but for some reason it's less effective because it's a "slashing" weapon, and just as ineffective as the dagger. It's still a long, heavy piece of steel, but just having a sharp edge has somehow rendered it ineffective against skeletons. And even if you could accept that as realistic (I can't), why can't you just hit it with the flat of the sword? It just seems like a lot of thought is going into making a system more realistic in a very unrealistic way. Just l
  5. Gold is heavy, but there's no reason why you would ever possess enough gold for the weight to matter. Just a few gold coins is a LOT of money. If ever the character had so much gold that it was a burden, they could exchange it at a banking house for a note of the same value- an act which is as irrelevant to the game as eating, sleeping, and defecating.
  6. But again, that's not because it's blunt/piercing/slashing, that's because it's heavy. A fireman's axe with a six-pound head would destroy it just as well. Are you going to take the weight of the character's weapons into account when determining damage against certain enemies? Seems pointless.
  7. I don't want to play a game where you start as an incompetent who has difficulty kililng a rat or large insect. Yes. No hour long starting area. Just walk out of Lord Mitchell's house in Nicesprings and go where you please.
  8. Knives are quite capable of cutting through bone. They're not as hard as you think. No. Bones are not made of steel. A spear point could cut through a ribcage (though that might not "kill" the skeleton, but that's not a discussion I feel is worth considering). You could also bash it with the shaft. There's also the silliness of confusing "blunt" with "heavy" when so few historical weapons are blunt. Look at a medieval mace and you'll see that it's covered in spikes and knobs. A three pound ax or sword would be just as suited to smashing a skeleton as a three pound hammer.
  9. I don't see how including companions who will be either useless or overpowered depending on when you meet them is good game design. Scaling companions to the PC's level is one of the few things Bioware has done right. They can still be unique, just like the companions in PS:T were all unique, regardless of their power level.
  10. Bows and crossbows were still used commonly up until the 17th century. And even during the American Revolution, the colonists fought off British-aligned natives with bows. Are you named after the character from The Dispossed?
  11. The piercing/slashing/bludgeoning immunity thing is especially stupid because there's no real difference between the three. All are just force being applied over a wider or smaller area. I can accept that there are some enemies who might need to be killed by lighting them on fire, and maybe you'll need a high-damage or armor piercing weapon to break through an enemy's armor. Those are fine. Needing a +5 weapon when you only have a +4 is just dumb.
  12. You could say the same thing of siege weapons, but those are still common in fantasy settings where there are wizards with the power to pull down walls bare handed. Early firearms also aren't nearly as innaccurate as people believe them to be. Rifling was a 15th century invention. I don't like the idea of having my weapon randomly explode in my face. That's not something that commonly happens anyway or nobody would have used them. The point of your weapopn isn't to kill yourself with it, after all. A longer load time is acceptable to me. A skilled user can load, aim and fire a musket in
  13. Elves and Dwarves are so overdone I'd rather not have them at all. You can remix the trope all you want- eskimo dwarves, elves that live underground, whatever. I'm just sick of seeing them. They don't seem to serve any purpose to the universe that a human could not. There are maybe two execptions. You could have a universe where there was a "neanderthal" race that never went extinct. Bigger, stronger, smarter than humans, but despite that the more social and organized humans have pushed them to the fringes. The other trope I can deal with is the elves as a sneaky, evil race who kidnap huma
  14. I'd rather miss stuff just because the game has so much content, not because I'm locked out based on my class or race.
  • Create New...