rjshae

All arguments for point-based builds mixed with career starter packages, I'd say.

Yes, I've enjoyed 12 Monkeys to this point. The last episode (when the lab gets attacked by raiders) was the best thus far. I've tried several times, but I just can't seem to stay interested in Helix.

That looks like a 25% deflection improvement; in D&D terms it's equivalent to a +5 AC boost, or better than the +4 you get with the mage armor spell.

n/m

Are you suggesting that this is an EA project? If not, then your opinion doesn't seem relevant.

I'd like to try playing a Fallout game as a super mutant with a conscience; that would create some interesting possibilities.

It seems like a cap on merchant gold could be one of the options for Expert mode. Perhaps it is too late to implement that, so maybe it could be included with the expansion?

I'm not sure their combat skills would necessarily be mediocre, but they would likely go for light armor, fast weaponry, and try to escape or avoid situations rather than engaging in a long drawn-out battle. For soul-based powers, I'd think an adventurer would mainly benefit from very personal abilities rather than ranged attacks or summonings. Thus, enhanced senses, possibly divination, unusual physical maneuvers, and abilities to dodge, deflect, disrupt, or mislead hazards such as spells or traps. Some of that can come from alchemy or unusual weapons.

Exactly, and I think that's a bigger problem than "do vendors have realistic amounts of gold in this game designed around the player obviously selling everything he finds, conveniently, for plenty of cash monies" ever was. Why does found-loot need to be a constant, reliable source of revenue in the first place? I mean, the stronghold management is optional, and it's going to supply money, right? Why not looting pawning? Perhaps because this type of game is placed in a medieval epoch and there really isn't another source of significant funding for peasantry? I mean, the possibility of loot was often a strong motivation for peasants to join a military campaign. We can't really relate because we live in an age of relative plenty compared to the middle ages, and so we have different motivations.

A couple of things I enjoyed from visiting the site: I like the rotating lock maze idea and the in-game backer items. The graphics... well I suppose it's a prototype at this point; but there's room for improvement.

Well at least it was a fun game all the way to the end. I'll bet many non-partisan fans enjoyed it; much more than last year's romp. I still think the Hawks need to work on improving their O-line; that will improve every aspect of their offense, and help them out when they are in the next goal line drive situation.

I'll take a wild guess that DR 10 is the default, and the others are against those specific forms of attack.

collaborative checks sounds bad - idiots with low "lore" can't figure out complicated task - even if there are 6 of them. At least thats my way of looking at this ... Collaborative effort is how a lot of scholarly teams work these days. Everybody brings different strengths to the effort, so the whole is stronger than all the individual contributors working separately. It's not unrealistic to do it this way. With a computer it's easy enough to figure out the effective odds of a skill check with multiple contributors. Just figure out the odds of them all simultaneously failing the check (which is the product of their individual failure odds), then subtract it from 100%. Your high skill character is still going to dominate the odds, but they will receive a small bump from the others. i ment that eg 6 persons with skill level 2 solving task level 12 souns unrealistic - though same ppl doing task level 3 or 4 is ok - read attentively, as we already resolve this xP Fine. If you do the math correctly then the idiots with the low "lore" skill will in fact contribute very little to the effort. But the idiots will in fact still be able to provide the occasional insight that allows a problem to be solved. Even if all they do is suggest something the nudges an idea out of one of the more clever members.

That sounds like it would work for a roll-to-succeed system, but doesn't PoE run more on a X level of skill Y needed system? I.e. if it's a skill check for level 5 and you've got 4, you'll fail 100% of the time, but with 5 or more you'll succeed 100% of the time? You could still simulate it by selecting an appropriate skill range and using that to compute a failure %. Ex: use skill range 20 to compute odds. Character skill level 4: (20-4)/20 = .8; two skill level 4's: .8 x .8 = .64 = (20 - 7.2)/20; thus equivalent to skill level 7.

collaborative checks sounds bad - idiots with low "lore" can't figure out complicated task - even if there are 6 of them. At least thats my way of looking at this ... Collaborative effort is how a lot of scholarly teams work these days. Everybody brings different strengths to the effort, so the whole is stronger than all the individual contributors working separately. It's not unrealistic to do it this way. With a computer it's easy enough to figure out the effective odds of a skill check with multiple contributors. Just figure out the odds of them all simultaneously failing the check (which is the product of their individual failure odds), then subtract it from 100%. Your high skill character is still going to dominate the odds, but they will receive a small bump from the others.

Well there's no Space Opera on the poll, so that makes the outcome meaningless.

I'm guessing a single player cRPG, there's already a Pathfinder MMORPG project. He is working on The Pathfinder Adventure Card Game that we announced last year. Thanks.

The Hawks also have kind of a mediocre O-line. So, even with Marshawn Lynch, an inside run play against a goal-line defense wasn't anything like a sure thing.

I'm guessing a single player cRPG, there's already a Pathfinder MMORPG project.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/196697/conspiracy-theory-surrounding-seahawks-last-play# Apparently I'm not the only one who thought that might be it. It does sound pretty crazy, but I had the same question when the 49ers were a few yards away from scoring two years ago and tried to hit Crabtree in the same spot 4 times, despite the fact they had run it very well. It's like they were trying to choose who to make the hero instead of going for the best plays. Based on watching them the last three seasons, I did not have that impression; it seemed like a pretty typical work day for Marshawn, and the Seahawks coaches have done that before--putting in a different play when it seems like the ideal opportunity to hand it off to Lynch. In many cases, though, it has worked out.

A powerful modder's toolkit.