rjshae

It's kind of important to keep in mind that P:E will not be using any D&D systems. It also seems as though these developers have learned over the years not to make one single attribute the catch-all "combat improving attribute." After all, how would increasing dexterity make your warhammer hit harder? Dexterity represents, among other factors, your muscle memory. Thus, while it wouldn't necessarily represent striking harder with your warhammer, it may represent how adept you are at getting past your enemy's defenses. It would represent your increasing ability to block, parry, or dodge an attack. It also includes your increasing skill at athletic ability. I don't think your intelligence score necessarily represents improvement in these areas, other than perhaps tactical planning and leadership.

Stopping a random person on the street and have them discourse on the vicissitudes of internecine warfare and the byzantine politics of nation-states.

You'd be surprised how many people do that. I used to do the same thing. I can't be bothered doing that now, but some years ago? Loot it all, no matter how many trips it took. I usually only did that when I was short on cash and the loot consisted of pricy but heavy objects like plate mail or longbows. But you could rack up quite a bit that way in the old gold-box games, what with enemies all equipped with magic armor and weapons.

At some point I think it was mentioned that level-up skill points would be divided between combat and non-combat skills. Assuming that the skills can be improved somewhat as in D&D, I wonder if that could be taken further and have the two skill point totals be modified based on different attributes? In D&D 3e, for example, the total skill points are determined by the class of the character and their Int score. What if, in PE, the non-combat skill points are based upon the Int modifier, while the combat-related skill points are based upon the Dex modifier (or perhaps the Str modifier)? Would that idea make sense?

Today's solutions become tomorrow's problems...

Mullet haircuts.

Appropriately, the secret handshake starts with a kick...

You approach a bend in the trail. Standing there are three veteran fighters, resting after slaying a group of monsters that lie in bloody piles on the ground. You talk to them and they let you know that they are professional monster hunters who frequent this trail as monsters often pass this way. Some time later you return to the scene, only to find the monster hunters dead and their corpses being torn apart by several beasts. You finish off the monsters, then shortly after you are approached by a group of adventurers. They ask what you are doing there. You tell them that you are professional monster hunters who frequent this trail as monsters often pass this way. They shake their heads and leave.

I also found it moderately enjoyable; at least enough to reach the end game. All of the negative criticism seems overblown to me. If you don't go in expecting a realistic tactical combat simulator, then I think you can enjoy it.

Well hopefully they can produce a solid feel without grabbing up too much of the screen real estate. The BG frame worked okay at the time because the screen resolution was much lower and most of the frame was taken up by useful tiles. If they did something similar with modern displays, I can only imagine that a lot of the frame would be unoccupied.

I don't think you need to go overboard to produce a fair amount of variation. From my experience with the NWN2 Toolset, I know that you can get quite a bit of variation just by having two or three sets of prominent gear, along with tinting capabilities. Thus two helms and a bare head, two or three types of armor or clothing, and multiple weapons. Shields in particular are readily visible and identify the creature with a particular tribe or unit, so having a multitude of shield skins is good.

I've wondered whether it isn't possible to build a game with companions that do have a behavior pattern. You could, say, construct the character, then select from a set of pre-generated personalities and backgrounds. For example, choose the persona based upon a list of brief impressions: "boisterous adventurer", "studious naturalist", "itinerant evangelist", "debonair chevalier", "cunning opportunist", and so forth. That would take a lot more work to assemble, of course, but it seems like it would be feasible.

The issue with approach like this (subdual of the party through drugs) is that it can seem like railroading. Hence it should be done sparingly and with care.

Why have three different flavors of the Wizard class? Why have barbarians, paladins, and fighters? Because they provide a sufficiently distinct gaming experience that they are worth forming separate classes. Yes, druids are a type of priest, but they can certainly be quite different during play.

Noober. Anything involving the humor of repetition.

Anybody with a bit of physical ability can be stealthy, and there's no reason not to allow it. If I want my fighters to strip down to their skivies in order to sneak up to a camp and stage an ambush, then I want to be able to do so. So no, saying only Rogues should be stealthy is too constraining. Even a fighter in plate mail can be sneaky, if they are far enough away from the listener.

I don't think there's something terribly wrong with players being able to accumulate a lot of wealth in a RPG; after all, going to war was a perfectly viable means of expanding your wealth during the pre-industrial period. Once you've got a stronghold, perhaps you'll be able to spend you wealth to accumulate political power or else start your own spy network? I'm sure the ruler will expect his cut of the loot as well.

For individual combat options, I like distinctive maneuvers that either buy the party some time against a powerful foe or else provide a unique attack that works against special defenses. For the former, it could be something that locks blades or shields for a round, does a knockdown, pushes the defender back a square, or just puts them on the defensive for a round with a flurry of blows. A disarm attack against a weak foe would be useful if the aim is non-lethal combat.

"We're pleased to announce the 7th major bug fix patch update. Our testers report that all known major crashing bugs on the critical path have now been fixed. You should finally be able to play the game from beginning to end." Seriously though, I'm looking forward to getting a screenie from the running game. Any art updates are greatly appreciated.

Besides the normal skill progression, I like to think that at higher levels a fighter becomes increasingly proficient at fighting while surrounded. To push that further, perhaps a "Guard your back" ability that helps protects adjacent allies from backstabbing? Kind of like extending your shield in Star Trek.

Yes, that's pretty much it. Planescrape Torment.

Hmm... three levels plus an additional level for every 2500 backers. There were 73,986+5,698=79,684. Unless I am mistaken, that means 3+(79,684/2,500) = 34 levels. Holy crud, that can't be right. Oh yeah... it's from 50,000. In that case: 3+((79,684-50,000)/2,500 = 14 levels, which is one more than is shown in the illustration.

Hmm... three levels plus an additional level for every 2500 backers. There were 73,986+5,698=79,684. Unless I am mistaken, that means 3+(79,684/2,500) = 34 levels. Holy crud, that can't be right.

For the purpose of realism, I'd like to see fighters have some type of incremental learning process when facing an opponent. Skilled fighters should be able to recognize styles and methods of an opponent, thereby gaining an incremental advantage after several rounds. In effect, they are circling, probing and looking for weaknesses to exploit. Against roughly equal opponents, no advantage should be gained. But against a lesser opponent, the advantage should gradually swing in favor of the more experienced fighter. To model this, a combatant could gain a mastery advantage when they continue fighting the same foe, such as a +3% attack/+3% parry/+3% critical benefit. The rate at which this is acquired is a function of the skill of both fighters, adjusted by the appropriate stat.

Mmm... lemon bars. Hope you all get well soon. (Glad I got my flu shot.)