Jojobobo

I don't have a problem with the Adventurer's Hall, but I think it should be locked until the game has been completed once. It seems like a bit of a waste to have them develop really interesting storied companions only to steal the focus from them a bit with the Adventurer's Hall, but I do like the idea of being able to make a different team a couple of playthroughs down the line when I've grown tired of going through the same old quests of the storied companions.

What would you have it begin at then? Also I never said a starting character's values should begin at one, it's just the bottom of the range. Usually a race in an rpg game will have a value higher than the lowest possible value as their base for a stat but things like spell effects, their background/history or injury could lower it to the minimum value. Not having one as a minimum value on any size scale seems very peculiar to me, even if it is just theoretical as most characters would not have enough stacking negative modifiers to reach that value.

I did check out the wiki link before I posted, and it doesn't say anything at all about them restricted in such a way, in fact if anything it does paint them as religious zealots. Besides having a new take on an old class isn't necessarily a bad thing, definitions can change over time.

Ironman mode is confirmed, right? I don't see why there needs to be a discussion when all the bases are already covered (Ironman for people who don't like save/reload and want a challenge, regular save and reload mechanics for everyone else). If the whole metric for difficulty thing is what the OP was striving for then it's not very valid, as I can die through carelessness in an easy fight and manage to live through a fight I thought was really difficult. Obviously combat should be as adpative and intuitive (in terms of how the enemies approach fighting you and countering your tactics) as possible to keep a game refreshing and rewarding; it shouldn't be a case of "I've mastered how that subset of monsters fights (or how to be awesome at combat in general) and now they are no longer a challenge" - but that more or less goes without saying. At least that's what I think would be meant by a game having a "steep learning curve" but on subsequent playthroughs "'kicking ass' right from the start".

It always bothered me that paladins were restricted to being lawful good; why couldn't they have been a fanatically religious warrior of any religion bearing in mind not all relgions have good intentions? I like nikolokolus's idea of becoming a palidin being more titular than anything, as without knowledge of the in game relgions saying you're a relgious fanatic becomes a bit spurious. Then again, they have priests as a definite class so the logic of this falls apart somewhat.

It wasn't entirely cosmetic, I played an explosives build and quite a lot of the explosives you make are unique to crafting. Having said that, it wasn't half as important as it was in Arcanum for a technologist so hopefully they'll make some sort of happy medium. I'm definitely in favour of crafting items that can't be improved (such as making Droch's Warbringer in Arcanum, which was awesome anyway and so didn't necessitate improvement) or can only be improved slightly by a finite amount to avoid the whole Skyrim crafting fiasco.

I think subclasses are a good idea; races are going to be subdivided so I don't see why they couldn't apply the same to the classes to allow for even more diversity. At the same time, with cultural and racial diversity already being options it's probably something that should only be implemented if they have the resources and time to make a good job of it.

I really like the crafting systems in both Arcanum and FO:NV, however I think that FO:NV's style might be slightly more applicable as a mechanic. In FO:NV crafting was determined by level in a skill (sometimes more than one skill, allowing for synergy, for ex. repair and explosives could be used to make certain sorts of bombs) so this stops players dedicating points into something that they won't feel the benefit of for a while (i.e. in Arcanum, though some of the low level schematics were good, you were mostly after the high end ones meaning that you were sinking in points into technological disciplines for only a small return). It's also more enjoyable to have a practical skill (say repair) giving you options to craft, rather than having a dedicated crafting system that requires points of it's own. Though it's been said that the team will keep combat and non-combat systems separate, that doesn't mean to say they might not have some crossover for crafting (say both a certain level in a ranged skill and in a wilderness skill might be able to let you produce a quieter bow to hunt more efficiently, etc.). That being said, I think both systems are very nice in their own way.

The "no limit" option was meant to encompass this, as 1-100 is a very high range for your typical rpg, and another way of saying no limit is 20+. A strength score of 57 just becomes increasing dilute and irrelevant (what does it actually mean in practical terms) then having a smaller scale, and if this was the case where would I stop? 1-1000 ranges, 1-1000000? What would be the point in including them? Do you think there is even a slight possibility of the P:E team going that high when there is little to no precedence for it? I own the PnP World of Darkness system, and I very much like the relatable system it has. At 10 strength - which is typically the maximum at superhuman proportions without any extra abilities (your average human could only have 1-5) - it states that you'd be able to lift a large tree trunk. There you have a real world example of what such strength could do rather than just being a number (diminishing or increaing strength scores also have a practical example listed). I do very much like Nonek's idea of slow progression, as an adult person shouldn't have an exponential ability to grow once past a certain age. However I do think it's important to remember this is a fantasy game too, so characters probably should be a bit more changeable than in the mundane world. I guess I only included multiclassing as an idea as Tim said they were "looking into it", maybe Ieo is right and the scope of flexibility in the class descriptions is an allusion to the fact they're are leaning against multiclassing. Still, this is a good way to see how multiclassing should be implemented if it is going to be or just to get a feel for overall support for it anyway.

What were your problems with the questions? Not that I can change them now, but it's good to know! I will say that "so" is supposed to be "to" in the second question, and "Range" shouldn't be capitalised in the first. Hmmm, restricting the range of what classes a certain class can multiclass into (if I'm understanding you properly) is an interesting idea - one that I could get behind. That being said it might hamper creativity a little bit. I guess I was just trying to get a feel of what other people thought, I don't think any of these options are bad just some are more preferable to me personally.

I don't think there should be resting, sitting down for a little while or sleeping never magically made peoples' arms reattach themselves to their bodies. I think cooldown is key, giving a mass heal spell one use and a real time cooldown of 20 minutes would stop players from abusing resting entirely; as though someone could leave there game running for 20 minutes in a practical sense you often wouldn't bother. Then with easier difficulties you could just reduce the cooldown time, simple as. Sleep should only be there to reduce fatigue or exhaustion on a hardcore mode, like New Vegas, in my opinion. This method would be frustrating for people who want to blast their way through the game, but it adds in a nice amount of resource management in my opinion. In a broader sense, I think any developer should try to make their game un-exploitable. The thing is, I like to play optimal characters. Why would I want to play an average Joe when I could be playing Superman? I guess some people might enjoy playing a really middle ground guy with no especially good focus in anything, but I don't. That being said, I still want combat or stealth or whatever I've optimised my character in to have some challenge - characters shouldn't be able to get exponentially good (like Skyrim) so that challenge no longer exists, it should be linear and there should be a maximum limit. I shouldn't have to purposefully hamstring a character when I know I could make him better because the devs didn't balance the game properly.

So what sort of range would you like stats to fall under, or don't you think it matters? For me I normally like as small a range as possible, so when I improve a stat it really feels like I'm doing something important and not making 29 strength into 30; however this compromises slightly on fine manipulation in the mechanics (more increments allows for more complexity) so I think a range of 1-10 would be sufficient, I guess if they are using a D20 systems it will probably have to be higher. I do think there should be a finite limit on how much you can improve a stat - even with equipment - as there should be a limit to what is humanly (and dwarfly, elfly, etc.) possible, with some races reaching higher limits than others. I also think classes should have higher limits in some stats (as in my understanding a class seems like a shaping of the soul, giving you more of an affinity for some stats) and these benefits should stack with races. Now multiclassing, though not entirely related to this point, is with respect to whether some classes get statistical benefits. I think that an experience penalty is not half as a severe penalty as there needs to be, and I'm in favour of characters both not getting full benefits of a class (so things like statistical maximums suffering and limitted access to special abilities or perks) and also gaining additional flaws and weaknesses. Why? Well to me it seems like multiclassing might be a sure fire way to fracture a soul lore wise if taking a class is shaping a soul, and also it would stop exploitative players doing things like taking one level in a class to wear a particular item that is class specific. Furthermore, if you are privy to full benefits of one class as well as getting some of the benefits of others, why wouldn't you multiclass (I'm playing Icewind Dale II on HoF mode right now, and there's not a single character I'm not multiclassing with as most reach there full benefits at level 20 of that class whereas the maximum level is 30)? I think multiclassing needs to have a severe penalty to avoid exploitative play (not experience, as if you play for long enough you can usually level up to the maximum anyway), but it should be possible as multiclassing in IE games is tremendous fun and allows for more unique and specialised character builds. So what do you think? Also I'm sorry if these points have already been covered, but I did run a search and didn't find anything with this specific focus.

I thought that swords largely fell into disuse in medieval times due to not being able to cut through chainmail? As in though you could use a sword as a piercing weapon, axes often did a better job (a smaller blade so more PPSI, and often you have the spike on the other side of the blade too for even more PPSI) and maces offered concussion or the chance to break some ribs - slashing against chainmail or even platemail is pretty damn useless. Ideally I think this would be nicely represented in the game by a few people using magic swords that could get through armor, but with the vast majority of people using maces and axes as a standard weapon. EDIT: Nevermind, people have already covered these points.

I'd like to see Ciphers, and mind control in general, incorporated in an intelligent way. Say there's a woman who's grieving over her husband who was brutally murdered by burgulars trying to get a magical necklace from her house. Grief has destroyed her life - all her friends and family have deserted her for being as she is - and the reason why she can't get over her grief is not because her husband is dead, but because of the horrible and mentally scarring manner in which he was killed right in front of her. Now as a cipher would it be right to alter her memories so that her husband died in a manner that was much more peaceful, knowing that the are no other people left around to remind her of the truth? Is it right to make this call knowing that if you asked her she would tell you she wanted to remember the truth, but also being sure of the fact that if you did alter her memories she could finally be happy and at peace? In a broader sense, is mind control always inherently a violation, even if it can be used for good? That's how I'd like to see ciphers used in this game, also mind controlling the bad guys and making them fight each other is always fun.

I think killable children should be the case, with a reputation penalty. I think there should also be some surprises if you go around killing children willy-nilly too, for example if someone could shapeshift to make themselves look like other people then a player attacking someone they thought to be a child would be in for a nasty surprise. I know that's a bit cheesy, but something along those lines might be fun.

So, would you like experience for killing enemies? I personally like it when experience is only rewarded for killing significant enemies, such as bosses, as this prevents characters from grinding to high levels by random ecounter fights early on. It also gives the developers a tight control on how a character levels up, as when only finite experience is dished out they know a player will only be at a certain level when they come to a certain point in the game. In an open world environment, this can be tackled by making some quests only open up at certain stages during the main story or when a character reaches a necessary skill level or reputation in a region - thereby allowing the character to explore freely but making sure not all quests are available from the off and making them revisit locations later on which helps the game feel less static. I think my favourite example of this style of play was in Vampire: the Masquerade - Bloodlines, whereby experience was rewarded only for significant fights and often there were other options available to a character that yielded similar levels of experience - such as sneaking or talking them down. It helped to shift the emphasis away from killing things and more to weighing up other options rather than just charging in head on every time. That being said, tactical RTSP combat is a feature of the game so perhaps experience for the killing of any enemy will be the case as gamers might feel cheated if they devise a good combat strategy and yet don't get rewarded for it. I think it's safe to say that if they do give experience for combat, good scaling should be a given. Let me know what you think.

I think the real question is will there be toilets? 9/10 people agree that having toilets in a game make it feel more alive - it's a real statistic, honest!

I don't see how it would detract from group based play, it would just provide gamers with extra options and for me having options is what rpg play is all about. I guess I should make it clear that I'm not after radical time consuming changes that would take lots of effort to implement thereby detracting from the main thrust of the game which is group play; what I would like is just a few minor features that help to differentiate solo play from group play, so that the absence of companions isn't the only thing that is different when playing solo which is the case in all the rpgs I can think of.

Well even if the "benefits" did not make the game easier, I think maybe unique dialogue options would be fun - just a way of letting you know that the game acknowledges what you're doing and to help solo play feel as if it is a different style in itself rather than simply playing without companions. I guess what I'm driving for is something that sets solo play apart - in most games all you notice when you play solo is the lack of your companions' stories and quest arcs, having something extra even if it's just different options during the story that offer no mechanical benefits would be interesting.

I suppose you're right - part of the fun of solo-ing is that it is more of a challenge than regular play. Still I stand by that a few little touches would be cool, to reward a player for having a harder time of it without companions.

This seems like the place to make suggestions, so here it goes: I would like to see some benefits included for players who want to go solo, i.e. companion less. I appreciate that having companions increases a player's emotional involvement in the game and also makes the combat more tactical, but personally with rpg games like this I always like to do a solo run as well. The kind of benefits I would like to see are things like magical equipment that can only be worn if you have no companions/followers in your party, a few quests that can only be attempted if you have no companions (or maybe if you've never had companions - to avoid players just ditching their followers to do the quest and then taking them back on after it's finished) and maybe unique skills/perks/whatever Project Eternity's equivalent is for solo players only - which would help balance combat in that you don't have a load of other followers to soak up the damage. Obviously much more time should be spent in making playing with companions and their story arcs more appealing than solo play - because having them there helps to keep the player more in touch with the gaming world - but still a few flourishes to make solo play a distinct and rewarding play style in comparison to playing with a party would be nice. Does anyone else think this is a good idea or am I completely alone (ha!) in thinking this would be fun?