TrashMan

The entimology of the word is irrelevant to me. Armors, weapons and in the tick of melee with relntless zeal and fury - that's a paladin. If a paladin is defined by his determination and willpower, why is it so focused on buffing others? Zeal and determinationed can be focused in many ways. Being driven and single-minded doesn't necessarily lends itself to leading people.

HP isn't stamina.

Personally? Very little. In terms of raw stats increases. I don't wanna see a HP inflation. No extra HP per level. Only if you spend attributes on CON or feats. But skills? Yes. The problem with your question is that "strong" is subjective. What is ones "image" of power? Traditionally it has all been about pumping NUMBERS and getting higher NUMBERS so your NUMBERS are bigger than your opponents NUMBERS. To me that is a very shallow portraly of power. Given that skills/feats increase the tactical applications of a character and his potency in combat, I really don't see the need to overdo it with stats. In other words, tiny increases. I wanna feel more pwoerfull becuase the character is more SKILLED, not because he now has 10000 HP.

Methinks you have some serious prejudices and preconceptions here. My discussions with you and others on this forum who have paladins as their avatars make me believe differently. About as absolutist as you can get. True Good/Evil Dichotomy fans. .... Seems I was right. Also: To me a paladin is a knight first and foremost. Not a buff-bot.

SUPERMAN VS. GOKU!!!!! BATMAN VS. SPIDERMAN!!! Banana vs. Square Root of PIE

That's nothing. You got entire sites dedicated to collecting and calculating data. Databases of superhero "perfomance". That siad.God-Man vs. Superman. discuss: http://gocomics.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c5f3053ef0120a5b83fcb970c-800wi

Seriously... People, it's a new engine. And Morrigan is supposed to be 10 years (at least) older. To expect her look exactly the same would be redicolous. I like to bash on Bioware too because I hate the direction they are going lately, but c'mon...your bashing has to have SOME grounding in common sense.

Could? Yes. But I don't see a direct correlation.

Yeah, well, I prefer my paladins to be capable of being more than buff-bots. I like paladins being "essentialy fighters" because that's what they should be (IMHO)

That isn't a problem with HP - that's a problem with HP inflation. There is no real NEED for HP to auto-increase with level. Very unlikely, but possible. There are accoutns of poeple with a large metal rod going trough their skull that walked to the hospital... *** Like I siad - I can think of a way to have more realsitic combat in a party-based CRPG. It requires a lot of works, as you 'd have to create a database of stances, possible attacks from each stance and counters. Then you'd need an AI that would pick moves based on Level/Experience and combine it with attributes. In other words, a high-level fighter would literaly fight better, because he would pick proper moves more often.

Indeed. The way I see it, your health (and the partial restores from resting) should be enough to last between camping spots. A well-executed battle should leave you almost completley unharmed.

But aren't you simply playing a fighter then? If you don't use the abilities that make the paladin what he is, then you just want a fighter that is called "paladin". Nope. Because both are fighters essentially, but fight differently. Would a offensive paladin build be similar to a fighter? Yes. Is that bad? No. I detest the "One True Build" approach. If one build is so superior, then why give a choice to begin with?

I follow the old wisdom: time destroys all things. Including franchises. As any long-running series go on, more and more crap accumulates and eventually the writers eiter run out of idea, or re-hash ideas or just have very stupid ideas.

Yes apparently. Every day. All day. There are several internet sites dedicated only to that. And reading it you will either cry of laughter or cry out of dispar for the future of mankind. Ahh... Hitler loves you you know. http://www.toplessrobot.com/the-legend-of-koizumi-1391621.jpg

Which would break several other laws of physics, making (again) any calulations pointless. Which was my point. You can invent or write anything in fiction. But if it doesn't make sense then it doesn't and applying physics to it is pointless.

I will (again) refer to the way Jagged Alliance 2 did it. It felt very real and tactical. Your stamina (or energy) would drain as you did various physical actions, but it re-charched quickly. The MAX stamina would drop tough and it could only be recovered by camping. Damage taken would slowly heal over time, you couldn't magicly refill it. So you could push your team hard for a few days, but when fatigue and wounds accumulated, it was time to fall back. For PE, I invision something like half HP lost to a wound can be recovered by other means (potions, magic, etc..), while the other half can only be recovered over time. So, to put this in perspective PC has 100 HP and 100 Stamina the party enters a battle PC now has 80 HP and 60 Stamina (with the max stamin falling to 90) Resting (a short top. NOT proper sleeping/camping) for a few minutes and casting healing spell, the PC in now at 90HP..the final 10HP will have to be slowly recovered. His stamina has also re-filled itself. (possibility of raising the MAX stamina by 5 points on resting? Cleary capped so resting several times in a row cannot raise the stamina cap back to full) This enables a party to keep going and push trough multiple encounters. You can always recover some of the HP and stamina lost, but never all of it. Damage avoidance is more important than in most RPG's. And this is where the problem lies. CRPG's are very combat heavy (compared to PnP), because encounters are easy to make, while other content isn't. Personally I'd rather have fewer more interesting fights and less filler. I'm going on a tangent a bit, but talking about a rest system as if it exists in a vacuum is impossible. A rest system is interwined with the balance and mechanics of many other things.

There are ways to do more realisitc comabt even in games such a PE. If I can think of it, then so can others. Aalas, it is quite complex and expenditures of resources for a game have to be balanced carefully.

My thoughts? Internet versus debates are like train wrecks. Nothing (good or otherwise) never comes out of them except that they can be entertainign to watch. That said, when it comes to „who would win“ debates, there are multiple arguments that keep popping up, that frankly go on my nerves: INCOMPATIBLE MATCHUPS Some matchups just don't make sense, and aren't really compatible. And I'm talking in broad terms. Who the target audience is, the media, the setting, the genre – all of these form a specific atmosphere which may be totally unmashable with another. It's difficult to explain it, so examples: Griffith from Berserk (a dark fantasy where evil wins and the power of love and freindship is impotent) vs. MLP poni (a world where freindship is power). Superman vs. Bugs Bunny? Or a character from a comedic show that doesn't care about realism or physics vs. a character from a serious, relistic show? How about kid-frineldy shows with almost no blood, and where all wounds are merely „bruises“ and a sword trough a gut or a bomb is something you walk off, vs. a gritty show with gallons of blood and wounds that leave a character scarred for life? This little details are part of a character and how the character functions. The greater atmosphere and „essence“ of a show goes beyond just the specific of the setting. It influences everything about the story and characters. How do you reconcile these differences? Where is the neutral ground when there can't be neutral ground? The answer? You can't. DERIVED NUMBERS Derived numbers – or numbers someone calculated from a show sequence or an image – are useless. They really have little validity, as the basic assumptions they are based off are almost always false. First, the idea that real physics can be applied to a work of fiction. In theory it should work – especially if the work claims or suggests that indeed it does follow some specific laws of physics. However, since most shows are terribly inconsistent and give conflicting info, the accuracy of any calculation is in question. Real world inforces physics constantly. In a fictional universe, each specific law has to be inforced by the creater/animator in every scene/pannel. And it never is. Second, the idea that in-universe established ideas can be used as a base to calculate something. Would again be usefull if there was consistency. It's not uncommon for superheroes shows to specificly claim something, and then introduce a totally conflicting element. For example, a mutation-based hero defeats a bio-engineered villan by using konwledge of how DNA/cells and human body work. Sounds good except if the same knowledge is applied to the hero in question, it makes his existance impossible. Lastly, the idea that scenes/shots from a movie/comic are actually representative of the reality of the setting. After all,does anyone really belive that a director or whatever guy is in charge comes to the artist/animator and tells him „I want superman to fly in the next scene. Here's a book on physics, make sure he flies at *exactly* 5000kmh and pay attention at how his cape flatters and his descent angle“? Something like that practicly never happens. The directive usually amounts to „make him fly fast“. When asked at what speed a ship moves, one SF-author replied „at the speed of plot“. Many comic book authors made similar replies to questions on characters strength/speed and other attributes – as strong/fast as the current story requires. If you tried to calc someones speed/strength or some other attribute that way, using various scenes, you would be getting different values for each scene. Because there is no consistency, there is no grand plan or anyone who presides over it to make sure everything fits. It doesn't. In other words, if you are cherry-picking which laws of physics and what formulas to use on what sceens, then you have no leg to stand on. And you my friend are doing just that. Because, as perviously established, there is no true consistency nor an effort to enforce it. For an example, we know that Superman gets his powers from the sun, right? That is a canonical fact. Therefore, Superman cannot have more power than the Sun can produce. And we know the suns output. And given the size of the sun and inverse square law, the power of the radiation falls off with distance. And only a tiny, tiny power of that radiation will at any point be hitting Superman, since it's spread in all directions. Compounded by the fact that superman absorbs it trough his skin, his surface area is truly miniscule. Combine all that together and Superman would barely get enough power to lift a car. Even if he were able to absorb all of the suns power, that still cannot compare even to the smallest supernova – and allegeldy supes taken attacks as strong as 15. Hence we have physical formulas applied to known, long-estalished facts that give us invalid numbers. Superheroes defy multiple physical laws every second. From closing black holes with just his strength or static electricity to punching reality - the most basic laws like thermodynamics or perservation of energy are constnatly ignored and broken. So how then, does it make sense to use physical laws to calculate things? I doesn't. But people jump onto it when their caclulation bring up numbers that reainforces their already established beliefs. ORIGINAL SOURCE Such derived numbers get even worse when game characters are involved, as direct gameplay is used as „evidence“. Hero can survive 4 rockets or 6 critical hammerblows to the head – therefore he's that strong or resilient. The fact that games are constricted an thus twist the presentation of the setting to fit the genre and/or balance escapes them. Which is even more redicolus when one takes into account that the cutscenes and the gameplay are often compeltely different. And when there are a game and movie and book based on it, the „original source“ argument creeps in. What is sez is that only the first or original source maters and is truly cannon. So game trumps everything else in this case. Which is of course, also wrong since it fails to take into account 2 important things: 1) Before any setting is made into a game, movie or a book , it is first thought of. The original concept is in the creators head is the original source. 2) Media formats come with different limitations when going from idea in your head to actual product. Of the 3, the books have the least limitations and can be the closest to the original concepts. Movies come second. Games are last, as they have the most limitations and restrictions – from balance to pacing, to content to difficulty to budget – and all of those force the makers to re-shape the original idea to fit in. Often times, entire parts or levels are cut. Gameplay mechanics dropped. For a good example, Dragon Age origins books provide a compeltely different balance and feel of power compared to games..and both are written by the same people. And the books are the „real deal“. Or take Warhammer 40K. In most games Space Marines aren't nearly as powerfull as they are in the fluff, simply because balance. POSITIVE PIS ONLY PIS or Plot Induced Stupidity (also known as Writer Induced Stupdity) is when a character is weakened or rendered ineffective for the purposes of plot. Also refers to characters holding back or not using a sensible approach to fighting. Debaters are quick to brush off their characters worst performances as these, while constantly using the best performances as proof of their favored characters awesomness. It usually boils down to „Well, if character X did Y or used power Z he would have won handly!“ What they forget that PIS goes both ways. Not only making a character weaker or less inteligent, but also making him stronger or more intelligent. All for the sake of plot. So for fairness sake, if one end of the spectrum is to be taken out of consideration, then so should the other. CONCLUSION At the end of the day, people always want their favorite to win and often will bend logic to get that victory. But being strong doesn't make a character great. I personally prefer weaker cahracters (or weaker editions/version of a strong character), because they are simply more interesting. Or .... I could go "LOL God-Man pwns all!"

[super_nitpick_mode] Wizards can use daggers.... [/super_nitpick_mode]

Methinks you have some serious prejudices and preconceptions here.

I would assume that's possible, but such a Paladin would never be as effective as a Fighter with the same role. Effective in what way? Both are front-line melee warriors, and can be built in different ways. A paladin that sacrifices his boosting-powers for offense/defense should match a fighter IMHO. Altough it's not a simple balance, since so many factors some in.

JRPG hater reporting! Where can I unload my bile? *** kidding of course

You're calling my language artificial? No history? No background? That is just..insulting. My country has a long and rich history. http://mylanguages.org/croatian_alphabet.php Altough it's not 100% clean That are 2-3 words that are written exctly the same but pronounced just a bit different and mean different things. Like "luk" - if the "u" is short it means "onion". If its long it means "bow" (as in bow and arrow), or "arch". Also "kosa" - with a short "o" it means "hair", with a long it can mean "scythe".

Two words: Gameplay balance. Becuase it doesnt' matter how powerfull someone is in the fluff, when you can't put it in-game like that or it will ruin everything. In the DA book, a mage is *powerfull*. Abominatiosn are terrifying. But sinne this is a game, a group of 4 will be killing dragon and demons by the dozens, thus completley ruining their reputation for power and feel of danger. Ya know...kinda like in the novels or some games, a Space Marine is a murder-death-machine that wipes out whole armies, but in the tabletop or some games are totally underwhelming.

If I were to make a guess, I'd say one faction will get the Cerberus treatment and go full incompetent evil. Probably templars, because of name (negative conotations) and all this political correctness enforcement. And if BioEAware does that s*** again then they are effectively dead to me. *** On antoher note, the only problem I had with DA:O (graphics-wise at least), was the oversized hands. UGH. Ughly.