TrashMan

Pardon me for saying this, but your reasons are vauger and more pointelss than anything I wrote. You simply keep saying "X isnt' tactical/strategic because I dont' find it interested." Or "I'll aways do X anyway, so it's no choice" That is seriously flawed thinking. If loosing your main weapons (especially if you're specialized) isn't a tactical/strategic factor, then waht is? If you consdier having to repair armor/weapon a few times during the course of entire game tedious, what about resting? Or inventory managment? Something you have to do a LOT more often? Long story short Rice, I see zero value in your objections. Zero. Because they all boil down to "it's not interesting to me".

Actually you can't slice trough a sword. It may appear that that is what is happening, but if you ever look at sword-fighting or sword fight in slow-mo, you will see that swords bend A LOT. And you know what happens to metal when you bend it - fatigue. So what effectively happens is that the sword at one point snaps (if subjected to enough force...a LOT of force. A normal swing is unlikely to be enough) But it almost looks like it was sliced trough. As I said, durabiltiy like in Diablo or Morrowind is a no-no. It's tedious. If there is durability, it should be handeled a different way mechanicly.

And yet others were not failures at all, well and oft used in their timeframes only inferior in any way when put up against later more refined weaponry and armor. Not every bit of weirdness was a failure for its time. Some wouldn't have even been failures later, they just fell to the wayside due to cultures dying out for wholly unrelated reasons. Sure there were things there were right off, or eventual, failures, but that's not everything. Some of what we can read about really was just plain odd, but worked in the timeframe well enough or excelled in it, and possibly beyond in some cases. It's not as simple as it's weird so it failed or it was old so it eventually was out performed. Some of the oldest ideas in the book we still use today. Different application or purpose, in some cases, sure, but there none the less. Those that weren't faliures were sucesfull and would have seen widespread use. 90% of the weird weapons/armor unearthed were faliures. Either they were completley unusable or great but only in such a limited scenario that it was practicly pointless. Again, when talking weapons we're talking multi-purpose weapon used to fight other intelligent and well-equiped opponents. If a weapon is only effective in hunting, it basicly fails as a practical war weapon. This is blatantly untrue, in fact you still see peoples that refuse to use better technologies, that includes weapons, even to this day - despite it being available. No, that's blatantly true. Smart people want to live. When people have acess to materials and finances, they will get the best they can if their lives depend on it. Of course, if there is no war and no need for the best, then people won't bother - it just isn't necessary if what you have works well enough for hunting or what have you. Ancient triebes rarely had long-term planing in mind. But if war breaks out, then the side that doesn't adapt is defeated. It's as simple as that.

Sounds good at firt, but finihsers quickly become repetitive and tedious. Maybe on some big monsters..maybe. Problem is the finishers usually take time and are unskippable. So while youre character is twirling and dancing in coregaph death sequence, the rest of your party is getting pummled.

I hate pointless/sensless artificial limitations. But level cap really isn't one of them.

A warhammer/morningstar was a populare choce to use from horseback. Due to increased height and horse charge, it's momentum was even higher than normal.

And this surprises you?

Most people are incapalbe of thinking outside of the box and equate durability with a chore, because that's how it was in other games. And if you're readin the posts carefully, that's EXACTLY what is happening. It makes as much sense and declaring that inventory managment is a chore and no game should have it because it was a chore in Ultima. And funnily enough people did declare it.

If you didn't brought a spare you deserve to die. If your sucess in battle depends soley on one sword, then you suck and deserve to die. I don't need the game to hold my hand an overly simplfy anything. Just because you are lazy doesn't mean I am. FUN is relative. Some poeple have fun in micromanaging. Others hate it. I don't want games to ignore my bad decision and put safety nets. In PnP you DO pack provisions. CRPGs mostly ignore it. Sometimes the DM punishes you for going into an artic region without preparing (barbaian loincloith without thick clothing). Game mostly ingore it. I want the game to be unforgiving. I want to be forced to think and plan ahead. If you can't think of a good durabilti mechanics, doesn't mean others are incapable of it. Instead you avoid it because how other games handled it didn't suit you. you are looking for a problem, instead for a solution. Of course you will never be satisfied.

And I'll tell you to go on an acid trip for that fantastical experience.

They add nothing to you. You really think every single thing in rolepalying game should be only super-fun? Roleplaying games exists to roleplay. That means, to give you character a space in which to express himself. Not ot jsut swing sword. You know what I don't find fun? Dying. Thereofre, dying is pointless since it's no fun and adds nothing. Let's remove it. How is sword repair lees "pointless" than healing? But they do have meaningfull strategic value. You just refuse to accept it. You can't seriously tell me that WHEN you arrive somewhere and with WHAT equipment has no strategic and tacticla implications? You can't serisouyl tell me that choosing between risk A and risk B is not a meaningfull choice? If you consdier armor repair a chore, but heling you're OK with, maybe you need to find some other games. Hey, your lack of imagination is not my problem.

Why isn't there a Dislike bottun for posts? Is there a point to this thread at all?

You're an adventurer...not an weaponsmith. Crafting really good items should be left to those who dedicated their entire life to mastering those skills, not some adventurer who spends most of his time clearing out dungeons. NO THANKS.

Eh..you don't have to sleep after each fight. I mean, it's certanly an option ( a risky one unless you want to travel back to town), but why would you do it? Resting is something you do when the entire party is tired. And you call yourself a die-hard caster fan, but you only accept one "type" of casters.

In the words of Yahtzee.. Some poeple paly to get bigger number. So tehy cna can grind to get even bigger numbers. So their NUMBERS can be bigger than everyone elses NUMBER. There is a part of me that wants an end to all leveling. Just to hear the sweet, sweet cry of those who only see value in numbers.

There were crazy people trought all ages. And crazy inventors. And failed experiments. We can find peices of experimental weaponry and armor - that doesn't change the fact that it failed and never saw wide use. It was a faliure. Like many things even in modern times, with far more scientific approach to weapon design. Also, gladiatorial fights where the equipment of either side is pre-determined by some master and duels that had strict rules cannot compare to life-or-death comabt where there are no rules. It is a undeniable historical fight that whenever people had acess to better armor or better weapons - they took it.

ERm...nope. You do relasie that exhaustion system still requires you to rest? You really cannot make a system that cannot be abused by save-scumming (or in other words, save before resting, reast, and re-laod if you get atacked during sleep) or metagaming. And neither should you. If people want to "cheat" it's their choice. Exhaustion and memorize are similar. I can't see either as superior, as they are basicly the same thing. Altough memorizing system actually requires more thought and strategy, simply because you don't have every spell in your arsenal avialable at once. Rest/memorize makes sense for D&D lore, so there's no immersion problem. And exhaustion can easily be dealth with like stamina from Jagged Alliance 2. It regenerates when you stand still, but MAXIMUM stamina keeps dropping as you travel around and exert yourself. In other words, you start with 100 stamina and you spend half hte day walking trough the woods - you now have 50 max stamina. If you fight and it drops for 30, you can wait, catch your breath, and it will refill to 40 or something (which will probably be your new max, as you might have exerted yourself). Max stamina only regenerates by proper resting.

Eh? How did they feel aritifical? They made perfect sense in the way magic worked there. You prepare (pre-cast) the spells beforehand, but you can only have so many of them "waiting" at a time (either they interfere or it' is too exhausting). In battle, you basicly trigger the waiting spell.

Failed example. If I was a bodyguard of a hot chick, you don't think I would occasionaly take a look? That doesn't make me creepy, it makes me normal. As I said - she was ordered to watch over you AND stay out of sight. So the only way to keep an eye on you was trough the window. I realize you may visalize it as her standing like a statue, wide-eyed and glued to he window glass breathing heavily...but that isn't the only way, now is it? Imagine an elf on the tree, sitting on a branch, bow in hand, watching over his sleeping charge. Occasionly he would cease scaning the forest edge and take a loving look at the woman behind him, making sure she's safe. Now the second image...does it sound creepy to you?

The problem was that Anders was changed. He had almost no connection to the Anders from the earleir game. There was NOTHING to indicate anders was anything otehr than straight. So to not only change his character but also personality - it was see by many as betrayl. If the devs want ot give the "masses" a gay/bi character so be it. But they could have made a new character, not buther an old one. Not that it affected me, I hate Anders. Agreed. EDIT: ME3 was bad from the begining. HORRIBLE begining. Why are people only so obsessed about the ending? I think because the ending (original) ended up killing some LI's and it was an OUTRAGE!!!

If someone for watches you sleep from outside your window, they have problems. That is not going to a sweet and loving place, that's the type that murders their rivals, breaks in and does nasty things to you. Eh? Sez who? Who gave you a PHD and the right to judge everyone? You saying she was supposed to break into your house? How is that better? Seriously, you keep projecting sinister motivations onto her that aren't there...probably because of the "creepy stalker" image so popular in the media.

Well, assuming some realism your characters wouldn't be pack mules that can caryy an armory on them in the first palce, so you'd have to sacrifice something for those reserve weapons. And why on earth would you have one character be a pack mule in the first place? Every smart character should have a secondary/backup weapon at all times. Also, how is that different from half the other stuff in the game? Like potions. You have to carry them around and once your out of them you have to go back to town to replensih. If you don't the battle gets harder. Why is that problem? Of coruse, assuming you find a spare you are proficient with. Or that the spare would be as good as your prefered sword. Why couldn't you kill it without your sword? I can say that for half the stuff in RPGs in general.... Getting back to town is a chore? And killing the spider queen ISN'T a chore? Both involve going to a location and doing stuff.

Everything can be described as poinless annoying busy-work. And swords, especially thin ones, can be broken. Chips and material fatigues cannot be fixed easily. And I say talking is annoying. I say selecting spells is annoying. I say clicking is annoying. Do you have any proper obejction other than "I do not want to loose my precious sword for 5 minutes"?

Dude, those people do that because they must. They don't wear armor because they can't afford it (in the case of a tribal with a balstpipe) or because it's just not practical for fishing (swiming in armor?) Firthermore, hunting smaller animals is not the same as martial combat agaisnt well trained human opponent. And that tribal - if he gets caught by a larger predator he is in big trouble. It's silly to ask "why doesn't X wear full plate if it's so good?" Those things dont' roll off an assemly line. You might as well ask why doesn't every person in the world own a 100' plasma TV. Subjective.

Who sez it isn't broken? Isn't that entirely subjective? What happened to exploring simply because you want to see whats out there? When XP and loot become the only motivation, something has gone VERY wrong.