Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SirMonkeyMonk

  1. If there are strongholds upgrades I hope upgrades tend to between either A or B and not A and B. I love upgrading strongholds, but often it just feels like something you should do, instead of something that reflects your choices and playstyle. If you have a courtyard, you can make it a market place or a training yard, each with its own advantages. I would love to see diversity, a druid choosing to turning the surrounding forest into a layar of defense or a dwarf chosing for bigger and stronger walls. I dislike the idea of the stronghold being mainly about bonusses it can provide to you. I prefer it to be woven into the story, where you can choose to either defend your stronghold from an incoming raid or chase the bad guy. The number of merchants travelling by your stronghold depending on the safety of the surrounding area's and may share more information as their profit becomes better.
  2. I still expect godlike to be a subrace option for any race.
  3. I like the idea, given that it should be very few and the player is warned of course. Players going for the trial of iron mode would be pretty pissed by a certain death encounter. Preferrably with the option to flee during the battle. Compared to most stories in books and movies rivals have often multiple encounter, one flees and returns to get revenge. This does help to grow a disposition for the rivals. In games one side tends to be dead after an encounter. I would love to the event we the PC is stuck on a battlefield which he can only lose, you can flee, try to make a suicide attack on an enemy officer or hold some tower until it's run over. After the battle you might find yourself hiding in a cave, waking up after you've gone unconcious or being resurrected by someone who found your body. Not every loss should mean you're dead. At least becoming a prisoner shouldn't be completely uncommon. It also creates the oppurtunity for enemies to mock you about losing fights/battles against them.
  4. I like the Orlan race description. The brutal guerilla tactics and poison use, sounds less innocent than the typical halfling. I hope they don't look too much like some cavedwelling race like goblins or little trolls with arched backs. Very interested in seeing some concept art of them.
  5. I actually liked how DA2 handled this. Companions had their own armor/clothing (which could be upgraded) and wouldn't wear something else. I like the idea that they keep some of their original identity and attire, but no control seems very limiting. I would say most of all companions have some items they won't part with, but in general you have control over there equipment. Maybe adding that companions complain if you leave someone without any equipment at the adventurers hall (which is a really cheap trick).
  6. It would be different from what I expect from a fantasy game, but have to admit there are some funky outfits in there. If for certain communities this is used as inspiration it would be great.
  7. Humans being the average race (Humans as the base for every race) Humans being the most versatile race Classes which can fullfill all combat roles (at once) Always being forced to take your enemies seriously Companions who accept all your choices Being able to bribe all your companions into liking (loving) you
  8. Oh can we have caffeine and alcohol as well? I think all RPGs have drugs (potions?), just not the negative side effects. Too be honest I don't think drugs have the same appeal or creeping effect they have in real life. In computer games you're too aware that your character is becoming addicted, there's no denial phase. Sure you can RP it, but let's be honest it's not the same. Of course there are ways to make it more interesting, like adding side effects to every potion, without mentioning it... at first. It would interesting if dialog options would become limited after drinking healing potions, because of a side effect that it makes you more aggressive. Usually it doesn't matter, but to those prisoners you released after the battle get a weird impression of you for example.
  9. I can imagine 'proper' civilized orcs living in high magical and advanced cities can ruin your experience, as it doesn't fit the traits which define orcish individuals (ferocious, strong, dumb). The same for highly industrious halfling communities which are strongly xenophobic, as halflings are generally known as open minded, not too future orientated and having a less materialistic lifestyle. Basically the races would only have their appearance left. However, evil halflings aren't new and I don't think evil halfling communities would be shocking. Same for 'barbaric' orc tribes which are good. I don't like the idea PC races are strongly linked to factions, especially as humans are usually seen as the 'balanced' race which can be of multiple factions. This doesn't mean there can't be stereotypes linked to a race of course.
  10. As rogue is not going to become just a skill monkey in this game, I think multiple classes could fit this concept to a degree.
  11. When I first read the description I actually thought it might been subrace packages for different races. First, it does say races here as well and nowhere it says human. We don't even know if humans are the most dominant race in this setting. They describe it as a blessing before birth, not ancestory, I don't see why it has to be a specific race. Right now I'm wondering if their will be "blessings" from different gods, if you can see from which god someone was "blessed" and if that will matter how a group responds to you.
  12. I want casters to have critical misses, at least wizards. Some specific spells, like magic missle could have ciritical hits. BANG! wizard has a fireball explode in his face. Who wouldn't like that?
  13. What I like about the idea of monks is that their power comes from dedication and usually involves sacrifice or abstince of other things. I think that is something western and eastern monks share. There are different stories about why the eastern martial arts in monastery got developed, but one is that it was to keep their bodies as well as their souls trained. While it doesn't have to be true, it suggests that maritial training is not the first thing that makes a monk. Weapon training is very common in eastern monasteries. Not wearing armour would make little sense on a battlefield, when platemails are common, but with the soul power thing this can actually be explained. For me the dedication, tranquility of mind, etc are what define a monk, not the armour of weapons. Why not let the fighter be someone who is good at guard/holding ground and not letting someone pass, while the monk is good at getting past people while they head towards their goal?
  14. It was one of the things I liked about fallout 1&2, there were some unpredictable events that really got you on the edge of your seat wondering if you were going to make it. If there was a super mutant encounter (or enclave) and you were hoping that running would even be an option, then suddenly they blow themselves up because of a jamming gun, you could quickly change tactics and decide to fight instead. Sure you could survive one time with the same tactics as you lost another time, but it also means your strategies and tactics need to be able to cope with to unexpected events. I don't expect similar effects with swords and bows, but I can imagine a character falling over, hitting some other target, become more vunerable to critical hits. I agree it could make some combat encounters too easy and create some balance issues, because you got some strong armour or weapons early, but I still like it.
  15. I actually like to see races were the genders are truly different, someone unknown to the race could even mistake them for 2 different races. Some animals have pretty big differences between genders (a lot of birds, like pea****s), while some have hardly any. I don't think it's a common thing to see in cRPGs. The differences could be just in appearance, or even stat-wise. Or going really bizarre, having races without genders or more than 2 genders?
  16. I don't mind at all if classes have specific roles in combat, but I dislike it when there are a lot of required roles. I understand a healer is very useful and someone who can deal with traps as well, which more or less forces you to take a cleric and a rogue into your party. Rogues, no matter how combat orientated, should never become tougher than the strongest fighter. One guy is simply more trained to stand on the frontline. However a party full of rogues should be able to become a deadly combination, just like a "balanced" team. They would just need different tactics. In a lot of cRPG I wanted to try to play with all rogues or at least a stealth party, but this usually is a bad idea. I do have hope this will be less the case in P:E, especially because they said you will often have a non-combat route as well.
  17. I know for sure I spend more than on NWN than any other game and I have never finished the original campaign. I spend a lot of time on-line with NWN, group adventures or RPing on (semi-)persistent worlds. Would be great, but I can imagine this requires a lot of extra funding.
  18. I actually like the patched up look usually and the idea that style comes with a prize. Also don't think it fits the "feel" of the old infinity engine games, but if the option is there, I don't care.
  19. I think an aquatic race makes little sense (with the assumption that the adventure takes places on land) for the PC, why would aquatic being dwell on the land and not live in the water? Or if they don't live in the water, what purpose do their aquatic features even have? To me all half-mammal race suggestions are the same, unless there's something that truly sets them apart, like a size difference or unique ability like flying (plz don't add btw). I don't like the idea of half-animal, half human races too much, as it will likely turn out as a human with an animal paint job. I would prefer it if their second half isn't too much like humans. Also I think they would have some identity issues probably While some races make little sense to me, it's more important how the new races are different from the other ones, than their specific shape. I have no idea what the setting will be like I find it hard to imagine what would fit. I would much rather see the discussion go towards things as do we want the new races to be different on: size, ability scores, resistances, possibility to use specific equipment, more specialized towards specific (combat)roles, use soul power differently, unique abilities, etc. For me, I want the races to be more than just ability score differences for sure. I want them more fundamentally different, which usually means they tend more towards the weird or bizarre.
  20. I think the combination of the languages + opening paypal will get new donations. In a lot of European countries credit cards aren't that popular. However they said they want to release all the goals and tiers before opening up paypal.
  21. While I would dislike those races in a typical setting, like forgotten realms. However in a new setting, which I expect will include some more "bizarre" elements, I think races like those can work. But then I want them to lizardblood or fur to have some real effects, like lizards getting quickly tired when fighting in the dark and getting attacked by cold damage (and getting charged by fire damage?) while furries could catch fire? The game should also be based on P:T, which already had quite bizar races (as NPCs), I am not surpised at all if the other races could pass for monters in other settings.
  22. I don't like good or bad only classes (altough we don't know if we'll have alignment). What I do like are good and bad only classes. I don't think you should have a paladin without having a god dark champion equivalant. Their powers might be some different, but they have a similar dedication to their god or cause. When thinking about the DnD alignment grid, I liked how druid couldn't be any of the extremes, monks had to be lawful and bards couldn't be. It does represent the right mind set required to develop certain skills. Restrictions purely on the good evil axis usually make less sense, imo.
  23. I'd like to a very battle hardened tactician, who may be a bit sarcastic some times, but in general is dead serious about how to handle things. He comments if you take unnessecary risks, fail to gather some intelligence about your enemies and suggests to plan more ambushes yourself. "Why did we run out of arrows! why aren't you using scouts! why aren't you setting traps! why is that reckless brute still around!". In general I like the idea of companions commented on combat behavior. A wizard complaining someone was able to hit him with a sword, a barbarian complaining you're fighting to defensive or rogue complaining he can't use his full set of skills. Priests, zealots or some kind of fanatics that actually try to convert you, I don't think I've seen that yet, while it should be pretty common.
  24. Completely agree with the religion think, I like there to be theories and different explainations possible. Altough there can be prove of some supernatural forces, doesn't have to mean people understand it or that it is a reason to worship. But what we've heard about the souls so far, I think that's the way they are heading. At the same time, I really like stories, tales, adventures of gods how single events changed the balance of the world
  25. I'm not so sure if the godlike are a race or more a description of a race or races, but I expect them to have some connection to soul powers or at least to be believed by others to have it. I always races that are really reconisable and distinctive, but still be able to live in a normal city. For example centaurs would have too much trouble with normal buildings and corridors because of their bodies, but a (concious) construct could perfectly live there. I like them to be different in quite fundamental ways though. Example smaller races, like halflings in NWN, which have to treat weapons as one size category bigger. Thing I like in races, ones that have a different healing system, claws (can't use weapons?), have to sleep more often (or be resummoned?), stony skin (resistant against piercing, weak against buldgeon), immune to magic (good and bad), something that truly effects a race, preferably in a good and a bad way. Ofcourse a lot of these things will be difficult to add to a game and can easily unbalance a game. Ofcourse will certain races be better at certain skills, but I don't like it too much if there are only one or two classes a race can be decently powerfull at. If let's say, dwarves can only be good fighters and healers, how would a dwarven society (or military force) deal with the needs or rogues, wizards and archers? The dwarven rogue might lean more towards being a gadget using trapsetter than a silent sneaky backstabber, but each race should be able to fullfill each niche in a team to some degree. Else I expect there to be niches that humans can't fullfill either. Additional to my last point, why are humans always the most versatile race? They are often quite big and a bit bulky, at least in appearance on one side of the spectrum, while their abilities are evenly split.
  • Create New...