Caerdon

I just knew Troy would come up, sooner or later. That masterpiece from the Golden Age of Historical Accuracy.

Was this comment directed to someone in particular? I agree, spear is a great weapon, and I don't think most people even realize how versatile and sophisticated it really is - if you use it with two hands. With just one hand it loses a huge portion of its usefulness.

Returning to the original topic... I assume the drawback of a wizard with armor and two-handed swords is that he has to spend skill points in both wizardly and soldierly skills instead of just one or the other. And of crouse, like some have mentioned, a huge weapon and a heavy armor might hamper your spellcasting to some degree, depending on how the system works.

Bayonets became common when carrying an actual separate melee weapon became too inconvenient, which shouldn't be the case in P:E. I don't think it's what you really meant, but I want to emphasize that attaching a bayonet to a rifle does not make it a spear. Bayonet makes a rifle much more useful in close combat, but it's still vastly inferior to an actual melee weapon like a saber or a spear.

A spear and shield combination is great in a tight formation, but not in a skirmish. In a skirmish most hoplites, for example, threw their spears and drew their swords. The rest of them dropped their shields and used their spear with two hands, which really makes it an extremely useful and versatile weapon. I can't really see spear and shield work in an adventuring groups. It's just not the way that combination is used.

From the latest update: I'm actually not a huge fan of that. I want enemies to behave intelligently, not to be mindless slaves to your taunts and other aggro-management skills.

I'd love it if the game had no player-initiated saving and loading at all, even on easy. So many aspects of the game would benefit, and rogues would especially become much more interesting class to play. It'd be a huge win for tactical planning, spell preparation, scouting, trap detection etc. And it'd prevent sillyness like pickpocket - quickload - pickpocket - quickload...

I think the devs already confirmed that you can build a "finesse" fighter. They should be best at hitting the opponent's vital spots - along with the monk.

Anything that "renders alignment selection obselete" is already a huge improvement over D&D, but I really, really don't want the game making inane guesses on why I do the things I do the way I do them. There is just no way it will ever understand how I might have a perfectly altruistic reason for doing something that seems selfish, or that I might be pretending to be angry or that my generosity might just be an act to help me get to the big loot. So please, please, please don't let me be judged by a machine.

So..you're telling me that fighters - poeple who spend their lives dedicated to combat and killing - don't know the human anatomy and vital areas of the human body... And rogues, who mostly hide and use skills and generally avoid combat - do. O.K. ... o.k. That makes sense...somehow... in the bizzaro universe. I couldn't agree more. Also, rogues always get abilities like "dirty fighting" - as if any fighter worth their salt isn't going to exploit every advantage they could possibly get in a fight. I've always thought that there should be a separate but cumulative flanking and stealth attack bonuses - and character class shouldn't have anything to do with that.

I disagree. Luck has always a part of RPGs, and risk is something you just have to take into consideration. There are ways to deal with it: you can play things safe, or you can go for high risk, high reward - just be ready to deal with the consequences. One thing I hated in D&D (or the way it was implemented in IE games) was that my character might have 94 HP yet there was precicely zero chance of some particular orc dealing more than 10 HP of damage with a single hit. With 2 attacks per round it would take at least 5 rounds for the orc to kill my character. Absolutely no element of threat whatsoever. With a good implementation of critical hits and misses you'd actually have to consider the chance that you might need backup - that's a win for tactics.

That's how it should be. Limited number of arrows per quiver, and so if you want to basically horde an entire shop full of arrows, you'll have to sacrifice other items in your backpack to accommodate the extra arrows. So, how well did that work in BG, where stack size was 20? Answer: not well at all. Unless you were running with a 4+ archers squad, you still had enough arrows and enough inventory space, as long as you visited town every once in a while. Frankly, when I reminisce about BG and how wonderful game it was (probably my favourite IE game), I'm not thinking about the lovely stacks of 20 arrows.

Critical miss should mean that your attack leaves an opening that a skilled enemy - especially a finesse-type enemy - can exploit.

So how much thinking does it take to buy lots of arrows when in town? "I need more arrows.... Aaaagh! My brain! It hurrrtsss!!" I'd like to limit the arrows to 40 per quiver. So if you want to buy more of them, you'd have to sacrifice some inventory space. Personally I'm hoping the inventory is only limited by weight, not the number of slots. Limiting arrows the way it was done in BG adds nothing to realism. It only adds an appearance of realism. It's a face-lift. I'm all for realism, but I also like convenience - that's why I want realism done right. Why not just unlimited arrows, then? Or stacks of 500? 2000? 100000?

So how much thinking does it take to buy lots of arrows when in town? "I need more arrows.... Aaaagh! My brain! It hurrrtsss!!"

Limited ammo is completely pointless if you can carry 1000 arrows in a stack. Having to stop in a shop here and there won't make you a hardcore gamer. It's simply an annoyance. I want limited ammo only if these conditions are met (and I hope they are): Bows deal realistic damage, i.e. one well-placed arrow takes an ordinary enemy out of the fight Arrow making is a skill Arrows are recoverable, broken or not

Yes, but for that to matter they would need to implement mounts (for NPCs). I'm not sure that will happen given the resource constraints. But there are so many other considerations. ROF, fatigue, 'speed factor', penetration... I'd especially like to see the size, weight and handling of bows affect gameplay in some manner. A 'shortbow' is generally a much better weapon for a stealthy rogue, for example, because it's much easier and faster to handle in tight spaces and you can easily shoot from a kneeling position. In fact, it's a much better weapon for most people in general, which is why most bows throughout history were not longbows. Besides, from a relatively close distance and against unarmored human target, all bows are equally deadly. It's not the speed of the arrow, it's where it hits that matters. Longbows should have better range and better armor penetration (affected heavily by the arrow used); unfortunately range is a rather meaningless concept in these games.

Thank you Katrar and TrashMan for some excellent mythbusting. I'm sick of the idea that longbows are somehow the 'best' bows in existence. Yes, longbows have their strenghts, but they also have lots of weaknesses. Still, in RPGs the best bows are usually longbows, and just about every archer uses one (though in BG2, for example, the best magical bows were actually short bows, even when longbows were the best 'vanilla' bows). One thing that's pretty much always ignored in games is the fact that different kinds of bows were used in different parts of the world, by different people and for a different purpose. A Mongol horseman wouldn't have been able to use an English longbow, and a Mongol composite recurve bow would have been completely useless to an English archer. Yet they were both fantastic weapons on their own - when used for their intended purpose, in their intended environment.

Look, you're the one who is comprehension impaired. The guy asked a simple question which can be summed up with: "Will there be level scaling?" The answer could have been a simple yes or no. And the answer can be summed up with: yes. Enemies will be level scaled based on where we go first. This *is* a prime example of level scaling. I love how you actually demonstrate yourself how your entire argument depends on simplifying the whole issue into black-and-white yes-or-no question. Yes, there will be level scaling. But there are so many ways to do and utilize level scaling that reducing it to a plain yes-or-no issue is just plain idiotic, especially when Feargus was very clear this is very limited kind of level scaling.

People are overreacting. This is not Oblivion level scaling. If done right, limited level scaling can be a useful part of adding challenge to the game. I hear these guys have made some good games before, I have faith they know where they're going with this.

Firstly, I just hope that when I get the list of choices, whether it's just two choices (completely sensible in certain situations, despite what some people say) or much more choices, the game will not tell me which one is 'good', which one is 'grey' and which one is 'evil' (this also means the game mustn't sort them in order of evilness). I want to make my choice based on my beliefs, my opinions, my ethics. The characters in the game may give their own opinions and preferences, but they must not always represent the The Cosmic Wisdom. Also, the game must not inform me afterwards whether I made a good or evil choice (no paragon/renegade points, please). Secondly, there must not always be good choices and/or evil choices available. Sometimes - I'd even say usually - no matter what you choose, your choices will result in both good and evil, in varying amounts - and depending on perspective. Furthermore, I don't want to know the full consequences of my choice immediately after making it, but much, much later - and some of those consequences must be unintended. The best morality system is no morality system.

This would really have to tie in with the story, but I'd like to see some really big scale event in the game that would drastically and visually change things everywhere. For example: a magical storm that spreads destruction all around the world altering every map in the game, drives a lot of people into exile and causes a huge spike in banditry. That would be a big ass stretch goal, most likely.

You're right, we need more actual suggestionsa and less criticism. Thanks for the reminder! TrashMan made the suggestion that I've liked best so far. I already had something similar in mind, but his words really crystallized it in my mind. So here's my version of what he suggested (if you don't like it, don't hold it against him): You have these attributes: Mana Pool (MP), which depends on your class, race, level, stats, skills, etc. Mana Limit (ML), which is always somewhere between 0 < ML <= MP Current Mana (CM), which is always somewhere between 0 <= CM <= ML And they work like this: CM will constantly regenerate. ML can only be regenerated by resting. Resting full 8 hours (or whatever your character requires, maybe some skills, race etc. can affect this) will restore it to MP; if your rest is interrupted, ML will regenerate only partially Each spell S has power SP, which may be simply it's level or some more fine-tuned power value Casting spell S will reduce CM by an amount directly proportional to SP (so this reduction is small for small SP, large for large SP) Casting spell S will also reduce ML by a percentage amount directly proportional to SP^X, where 1 < X < 2 (i.e. this reduction is very small for small SP, very large for large SP, X is a fine-tuned constant) So what does this imply: You can spam your low-level spells quite a lot before your CM is spent, and it will regenerate quite quickly, too Low-level spells will lower your ML only slowly, so you can use them quite carelessly the whole day before you have to rest (good thing if you have to reserve your strength) High level spells will exhaust your CM quickly, so you can only use a few in succession High level spells will also lower your ML quite quickly, which means that if you don't rest between fights, your CM will run out much faster in the next one When your ML gets lower and lower, you will progressively lose your ability to cast high-level spells (because your CM will never grow high enough to cast them) As ML is only reduced by a percentage amount, it will never be reduced to zero, which means you're going to retain your lowest level spells for a very long time even without resting - although ultimately your CM will probably be spent after every single casting forcing you to wait for it to regenerate This system could support any number of additional tweaks: Increased chance of spell failure the lower your ML gets Reduced physical or mental capability the lower your ML gets Chance of dizziness, nausea or even loss of conciousness if CM or ML gets way too low Possibly a small additional cooldown for some or all spells A skill that lets you prepare a number of spells for quicker casting and/or lower mana consumption A skill (or maybe a potion) that makes it safer to perform low-ML casting (won't really make you more powerful, but still a life-saver if you can't rest for a long while) Casting severals spells of same 'school of magic' in succession increases the hit on ML ...unless you specialize in that particular school etc.

I think the point is to not make it specific. A good DM makes it just vague enough so that it doesn't feel like you're being spoon-fed instructions on how to win. (although there's nothing wrong with flat out spoon-feeding instructions every once in a while) But generally, a good DM will want to keep it Just vague enough so that a keen, alert player can connect the dots, while a dumb player is S.O.L. for not using his head. Yeah, I get that. I love that kind of gameplay, and it works wonderfully in PnP. But it doesn't work so well in CRPGs, especially when using Vancian casters who benefit enormously from metagame knowledge. Now, if the game did provide such specific information, it would lessen the impact of metagaming, because you'd have same kind of information without it, and the game could actually be balanced for that. Of course, that would be spoon-feeding instructions, so would it really be a victory? I guess not. All in all, Vancian spellcasting leads to bad gameplay in CRPGs. You know, that sounds great. But was that approach used for most or all of the tough encounters?

If we just give gold weight, we're only choosing the negative part of realism. If we really want actual realism, we also need the methods that are used to deal with the weight. We need bartering. We need gems as currency. We need banking. And we most definitely need to be able to hide our gold and loot. So yeah, we might not be able to carry that dragon's hoard back with us, but we must be able to bury it so no one else finds it until we return with an ox cart.