Adhin

Psions don't use 'spells' and if you need a destinction I'd imagine that would be it. Mages need books and cast times and all that - Psions do 'not'. It's all mental, its all instant more or less. As long as they can focus there mind they can make **** happen. So if your looking for a 'difference' that would be it. I mean if you wanna go that route, even fighters are 'mages' to you in this since they use there soul to fuel there powers too. Which would kinda make everyone a mage, except no... its about how they do it, not that they can. Mages have books, cast times and whatnot. Priest will probably also have casts times but that'll be based around 'rites' and passages and all that ritual religous stuff. Ciphers probably wont have any cast times and it'll be entirely mental like a Psion. That's 3 very destinct ways to handling it. This is like people saying barbs are identical to fighters, buncha bull****. Unimaginative bull****. As for paladin or whatever that should be part of an organization you join as far as im concerned. Like ya said, tie it to something lore wise. I think that'd make it more interesting at least. Have the ability to join something early game, earn that type of title, maybe have it come with some special abilities seperate from your class. Paladins one of those things I like having in the world but I personally never play and, ultimately feel it needs to be tied more to the world then other classes but never really is... so, something like that'd be nice to me at least.

Yay but also boo on the barb hate. I love Barbarians, no they're not just 'fighters'. Fighters are generally disciplined warriors. Barbarians aren't, they've reckless, deliciously reckless. I mean there loosely based off Berzerkr's in Viking culter which was 'far' from your average warriors... I mean the guys cut them selves and howled like maniacs, dudes where crazy. And personally, im looking forward to Barb/Cipher more then I am the adventurers hall but I think its a great addition for folks who wanna do there own party (or wanna make 2 chars).

I'd prefer NWN2 like customization, specifically the height and width sliders for body as that let you really mold the character bit closer to what I'd personally want. But I still want painted portraits like the infinity games (minus PST since that was all pre-defined animated face stuff). So yeah, NWN2 like but with snazzy portraits. -edit- Yeah what Shades basically said before me heh. Body height/width sliders (and maybe body 'type' selecter) would have a bigger impact and, really, I think most RPG's lack that as is when they go balls out on the face customization.

I'm getting it but I don't fall intot hat camp of 'as long as you have mods' thing with BG. All of those mods kinda run iffy, the game its self runs iffy on the newer OS. Can you run it on em? Yeah but those games where kinda buggy to start, they're even worse on newer stuff and mods make things even more screwed up half the time. And when you start mixing mods... guh. Not to mention trying to do the BG1 in BG2 engine has counltess quest issues. So, get all that in a more polished pack 'with' full widescreen support which you don't really get rid mods? Yeah, I think its worth it.. and I got it preordered because of that. But then I don't need to get it off GOG, I have a copy (and its expansion). No amount of mods actually fixes the issues.

Sipher is there version of a Psion, not Soulmage or sorcerer.... Personally I like how they're going about it but then I like class systems, I just prefer it when there is a lot of choice with in that. And then preferably the ability to mix classes to some extent on top of that. To bad we wont be getting any real details for like a year on any of this, really would love to know the kind of abilities and general progression for a class and all that good stuff.

Your confusing challenge with hassle. It can be 'fun' to be challenged. It can be fun to learn things, it can be fun to do all manner of **** that from another perspective is just horrendously tedious. As an example sometimes, say you just played through an hour of something, forgot to save and you end up dying. Now for me, that's a bitch... I had a blast for that whole hour, died, my fault, forgot to save (due to no checkpoints and just...forgetting) and I gadda play through it again. That right there is often enough for me to just stop and come back later cause the idea of doing something (even something I enjoyed emensly) again immediately is boring. It's a hassle to deal with something you 'just' delt with. You also get that with fake difficulty stuff... where you die not because you failed to miss something or yo ur not thinking fast enough or you just aren't good enough with the controls... but the games just setup to gank you when you turn that corner. That kinda ****s not fun... it's hard, but its not really challenging. It's designed for you to fail with the only method to get past it is to knkow that guys around the corner and throw a grenade/fireball to kill it before you could possibly precieve it as a threat via any other means. That, isn't fun... never will be. That's what it comes down to me at least. You want things to be challenging, and fun. You want it to test your abilities (at whatever skill level your at) but you don't want it to get boring which... can happen at either end. If its to hard and your constantly re-doing content or is just cheaply built to gank, thats a hassle. If its waaay to easy to the point your wondering why your even playing that can be a hassle. Granted, a really good story can over come the 'to easy' part, even if your felt wanting with the challenge aspect. Harder for the story to make up for a gank-fest game design though if its to constant as it'll continiously pull you out of things. Ehh yeah so either way 2 seperate things, why they're 2 different words.

I understand the desire to not want the ability to save at anytime, but if I had to pick betwen save any time, and specific save points, I'll take anytime 'every' time. Sometimes you just have to stop and the idea of losing half an hour to an hours worth of progress and not being sure where the next save point is is a pain in the ass. It's just bad design as far as im concerned. That said a lot of IE games where based off you getting ganked first shot at an encounter, reloading and going at it with pre-knowledge. So was DAO for that matter. I think the only game where I didn't actually worry about that as much, in relation to IE games, was Planescape: TOrment. And that was becuase death was embrased. If you died, you started at what amounted to a respawn point due ot your character being immortal-ish. Other characters could die but, at a certain point in the game you could learn how to revive dead companions which removed the irritating part of party death in other IE games. Which is really the only reason I can think of as to why I would just reload in most IE games. Because how you had to deal with that was a chore, a chore that took a long as time to deal with. They didn't embrace death as its own mechanic it felt more shoehorned in unlike PST. And if you look at some of the harder games of the day, say, Dark Souls.. death is again an embraced mechanic. It impacts your growth, there is a risk/reward vs spenting collected souls vs pushing forward into an area since dying means losing all of that. And 'that's how you progresss in the game, thats how you advance your character... so to lose that.. yeah. I would LOVE for the 'event' to be a PST type thing where your character, for whatever reason, can keep coming back and have in-the-field ways to revive people. Or have the whole resurrection spell stuff. BG2 you only had I think... 3 characters who could do that besides your character if you happened to play a cleric (andonly a cleric). Then only if you where high enough for it. Which ultimately made it easier to deal with in BG2, less so in BG1 as you where all such low lvls that option only really existed in temples. Anyway I just hope they come up with some other way to deal with death that comes with a penalty but isn't such a pain to deal with that reloading is always the least headache enducing option. Ultimately, that's what it comes down to for me, I like a challenge, I loved Dark Souls and some other crazy stuff like that but once you have certain things feel more like a chore then just a part of the game is when reloading starts to seem infinitely the better option.

Yeah I kinda like the more free-roam with in a class. Though in relagion to what Monte Carlo said, im gonna restay something I posted in other threads awhile back. I think it would be nice if they had I guess class titles you could pick from that're perhaps based off your total class combination (if they do multiclassing). I liked the idea they had in Kingdoms of Amalur but i think they handled it to much in tiers so you may of had something you liked, but it was a low lvl title so kind of failed a bit in that regard for me. Though at the same time I don't think they really need class names like that outside of what your class is called. I'd be fine being a.. Fighter/Mage I don't need to be called a Spellblade, though it would be nice to have that as a title swap if you ended up making a fighter/mage. Though, really hoping it hits 2.5m+ 'and' they do multiclassing, cause I really wanna make a Barb/Sypher... just like my favorit Barb/Psion in some PW for NWN I played for a few years. Well, played that character for a few years, played int hat PW for more like 12-ish.

Because Paladin, as a name, title, invokes something more then 'religion zealot' for that, look for Templar. It's one reason I tend to rename 'paladin' to templar in majority of stuff as it's far more malable to be any number of things including Paladin-like. Paladin, however, comes with it a very specific line of thinking. For example, you wouldn't name something a 'Death Knight' or 'Baby Eater' and get pissy if you couldn't play one who was the noblest of spirits. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paladin http://dictionary.re...wse/Paladin?s=t Paladin is supposed to be the enbodiment of noble blah blah, goody blah, Lawful Good SOB. I don't really like the class as it's to restrictive with in that. So, yeah, if they go and add that in, I'd prefer they call it a Templar. But then I kinda feel like there priest class is already going to fill that role. In a sense, Cleric in DnD already fill that role. Cleric with a few fighter lvls (or no fighter lvls) can already do majority of the stuff a paladin can do just as well... minus the RP flavor of 'being' a paladin. Ultimately, that's all a Paladin is, RP flavor that does some kinda ok-**** other people do better. But then thats kinda how it is for anything beyond the base 4 if ya ask me... which is good, I like that. But Ranger and Barbarian are far more flexible into fitting a huge array of characters. But if your a paladin - your a Paladin. -edit- Oh and as per subclasses, I don't think they're gonna be doing em. Looks like we'll be getting a list of full fledged classes (at least 8 atm, maybe 10 at 2.5m). Personally I hope they add in either the ability to multiclass. Either like 3E but I'm actually, for whatever awkward reason, hoping its more like 2nd Edition only more flexible. That being you pick anywhere from 1 to 2 classes, either at lvl 1 or down the road a bit. And both lvl up side-by-side. Ultimately a Fighter/Cleric in 2E kinda kept pace together better then trying to mix fighter/cleric in 3E. 3E allowed you to mix Base/Prestigue classes in pretty awesome ways but doing so with a caster often left things a little... limp, compared to 2nd edition. They actually have a ton of PrC 'just' to try and 'fix' that. Good example was 'True Necromancer' in Rigis Mortis. It basically requires you have Arcane and Divine spell levels (literally lvl 5 wiz/cleric) then at which point every lvl of True Necromancer advanced each thing by 1 lvl. So if you went a 5/5/10 you ended up being a lvl 15 Wizard/Cleric spell wise... which was pretty awesome. And something that if it was 2nd edition you could just do right from the outset. So yeah I kinda don't think we need PrC but I hope they have some kind of multiclassing system up that's... somewhere inbetween 3E and 2E. I actually kind of think how 4E handles it was DnD own attempt at bridging that gap by either allowing you to continue down your main class or mix in another, but ultimately your original class determines your base stat progression for the entirety of the game... I kinda like that. I don't like a lot of 4E, but it does have some good ideas here and there.

Yeah, I liked Candlekeep, never felt the need to skip it but it was a place you had ful reign in and going straight to Gorion, as has been mentioned, ended it entirely. BG2, on the otherhand, that dungeon took some damn time even for being short and having to watch the damn forced conversation cutscenes over and over... mind numbing after awhile. It was a great intro first time around but it was just to long and lacked easy-means to skip. Again, Candlekeep could mostly be skipped in a minutes or 2 already so...if you did all the stuff everytime thats on your end not on the games. Other then Candlekeep though, think my favorite intro was probably PST. But then you don't often wake up on a slab in a morge waiting to be processed by zombies and dustmen. Took awhile to get out, though you could speed-run that bit so it wasn't to crazy. Still had a lot more interesting story bits in that intro stage then you had in say BG2. BG2 frontloaded most the intro story, rest was a dungeon crawl. Far as im concerned, every RPG that's come out since BG1 from the 2 sides always seemed to have long intro areas that, even on a speed run took a good bit of time. Candlekeeps literally the only one that I felt let you skip it. Then again, I wasn't counting NWN for some reason, maybe cause i don't view that campain as being valid for comparison on the grounds it kinda sucked donkey nuts. -edit- Oh and whoever mentioned FO:NV intro... I agree-ish? I think they way they did that in that you could just leave the town, or not, was a nice way to have a tutorial with out it mucking up stuff. The only problem I had with that was the whole tutorial was worth a good bit of XP so skipping it ultimately meant starting the game a level behind. And that was a game very much about areas being certains lvls. Would be nice if you got frontloaded that XP for leaving the town then completing the quests. But yeah, something like New Vegas, only less XP rewardy for doing tutorial mission/quest/whatevers.

That whole hold a button to allow that kind of group movement/camera lock on group for it is... probably the only way to do it in IE-style game. I think it would be a nice ease-of-use thing if It was fluidy enough. Normal click-hold is used for box-group selection though... rather not have that removed for something that's not entirely needed.

Outside of original Diablo, even D2 added in a hold-click to attack. Which... I mean its a suppliment for auto-attack in a game where you only control 1 thing and need to move around that single character then control a party of.. generally more then 1. I definitely get the 'hold click' to move and whatnot, PST actually had a camera lock to selected character but that just felt bad in those games to me. That said some kinda hold-click to move and have camera/party sort of follow along I think would work if they got it down right. I think the OP is actually rather reasonable outside of click-to-attack constantly. Again that was literally a Diablo original that they half-dropped like a sack of moldy potatos with D2. You still get folks spaz-clicking like they hate there fingers but what're ya gonna do. Either way, it just wouldn't work very well since you are controlling more then 1 person. As for party size you don't actually have to have 6. I often only had about 4, sometimes 5 in those games. Was rare for me to talk around with a full 6. Part of that was XP gain just kinda flowed better when it wasn't split 6 ways but either way, it tends to support having a lower party just fine. And hey, plenty of people managed to solo run em but I feel that kinda... I mean going through BG2 completely solo and never having the companions around is like watching a movie with the sound off. Companions make up so much of that game, there reactions to stuff, the conversations they them selves would spark up. BG series in general, PST? I just can't see PST with out Morte, or Annah. I get the challenge aspect of it if you've played through a few times and just wanna manage solo, but first few times? Insanity I say, insanity!

Well yeah I want a seperate thing from resting and sleeping, thougha s has been stated just standing around counts as resting. I don't even think we need a 'rest' button for that though if they do a BG style thing, no amounto f sitting around or taking a breather will remove being that tired. So I guess if they do a split between rest/sleep (even if resting is automatic) they should have a difference between fatigue and being sleepy.

Well, BG wasn't really normal fatigue it was you wher tired-tired. It was a 'you've been awake for over 24 hours, what the ****'re you still doing awake?'. Or some spell that causes that effect. I'm talking something a bit more immediat tied to basic combat. If it just amounts to some minor -stats cause you've beena wake for a set time (or happened to cast haste on you to often) thats... it's just not the same.

@TrashMan: That's why i was talking about lowering max values as a penalty for extended scenarios. As a basic example every 10 dmg you lose 1 max hp. Maybe more of a ratio, maybe a bellcurved ratio where you don't lose much earlier on but the lower it goes the more you lose per dmg point. Either way points to allow that kind of thing while still not making that be the be-all-end all of getting back to 100% and having that be sleep. Then again I think out-of-combat health regeneration (with a max-hp penalty for fatigue) would also make just as much sense, if not more. Though I think DAO/2 version of that is a bit extreme. I mean you hit max with in 2 seconds. And, witht hat, definitely 0 regen in combat, unless of course you got an item, or feat, that gives regeneration. Either I'd rather not have that sleep-resting being the only real method. -edit- As to what IndiraLightfoot, imma have to agree and go against 1 thing I said. Sleeping shouldn't have some kinda time limit on it. I'd rather just see it limited with IN a dungeon and all that but in a town, or in an inn.. definitely no cooldown. Sometimes you rest, realize you screwed something up, need to rest again... no reason you should have to wait 10 minutes. A fatigue system of some kind that keeps that suspense with out having you constantly sleep mid dungoen would be great though.

I think limiting it to every 16 hours is just as awkward if you ask me. I can tell you I can sleep much, MUCH sooner then 16 hours. Made more possible if you go out and exert your self all over the place like some adventurer would. Either way I think there should be some kind of limit on actual sleep, but I already went into that in my above post.

Yeah, more so with there whole soul thing, the idea of a monk just fits it to well if you ask me. Though I can say with 100% certainty I want that damn Barbarian class in so I pray that stretch makes it. Though that's a good 400k off heh.

That old dude (monk or otherwise) is goin' craaazy heh. It looks super pissed. Absolutly love the picture.

Yeah, I think there pre-rendered backgrounds (not tile based) is going to be the biggest factor in that, plus the engine they're using. You kind of have to build an engine from the ground up with that in mind. It involves A LOT of streaming to handle what a load screen technically does. Could they do it? Yes, but im not sure the current engine they're using is capable of it. I also don't think doing one giant overworld map 100% streamed in is nessesary. As long as you can just walk into a house that's on the map, which just requires a disappearing roof... that's a lot easier. And if they had disappearing roof-tech in IE games, could of been done for a good bit of there areas. Why I was saying smaller areas no load, dungoens/mansions, any multi-level thing would benefit, due to the map style, with load screens. You could also say that with the power of the computers now and days a loadscreen can be so fast it practically doesn't matter IF theres a loadscreen. I mean if it takes half a second to load into and out of that little hut... who cares at that point.

I don't like constant 'sleeping', I think specific rest/save points before a boss is just as silly, and resetting levels (with the exact same stuff, as in a literal reset) is just as bad if not worse then the constant sleeping. That all said I do hope they come up with some alternative to 'resting' (aka, sleeping). That in mind I'd say make it actual resting, not sleeping. That's what 'resting' was in IE games.. sleeping, for 8 freakin' hours. Even if you had JUST slept 5 minutes ago which is.. practically impossible for the majority of population. It's like trying to force the sun down at high noon. Resting though, you can do that ANY time. Say you just jogged for 30 minutes, what do you do? You rest! You go sit down, you go read something, you take a breather... you don't pass out for 8 hours. The extremely complicated meneuver of sitting on your ass for a few can let you recover from all manner of stuff. Now going off that, I think there shuold be resting and sleeping. Sleeping (full 8+ hours or whatever) is the complete recovery (or at least the chance to with good survival skills, or auto-recover if its an inn) but not as easily do-able, and something thats limited by at least 4 hours of in game time (at 'least'). Then you have 'resting' which is literally just a 5-10 minute 'breather' (not real time) that lets you recover some health and your, lets say for arguements sake, stamina (used for skill/spells). They may have use limiters that cut into your max stamina/hp over time of taking punishment/using skills (general combat stuff) and rest will only restore up to your current limit, where as resting would completelty restore your max values amongst many other things. So yeah I'd say a 2 part system and use some kinda max-value debuff based off general combat factors that resting can't 'fix' but sleep can. -edit- spelling and words

It's Isometric with 2D pre-rendered backgrounds and 3D objects (monsters, NPC, maybe some animated stuff). The camera wont be spinnable due to the backgrounds. It might be zoomable, as mentioned, but it aint gonna rotate. So... yeah. The way infinity engines already handled its about as good as it gets, and that worked great. So...yup. Also no load times for small houses and the like would be great.. definitely agree with that. Larger areas of dungeon's I get the load though.

Oh yeah, 100% agree with that. Best way to allow that is having a robust and flexible attribute system and feats to accomidate that. Also Wombat was saying that the 'hp stuff and whatnot' could be via feats, I kinda don't agree. Think about it, it already is. They already 'have' health feats and dmg/AB feats in DnD, they're useful for all classes but if that's your only option then all youc an do is spec 'like' a fighter, or 'like' a rogue or whatever. I guess the way I see it, classes are a multiplier in away. They give you different starting points just like a good attribute system does, but then you customize more beyond that (often using general stuff all classes get). So I can make a Fighter with low Con, or mid/high Con. I can do all that 'and' stack on HP feats. In fact one of my favorite characters is a Barbarian/Psion who stacks Con and every HP/DR feat I can get my grubby mitts on. Now I did the same kind of thing in FO:NV, I went crazy Endurance and took as much DR/HP stuff as I could get my hands on but ultimately, while it definitely 'boosted' me up I wasn't to extremely off from any other build I had. Sure they could have done more with that as far as just make each one do more. Ultimately, anything like thats possible and a valid system but classes just always seem to work better for that, least to me they do. And,l yeah, definitely easier to balance around which ultimately gives more wiggle room 'for' that customization... and hey, maybe that's why its always seemed to work out better with class systems for me.. cause it's just easier to do. -edit- I may try and find where they said it but they literally stated people could learn to be mages with any kind of a soul. I recall reading that general wording. Didn't seem as vague to me but I've remembered stuff wrong before so.. yeah. -double-edit- "Through a variety of techniques (e.g. martial training, meditation, ritualistic evocation, mortification of the flesh), some individuals are able to draw upon the energy of their soul to accomplish extraordinary feats. These abilities range from the mundanely superhuman to the explosively magical. Having a strong soul seems to make this easier, but sometimes even people with fragmented souls are able to accomplish the extraordinary. The individual's body seems to act as a conduit and battery for this power, drawing in replenishment from seemingly omnipresent "fields" of unbound spiritual energy in the world around them." That's the quickest thign I could find, on there front page, update #5. Talk directly about souls and whatnot. Certain souls make things easier but that's about it. Anyone can do it, even ones with weak fragmented souls (though that could make it extremely hard). Why i think souls will be like background feats/birth signs. Something that gives a universal stat shifts to aid in one thing or another but ultimately aren't tied to your race or class.

Ahh we know soul types isn't based on class. It's stated anyone can learn magic regardless of there soul. I kinda think Soul type, if we even get to pick that, will be closer to TES birth signs, or 3E background lvl 1 'feats' that kinda help define your character up to his staet at lvl 1 and beyond. Either case they've stated they're going classes and they don't want it to be to pigeon holed (like ADnD) but have customization with in that. So a Warrior maybe the easiest or generally best at what he does but you could technically make another class fill the same general role (like turning a mage into a front-line fighter). As long as they can pull that off I'll be a pretty happy camper. I like it when I can try some odd-ball build like a tank-mage or whatever. And it sounds like that's there goal with it. Definitely curious what they do with attributes though, hope its 6-8 of em.. and.. yeah. I wanna be able to customize via as many avenues as possible.

I doubt it, classes are more then just there skills/feats, that's the bulk of it, to be sure. However a Fighter, as an example in DnD, class is also your health progression, how well your basic training in martial combat is and all that good stuff. So, all things being equal, Warriors types have more hp and have better odds at landing hits in martial combat (melee/archery). Once you take that away it doesn't matter how much feats and skill **** you have, characters at a base are very 'samey' and don't fit that kind of tactical combat as well. It's my preferense, at least, that classes come with a generic base shift in level growth outside of skill/feat/talent/perk/trait/thingymajiggers, which utlimately allow you to customize with in that general 'concept' of roles. -edit- As for how does it fit or what examples can you use in todays stuff, I always try to find parallels with the army. For instance squads demolition expert, or the medic. They have specific knowledge the other squadmates lack and are filling very specific, defined roles with in that. Yeah all of em went through basic training and know how to field strip, maintain, and shoot there rifles but beyond that people start to learn disciplines, become more focused. Look at XCOM for a fun example of a tactics, turn based game where squadies build up specializations. Unlike are current times, however, and more so with the concept of magic you have very different.. positional roles. I mean today, everyone 'shoots' eachother so its like building a team full of archers and nothing else. So you got front line fighters (of a lot of types, 'warrior/fighters') you got ranged attackers, from varying sources. And each one has different... values one might attach to them to fill that role. IF your trying to make some super realistic setting then armor should be a bigger factor then anything else but, i'd like to point out the game has such a high focus on character souls and that's what fuels powers/spells and the like that... the idea of superhuman feats (myth stuff) is far more explainable. So the idea your 'fighter' guy has more health, and might be able to regenerate health while say the rogue can't is far more easily explained. -double-edit, cause I talk to much- Another thing I forgot... dev on here also pointed out classes are also useful for quick grasp of what a companion is, with out having to dig deep into there feats and skills and needing tot ry them out and see how they handle. If you run into a guy in plate labled whos got the Warrior class you can be pretty confident he can handle front-line fighting one way or another. And considering mages in this game 'ware' plate, that becomes a more useful instant knowledge thing then in other RPG's. It may seem little bit its one of those things you start to wish was there once its gone and you have to spend extra time figuring out things you'd rather deal with later (like on a level up). Ultimately its an ease of use thing, also, temporary companions you don't have any say in abilities and may not be able to see all of there stuff. Simply knowing they're a fighter or a rogue via there class lable can make it a lot less irritating to figure out how to use them effectively.

I think it should depend on the class instead of being 'schools of magic' specific. Almost exclusively because the power of your... anything, is soul related. Literally your soul powers whatever stuff your doing (mage or otherwise) so...I'd like to have some kind of magic caster who doesn't recite anything and just freakin' wills FIRE into being cause AHH FIRE! Know what I mean? I think a more mystic/priestly type person whos life revolves around ceremony and rites and all that stuff.. I could easily see them chanting, reciting lines for there spells as it helps them channel whatever. But, to me, personally, a mage, or sorcerer... FIRE HAHAHAH FIRE. or whatever else they use heh. Fire's just easiest example. It's actually somethign I was always bummed by with Sorcerers in DnD. There general background fit more with how I view mages (or prefer them) but they still had to say words and wiggle there fingers around in specific patterns unless they used some metamagic stuff. So yeah I guess I'd want that to depend on the class involved, not to be just some universal 'all magics this way'.