PrimeJunta

@Sensuki I think the loss of "flair" as you put it is something of an unavoidable consequence of the change in design philosophy. IE classes--and DnD prestige classes for that matter--had flair by the bucket. If you make them more of templates for players to represent character concepts with, then they're by necessity blander out of the box. Thing is, I've always thought it a bit unfair if the game designers do the the player's job. As a player, I want to design my character. I don't want someone else to do it for me. That was IMO very much the case with many of BG2's kits, for example--the kensai, the blade, the inquisitor etc. were fully-fleshed character concepts, not just something you could build on. As a player, I prefer to do that. That's the "role-playing" part of role-playing games. I feel a little robbed of agency if my job is just to pick the most attractive or interesting choice from a menu, however rich and varied the menu is. (I would also like to see the fighter class developed so it supports ranged combat btw. It shouldn't be too hard, just bump the base ranged accuracy and offer a choice of talents/feats for ranged weapons. Hey, why we're at it, why not the rogue too--ranger + Mr. Bear are unique enough as it is so it's unlikely they'll get overshadowed.)

I'm sure they'll be back for the real game. Voiceacting is, to say the least, sparse ATM.

Yeh, I think the "spiritual successor" thing is the crux of it. As I said earlier, in general I prefer attribute-less or attribute-light systems (as a matter of fact my homebrew cyberpunk/almost-hard-sci-fi system only has two, Mind and Body, and they're pools rather than modifiers), but beefy attributes are fairly central to the IE/DnD feel.

There's been a lot of talk about classes and attributes over on the beta forums, which sparked a train of thought I figured I'd post here. I think there's a fair bit of talking at cross-purposes going on. To summarize, some of us feel that the attribute and class system in (A)D&D is overly constraining, with usually only one or at most two, perhaps in very rare cases three "good" ways to distribute your stats in a class, and class development from there on out pretty much on-rails unless you (intentionally otherwise) make "bad" choices and end up with a weaker character as a result. I at least have described this in terms of "lack of (real) choice." On the other hand, others have pointed out that there is in fact vast scope for variety in character-building and strategies the IE games, especially BG2. Which is also true. I'm sure it would take dozens of playthroughs to exhaust it all. What's niggling at me at least is the nature of that diversity. In BG2, the diversity comes from selecting from a preset (and very rich) menu of classes and kits, possibly using the dual- and multi-classing mechanics to combine them.* I have experienced this as similar to, say, a floor puzzle, only more complicated. Each class is a puzzle crafted by the designers, 'solved' by you. The solution being the 'right' stat distribution, spell and item selection, and combat tactics to use. Which can be quite a lot of fun in and of itself, especially for the 'harder puzzles' like, say, the Magekiller BG2 kit or most bard kits. I can understand why many of us would want P:E to continue in this vein. Wherefore all the butthurt about Josh's famous 'no trash builds' design goal, snide remarks about 'easy mode character creation' and all that commotion. P:E's class/ability system is qualitatively different. There the classes and abilities aren't puzzles to be solved, but templates you use to construct something that fits the character concept you want to play. It makes you, the player, the designer. You decide on your character concept, and then you use the building blocks in the system to build something as close to it as you can--and then figure out how to play that character to its strengths. It is a player-driven approach, where you set the puzzle you want to solve for yourself, instead of setting out to solve one set for you by the designers. Personally, I have a moderate to strong preference for the P:E approach. These games are not only--or, perhaps, even primarily--combat simulators; they are also role-playing games. I think there is inherent value in putting us in the driver's seat when defining the role we want to play, even if it comes at the expense of character-building as challenge-type gameplay. I do, however, acknowledge that there is a trade-off here. Something gained, something lost, and I sympathise with the folks who miss what has been lost--much the same way as regarding combat XP. *My beef with these mechanics could be the topic for another thread; AD&D multi/dual-classing is IMO one of the worst aspects of the system, fortunately remedied in D&D3.

Orlans can use warbows, yes.

I don't see beefier abilities opposed to more and better talents at all. Why not have both?

A reverse-engineering mechanic would be nice but it would have to be done well enough to be worthwhile. Else we'll get just another "convert to nanogel" thing, only in fantasy-speak. Doable but a fair bit of work, and probably only worth it if crafting is more than just an optional side dish.

No, just the ones Stun posts in. :runs:

I'm fairly certain I've been poisoned "normally" on some runs. I.e., stamina and health bleed away but not super-fast, and at the normal ratio. What I'm talking about is damage to health directly, which bypasses stamina... or, possibly, a condition where health keeps going down after stamina has hit zero and the character is down. In any case something that can get health, not stamina, from full to zero in next to no time flat. If it's intentional, I'd like to know what it is, 'cuz it's scary.

At least I'm not asking for more power, I'm asking for more variety. My proposal was to set the zero point for abilities at 10, then apply the adjustments but double their absolute values. If you dump something to 3, you should feel the bite; if you pump it to 18 or beyond, you should feel the punch. That way the challenge would become to play a build to its strengths, assuming that the game is still tuned to support a broad variety of builds within classes. The design challenge would be to make all the abilities roughly equally appealing to all the classes. If you keep the stats at reasonable values ti would play more or less as now; if you minmaxed, you would have to work around your weaknesses in order to be able to exploit your strengths. It would also permit a certain amount of minmaxing, yes. I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing; it was fairly central to the IE games and their successors too. Clever minmaxer-tactitians should be able to come up with builds, party compositions, and tactics that are objectively better. That's kind of the point, even. Edit: my original proposal suggested putting in warnings in the CC UI if you dumped stats, and notes in the ability description to the same effect, so new players wouldn't unknowingly gimp themselves. Think of it as a hardcore mode for character creation.

Huh, I would've thought aristocrat, monocle and all...

Yeh, needs moar talents. I wouldn't object to being able to choose between, say, more spell slots and spiritshift-related talents, so you could end up with a druid who only has 2 slots/level but correspondingly more, more powerful, more versatile, and longer-lasting spiritshift form abilities. I think learning the spells wizard-style goes against the concept. For one thing, where do you keep them? Another grimoire, but made of wood?

@Silent Winter is right, although we don't know if they'll tweak the formula instead of just using a straight-up fraction. Soloing will get you to level up faster, although possibly not six times faster. That could be problematic since you'd hit the level cap around when you'd be at level 2 when playing with a full party which would make the rest of the game a little boring maybe.

I also like the three skeletons. Having them hang around drinking tea after the fight just feels wrong though. Just slash the duration and/or stamina, and we're golden.

In general I prefer ability score-less systems. Ability scores are mechanically an unnecessary complication. They're only really helpful for defining your character, i.e. role-playing. But. Adjusting ability scores for maximum impact was a BIG part of the IE game 'feel,' flawed as the D&D ability system, cookie-cutter builds and all, is. I feel strongly that if you have an ability score system in place, nerfing it to insignificance is a mistake. Make it matter, or take it out. Currently it feels like it's paying lip service to the IE games without the meat. In other words, I respectfully disagree with the OP. Keep the "no dump stats" design goal, but double the effects. Make it sting if we dump something to 3, and pay off if we pump it to 18.

:eyeroll:

Have we even been playing the same game? A wizard has 4 uses of each spell from L1 thru 4, all potentially different. That's 16 active-use abilities, plus Arcane Veil. Fighters have two modal abilities, that always-on regeneration thing and Defender mode, plus Knockdown, and slowly gain more mostly modal abilities. How do you get from that to "every class needs to have the same amount of abilities?" Seriously, it sounds like you haven't even tried the beta.

That's just like your opinion man. I like the attribute system fine, except that it needs to be more impactful. It's certainly miles better than D&D's already.

I finally got around to play a rogue. Some thoughts. After playing a muscle wizard, paladin, ranger, and chanter, it feels a little underwhelming. Pumped Dex, Mig, and Res. My tactic was to pull the enemies with BB Fighter, then flank them with BB Rogue and Murderhobo. I had BB Fighter do a Knockdown, one of the rogues a Hobble, and then wailed away. It worked well enough, as in I managed to kill lots of creatures without taking too much damage, while intentionally restricting use of those mad-powerful priest buffs, but it took a good deal longer to kill individual enemies this way than by blasting them with spells. I understand the design intent of the rogue is to excel at point damage. That didn't really seem to be the case though. I was dual wielding a fine sword (piercing/slashing) and fine dagger (piercing), and the experience was broadly similar with Medreth & co, that orlan he was chasing, the beetles, and the spiders. (At that point Mr. Ogre moonwalked off into the landscape and broke my quest, so I left it at that.) It may be that I'm not using weapons optimally; if so I may withdraw this comment, but as it is I think rogues need to be beefed up a bit. If their role is to do point status effects and damage, both the status effects and the damage ought to be more dramatic.

To reproduce: Fight the spiders in the ogre cave. Observed: I have noticed that relatively frequently my characters fighting the spiders very quickly lose all health (not Stamina), and keel over Maimed. The health can go down from 100% to zero in a single combat. I was under the impression that this should not happen; that you can lose at most 25% of your health during an individual fight, if stamina regeneration effects are not applied. In any case, this has happened on several occasions, but not always. I suspect it may be a bug.

To reproduce: grab the top of the combat log pane and drag it up to expand it. Observed: it's possible to expand it past the top of the screen. After that, there's no way to shrink it again, since the mouse can't reach the drag handle.

I wasn't asking you how you think the IE/NWN games should have been. I was--still am--taking you to task about what you said about the P:E classes compared to the IE classes, as they actually were. Earlier on, didn't you say that P:E wizards are just like P:E archers except with sparkly arrows? Also something about MMO-esque?* Basically, I'm trying to get a handle on your criticism, but not much luck here. So exactly what do you think is worse about P:E's classes than IE classes? *Yes, you did. I checked.

Nor call it Pathfinder (unless you have the license, as Obsidian does now), nor d20, nor -- unless you want to risk a lawsuit -- point out that your ruleset is, in fact, a clone. But yes, other than that, you could. Which is what I've been saying all along.

Unfortunately, no. Ranger gameplay is based on the shared health pool with Mr. Bear. The experience is completely different from playing a ranged fighter. Ehm, it does actually mean that. If you can twist the cookie-cutter to make different shaped cookies and they still taste good, then you have eliminated cookie-cutter builds, by definition. Why?

Sorry, my bad: I meant the d20 System Trademark License, not the OGL. I.e., you can "clone" d20 if you remove all the trademarked elements, and make a computer game based on that. But you can't make a computer game and still use the trademarked elements of d20.