PrimeJunta

@Iucounu Yes, a high stam/low health fighter would have even less strategic endurance, but a low stam/high health fighter be the contrary -- wouldn't last as long in an individual fight, but could get through more of them before depleting the health reserve. Giving the player a measure of control over the ratio would let us decide whether we favor strategic or tactical staying power.

@Pray why not?

I understand that the Health/Endurance ratio is fixed at 1:1, with damage ratio at 1:4 or 1:8 for barbarians. I also understand that this wasn't always so. I think it would be a good idea to unlink the ratio, for example by associating health with Might and endurance with Willpower (or some other abilities). Partly because of the heavy health costs of the standard fighter tactic (as discussed here) but mostly because it would make it possible to weight your characters differently. You could pump Endurance to make a character that's tough to take down but needs to rest more frequently, or Health to make one who's a bit more fragile in a fight but gets up to fight again more times without having to rest. I believe this would be a simple way to add more variety to party-building.

I would prefer a pop-up levelling window. I don't really care all that much though. This works fine and we won't be looking at it all that much. No point changing it at this point IMO. Perhaps rethink it for the expansion or sequel.

@Labadal that is cool... and weirdly disturbing. Do you know the rationale behind the design? What are those spider legs supposed to do?

Entirely unlike the universally calm, positive, and humble people posting on this forum, for example.

@Gfted1, there is no resurrection in P:E. If a party member dies, he stays dead. And dead men don't wear plaid, or earn XP.

@Namutree: Continuing traditional Finn thread-hijack -- namu is also Finnish for 'goodie,' as in piece of candy or similar. Would be a good name for a cat here too.

Shadowrun Returns is a combat-focused RPG with no combat XP. It has many problems, but XP mechanics are not among them (IMO as always).

I think I will name my pet piglet Lambchop.

I live on that street, but it also sounds like a Maori war dance.

I hope so. I'm already planning the names for my characters. I definitely want a suitable name for the pet of Dyrtipix the Aedyran barbarian aristocrat. (If I make an Aumaua from Rauatai, he'll be named Hakaniemenkatu. That's only funny if you're a Finn though.)

That one's easy. If you have character advancement and want to give the player a degree of control over it, you need some form of 'currency' with which to buy it. XP is a simple, general, and workable solution to this problem. Not the only one of course but IMO better than most of the alternatives. "Why have ability scores, classes, or levels at all then huh?" would have been a better question. They are IMO an unnecessary layer of complexity. I prefer systems where you buy abilities directly. FWIW I also like Numenera's solution of having other things to spend XP on than character advancement.

I recently played Shadowrun Returns: Dragonfall. I enjoyed it a lot. It forces you into combat all the time, and does not have combat XP. I did not miss it. Getting XP rewards when progressing in the quests felt entirely adequate. Just my experience, of course.

IIRC Josh said somewhere that the system is supposed to scale up to level 50. That'd leave room for a high-powered sequel, with levels roughly analogous to (A)D&D. The abilities the characters showed off looked very similar to what a level 5 D&D character would have, too. Allowing for adjustments like making the lowest levels somewhat less fragile and nerfing high-level spellcasters somewhat to keep rough parity with non-casters, I think D&D levels give a pretty good idea of what to expect with P:E levels.

Edit: never mind

dat hammer

As an aside, killing the ogre isn't worth XP either. Josh said there are other ways to deal with him as well. The objective was to stop the ogre from stealing the farmer's pigs. That's worth XP.

No. But all of them are romance. And that's much better.

They've been pretty ambivalent about EA in their public statements. I'm betting they won't do it. If they're releasing by the end of the year, there isn't even all that much time for it.

Yes, that's correct. You're probably wise to pass; you'll enjoy the real thing more. I meant to but failed my Will save.

I'm with @Sensuki on this one. No command queue please.

My reaction to the lightning bolt was much as yours. Then I remembered how they look in the IE engine, and immediately felt better. They are very IE-ey.

One of my favorite options in fact. I think some of them were overpowered and had too-long durations; entangle, web, or stinking cloud were something of win buttons at times. If they had expired after a few rounds things would've been more interesting (and also less waiting around for them to expire after the battle was won).

Embedded here BTW I also noticed how fighters are a strategic resource. Their ability to pin down beasties and stay standing while the rest of the party whacks them is massively useful, but costs a lot of health. I thought that'd be the standard tactic for most combats, but it looks like that's something to reserve for the big battles or else you'll have to rest a quite a lot. Also looks like fighters really need to pump Deflection and Health if they want to play that combat role a lot. Am wondering if there would be less costly ways of pinning down beasties. Rogues clearly had some ability that does that, there was the Halt spell (very short duration), perhaps more. Are traps in? Would it have been possible to sneak in a rogue to place a bear trap, then lure the ogre into it and stick it full of arrows as it struggles to free itself?