mikayel

Well, they are actually split further than that -- there are multiple schools within the two sections, and even then, Druids which are "divine" casters also get their own unique spells, as do Bards, Paladins, and Rangers. So yeah, it is divided further. But the real reason they are divided as arcane and divine? Is because Arcane has casting penalties for armor and Divine doesn't, and some spells that are shared are attained at different levels.

@Tuco Benedicto See, I disagree, Wizard casting is more important than Sorcerer casting in many ways -- not the least of which is that a Wizard can prepare for any type of challenge by preparing the appropriate spells where-as a Sorcerer is always in a niche. I'd compare it to Batman and Superman. Batman has a multitude of gadgets that he brings along on whatever adventure that are fitting, made to counter his enemies, support his allies, and often get the job done in ways other than "bang, boom, kerplow". He is a Wizard. He sometimes runs out of some tools, and there are certain tools that are no-brainers to bring everywhere (grappling hook), but he fixes his arsenal per challenge. Superman on the other hand has about 5 or 6 things he can do a whole lot and they're nearly all in the realm of destroying, bashing, cutting, or shattering -- however, throw him in a puzzle situation where he can't break or destroy his way through and he's useless. Superman is a sorcerer. You get what I mean? Versatility over specialization. Now, if you want EVERY KNOWN SPELL to abide by the spell-points-per-level system like in KotC I'd just disagree because that'd make casters even more ridiculously overpowered than they already are. Clerics especially... jesus... a Favored Soul with full spell book (since clerics auto-get all spells on level ups)... I mean... why even bother making other classes?

Clearly then you and I play the game very differently sir, for I never ran into those problems. Then again, why limit yourself to a single class when you can dual-class or multi-class? Soloing BG 1 as a wizard is harder, I agree, but that's because of the way the class is built -- this is something that you know going into the game and is part of that extra challenge when you choose to solo as a wizard. Think of it as the rite of initiation that a young novitiate goes through to learn of the world. At first the world is strange, unforgiving, and alien... but over time he learns the way things work, how to survive, how to make money and find work, and in time develops those skills until the formerly scary world is just another place that he has conquered. That'd be something like going from level 1 wizard to level 7 wizard, which isn't terribly difficult if you do some quests and not bother fighting gibberlings or xvarts. Anyway, just because you didn't enjoy playing a solo mage doesn't mean others don't, and more to the point, just because a single class my not be the ideal class to solo a game in doesn't mean that it should be fundamentally revamped when originally conceived for a party based game.

Dear lord. First off, 2 of the 5 IE games featured sorcerers (BG 2 and IWD 2, IWD 2 even used 3E rules [in which sorcerers use spell-points-per-level]) unless you're arbitrarily choosing to ignore nearly half the games using this engine. Secondly, multiple people referenced KotC's system and Chaos Chronicles' system as "alternatives" to Vancian casting when they are just D&D sorcerer rules that the devs already know about extremely well. If they had just posted "Maybe use sorcere/bard rules?" or "spell-points-per-level" I wouldn't have said anything, but instead the thread is full of people misrepresenting the system that they are attempting to support. If you want names, Tuco Benedicto (sorry if I mispelled that) mentions Chaos Chronicles repeatedly, and another poster a few pages back mentioned KotC style casting to which I responded "that's just bard style casting". As for the ridiculous strawman you built for me with the "I Hate D&D but looovvvveee this____" condition, forget it -- that's just ridiculous to even oblige. My point, going back to my first post and avoiding this ridiculous quote-a-thon, is that if you are not even aware that the system you are championing "as an alternative" is already extremely well known to the developers and is in fact a subset of D&D casting, then perhaps just don't post? Finally, I am not mocking people -- I am instead asking them to exercise restraint in posting things they are not entirely certain of.

You have an opinion, that's cool, but given that many would disagree -- let's just say that the game won't be tailor made to a single gamer's style, yeah? Mages... boring in BG2... indeed... all the breach and pierce and support/debuff spells alone had people hitting pause and clicking through menus. And a Monk isn't boring? You just melee **** with the occasional quivering or stunning fist.

I never mentioned Vancian casting in that post -- I mentioned people railing against D&D style casting by using D&D rules, unknowingly, as a refuting point. People referenced Chaos Chronicles and KotC as alternates, which are already covered in D&D. It should be blatantly clear that the people developing this game, people who have already developed games using both Vancian and non-Vancian casting in D&D games, are intimately familiar with the Sorcerer's Spell-Points-per-level system. As such, people offering alternatives they do not properly understand in neither origin nor design shouldn't try to save the day with the same recurring comment over, and over, and over. Please don't try to jump at my throat because you think you caught some mistake in my logic.

I find it ever-increasingly hilarious (and simultaneously frustrating) that people keep using D&D Sorcerer and Bard casting rules in an effort to refute "D&D style casting". Look guys, if you don't know what the systems are or if you are only familiar with 2-3 games' style of magic systems, then maybe just stay out of the conversation?

KotC used the d&d sorcerer rules for casting.

Umm... so why don't you just use the spell then? Why do you need a hindsight safety net? Pick spells for how interesting and useful they might be, and use them as according to what you expect to face. If you're going into a volcano, then obviously don't pick fire spells. If you are in the ice fortress, then skip out on cold spells. It's... it's really not that hard. I mean, most dungeons literally paint you a picture of what kind of enemies you are facing well before its "too late" to fix your tactics.

Yes, having the perfect game would indeed be perfect. But the reason why we are discussing mechanics is because whether or not you can sneak, stab, talk, finesse, item, story-line, or magic your way through game-encounters is irrelevant when it comes down to casting spells, for which you still need a working system that is not full of holes.

Spider worshiping androgynous incestuous weirdos with a paradoxical inferiority/superiority complex and the most played out hero ever? Get the hell out of my gaming world.

You may want to edit that post: "if magic is not essential for the right spells" -- what?

My overly long thoughts: Based on the recurrence of that prepared "suite" comment it would seem they have their magic system more or less in mind. Personally, I'm OK with skipping on the Vancian system, but I feel most people's complaints are... uhh misguided, I guess would be the word? "You don't know what to expect, and thus you may pre-select bad spells" -- that's the whole point of adventuring right? The goal of a wizard (in contrast to a sorcerer) is that they have the versatility to be prepared for anything via a larger spell selection, and as such they shouldn't be wading into a dungeon with all of their 3rd level slots full of fireball. They should include utility spells and multiple energy type attack spells, as well as support and crowd control spells. The whole point is to be prepared for a multitude of situations. If you're choosing to limit yourself then... well, learn to play better I guess? "I just rest after every battle" -- if you want the game system to stop you from using munchkin tactics, then ok -- just institute a very basic timer that doesn't allow you to rest immediately after resting. Divine Divinity did it, and it worked pretty well. There could be an in-game counter that doesn't let your characters rest unless they either take a heinous amount of damage and/or a certain amount of in-game hours have passed (I am assuming the game will have night/day cycles and so a timer will already be in place). Make resting in dungeons a no-go, it seems suicidal to go into a were-badger Warren and just think "whelp, we don't know what's past that corner to let's set up camp here for 8 hours". The IE style of "you have been beset by monsters" works fine too so long as there's a VERY HIGH RATE of that happening, but I'd also encourage things like the monsters not waking you up until its too late and you're already dead (coup de grace). Also, this rest-abuse is common in any game system -- mana systems that feature full mana regen after resting are still in this category, meaning this is not a Vancian-unique pitfall. "Mana has more versatility" -- mana systems traditionally have far fewer spells because of the potential abuse they can give, especially if it turns into a potion-chugging fest. Can you imagine having every D&D spell and being able to cast any of them and slamming mana potions? Chain-binding meteor storm, abi-dalzim's, and friggin summon spells... blah. This could easily turn into late-game jRPG where you just blast your uber-spell and then chug the now-extremely-affordable mana potions. Now, if potions and other mana restoration is handled in a way that limits how FAST you can regenerate mana then ok. Something perhaps like the Witcher where mana potions just increased the regeneration rate and couldn't be stacked, so either you had to have the character build to speed it up even more or just wait it out for mana regen. I'd even be ok with something like Kult's HP system where quickly restoring HP led to a lower max hp (temporarily, until you rested) than waiting for it to go very low -- thus risking dying before you can heal.

Yes, those are Arya Stark's Dire Wolf's pack. If we're talking customization, I'll take ToEE style customization any day. As for spending time in a face molding mini game like Mass Effect. ... No.

Whether the numbers are big or not mostly depends on the system. In Bloodlines you increased your attributes, including base stats, at each level up. In D&D esque systems your base stats never change and most of your derived stats automatically increase with you only putting points directly into skills/feats. Low XP systems won't work in such a system, and my wild guess is that Eternity's new system is going to be like the latter.

Unless the game system is to be modified to involve damage soak, damage deflection, and general dodge (Armor Class) this time of argument is mostly unnecessary. A buckler won't do anything against a direct hit from a bludgeoning weapon -- it is useful for piercing and light-slashing weapons. The game most likely will have a much more simplified or abstracted system in which armaments give either a direct soak threshold (damage resistance) a general dodge (armor class) or a combination of both, in which case things will be represented with concept like bigger numbers are better. After all, in D&D games a buckler+4 is better than a tower shield +0, and can be used in tandem with a two-handed weapon or dual-wielded weapons, but that boils down to a magical enhancement -- I guess the shield magically flies and deflects damage or something. None-the-less, this is all represented by a simple "get hit" and "don't get hit" mechanic, there is no "get hit, take no damage because you deflected, step in closer" mechanic. Secondly; just because a very small and easy to carry armament was used very commonly does not mean that it is a superior defensive armament than a larger one. All knights carried daggers as well, does that mean that daggers are better than long swords or arming swords? I mean, after all, look at those paintings of knights with daggers on their belts but no swords...

Or, like, we could just encourage the artists to not make fugly armor to begin with (thinking of NWN 1's leather armor, or damn near everything in Dragon Age).

This. I would also be open to the idea that your spells scale not with caster level but with some kind of attribute if said attributes are growing (like a spell casting skill, or if "int" is basically something you put points into on level ups). As for the animation -- I couldn't care less. ToEE's spell animations were fine, simple and to the point, even if some of them were literally just colored lines moving around. It seems that in nearly every post I am making in this forum I might as well just say "function over form".

All quest rewards should scale by height. **** those short ornery bastards.

Dear god no. Function over form in all capacity. If the lads and ladies at Obsidian find they have time to kill and nothing better to do, then maybe, but I'd rather they devise, implement, and balance actual functions that aren't relegated to the realm of dolly dress up. If we are talking about armor that can "change" how about discussing crafting systems that aren't ridiculous, painful, imbalanced, or useless? In such a case perhaps allow someone to select from pre-existing models since they are "making it themselves", but otherwise no. Armor and equipment is about function, not appearance -- appearance came later when people wanted to show off how rich or important they (thought they) were.

Vampires are easily playable in D&D if you are with a competent group who is willing to use the rules placed before them. There is clearly a difference in "vampires" when you compare a whole game setting/system that revolves around vampires to a game setting/system that only includes them as a PC or NPC. Regardless, vampires can be played just as any other PC in D&D games. As can Minotaurs, Frost Giants, Bearded Devils, and Ropers. The question is, would you enjoy playing as them? Would your group? And what would the cost be to your game in general? I would prefer a setting that excludes annoying creatures that are included for the sake of novelty like Cactus-people and instead uses creatures in an interesting manner that, above all else, fit the setting. I'm thinking of quick-witted debates with war deserting Black Abishai and exchanges with incorporeal hive-mind like beings (ghosts). Pretty much the whole of Arcanum is a great example of ecosystems, species, histories, cultures, and all subsequent connections of those things done well. I'll pass on Drow that are oh so bothered by society's expectations of them and what their gut tells them. Desires of being half shark-alligator and half man or some kind of double-hobbit are more for ridiculous games that do not take themselves seriously. It would seem, based on as little as we know about Eternity, that the setting is attempting to be serious and as such any humor would need to be subtle.

So... do you guys want NEW non-human species or just the same crap as before? Because so far nothing particularly new has been suggested. Possibly for good reason. China Mieville style beetle-headed women and cactus people is pretty... stupid. You want what... sentient constructs? Things that are basically human but with different skin and teeth and persecuted? You want insect people with 4 arms? How about abberations, changelings, and naga? Cuz all those things have been done, and all those things exist in the most typical of fantasy settings: Forgotten Realms D&D. How about they just focus on making what they have work well, and we skip the palette swaps and cosmetic arms, nyeah? Mask of the Betrayer is a great example of taking an only moderately unique setting and making it a great game by expanding on the relationships, ties, connections, and themes that permeate throughout the setting and characters that are all... well... basically "typical fantasy". Those are called Dwarves. Elves, as Tolkien conceived them, are specifically meant to be ubermenschen as based on Norse and old English mythos. Sidenote: Elves were mostly mischeivous, evil, or otherwise "bad". Dwarves were "good". I am, however, reminded of a half-elf in Divine Divinity who had a beard. The character can even question him about it and is given a somewhat aloof response about people doing what they were basically built to: fornicating.