Osvir

"Save yourself". I like it a lot great reason not to die, "Soul" related? Sense of -early game- urgency? Reflecting a little bit more on the thread... I think I'm just expressing some "disgust" for generic plots. What about mid-game, or late-game? Is there a point in the game where the "state" of the world is great enough for others to be sucked into it? A possible martyrdom mid-game? A point in the game where stuff is just "bad" and companions are deep into the mess that they'd continue without the main character (possibly affecting the epilogue differently & multiple endings?). red dead redemption spoilers The "Goal" has not been met and there are others who have reason to carry on and can do it without the previous main character, a certain point where the character is possibly expendable (specially at the very end boss fight/dungeon). Unless (like stated) serving an even higher purpose (for sequels). Baldur's Gate does this best in my opinion, where the character can be anyone on both BG1 or BG2, so you can start from scratch (either disregarding whatever happened in the first one making your own backstory, or you can continue on with your previous character). In ME (with the front figure~Commander Shepard... which the party probably would have done well without too). Od Nua Level 13 to 15 "All Possible 'Make-this-game-Hardcore' Options/Mods On"-Difficulty on Ironman? Keeping one character alive through that. Okay, pretty hardcore, I've got to admit. Story-wise, such as at the end-game final boss, and you've fulfilled all tasks except beating the final boss I don't see why not. Or like previously said, that there comes a point where the companions are dragged into the mess well enough to continue and possibly succeed without the main character. EDIT: I haven't played D&D and don't entirely know how it works but, if you play a party with a DM, you make a character and he dies (permadeath), does that mean the game ends for your other friends as well, or do you re-roll by yourself and jump in with a new character?

^Likewise, if they've been around the entire game, what drives them to not finish the quest? You're in the final dungeon, about to face the last boss, but the main character died. What is the reason the party just can't defeat Sarevok by themselves? Is there something special about the Bhaalspawn that is required in the slaying of another Bhaalspawn? I'd say the companions in BG are enough by themselves, roleplayingly it would be difficult for them of course, mechanically not so much (really). What is the story? What keeps the main character going on, and why is the main character the only one who can fulfill it, some sort of knowledge, some sort of "bond" with the world? (The character dies = the world physically ends?) What is the companions agenda to even begin traveling with you to start? What makes them interested in the journey or whatever reason they find to join the group? What do they hope to achieve by joining bands with the main character? Basically motivations, what is the motivations for the party to not being able to continue? If you just met the party and got offed, and they barely know the reason why you are out on your quest, would that mean that the Event or the Story is only related to the main character and doesn't really pose a danger to the world? How important is the Event and what happens to the World if the main character dies? As I've said, if the character's soul is a key to all answers and the unlocking of Pandora's Box, yes then this entire idea is out of sync and into the sink. If the character's body is a key to all answers instead, then just carrying it forward should be enough for the companions to progress without the main character (and use the body as the "key" for situations). If the "Body" is simply harboring an important piece of a "Soul" perhaps that is all that is needed to "unlock" the mysterious unknown "wtf????" secrets. Like carrying around an artifact. What makes the main character so important in the world, apart from being the main character? If the reason for the character to be alive is flaky (Like Baldur's Gate 1), I don't see why I wouldn't be able to progress forward. In PS:T I 100% don't see the main character dying because the main character is important enough and for the resolution of the story, but then again you get resurrected on the slab when you die (Don't know higher difficulty modes, haven't played in a while now but I think I'm playing on Core rules). In PS:T the Nameless One is pretty much the story, and figuring out who the Nameless One is. In BG your main character doesn't really matter, for BG2 it does, but not for BG by itself and many characters fulfill the reason to progress (Jaheira+Khalid most definitely, Kivan too, Xan goes into that bin as well). Jaheira+Khalid would investigate Nashkel without the main character, Minsc would save Dynaheir, Kivan would kill Tazok on his own (or try). Many characters have motivations to keep treading on without the main character, yet you can't. Sure, you're trying to figure out who the "Bhaalspawn" really is but in the end you don't need that to defeat Sarevok. How I see the story In Baldur's Gate and it is "open ended" in a way that anyone could fulfill it (Bhaalspawn or not): 1. There is trouble in the world 2. Figure it out 3. Solve it

There should only be "One" of the Ancient Demons which you've learned to know the true name of, which (in my opinion) should mean that if it dies it dies. Or goes into some sort of "Immortality" process and takes several days to re-channel (putting it's soul back together or w/e). I'd prefer if it died though (as in, you can't summon it again) <- If mortality mode is on. Skeletons would obviously need corpses, or ingredients (Ash/Bone Meal). Tamed animals (for a Ranger) shouldn't be summoned (if you can tame at all). Likewise for a Druid if they also can tame. Otherwise Druids could simply summon spirit animals~ Minor summoned "minions" should be abundant in a way that you can summon more of the type, but not that you'd be able to create your own army. Perhaps you could customize each and every one you summon (slightly, X-Com style in a way that you can name all of them). You could have a "Hall of Fame" for those minions you had before. The first 3 Imps you have could be named "Red", "Blue" and "Green" for simplicity of concept, and you summon them (cycling between them). Until... let's say "Red" dies, you'd have to make up a new one ("Purple" maybe). Not affecting the narrative of the game, but the narrative of your own imagined story. Looking for Group, Richard's minion is great (link is to Page 1 of LFG, if you're interested in reading. It started as a WoW parody). Spoiler if you're interested in reading (which I recommend if you want to get the jist of the idea, or simply a recommendation because the series is pretty good): Here is some with the Imp (the red guy at the bottom of the page, continues on for a couple of pages). On "vision" (Sight/Field of View): Summoned creatures should provide vision (Something they don't do in Baldur's Gate).

I agree. Err, not entirely on with the kitchen sink thing but mostly with your thoughts. Basically I am discussing this idea/thought with lots of "IFs" in mind. IF other party members can act as "Front figures" in conversations, if the game is designed to allow the companions to continue the story with or without the main character, then being able to continue the story "A.D." should come naturally and automatically (a.k.a. it could mechanically/physically be possible). Now, not saying that the dialogue should be entirely different if your main character dies, simply that another character could act as the "Leader" of the party and make the decisions with some minor narrative bouncing back to the character in question that's already designed in there to a start. Perhaps even... -wild idea- being able to have the "Soul" of the main character with you still, but his physical body dead, so you'd be able to continue the narrative as a mere "Spirit", but you wouldn't be able to fight with the main character anymore... yes yes I know, I'm just throwing a thought out there, even if it is quite horrible xD interesting, in my opinion, but horrible. If other party members can't act as "Front figures" in conversations this is a "in the sink" idea as there wouldn't be anything that could progress the story, or if the companions don't have enough motivation to go on without the main character. Would Minsc & Dynaheir stop fighting to save the world from Sarevok? Maybe not, but would Xzar and Montaron? Probably. So it'd require every character to have enough reason to continue without the main character. The narrative would be, of course, way less without the main character so that'd be something to sacrifice. I can imagine the game turning very grey in decisions without a main character, and it'd probably be a little bit more clunkier dialogues. All I'm really trying to get at is the possibility of it happening, and not having an "End of the World" scenario because the main character was the "Last Shining Ray Light of Hope" which has been overplayed countless times, but more of a "Catalyst" type of Main Character "He was there man!" kind of. Perhaps even the one who "started" the whole thing... is the main required to end the whole thing as well? Is Sarevok beatable without the Bhaalspawn? I'd like to say yes. In some ways I also want to see this happening (as a possibility) as a random event. You play the game then.. sh... your character died! But you can continue on the story and progress the game. Albeit a little bit rougher now, likewise something totally random just happened. Like I said in the other post (Game A-B), some could experience this early-, mid-, late-game. Or maybe not at all. I can see how it totally can't work too, but that's related to how the game is designed. Like, if the main character is the generic "Jesus" savior then sure, then it gets difficult to progress. Unless (like I also said further up and in another post) you could simply just carry the body around (perhaps a Cipher could puppeteer the body, a Necromancer Wizard animating the body?). Maybe the "Body" is special somehow, and you don't need the "Mind" of the Main Character, but the "Presence" of the Main Character (physically). Maybe by carrying the "Body" around you could still make decisions (communicating "Soul" to "Soul", kind of Demon Souls-esque) and "in spirit" (heh, unintended pun) you'd still have your character around, but physically (for combat etc. etc.) you wouldn't, so it'd up the difficulty naturally as well. <- That probably goes in the "Resurrecting Main Character into Undead?"-Pile as well. Finally, I am ambivalent, as always. These thoughts/ideas/topics/threads are mostly "Is there anything insightful to learn from this?"~

Some thoughts on the "In Skyrim you can block with a torch and it doesn't break"... well? Are P:E's torches unbreakable as well or do they break if you block with them? I don't see why not, that'd be pretty interesting in my opinion. Fighting with the torch in your off-hand might give you some minor bonus to Fire Damage but with a 1-5 dice roll (out of 10 numbered dice) it could break. Obviously some people dislike the fact that the torch in Skyrim is unbreakable, so what say you about making the torch breakable in P:E? Sounds fair, and I kind of personally like that idea. Conceptual dice rolls: 1-5 = Critical Miss, Torch Breaks 6-8 = Standard hit, enemy takes minor fire damage 9-10 = Critical Hit, enemy starts burning, taking damage over time

^If as an "Option" on Ironman, both you and me could get the "Option" to play like we want to try and play. All I'm saying is that it'd be more difficult if it was locked out (mechanically) rather than "self-discipline". Even with "Self-Discipline" a la "I shall not use the AH for maximum difficulty!" or "Self-Induced-Difficulty", mechanically the AH would still be there. In theory, both locking yourself out and the game locking you out gives the same results. Practically, locking it out "Closed for business" type of thing mechanically, makes it physically more difficult. You just don't have that option at all, if it could be turned "Off". @All: Makes me a little bit curious on "How Hardcore should Hardcore be?" or "How Hardcore do you want to play Hardcore?".

@Sharp_One: not interested EDIT: I think your thoughts are valid, I'm just not interested in the tone. 2nd EDIT: Oh whatever~ I'm taking a full dose of passion. Role-playing so I get what you are misunderstanding. I meant write the story rather than write the character's story. Be a part of the creative process and create your own story in the world with the assets provided, rather than create your unique character in an already pre-generated story. Linearity is also part of this topic, with the possibility of the main character dying you remove tons of linearity.

I agree. But being able to lock it out mechanically also removes any and all of the safety of being able to use it, you might get across half-the game on Ironman mode, lost half of your party. You could go to the Adventurers Hall to build up a new party, if it costs money it'll be difficult, but making it even more difficult for you would be to lock it out entirely (as in "impossibility" to hire more party members)

* 1st Should Economy cost more on higher difficulty? In Baldur's Gate (once upon a time) I played one game with "Tactical Settings". It made Bandit Raids more rough and more difficult, but more important for this thread, it made the Iron Crisis real. Items broke more often (due to the Iron Crisis), and due to the Iron Shortage all of the "iron" items cost a ton more (and breaking way easier). I think a Short Sword cost around 100~ gold or something similar, whilst on an original vanilla game it goes for something like 10-15 gold. * 2nd Adventurer's Hall also included? This question is regarding the Adventurer's Hall specifically because I am curious to know what people think about companions costing gold from the Adventurer's Hall. If this is the case "Companions for Hire" that is, would they cost even more on... let's say Hardcore? Could you perhaps even be able to "Shut off" the Adventurer's Hall on Hardcore? (In essence: Not being able to hire companions for Hardcore difficulty). * 3rd Adventurer's Hall "Off" on Hardcore? This question is related to the Adventurer's Hall & Hardcore difficulty, or as an option regardless of difficulty. Excluding yourself from the possibility to hire "extras", making the game more difficult naturally and automatically (handicapping yourself, basically). I personally think that if you can turn it "Off" it'd be way more difficult. However, you could just not use it if you don't want to use it, but locking yourself out from it entirely also removes any thoughts of "Backup plans". Without the Adventurers Hall occupying the sub-conscious of the back of your head, it being "Closed" would and should cause even more carefulness in progression of the story. * 4th Why should Economy be affected by higher difficulty? In my opinion, it adds immersion and realism. At least it did for me with BG with Tactics Mods. Finally, this is a lot on "Hardcore", how could it work on easier modes? Is the Adventurers Hall "Free to Hire" on Casual mode?

These are some of my thoughts on inventory management. Windows & Log

What if you don't need your character, but merely his body? This way, if the main character dies, your party has to carry around the body everywhere or stash it until needed in plot. Hardcore? Or to be able to resurrect as an undead later I am not advocating for this idea because I want an easy game, but an interesting game with lots of options. You're talking to me as if I don't know how to roleplay a character... I prefer to roleplay a story, rather than an individual character. What is the threat of the world that makes the party move forward? Why is the main character so important? In Baldur's Gate I felt the Candlekeep guy that was thrown at us was rather uninspiring and hard to have fun with (which is why I made up my character, a second character, in a multiplayer game who follows the Bhaalspawn around. Now that's roleplaying folks!). If my Luke Skywalker dies, I'd like to be able to (as an option) to continue with Chewbacca, Han Solo & Leia, I'd like to try and defeat Darth Vader without him. Likewise, if Han Solo dies, I'd still like to move on. If my entire party gets obliterated (which should be often on Hardcore, if you do not play carefully/tactically) then that should be (in my opinion) game over. So encounters in P:E should be difficult as is that getting a new companion, and loosing a new companion, should both be difficult stuff to manage and deal with. This means that your character should be mortal as well, just as much as Forton is. "Mortality is a big business" to quote Josh. And unless the main character is some generic "Key to the Future!" type character then I can understand "Game Over". If not, we could get something new or something that twists the story depending on "chance". The point* Game A: Main character dies early game Game B: Main character dies mid-game Game C: Main character dies late game Game D: Main character doesn't die All 4 of these would create new situations, Game A (as an example) would play the story you are playing differently from Game B. I hope that Hardcore makes it difficult for me, regardless if the main player dies or not. Making a poll about this -> (Economy & Difficulty) it is related to this whole idea and thread: With a higher difficulty, wouldn't everything cost much more? Some mods with BG made the Iron Crisis, Bandit Raids and Iron Items all more difficult to handle (weapons/armor breaking more regularly, bandit raids actually matter through the entire game and all Iron/Steel weapons costs a fortune). If a Short Sword costs 15 Gold on a regular mode, with these "Tactical Mod" settings the Short Sword would cost around 100~ gold. Not to mention that it'd probably break in the first fight against those more difficult bandit raids. It made the game challenging and way more immersible. Why is this interesting? It'd mean that, if companions cost anything at the Adventurer's Hall, on Hardcore difficulty it'd just be too expensive to buy a new companion just because one of your companions died, it'd be an economic choice "Should I sacrifice all my gold for a new companion or should I spend it on making the current party stronger?" <- a valid question in my opinion. What with souls being able to travel from one being to another... couldn't the main character embody a new character if he/she dies? Could the main character's soul cloak a new body/vessel? What is so special about the main character, after all? *The point is the possibility of this happening. If you love your character to death you'd reload, but if you want to progress the story, you could. That's what I'm advocating for. You could transcend "Roleplaying my character" and enter the world of "Roleplaying my story". Pulling out the "Option?" argument/question. Could there be an option or a button that I could flick On/Off somehow? "Main Character Mortality" type of thing where I can continue the game even if the main character dies. I remember reading.... was it at Formspring? For Fallout: New Vegas, one of their beta testers managed to create a situation in the game that was not designed or thought out but with the assets in the game he managed to do it. Got in bad favor with one faction that began hunting him, and another faction as well (they began sending assassins after the character). Both of these factions are enemies in the game, so when the beta tester chose to rest in the game, the factions (who were enemies) spawned (assassins) and began fighting each other instead of fighting the main character. That is kind of what I hope, take it with a pinch of salt, that the game would be designed to be able to continue without the main character. Perhaps a "Game Over" screen that allows you to choose "Continue with Current Party" or "Perma-Death/Restart/Reload". Also, all of you who talk about being Hardcore... how Hardcore would it be for Leia, Chewbacca and Han Solo to defeat Darth Vader+Emperor? It'd be pretty tough for them without Luke, no?

I don't think this topic fits in the P:E section, had I been a mod I would have moved it. Which is what will probably happen as this isn't P:E related, more "Kickstarter" related (making this topic more valid when the Kickstarter was going on). I think getting in on the forums is actually a good thing, Black Isle gets a narrowed down player base that can help with pre-production and discuss design choices and/or even help with lore and stuff like that (Pretty much "I pay you to volunteer work for you"). Likewise, with a narrowed down forum with only a 100-200 members you probably get easier noticed and can perhaps even use whatever you did as a merit for a future job. In some ways it could be "Helping out with development", which basically means that you'd be a part of the development process. Heck, perhaps even use your real name in the credits (If that is possible, don't know how Black Isle Studios is going to go about with this, we'll see in some 25~ days or so I guess). Having an open forum restricts the communication/transparency between developer and the forum. Didn't Obsidian have some "VIP Forum" for some higher tier backers? Yep, pretty much that. They'll probably get in on information earlier than these forums and have less transparency. I suspect this forum (the open/free one) requires more secrecy. At the same time, it could get dangerous to have such a forum as well if the fanbase/volunteerbase isn't devoted enough and someone leaks stuff on a regular- or even casual basis.

Let me rephrase. Animals being intelligent beings that you can communicate with (not with words, but by presence and "wilderness lore" kind of) and not just some fodder beasts that you always slay. Does Boo ever speak? When I say Scholar I imply a Wizard, or a Cipher. Or a learned Fighter etc. etc. Not an actual class. I threw Barbarian in there cus it just felt like it could make sense (Barbarian + Wilderness Lore). Wolves hunt in packs, hence why I mentioned "tribe".

I guess another way to look at it is, is the game going to be more: - "I have to protect this character!"? or - "I have to protect this world!"? Is the Event substantial enough to allow motivations for the companion characters to continue on the struggle? Is there a reason they can't continue because of the main character? Would they just "Oh noes, he be dead, can we maybe use his body and carry it with us... just to play hardcore okay?". Or does the "Event" matter anything to the companions at all? Do they want to continue to fight on or will they address another situation that is of greater value to the world in their view? Could someone else suddenly take on the role of "leadership" and direction? How deep are they edged into the Event of the world or whatever?

Maybe the fear is that of loosing something you create attachment too? Why I'm advocating for this... Han Solo, Chewbacca and Leia and other rebellious forces would not have given up the fight if Luke died. Neither would Luke just give up his struggle, even if he was the last man standing. Pretty much that. The plot could be more important than the character. Kind of, in a philosophical sense, the World's Ego matters more than the Individual's Ego. EDIT: The world is about to end, and you are fighting the final boss! The main character dies, ****. I was just 2 hits away defeating him. Just bury the guy after the fight or something, why does the story have to come to such an abrupt halt?

First of all, is this role even desireable? A scenario: Ragnar and Erule went first down the thick of the forest, shadows all around them. Sparkles of slight light, eyes in the blackness. One of the beasts lunged forward, and as if appearing out of the very shades themselves appeared Orianna and pinned down the beast to the ground by its neck. She whispered some carefully laid words into the beasts ear and shortly thereafter it ran away back to the pack, now leaving each other respectfully and knowingly alone. Later, accidentally falling into the beasts lair, the Wolves Den. At the heart of the pack. Though instead of lashing out and biting, they notice Orianna in the back, huffing and puffing. Sighing as if annoyed but respectfully abides to the "Truce". No words have been spoken, but simply put Orianna's knowledge of the wilds, human to beast, is what allows for such an interaction. ----- What I am suggesting is that the tribe of wolves you slaughtered mindlessly on Playthrough 1 could actually be a sentient tribe of Wolves that you can interact with on Playthrough 2. A Druid or Barbarian too, or a Scholar.

How are the Cipher manipulating the souls? Are souls existing everywhere? (in space/fabric micro cosmos~) If they bend and mold souls they could control every element (fire, wind, earth, water) like a "Bender" (Avatar: The Last Airbender). Or is souls more of a "philsophy", a spirit, changing the agenda of it or something abstract with the will of the mind? Is the Cipher using a tool to manipulate the souls? In that case, if another class use this tool, would they learn to manipulate souls at an "apprentice" level? If like a "Bender", I can see them as summoners, high councilors and advisers As Enchanters they would mold health and wealth, and curse the enemies, advisers and high councilors. Being a Cipher feels like "High Social Class" in some ways. Likewise, they could be more "assassin". An agent, just as much as a commander. Elite Psi Ops. Medieval Ghosts (SC reference). Specially trained. The few who are "suburb" are either savants or rogue agents, or "undiscovered" talents. Rare. A bit off-topic: "Rogue" Agents: Should the Rogue have some slight innate psionic ability differing from the Cipher? Like an ability that makes them invisible in shadows (I've flirted with this before) and they can move from one shadow to another for a duration of time, staying in light will reveal the Rogue, getting to another shadow would reset and stop the duration timer. Part of the Rogue's abilities could have ties with psionic stuff, but at a lower level mostly for distraction of foes (a [Mind Flash] ability on a single target close combat that dazzles the target opponent for a second or two so the Rogue can land a Sneak Attack perhaps?) Rogue being able to "shift" through time and space for a second or two, dodging an attack and moving a space or two away from the opponent?

Let me rephrase, main character is super important. But at some point in the game the party is going to be sucked into the whole mess of the story, and they are going to be equally important. Of course, you can just kick them out whenever (mechanically) but roleplayingly the party is part of the story at some point in the game. They aren't just followers but interacting with the story, reacting to events that happens and taking part of the events. If the main character dies, why wouldn't I be able to continue on the story? Forton died, but I can still continue the game. Why is the main character and Forton different in this case? Obvious answer is "Because Forton isn't the main character". I'm looking for some "common sense" in some sort of form... What is the reason that makes the party unable to finish the main plot without the main character, when they've been dragged into the whole mess? Let's say there is 6 Chapters in P:E, I've had a full party since Chapter 2, and have kept them around ever since, at Chapter 4 or 5 the party is dragged into the mess to be part of the story and not just some side-kicks that follow around. There was also some discussion on "Party members acting as front figures" meaning that, if that is implemented, would mean that the party could carry the story forward. On Ironman mode, if your character die on your and if the Adventurer's Hall costs money to hire companions you still won't be able to abuse it. Lose a character, pay gold, lose a character, pay gold. Eventually you'll run out of gold <- that would happen regardless when or if you lose one of your side-kick companion.

So does the game end or can we continue to treck on in the world? This could go in the category of "Narrative Second Wind" but wanted its own topic. What I am suggesting is that the main characters role is rather slim and it is the party's role that is overcome objects. Not only does this add more intensity to a solo play, but I think it might create some pretty interesting plots. And hey, if you die with your character on a solo play that's pretty much that anyways. Basically, your main character dies, and you can continue the game with the party that you have (No Gameover). With the Adventurer's Hall, some might say "That's abuseable!" but if hiring companions at the Hall actually costs gold (and more gold for higher levels) you wouldn't be able to do it over and over and over again (too much). Story-wise, one player loses his main character early game, another mid-game and someone late-game. Most people probably don't. But for those who enjoy experiencing a story (in a game) it could be a twist to the player story and adds for lots of replayability. This would mean that other party members could act as the "Front figure". Taking over the "Choice" mechanic basically. However, if one of your characters has a high reputation and dies your average party reputation should lessen (which is another question) Individual reputation? E.g., Forton has 4 Reputation, Cadegund has 3 Reputation, some Party Math Stuff makes some average rounded down to 3 Party Reputation.

@Somna: Yep sorry I understood what he said but just phrased it wrong. Like his idea and just taking it a spin further (i.e. interaction with the environment). I'm wondering if it could be possible to mess with light sources in the game. Will some fireflies have light sources in the game during night? Can you mess with that? Perhaps some eerie magical glow in a forest has its own purplish light source. Can you mess with that?

You're nitpicking my flow of text and how I write and present ideas, not the actual idea or what I present. You're not correcting anything, you're just taking stuff out of context and then correcting the context you've created inside your own vacuum. That would be a cool illusion spell, to stay on topic. Is that possible? Can you mess with the Light sources in the game somehow with abilities?

In that case what is the purpose of having fighter class? Unique soul abilities? So basically... A Wizard can become a master swordsman and a master magician? Sounds fair to the melee classes. Weapons he shouldn't be trivial in my opinion. Way of the Sword. Merry Christmas btw

This goes into this thread too I guess: Items reacting to certain types of enemies. Glowing or whatnot, advantage of having weapon out is that you get more vision+know that enemies are around. Likewise, the disadvantage is that you are clearly easier to spot in the darkness if you have it out. Could allow for some strategical and tactical decisions and emerge interesting situations.

^Not exclusive or restricted to any class. Even in the IE games some classes were "Better" with some weapons because they had the potentiality to Master them (whilst some classes could not). What I am advocating for is that classes will start differently (The Fighter is better with a Sword, the Rogue is better with a Dagger) but everyone (all classes) can Master all weapons when you get to the end-game. A Fighter might Master the Sword faster, but the Rogue would still be able to Master it.

What should the Ranger be able to tame? Neutral Creeps as well? I know there is a cat or two in Candlekeep when you start, some rats too. There are squirrels in the world as well. I think if "Animals" whether they are enemies (Wolf, Bear) or neutral creeps, they should be able to be tamed. This way you leave it up to the Player to choose what kind of "Pet" they want by playing the game. Perhaps there could be some rare~Ranger animals that someone else has that you can steal from them. A Wizard has a monkey, you can tame the monkey (if your skill is strong enough) and steal it from the Wizard. However, it would make the Wizard an enemy if you don't do it sneakily behind his back or whatnot. A Bird could perhaps be thrown into the backpack, because it is small enough. Obviously a Wolf or a Bear would not. ALL I really want to say is~I don't want to summon the animals I tame/capture. This isn't Pokemon, and a tamed animal isn't a creature from some "Void" that the Wizard summons. There should be a limit (per level/skill choice progression/growth) to how many tamed animals you can have in either your group or for the character that is taming them. Ranger Level 3 = 1 Tamed Animal Level 6 = 2 Tamed Animals Level 9 = 3 Tamed~Or stops here. Level 12 = 4 Tamed~Or boost the 3 you already have somehow.