Osvir

Depends, I imagine that Obsidian peeks into these forums and grabs ideas, thoughts and opinions abundantly. When I got to these forums I had an outline of a development I wanted to create, and now I have a world, a political system, factions, NPC's, races, classes, quest ideas and so on and so forth. Just posting in these forums is volunteer work. I can't imagine Obsidian not using this place as a resource and the same thing goes for other developers I am sure are out there checking these forums. That's why I'm suggesting more Likes on posts, more participation because I know the psychology of myself: I read posts with more Likes and I Like posts which have more Likes. Posts with more Likes catch more attention. Not only because I agree but I feel more inclined to press "Like" if more people are "Liking" it, for these reasons: A, Attentive/Conscious intention sent to Obsidian "Read this post!", I'm endorsing it B, I agree with what is being said, whether it is about P:E or something completely unrelated Look at Forton, there were discussions about Flagellants way before the concept art of Forton as well as the little information we got on PC Gamer. I find it hard to believe that Obsidian were not inspired, and fact in hand the forums discussed the idea before Forton was brought up by Obsidian (even if Obsidian were thinking about it in beforehand, chronologically the forums were first).

And he's holding a gun <3 Almost as if meant to be Cat Assassin? This one is called Plague Monk: Likewise, for some more in-society type of inspiration from "The Great Mouse Detective":

Stamina = Saving rolls, dodging, attacking, parrying, using abilities. Health = Taking damage. Stamina isn't a shield, okay in terms of dice rolls it is a "shield" or rather a "step" to take before doing a damage roll. Nothing is new, except that taking actions would be a resource-limited "once every battle" tactical option (you'd always start with 100% Stamina in every battle). If your character wears himself out he falls flat to the ground (or down on his knees to take a breathe and rest up a bit). Taking damage would, more importantly should, remove Stamina. Stamina as a mechanic (if used in this way) becomes more of an encumbrance than "Wolverine Regeneration". Just because it is an encumbrance doesn't necessarily mean it is "bad", just another tactical challenge <3 I love it. However, in addition to this, I would like to see a slow regeneration of Stamina after battle and not a "instant recovered" type of deal. I start off a fight at 100% against one mob, I manage to take it down and I'm down at 25%. Now, I would like to see the Stamina go up, but not in the way of "Ding! 100%", but progressively (like energy regeneration in StarCraft II) and perhaps to a start slow and then faster and faster. Around the next corner I encounter a new mob, and now I'm at 43% (maybe) and this will heavily effect the upcoming battle making it much more difficult (but not impossible, depending on the enemies). Of course, I could just stand around and wait for 100% (which I am sure many of us would do), I'm suggesting this for: A, realism, it takes time to recuperate. If I've been running a track for a while, I won't be all new all fresh instantly but it would take some time. B, Options, the game actually gives me an option of continuing my journey (even if I am low on stamina), giving me a personal challenge that I can decide for myself. Many times I would stand still and regenerate my Stamina, but many times I would tread on, I only lost 20% of my Stamina (80% left) in the first fight, for the time it takes for me to walk to the second fight I might be up at 90% and I'll loose 20% again, and I'm down at 70%. I continue to tread on until I'm down somewhere at 10% in Stamina, and I am fairly certain I can take down the next mob (with the mindset that I'll have to be very conservative of my tactics) and I might or might not come out victorious. I love those scenarios.

I feel Suikoden 3 did the reptiles good justice

I hardly know anything about Scaven (I don't play Warhammer at all either), but the moment I saw them I loved them. Their art-style, and the fact that they are rats. Whenever a Warhammer game is coming I am looking forward to the Scaven, alas no.... where is the rat race?? :D *P:E? Maybe?*

This thread, like any thread in friendly discussion, has evolved. Personally there is no argument for either for or against, I am merely playing with ideas of what could be done for an authentic world like P:E. Friar, or Flagellant, sounds more "authentic": Chanter, Friar, Priest versus Chanter, Monk, Priest versus Chanter, Flagellant, Priest (Which does feel like an odd combination tbh) EDIT: We are also taking about sub-classes. What is easier to create sub-classes for, respectively: Monk Friar Flagellant As well as combinations between the three. Forton seems to be an Asian inspired Monk with a little Flagellant in him. Cool! Now that's Forton, what about our creations? Are we forced to create a Kung-Fu Monk with a little Flagellant in him or do we have options? I think it's interesting to talk about Rogues in this sense too, because many associate the Rogue with a backstabbing Assassin or a sneaky Thief, whilst few look at the Rogue as a Rogue. Likewise I would like to build my Rogue towards becoming more like a Thief, similarly I would like to build my Monk more towards a support role (Stunning, disarming, locking/grappling, knockbacking). We aren't getting any animations for "grappling", doesn't mean that the ability couldn't be in the game and cause a "stunning" effect on your Monk and the enemy he uses the ability on. More of an Aikido Monk, which is an interesting point in itself, how many different martial arts fighting styles are there? A lot. Adhering the Monk class to something specific (Friar or Flagellant) you narrow down all those possibilities of different styled Monks to a few that can be detailed further into the world than the Monk class ever can be in the same sense. I might be utterly wrong of course, I just believe it is harder to implement *shrug*

I am hoping for something like this too, but in a sub-class type dealio. And it's important (I guess) that the Monk doesn't get too close to the Priest support role. That's why I'm bringing up the Monk, Friar (kudos to JOG), Flagellant thing because... *scratches head, realizes that that's 3 different sub-classes right there* nvm Monk, Friar, Flagellant xD Yeah I'm seeing where you're going. Why I brought it up is because we are talking about Monks, and what they are and how they are presented by Obsidian (Forton the Mortificater). It doesn't state that Forton is a Flagellant, but that he is a strong believer in mortification of the flesh (Which is a religious thing, which makes him close to a Flagellant). I agree with the Fighter thing, and I brought it up because there's been a lot of discussion on "Monk" which I believe could relate to "philosophy" and other to European Monks or Eastern Monks. Some talk about Middle-Eastern Monks too. It is a broad class/title with many different variations and sub-meanings depending on where you are and how you see it from your perspective, that's why I think it could benefit to make it specific (e.g., like "Friar"). About Fighters, who are equally a broad class, are much more specific already, in my book a Fighter could be a Kung Fu Fighter. What does Kung Fu have anything to do with the Monk? Is Bruce Lee a Fighter or a Monk? Some may say both, and I'd agree, but if you can only choose one of them, dependent on how he is fighting?

Perhaps a sentient Grimoire wouldn't speak with voice, but with words? :D

Nggh, forgot the point xD the point is I think that the world can benefit by having specific named classes for depth. Naming it "Monk" gives it a "Broader" perspective instantly, with many different schools of different religions. Variety can be good yes, but for a setting such as P:E, it could to a start be something specific for this specific Era and World that Obsidian have in mind and later be expanded upon. With the class adhering to a specific "name" (such as "Friar") knowledge about Friar's in P:E can be cultivated and implemented more specifically with a specific story about them. Whilst the "Monk" could require more fleshing out imo. Friar/Flagellant is going into detail of the Monk class, in essence "quality", whilst having the Monk could equal "quantity".

I like that a lot (and what you say in the other post too), Friar sounds about right for the atmosphere too EDIT: However, this thread started making me wonder "How important is it?" really and why should Monks get the extra care and treatment? "Fighter" is similarly the same thing no? Why shouldn't the Fighter get the proper treatment and get a more proper "Title" too? I think that is a reasonable thought too... Why it is important, I think, is because specifically being "something" rather than being something being "anything" (Monk/Fighter). I mean, why isn't Chanter a sub-class of Priest? Or even Monk? The first thing I found when I wrote "Chanting" in YouTube was some Eastern Buddhist Monk doing Heart Chants. Friar: More light-hearted than the Flagellant and not necessarily "dark" but it feels authentic to what we know of the P:E world * Magical Friar: Scribing spells onto his own body, the Grimoire could/would still be his own body "Glyphs" and Seals (When I spoke about Magical Flagellants, I really meant that they would "carve" the spells onto themselves, whilst I envision a Friar doing it more elegantly and artistically by writing like normal men/women a.k.a tattoo's). * Martial Arts Friar: Flagellant inspired-Forton Kung-Fu * Healer Friar: Proper "for it's Era" Doctor, without the voodoo stuff I brought up about the Flagellant Healer

http://en.wikipedia....tion_(theology) More information. Edit time ran out. EDIT:

Well I have no proof to back it up but I was pretty sure that Obsidian has stated in one of the updates (I can't find the information now which is weird, I'm sure I saw it)... Found it! The PC Gamer interview: http://www.pcgamer.c...dian-live-chat/ It doesn't nearly state that he is a Flagellant, but it hints that he is influenced by it. A combination between Kung Fu+Flagellant. What Aedelric said pretty much, so is Forton a Kung-Fu Monk or a Flagellant Kung-Fu Monk? Is he part of a sub-class, or is he the main class? Could more be done with Flagellant, versus Monk, in terms of sub-classes? Concept, what I am curious about here is all the other sub-classes that spawns from each of these respectively, not the Martial Monk: Monk * Magical Monk; Using Magic to get flaming fists~ casting mid-range magic~ Diablo 3. * Martial Monk; Close combat fighter, Kung-Fu. Forton. * Healer Monk; Healer/Priest, Buffer, mender of the soul * Gun Monk; ?? Flagellant: * Magical Flagellant; Casting magic on and from him/herself, body could be the Grimoire which the Flagellant writes their spells on. * Martial Flagellant; Forton, Kung-Fu. * Healer Flagellant; Doctor-type, mender of the body * Gun Flagellant; Persona anyone? xD I always thought of a Paladin as a rules lawyer that was a stickler for following some specific code of conduct particular to his knightly order. Sort of an embodiment of said code. Monks struck me more as the reflecting type that observe and learn through observing and thinking (or meditation) and learn to master their own minds and bodies through exercise and discipline. Being good at martial arts is just a bonus from such mastery. Edit: Being a Warhammer fan, a flagellant will always remind me of raving lunatics running around with bloodied naked torsos, whipping themselves while screaming "Repent!" and "We are all doomed!" Absolutely, but according to the definition (on Wikipedia) of what a Monk is, it is someone following religious asceticism. I was just being nitpicky a la it could be per definition (in the real world), doesn't necessarily have to be. A Fighter could be a Monk, a Rogue too. A Priest is a given. Being a Monk is tied to religion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monk Also, I have no clue about Warhammer lore. I know a little 40k so I wouldn't know. I belive you used wrong link for what you had in mind. http://www.games-wor...questid=1675683 (is it OK with forum rules to use such links?) I used the right link alright, because I was after the historical aspects of the Flagellant, not the fiction one in Warhammer (that I didn't even know existed). Though that's cool information too. Here's another link, on mortification on the flesh which I think is better: http://en.wikipedia....on_of_the_flesh

I say that the companions continue to do their quest tree's, if you ditch them somewhere and you haven't helped them finish their quest tree, they continue on that and either you can catch up and intercept and join in with them in the middle of their questing, or you can leave it be and perhaps meet them at a tavern somewhere. Seeing as they finished part of the quest themselves, they would have gotten more experience accordingly. Likewise, if you ditch your companions you might find them soloing their own quest and maybe even die because you weren't there. If you have finished their quest tree however, perhaps pay them a fee to stick around if you leave them out of your party. Make them somewhat of an encumbrance, an easy to manage "maintenance". Another drawback, sending out your out of party Companions on quests would lock your in-party out of some quests because your out of party companion would do them and get "reputation"/"fame" that you are missing out on*. We talked about Flashbacks in another thread as well, where you control only the companion (with perhaps his/her own party, being both a leader and a follower depending on the companion), can anything more be done with this? Out of party Companion~Mini-Game? * A good enough reason to kick them out of your "out of party" group The point I'm just trying to make is that I'd like my out of party companions to get experience, because I like to envision it that they do stuff and earn they keep, they continue with their lives. They don't settle down, get a wife AND children (all acquired at the tavern) and wait for you until they grow old. Well some might *shrug* dropped Imoen at the Friendly Arms Inn, she'd probably become a Waiter xD unintended pun Out of party companions shouldn't get as near as close experience as the in-party companions and they should cap reasonably in their levels reflectively to how far they are into their Quest tree: If you let them finish their quest trees themselves, they'll stop gaining experience and cap at a level depending on where in the game their quests end (geographically). In a point of the game, let's say a forest patch, where most people would be about level 8 or 8+, the companion finishing his quest tree would be level 5 or 6 maybe? Personally, I want exp growth on the NPC's, but I want it to be reasonable, logical and hard and not really that rewarding. In Baldur's Gate Trilogy (with some extra mods) I'm hoarding companions "Gotta collect 'em all!" because I want to play with them. I switch around as I go along, but ultimately all that does is give me a level 20 something with a bunch of level 10's. It would really help my time schedule if they were maybe level 14-16ish. It's not really that much of a beef really. I just feel that this is too little of (non-existent really) in Baldur's Gate, and way too existent in modern day RPG's. Maybe there's a middle ground which is a subtle solution?

Its really no biggie to be honest. I'd prefer Forton to be a strand of Monk, a 1 out of 3 sub-classes of the Monk class. But I can also see Flagellant being the main class with 3 sub-classes, that's all. One being, conceptual idea, a Flagellant Wizard perhaps, being able to "become" an elemental by summoning spells onto his/her own flesh (literally). Or the Grimoire could be the Wizard Flagellant's body A Flagellant Martial Artist who uses "utility" (drugs, tools) like Forton (the Asian take on it). The third one a Doctor type Flagellant maybe? A little bit off-topic, concept idea: I'm feeling a Flagellant should be good with chemistry, thus being an excellent Alchemist. I can see some early level "experimentation" of potions actually benefiting (for a short while) the Flagellant, even if it is a "Potion of Acid Death" (potions you craft are always "unidentified" until you've drank them?).

Forton has also been confirmed to be a Monk who is a Flagellant. The concept of a Monk class is broad and big, giving us as players more options to how we see it. But if Forton "defines" the Class (e.g., he's part of a certain Order or "Religion" that is prominent and dominant in the world of P:E) then the Class name could be "Flagellant" instead of "Monk". Because if Forton defines the class, then the title should be specific and not "broad". If I only can be different variations of the Flagellant that Obsidian has in mind, wouldn't "Monk" elude me in the game? Lore-wise, I think, Obsidian could focus on creating a more revealing/definable and, for us, more logical and sensible "atmosphere" for the game just by having the class title be named accordingly to the in-game mechanics. After all, who says that you can't have an "Eastern"/"Asian Monk"-inspired Flagellant Monk?

I want a Shield Gun/Rifle. Kind of like.... an umbrella with 1 hole (where the gun shoots from). Never seen that before

I voted 2 years, but I get a feeling of 2 and some months (Late Xmas 14 or January-February 15). I think this thread is great, it shows Obsidian that we care about them as well as the game too, and giving them a bit more space to breathe. 18 months always did sound short to me, it fits with a 1.1M production I guess. This, however, is a 4.1~M production.

Yeah that's kind of what I felt about it too, Flagellant altogether feels closer to "European Priest" or an "Anglo-Saxon Monk". I associate it more towards a "Cleric" (in isometric RPG terms) To counter-nitpick, per definition, a Paladin could be a Monk. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asceticism

I agree with you pretty much everything you say, just want to clear out one or two misunderstandings: I've said it previously somewhere else, why would you have to start with the same character just because New Game+? "New Game"+"Extra Content" I am pretty sure you have a different idea of how crafting in PE works compared to how it actually works. Yes. In fact: I've got no clue. That's my ideas slipping through in the sentences

Couldn't resist. Very good point Umberlin http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/61020-the-monk-class/page__st__320

The idea is to change the name from Monk to Flagellant, seeing as that's what we are getting from Obsidian in Forton. Should the Monk in P:E be called "Flagellant" instead? Flagellant: http://en.wikipedia....ern_flagellants Monk: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monk It is entirely new, fresh, and I personally like the thought of it. Obsidian is doing something new with the Monk class, it's not a kung-fu gung-ho ninja fist fighter. It seems more towards a masochistic flagellant (a form of a Monk I believe), with curiosity in mortification as well as drug use. Should the Flagellant's dominate the world of P:E in terms of population and culture? I wouldn't mind seeing some more Eastern Monks, but should they be scarce in this world? Why should the Class Title be Monk? This opens up the possibilities for Obsidian to build the Monk, most likely giving us more choices (To be able to make a Eastern Fighter Monk, or a Healer Monk, or the Flagellant Monk). Unless Forton is what defines what the Monk class is going to be (In that case it should be Flagellant). However, a Priest is also a Monk, and a Paladin too (According to this wikipedia it is). A Necromancer could be a Monk even, if he does what he does for religious purpose, enlightenment etc.etc. Why should the Class Title be Flagellant? Really only for the "It's new! Sounds fresh!" stuff, it would limit you within it's definition though. What we could get instead, could be a deep rooted story where the Flagellant has a bigger part in the general Culture of the world. To develop a better atmosphere for the Era. Obsidian could focus their direction on making the Flagellant class, instead of having to worry about making "Eastern Monks" for us who want it.

If my party companions are off doing fighter-for-hire stuff while not in my party, then I'm going to be really upset if when I re-recruit them they still have no more gold in their pocket than when I left them. Obviously if they had none when joining you, then their worthless at getting money (and are more akin to free loaders jumping from party to party to pretend to help when its you who do all the hard work pfft, Forton does eat all the food all the time no?). Jokes aside, interesting point. One solution to this could be having them earn some gold, but not an extreme amount of it doing these things. Perhaps all of your hoarded gear (the good and the bad, generally stuff you don't use) can be sold with a Companion doing some sort of "Traveling Peddler" deal. Now you could just go to a store and sell all items yourself, but the Companion would actually start somewhat of a "Trade" a la "Sell salt, buy seeds" thing so you would actually earn more money than you would by just going to the store and selling it. To elaborate how far you could go but perhaps shouldn't is to be able to decide what items your companion should buy and which items he/she should sell and setting out patrol routes. Although interesting, I can't (personally) see that macro/micro management in a game like P:E. I prefer simplicity and I'd like to steer as far away as possible from "map based statistical display" a la GTA: San Andreas. If it's merely a dialogue choice or a button I'll be fine with it.

I oddly like this a lot but I think it's way too vulnerable and chaotic random to be part of the game. Imagine leveling up Aloth up til mid-game and you lose him to his Akilles Heel. It sounds badass as something that could be a lore thing, and definitely something I would personally like to see (in the Hardcore Difficulty area). I understand that they should simply be able to channel their souls into other parts too, that would be a Horcrux no? (Harry Potter, Voldemort splitting his soul into different parts and things). * Another solution, the Wizard only has so much power to split his soul into 1 or 2 Grimoires, and thus he can't hoard Grimoires (I think this solution might nail it). Having a 3rd Grimoire would render your Wizard very powerful, but also evil "just because" it is forbidden by the Schools of Wizardry. Parting with ones soul so much destroys most Wizards sanity, which isn't that good when combined with their growing power. We all know about Mad Wizards right? Ye, here's an answer to it. Adds a layer of "pitifulness" to those Wizards who "lost it", and imagine if Aloth "looses" it because of this, or perhaps he manages to fight it (Like an Kaedan, L2 Implant, Mass Effect). We were talking about a Grimoire possibly being sentient too (earlier), and I just realized how hilarious it would be to pick up a Grimoire of some diseased Wizard that transferred most of his Soul into the Tome and now he's quite bitter xD

*Shakes fist, shrugs off frustration, laughs* Hi friend Now to address some of your thoughts, 1, HAHA! Okay let's not get into it. Why do you think I'm here in these forums? Level 5 is an example. Also, P:E seems to be a level 25~ game? Second playthrough, not available on first playthrough. Just to give you a quick boost on your second playthrough, you'd still start off at the beginning. You'd be able to catch up the story much faster, and run through most of the starting areas faster and get back on track on the "scaled" level of your characters level. You'd be able to jump into the game faster. Baldur's Gate really starts first after Nashkel Mines in my opinion, now if I could just rush through it on my 3rd, 4th or 5th playthrough of the area I would love to have that as an option. Now I can, thanks to modders and the like, and I'll be able to catch up to an area in the game past Nashkel Mines much faster. So this is more of a modders resource, but I don't see why it couldn't be a part of core P:E as well *shrug* Not forced on you "You have to start at level 5!!!!" but "up to" level 5, on a second playthrough, your choice. Those who want to replay from Level 1 go ahead, those who want a quicker startup the second time choose Level 5. Or wait for Savegame Editors *shrug* it's just an idea. If all else it'll be a modding resource I'm sure. 2, Yes! Allow it the first game, the second time you'd just be hinted to go towards the other path. You'd lock yourself out of content by "Choosing" paths the first playthrough anyways so I don't know what the problem is. I'm not suggesting 2 games packed in 1 á 50 hours each, I'm simply suggesting another path to the same place eh? Just to give you a different beginning. In the core game you will be able to have 5 companions in your party, there are 8 companions in the game with the Adventurer's Hall in the game. Are you going to utilize all of the companions on one playthrough? No. I am merely suggesting that there would be more content than simply "playing with the rest of the companions". I am also looking into the idea of replayability. In a hypothetical situation, if one ending is only unlocked in a New Game+ scenario, then you will be more allured to replay the game no? And even if there only are 2 endings on your first playthrough, you will still lock yourself out of 1 of them by choosing it. Again, I don't see the problem. I'm just suggesting ideas for making you feel more inclined to play the game again, or for those who want to play the game more than once (which I think the title of this thread pretty much states). 3, Of course, if he can I can. The difference will be that, to me, getting it from my friend would give it more interesting lore and it'll be fun too. Sure, I can craft the item in the game for myself for my character, name it after my friends item, it'll be my characters blade then, having it from my friend will just be interesting from another perspective (in my opinion). I'm not flirting with the mechanical aspects, I'm flirting with some story aspects, some aspects of out of game involvement. You are however, absolutely correct, in terms of robotic [in the box] "1's" and "0's". 4, This thread is about New Game+ right? Right. New Game+ could very well be an expansion in itself though. What I am flirting with is not an expansion per say, but End Game Lore actually referring to Early Game Lore in some way that makes it more viable to play the game one more time in case a New Game+ is implemented (a.k.a. IF).

Your Fighter is making the enemy Fighter pre-occupied, your Wizard is having a duel against another Wizard whilst their Archer is focused on your Rogue. But the Archer gets distracted when a Magic Missile hits his face, and the Rogue is gone, the Archer lost focus and is now focusing the Fighter. Couple moments later the Archer goes down as the Rogue had taken this moment to sneak around the perimeter and flanked the Archer. Likewise, an easier example: 3v2, you have 2 fighters and a Rogue, the enemy got 2 Fighters. If both my Fighters keep the enemy Fighters busy, they won't have much of a clue of my Rogue sneaking about. That's why it isn't silly, it is just the execution of it (specially in Baldur's Gate) that is somewhat silly (in combat). It could definitely be improved on, and made better. Stealth isn't necessarily your character vanishing into thin air in plain view, it's your character tricking the enemies and pretty much stay in hiding. Your enemies should know that you are out there (if used in combat), they might just not know exactly where. And they should never return to their duties like nothing happened, if you get seen you get seen, the soldier that saw you and his fellows around him should be on high alert. Maybe they should even run across the entire dungeon and alert all of their buddies too ("sound the horns!" works too) making the dungeon suddenly much much more difficult <- That would advocate for quick take downs before everyone are alerted of your crawling about. Wanted to add in one more. 5. Traps: Rogue 1st, Assassin 2nd and Thief 3rd. Why? The Thief isn't a trap maker or a killer, the Thief is a sneaky burglar, a possible mugger, good at haggling and slithering out of situations. Being the Class of Thief should be seriously looked down upon by the citizens of P:E. No one likes a Thief, unless it is the Robin Hood kind. No, traps are for the Rogue first and foremost, being the Utility character, and second for the Assassin (someone mentioned "smoke") using traps to escape. So a Rogue would prepare traps before combat, whilst the Assassin would use traps and utility items in combat no?