PK htiw klaw eriF

Norman Osborn is the only Green Goblin who matters. Tony Stark. Batman would try to counter the armor with a batarang and fail. Wilson Fisk or Black Mask?

I'd say King Thor, because while Superman Prime has the edge in physical strength, King Thor has magic armor and weapons. How about Bane vs Green Goblin?

I don't think most devs think about sodomizing a baby while forcing the parents to watch and be penetrated by horses, then cannibalize the lot and feed the flesh to the other child, who will then be kept in a cage to be raped repeatedly by a fishman and starved to death. The only person who would think of that is Alan Moore.

Sure. Captain America can beat the **** out of that Canadian **** Wolverine.

Which is why RPGs shouldn't advertise freedom of choice, because "most heinous acts" is going to go down some really ****ed up paths that the devs never even considered.

0/10

Yeah it is realistic, but PoE is set in an unrealistic universe. Besides, adding in a resizing mechanic would be a bitch to implement.

^Over-Powered.

Perhaps it is because I've just consumed a rather large amount of whiskey, but I don't get it.

You aren't entertained by two Wizards vigorously shaking their wands at each other, hoping a projectile from one of them penetrates the other's defenses? Anyways, Warrior supremacy all the way.

Isn't that true of every Sunday for you? It is for me.

I could see it working if items had a durability value and the special attacks targeted that directly. Enchantment could increase resistance as well.

Hmmmm, while my first playthrough will be as a Paladin, sassy jackass/**** Cipher sounds tempting.

^Cadegund

Netflix, Hulu, and Porn are currently unavailable?

Yes, but only in the spellbook section. So to look up the effects of a particular spell, Ffordesoon would have to open the spellbook, find the correct spell level section, then right click the icon. Doing this for every spell is time consuming, especially considering many of them had similar names and functions. NWN2 was far superior in spell management to the IE games, because you can view spell descriptions with far less rummaging around.

Few shots of tequila today. What's the point of that? Novelty.

I think Rogues should be much different from Fighters, but both should be roughly the same level of usefulness in combat. The reason Rogues get compared to Fighters is that in too many cRPGs, a Rogues abilities are not as useful in combat, which makes up a very large portion of cRPG gameplay. In the IE games combat, Rogues weren't very useful if they weren't backstabbing(often a one-time option for most battles, and a large swath of ToB foes were immune IIRC) or setting traps(an ability limited to a certain few uses per day). Meanwhile, Warriors could beat things till they dropped, Mages got spells(which in BG2 did pretty much everything), and Priests got a different spell set and were slightly better in martial combat than Rogues. I don't think being Balanced necessitates equal damage in all situations or similar abilities for every class, it just means that every class should be a good choice and there shouldn't be any options that are superior in all(or almost all) circumstances. This isn't dumbing down, streamlining, or casualization.

That'll be the 4th Ed that was the shortest lived iteration of the game, right? The one that turned droves of gamers to Pathfinder, or to sit out D&D until a better version popped out of WotC? Jesus wept. Funny story, at my LCS when they were trying to get people playing PnP, they put the 3.5 books out front and kept the 4e near the back.

Love was handled well with Boone in New Vegas. Probably wouldn't satisfy those who need sexytyme, but it helped flesh out the character. Now if you will excuse me, I have a meeting with the High Council of the Patriarchy.

Save or die isn't very fun. All it amounts to is "better reload and cast Death Ward beforehand". Rather, a spell that inflicts negative energy over time or weakens the characters would be much more challenging(rather than punishing), because the player can actually get through it without cheese and dealing with that is more difficult than using a hard counter. Karkarov is right, BG2's "Counter the Mage" was boring and repetitive. If battles consist of the same tactics in every instance, then it isn't challenging.

At best, the Kickstarter RPGs will encourage some publishers to put capital behind more niche products. We have seenthis to some degree with M&M X Legacy. I highly doubt it will cause publishers to abandon the CoD cash cows, because those games sell very well to a broad audience known as the "console peasants".

Woke up feeling great. Going to go work out, then spend most of the day putting off studying.

A Chaotic Neutral Barbarian has no fear of traps, for he sodomizes everything in sight!

If the only way you can make a battle challenging is by inserting a sucker punch, either in the form of an immunity or a nuke, then perhaps the encounter isn't very well designed. Whenever I GM a PnP game, I attempt to avoid immunities or nukes and instead try to coordinate the player's foes in a difficult manner. I believe this leads to a more satisfactory experience.