PK htiw klaw eriF

Man sounds so good, that you can go after cops over there by pressuring local politicians. That kind of **** simply doesn't fly here. The police in Texas are pretty much untouchable unless you have undeniable proof and even then it is harder to see justice served. Perhaps is is because politicians here love being seen as "tough on crime" and have no problem condoning police overkill or brutality.

Today I have a bitch of a hangover and the house to myself. I'm going to be spending a good amount of time playing videogames. True. Illusion is pretty much useless(other than invisibility and muffle) if you don't put perks in it. If you need some build advice PM me.

I don't know if they changed the mechanic because of people bitching on the internet or not, but I'm disappointed and satisfied at the same time. I'm happy that there isn't a skill that makes items more durable, but I would have liked to see item durability implemented. IMO, a better system would have had a set amount of max durability points for a base item(unenchanted weapon or armor) that increased in durability points and durability damage resistance by being enchanted(or improved with smithing) or made with better materials, and that you could perform basic field repairs on the item to prevent it from totally breaking down.

It has been stated that the Barbarian will be prone to exhaustion. Whether this is due to them taking more stamina damage than health or Frenzy eating up stamina is unknown, but I'm positive there will be some reason for it.

Perhaps if they do subclasses, one of the Barbarian's subclasses could be named that or Jugernaught. Yes and no. Since the Barbarian takes less health damage, he has a higher longevity than other classes. He actually needs to rest LESS. Sawyer said that the Barbarian would be more likely to pass out than other classes. I don't know exactly how it will be implemented, I assume that it would be tied to Frenzy. More info is needed I suppose. Ideally, the classes should be constructed in a way where both having a weapon master fighter and a meat shield fighter are both viable possibilities. I'm optimistic about OE implementing classes in such a way.

From what I've gleamed Barbarians will: 1) take less damage than other classes 2) have a frenzy ability 3) possibly collapse in combat 4) have minor AoE abilities Sounds quite a bit like a traditional Barbarian to me, charge in and smash then take a breather. I'm curious, will the number of targets they can attack be dependent on a modal ability? I think that being able to switch from weaker AoE attacks to more powerful single strikes would be a good way to handle them. Also, will there be an offensive counterpart to the Fighter's Defender stance?

That is where my vote goes.

I'm sure there are, I just have no desire to post pictures of them. ^Much more appealing to me.

I'll keep that in mind, but I'm currently engrossed in a BGT playthrough. In addition to being awesome, it is making me very anxious for PE.

Hmm, perhaps we could develop a game that replaces craming? The tagline: "**** studying, play this!". I've had some pretty terrible teachers(went to a under-funded Texas school district), so that might be an improvement. I remember my 8th grade Spanish teacher would stop teaching to talk about her hair.

If I had a teacher like Hurlshot for Algebra or Calculus in highschool, I probably would have got "A"s and paid attention, instead of getting "b"s on tests and sleeping through everything else.

I made a large pot of chili and wrapped good hotdogs(from a meat market, not the crap you get from a supermarket) in bacon, which I intend to grill with some burgers. Made a 2 cookie cakes last night and am going to stack them and frost with cream cheese frosting. Currently drinking a nice stout and about to fire up BGT. I've been thinking of reinstalling that, any worthwhile mods I should know about?

Fixed that for you.

I don't see it as good design if any character can do everything well(although I would lmao if there was a character who could do everything, but kind of sucked at it). Classes should all have the same amount of relative power(ex: a Fighter should be as good at fighting as a Wizard is at magic), no one field should be blatantly superior to others, and classes should be versatile enough to serve a variety of purposes.That is the kind of balance I want, where each class has valuable abilities and isn't required to have a passable party, not every class deals the same amount of damage but there are different animations. Also, I think that skills(like lockpicking, climbing, lore, etc) should be available to all classes. There should be enough skills so that no one character could be good at all of them, and that all skills should have relatively the same utility. PE should take a page from Pathfinder and give classes bonuses to certain skills that fir the class. In the expansion, the only way to reach a legendary weapon should be having at least two people use "read ancient poetry".

PE is one of the better funded Kickstarter games, so I would wager that it is probably not in very much danger of being bungled.

I'm going to use pause in every battle. I wouldn't be able to play a RTwP game without pause, seeing how the random outcomes may force me to completely rethink my strategies. I paused less frequently in NWN2 OC than I did in BGT(I'm replaying both right now and I still pause less in NWN2 OC) because NWN2 OC had a lot more trash mobs that cold be handled easily.

I'm intrigued by it. The thought if having to upkeep equipment is something I've always liked in P&P, because it makes you think before charging into a dungeon. Two questions for any wandering devs: 1. Will magic items or rare material(like adamantium) items have different durability ratings than standard items? 2. Could you implement a sunder mechanic?

You don't need to know anything about making games. To be an authority on matters, you just need to know enough about playing them. Especially when dealing with developers who love worrying about "degenerate gameplay".Convoluted ranting to come here, but hopefully I'll make a point sometime in the next 1000 words.Where to begin. OK. Even if we LOVE what the developers are doing to eliminate "Degenerate Gameplay", they're still doing it wrong. A Game developer should be 100% focussed on creating a fun game, not check-mating bad player behavior at all costs. The latter is just a stupid, soulless approach to game creation. It's like a music artist who, instead of composing a masterpiece from his heart and soul, decides to just study up on his fanbase, and their tastes and habits, and then methodically creating a song that his "research" suggests will be successful.But forget about that pseudo-philosophical crap. Lets focus on the more practical. The given definition (given by Josh Sawyer, in fact) of "Degenerate Gameplay" is stuff like: 1) being able to Rest too often; 2) Being able to Save too often; 3) being able to Reload too often; 4) Min-maxing; 5) Meta-gaming.Now, I don't know about you, but I see these things as the gamer's choice. And its not up to the developer to decide how *I* play *MY* game. If I do 1-5 and end up ruining the experience for myself then that's my problem. However, if the developer wastes his development time creating a game with a billion fail-safes, a million gameplay limitations, and unshakeable, rigid "balance", all designed to ensure that we degenerates will never get the last laugh, then chances are they have just created an unnatural, mechanical thing that will not feel like a masterpiece at all, but a perfectly designed piece of.... unbreakable metal. And when that happens, it's THEIR fault. While I don't have a problem with them trying to weed out blatantly broken mechanics, I have to agree that if the solution to fixing the problem ends up creating a huge annoyance for all players, not just the ones who play the game "wrong", then it would be a failure. I also agree that letting the players enforce limiting exploits is optimal. Although, I'm optimistic about PE. It seems to me that they've cut down on the need to rest-spam by implementing "per encounter" abilities in addition to "per day", which is better than slapping someone on the wrist and telling them "YOU CAN'T REST HERE!!!!", afaik save/reload won't be limited, and min-maxing and meta-gaming will still be possible. I also think that PE is taking a better approach to balance than 4E, by designing all classes to have the same amount of relative power, but that power is more or less useful in different situations depending on the class, instead of making the only difference between classes how they deal X damage.

Oh Indira, there isn't a way to make 4E work. In all seriousness, it is almost at the FATAL level of crap. They took a horrible approach to balance, foes turned into just creatures to slaughter rather than actual characters, and made the alignment system even worse. The relevant information(everything published by Paizo actually) needed to run a Pathfinder game is avliable for free with PRD, but I'd at least buy the digital core rule book for $10.00 just to support them. I prefer to do homebrew settings, but the Pathfinder setting is OK and you could always run (insert D&D setting here) if you want, just don't let a certain group of wizards living by the sea know about it.

INT was handled much better in 3.X and Pathfinder, where it did affect how many spells you could cast and their potency. It also affected skills and other things, so it wasn't just a dump stat for anyone but a Mage.

PE seems to be exactly what Obsidian promised it would be, a tactical party-based cRPG with isometric camera. I'm sorry of some are disappointed with the direction, but OE seems to want to make a game that doesn't have archaic mechanics(try explaing THAC0 to someone) and flows more smoothly than the IE games, because it is designed for RTwP instead of translating to RTwP from TB. If you can't get past "Josh Sawyer doesn't think BG2 and the rest of the IE games are perfect and in no need of tweaking" and enjoy the game, don't support PE and OE in the future. Also, the according to the wiki, chances to hit change depending on the differences between accuracy and defense(or deflection, can't recall exact name) so someone with higher defense should have more than a 5% chance of avoiding getting hit. PathFinder>3.5. I would highly recommend trying it to anyone who enjoys the 3.5 rulesets, as it is essentially 3.75.

With expansions, I see two viable options. 1. Expand the OC: This adds some new content to the main game. Think ToSC, where you had a few islands to visit. The level-cap should be raised, but not dramatically(in PE, up from level 12 to 15), 1 or 2 new companions should come in, and new classes(be they base classes, subclasses(or kits, if you prefer), or prestige classes) should be showcased if implemented. 2. New Campaign: This is an entirely different story, that may not even involve the PC from the OC. If it does involve the PC, the level cap should be raised higher than it would be for expanding the OC(to give a bigger sense of accomplishment, I think up to 20ish would be appropriate), some companions may make a comeback but it is fine to showcase all new NPCs, new classes should be showcased if implemented. I would prefer option 1 if PE2 will continue the PC's story, or option 2 if PE2 will not continue the PC's story. I would prefer to go with option 2 and wrap up the PC's story in PE+expansion(s), because I typically do not enjoy playing the same character in two different games if the mechanics change. On the added mechanical content, I think expansions should add classes, skills, talents, abilities, etc. to the game rather than modify the rules. All new stuff should be accessible in the OC, unless it requires a higher level to obtain than is possible in the OC. I prefer that mechanical tweaks and/or changes be reserved for patches or new titles in the series.