PK htiw klaw eriF

I didn't realize that simply answering the question posted in the thread title "Should P:E have time limits?" is considered incompetence. Too bad you're comprehension abilities are not up to par.

That assumes that.... Having romance means that gameplay, C&C, story, and interesting relationships automatically suffer if romance is included in the game Obsidian is incapable of creating an interesting romance The sacrificed content in question was even being considered to be put in PE Assumption 1 is not provable, Assumption 2 is entirely subjective, and Assumption 3 is not known at the moment. If you're going to make a statement, please use facts instead of assumptions. You do realize that you've just made two statements without any evidence to support them up, right? The problem with making assumptions without evidence is that you are incapable of proving them. Also anyone can draw any conclusions they want from the incomplete data. One could postulate that the individuals who do not want romance are an extremely vocal minority, or that they did not donate as much to PE as those who would like to see romance in PE. Of course there is absolutely no evidence to support either of these claims, so they would be talking out their ass, as you are now. Here you assume that if someone wants romance in a game, they play a self-insert. You do realize that some of us are not under the assumption that the PC is the player, right? I would recommend that you stop assuming the motives of people. It beats making baseless statements that you cannot prove.

I personally don't enjoy time limits.

Well I just finished a character in Arcanum, I think I may reinstall NWN2 or KOTOR2 and play those. On TW2, mechanics are definitely the weaker aspects of that game.

Sex can actually act as a stress relief though, studies have shown it. Very strange that stress can be alleviated by sex, yet causes a loss of libido. Also, I really dislike reducing romance to simply a way for sex. If that is all it is going to be, then it shouldn't be implemented in PE. Not that sex should be ignored (it does occasionally happen after all), I just think that there are other things to focus on(like character development and thematic purposes) that would fit an Role-Playing Game better.

While I believe that it does, not everyone sees it that way.

Agree, but frankly I couldn't care less about what powergamers do. I think that the system should be designed to allow the most freedom for developing each character how the player sees fit.

I always build the class around the character I design. I understand that quite a few people do powergame(I never do), I just think that assuming that all "munchkin" builds spring from powergaming is assuming too much about every player who plays them. Paladins really should lose their abilities when they stop being Paladins, I agree. I don't know why this was't implemented in NWN(2) and was disappointed it wasn't. However I would definitely play a fallen Paladin who became a Blackguard. It seems to be a natural route for a corrupted champion to go on.

Oh god not again........ Let me make this as simple as possible...... Some people want romance in games because they believe it enhances the game. Some people do not want romance in games because they don't believe it enhances the game. We should just let Obsidian do what they want with the game and avoid throwing bombs at each other or arguing with strawmen. Or we can actually discuss other types of relationships besides romances if people keep things civil.

How is the personality/background of a character arbitrary? It informs every choice that the PC makes throughout the game. Fallen Paladin? Reformed Villain? It isn't uncommon for a character's alignment to shift in D&D or for them to choose a new path after said change. It all depends on the player. If when designing the character they feel that Monk/Sorcerer/Cleric/Dragon Disciple is a good fit for that character, then it works for that character.

Natural evolution.

Why? If the player creates a character design that meshes with a "munchkin" build, then it does make sense from a role-playing point of view. 3.xE/Pathfinder gave mages an Achilles heel with Concentration though. If a mage is damaged at all, the DC for the concentration check goes up, and if the mage fails that, then no spell. Also with spells per day, after a mage(wizard or sorcerer in this case) has little effectiveness in combat and very little ability to survive without the aid of magic items.

Has there been any word what exactly Ciphers are?

*Rolls d12* Paladin.

Some people use "houserules" to nullify the XP penalty because they find it a bit cumbersome, so it all depends on who you play with and what the "houserules" are for the group or GM. The XP penalty is applied if you have two base(prestige classes do not count) classes whose levels are more than 1 level away from each other. The favored class simply removes the class from the equation, so if you have a Tiefling Rogue 8/ Fighter 2, there is no XP penalty because the Rogue class is not counted due to Favored class.

They won't find out. Straying from the guiding light of Alex's truth will expose them to the New World Order which will devour what shards remain of their pitiful souls.

Who wouldn't?

While all of that spell layer criticism is valid, PE isn't going to be BG2 and I don't think they're going to make the high level spells have huge graphical effects that cause problems with gameplay.

Funny, "Democrat" does not appear 1 time in the article. They do? I thought he was like the Left version of Glen Beck, everybody seems to hate him.

In the wake of the Liberal Party coming into power in Canada, there was always a push by some in Alberta that felt they should secede as well. The election is only a few weeks old and people are up on their soapboxes. Dude, it is America. We're a bit over dramatic.

I dislike Jungles, am neutral about Deserts and Tropical Islands, and enjoy the rest.

It depends on what you mean by "socialism". If you mean the government actually existing and being able to spend money, then no. If you mean the government owning everything, then yes. On "gun control" there is a bit of a difference between barring automatic weapons used in warfare from the general populace and the guvernment takin away ur guns, most conservatives don't seem to be able to understand that, seeing as everytime gun control is mentioned, they scream about a conspiracy to steal their guns and destroy 'merica. People are also serious about Ron Paul and Libertarianism, most still think it is bull**** though.

Dexter Walking Dead Doctor Who Game of Thrones Boardwalk Empire Torchwood Daily Show/Colbert Report Community Buffy/Angel

In PE2 they could try to include nun-lethal damage I wouldn't object to that at all.

I don't think there is such a thing as "none-lethal damage"..... However non-lethal damage could be pretty cool.