PK htiw klaw eriF

For certain quests, I wouldn't mind a time limit, but I would hate to have a time limit for part of the main quest.

I think that both should be very detailed. Also the equations for all spell/ability effects(range, duration, damage, etc.) should be clearly displayed. Giving the player all the information would be great. As for the OP, I'm fine without a tutorial, as long as the game is thoroughly documented in the manual.

At the time of posting(69 votes) it seems that the majority of us who want multiclassing would prefer a "Mix and Match" system over a Gestalt system. Why do you prefer whichever system you prefer? I personally like a "Mix and match" system because it allows more freedom and player pacing of the character's progression.

You still have to train as a Shadow dancer though, which is not a Rogue. Not to mention that Shadow Dancer was also not Rogue exclusive, so Rangers, Monks, bards, etc. were also competent candidates. I do think the rest of the post could apply to PE though, assuming soul powers work how they do in the description on the wiki.

I wouldn't call it nice, since the people who voted "no" to the first question seem to have misunderstood the "If you answered yes to the previous question" part of the second, and are making those who want "Mix and Match" multiclassing seem like a plurality rather than a majority over those of us who want multiclassing.

Sorry that we critically read and analyze data. Then it throws everyone's tax dollars at Republican states, who then send congressmen to DC who are hell bent on preventing federal dollars spent wisely and would prefer to steal the money from hard working Democratic states who put in more than they get. Why is it ok for those parasitic freeloaders to steal my money?

It is the hair. Just looks too campy to take seriously.

It is the internet.

Fixed that for you. Now it could pass for the republican motto.

Very well. That good enough for you? You don't see a problem in getting federal dollars. I'm not a Liberal. I will give credit where credit is due though. And generally the Democratic states have been supporting those parasitic republican states.

Maybe they think that if they emulate China, they will matter again. Not a very good idea, considering that China's path is unsustainable. There is only so long you can have a few doing extremely well while the rest of the country lives in abysmal conditions.

I personally don't like the idea because I could see the log getting a bit cluttered.

So it is okay for the Republican states to parasite off the Democratic States? Why the hell should Alabama get California's money? Those freeloaders should only get what they put in.

I do. I want food based prayers as well for priests as well. All hail Raed-Vaelvaet, god of Cake!

No. Melee casters will be however.

What? I don't recall them stating that the only funds for PE will come from crowd-sourcing. There is no reason to believe that PE will not be funded in some part by Obsidian.

I agree. However, I think that how the character thinks should be the first thing that they consider. I don't either, however, it can be simpler since companions are already getting quite a bit of attention/fleshing out while that innkeeper might not be.

I wouldn't mind seeing powerful items that require a quest or boss fight to receive. I would also like to be able to craft powerful items that can compete with them.

Democrat states would be up to their necks in debt like they are now. Although this is 2 years old, graphs like this are cool to look at. http://www.ritholtz....-their-debt.png 14 of the top 20 are straight up Democratic states. Huh, that makes the democratic states look great, actually. Yep, I don't think that having less GDP is a bad thing. Also I think it is quite funny that some of the most Republican states get the most money from the federal government.

Is it possible to have a transcript posted?

While I agree with all of your questions, I have to modify your list a bit to what I believe it should be.... 1. How does the character think?(Personality) 2. How does the character act?(Presentation to others) 3. Where was I born? 4. Who are/were my family? 5. How did I grow up? 6. What led me to be here? 7. What do I value? 8. Who do I care about? 9. Am I susceptible to romance/seduction or try to romance/seduce others? 10. Why does the character do what they do?(motivation) I think that questions 2-9 should support 1. Where the character is born, how they grew up, their experiences, and what they care about should reinforce why they think the way they do. After all other questions are answered, then the answer to 10 becomes clear.

While I certainly agree that the BSN is incredibly romance-centric, I don't think that if a game includes romances, the forums associated with it will necessarily become saturated with creepy threads like the BSN. I'd argue how the romances are presented and executed may contribute to the BSN obsession with them. Since Bioware romances are often cinematic experiences that tend to focus on consummation and "love" scenes(on a side note, bio-drones are also generally against explicit sex and nudity, unless it is done "tastefully", whatever that means.) instead of exploring the character/personality of the NPC who the PC is involved with, they tend to focus on sex more than actual character development. If romances are done in PE, I would bet that they would focus more on NPC characterization and PC-NPC interaction than the Bioware romances. Just look at Obsidian's track record compared to Bioware, MotB and KOTOR2 romances are hardly comparable to those in ME and DA(especially 2). I don't see how character design would be negatively impacted if romance was one of the relationship options(yes I read your whole post, btw). A romance does not have to supersede any type of relationship to be believable or well written, in fact it can simply be an extension of them and give the same amount of content. For an example a romance could simply grow out of a friendship or rivalry, like quite a few do IRL. Like others have said, the NPC shouldn't be solely defined by being romanceable(or any other type of relationship), but if romance would fit the character design of the NPC then it shouldn't be avoided simply because it could be perceived that something else was sacrificed in order to make romance an option. I agree with Leo completely on that. However, his proposed solution to have different branches(representing different types of relationships) pretty much solves that problem. Not to mention it is a good idea in general, after all it would be terrible if the only way the PC could actually get to know their companions would be to be everyone's best friend.

You know what.....**** Bethesda. I wouldn't put it past them after the horrible way they treated Obsidian with FONV.

Shadowdancer is actually what I mostly had in mind as overpowered feat. It'd have been much better if every thief could "hide in plain sight", only less well or maybe with pooling multiple feats together. The other shadow-abilities as well, rather see them as a developement tree inside thief class than chopped into a prestige one. Maybe a PE Rogue(since they have soul powers) could have a shadow power tree, but in 3.x, the Rogue did not have any supernatural abilities so Shadow Dancer powers would have seemed strange. We won't really be able to argue about what a PE Rogue should be able to do until we find out what they can actually do.

I agreed with the first part of this statement, then screamed in horror at the thought of Gaider(current work) writing characters in PE.