PK htiw klaw eriF

I voted for "other', because I took mechanics to mean gameplay mechanics, and would heavily prefer a Pathfinder like ruleset to a 2E ruleset. I would be happy with NWN level of graphics, because any advancement beyond that hasn't really improved gameplay for party based cRPGs.

It can't be worse than the prequels.

I agree with your post quite a bit but wanted to reply to this line in particular. Every relationship should be pretty deep, and it can be reasonably accomplished in PE(since it will not have animated cut-scenes for conversations or voice much of them). I don't want to see any relationship with a character get an outrageous amount of attention compared to other types of relationships. I also don't want to see a type of relationship not be implemented simply because of the perception that it takes huge amounts of resources or because some believe that others will play them in a way that they don't like. On the other hand, I don't want to see a type of relationship included simply because people keep begging for them or to fill a quota. I want to see types of relationships included if the writers feel it would fit the character well, can contribute to the story, and add PC options. Absolutely. Every available relationship and dialogue option should be included with the intent to increase the amount of options that the PC has.

1000 years of darkness and the extinction of freedom, the 'merican way, and puppies will happen because Obama won! Run while you can! On a serious note, we will probably have to wait until at least January to see the effects of an Obama 2nd term. It is usually a good idea to wait until something starts to start critically dissecting it.

How the PC develops relationships with NPCs and what relationships they develop can define and diversify the character as well. Character interaction is just as much part of the story as combat or quest outcomes are.

The problem with defining prestige classes is that there are essentially three different kinds..... Enhancement: Gives one feat or ability that is either a replica or enhancement of another ability. Assassin, Weapon Master, and Red Wizard fall into this group. Reconciliation: Advances two different classes abilities. Cebremancer, Arcane Trickster, and Divine Fist fall into this group. Addition: These add unique abilities for several classes. Dragon Disciple, Shadow Dancer, and Bear Warrior call this group home. Of the three groups, I would argue that the first two could be easily accomplished with the addition of feats or tweaking how CL(caster level) is calculated, and can be generally rendered redundant. The last group is the kind of prestige class I would like to see in PE. If they don't want to include them, I would like to see an "archtype" option for classes that allow the player to tweak their characters in interesting ways. Preferably, these "archtypes" would be selected around level 8 or so, so that the players would have time to develop their character a certain way before making a commitment to certain abilities.

I would like there to be great mysteries in the world that have no clear answer. Here is a small list of examples.... What are the Gods? What is a Soul? Is Necromancy inherently evil? Is someone more than the sum of their parts? What is "love"? Is there "good" and "evil"? Is everything predetermined? If PE explored these questions without beating the player over the head with the "right" answer, then I would feel that it is a mature game. While rape, sex, and racism, should be included for the sake of realism, just slapping them on and declaring that PE is a mature game would feel like a cop out.

My problem with this system is that it might as well be a classless system(which I would enjoy). From what I take of your proposal, it seems that every class will have access to the other classes' abilities. While I think armored Mages and swashbuckling fighters should be an option(and even quite optimal), I wouldn't like it if Fighters could sling around wizard spells or Barbarians could use prayers with out training as a Wizard or Priest. I believe that in a good class system, each class should have unique abilities(like the Paladin's Aura of Courage or Druids Wildshape in 3.x) that are completely exclusive to that class, to make up for the loss of freedom due to being restricted to a specific class. With multiclassing, you could have characters that sacrifice exceptional mastery of their class abilities to dabble in another class to gain theirs. Not that I don't think that all classes should follow some set path or anything, but having class specific abilities is a huge advantage to using a class system.

How do you feel about Multiclassing and Prestige classes?

It is the internet. It is much easier to demonize your opponent than to have a respectful discussion about something.

Warrior classes should be far superior at combat than other classes simply because that is what the class trains for. Mages should be behind the warrior classes at combat because their class training involves using magic, not martial combat. With a class system, the goal should be to create classes that can fulfill different(and multiple) roles in combat through different means with their base abilities. It shouldn't be to create classes that are perfectly able to match each other at what they excel in, if it was, then a classless system would be far preferable. Not that classes shouldn't have plenty of customization options like skills and feats, I think that they should just have a base set of abilities that favor certain roles(like Fighters gaining combat abilities). Also Multiclassing should be included if possible.

If at the end of your playthrough, you are satisfied with the character development for the NPC and the options given the PC.

I think there was actually a poll out a while ago that showed democrats typically favored compromise and republicans did not. Who would have thought that compromise would have become a partisan issue?

Every time someone says something breaks their immersion in a game it breaks my immersion in real life. I don't think that there is anything I hate more than the immersion argument. It has become more of a buzzword than a legitimate argument.

I threw up a bit just reading that.

Good Job America. Unfortunately my state went for Romney, but I don't see how Texas going Republican is exactly a surprise. Maybe now Obama can show some balls. And 2016 looks good for Romney..........wonder if he gets a discount for the third run? Tom Cruise 2016?

Honestly, I don't think I like this idea very much. I would prefer Rogues progress somewhat like they did in 3.5E and Pathfinder. They get more skill points for level than any other class, have access to a wide variety of skills, get a backstab ability that progress as they do, have some evasion abilities, and get a choice of several different unique abilities(some boost skill use, others dodging, others backstab, etc.) after a certain level. I don't know exactly how the soul powers will benefit Rogues(or any other class for that matter) but I suspect that it will contribute significantly to the Rogue's progression design.

"did the blonde seem high" , thats funny I've seen more energy in mannequins.

Honestly, how anyone can think that Coulter is an attractive woman is beyond me.

And I thought that the Clint Eastwood thing was crazy, did the blonde seem high or something?

I have no idea what I just read. While it would be great if you could be in several kinds of relationships with every NPC(More PC options are always better), it would be much too resource intensive to implement in PE effectively. Lets just let Obsidian do what they want for NPC relationships(I'm sure there will be something akin to "romance",quite a few people do seem to want it.) and enjoy the game.

I think that the skills are the Rogues primary ability though. Sneak attack is quite a nice boost to damage, but Rogues can really shine helping the party get past dangerous traps and other obstacles using their skills, which not many other classes can do. Bards, while relying on their skills quite a bit as well, seemed to favor performance, conversation, and knowledge skills, and their general role in the group was as a back-up for pretty much any other role. To be fair, in 3E, you could get a sneak attack by using the feint feat or flanking the opponent, so move silently and hide were not actually required, even if they were extremely optimal. I think that the biggest trade-off should be an armor penalty, so that while Rogues are capable of wearing heavy armor, wearing light armor is more attractive to Rogues who specialize more in athletic skills, rather than flank attack/feint combat. In terms of general training, I agree.

I wouldn't like it at all. The player should have complete control of the PC's background and personality.

I would like to see statistics derived dialogue sometimes end badly for the speaker. If talking "over the heads" of "stupid" NPCs, maybe they feel insulted and attack the speaker.

I disagree. The Rogue always had more skills than the bard. Bards simply do not have as many skill points or skills available to match the Rogue. I will agree that without a "sneak attack", the Rogues effectiveness at combat is significantly downgraded though.