PK htiw klaw eriF

I voted yes. Some of the most powerful spells should require ingredients(looking at wish and timestop in particular), the majority of spells should not require them though.

Off topic, but I just realized what your profile pick is from. You have god-tier taste in graphic novels my friend. Now lets exterminatus this thread already before it fills up with more furry sockpuppets... Care to enlighten us?

I don't like the idea of having a unhappy ending just for the sake of having an unhappy ending. Now I wouldn't mind multiple possible endings, with varying tones and outcomes, but I don't want every ending to be painted black just to be different from other games.

1. I feel like eating a cheeseburger. I don't see what you feel like doing has to do with this argument. If you were trying to take a potshot, "I feel like I am speaking to a not very bright child" would have been the proper way to state it. 2. Strawman. You assume that if content X is included that receive the resources that were allocated to content X come from content Y. To use an example relevant to PE, just because the Endless Paths are included in PE, does not mean that if they were not included resources would have instead been allocated to provide new races and classes. 3. You failed to provide a counter argument. 4. Did you mean "Then they are friendships."? If so, then I would state that romances do not always involve sex, and friendships do not always not involve sex(see Platonic Love and Friends with Benefits). 5. If you have no evidence to support your argument just say so. Also "Going Iron Man in a debate shows stupidity rather than stamina" would be the proper way to put it. 1. I'm arguing against you making statements without any evidence to back them up, because I am a Fact Nazi. 2. Then provide proof. 3. That is not necessarily the case. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a hypothesis is an assumption. You have made an assumption, therefore you have made a hypothesis. 4. Is that all the evidence you could muster? 1. Immersion does not equate to playing a self-insert. 2. No, I do not. I have never stated that I have. 3. I suggest going here before you post again. 4. ^

I wouldn't go for it. I dislike the integrated graphics quite a bit. This and This are what I would go for.

It all depends. I'm a bit tired of the standard "Human with animal heads, fur(or scales), and possibly a tail" that seems to result when these creatures are included. I wouldn't mind if Obsidian tried something different for bestial races, but I don't think that they should be humanoid. As far as it being "vain" to put Human in every fantasy setting, I don't think that they are complete analogues to humans IRL. How many people do you know that can shoot fireballs, wield a blade effectively enough to slay something several times their size, or are able to stand a blast of intense flame?

1. Strawman. Just because content A is included in a game, content B does not necessarily deteriorate was the point I made. I did not state that zots come from nowhere or that implementation of anything is resource free. 2. Did you mean "How can a story about getting into someone's panties be called interesting?"? Grammatical abortion besides, Romance =/= sex anymore than Friendship =/= fistbump or Rivalry =/= heated debate. 3. Where did you get this from? Sex was not mentioned in my entire post. 4. You still no evidence to support your statements. You haven't even argued against the points I made. 1. I was not arguing that the statistics were significant, I was arguing against your assumptions and conclusion. Were you arguing against a strawman, or is your English just awful? 2.Yet you have. You have also drawn a conclusion from no data. You can't prove that "most of the people have gave up on these threads and topics long ago". Silent Majority arguments fail because they are improvable. 3.That is making a Hypothesis. Do I need to explain what a "Hypothesis" is? 4. If you make a Hypothesis, then yes you do. 1. Strawman, again. This does not address your baseless assumption that everyone who wants romance play RPGs as self-inserts. 2. I don't. I don't exist in the game. I don't play a self-insert. Strawman. 3. You really missed the entire point, didn't you? Do you actually know what a self-insert is? Strawman. 4. Incoherent nonsense that has no bearing on the topic. Please tell me that English is not your native language. FFS, take a remedial course or stay the **** away from English forums.

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.