PK htiw klaw eriF

Gun Control will not happen in the US. Any attempts to even start a conversation about it will draw the gun nuts who believe that banning semi-automatic assault rifles or requiring a through background check means that the government is trying to take away all of your guns. Damn shame.

I think that D&D 3.X/Pathfinder did dual-wielding very well. While it has the potential to deal higher amounts of damage than Two-Handed weapons, it is more feat and ability intensive(3 feats and 19 DEX) to be competitive. I think that PE could take inspiration from Pathfinder for combat styles, with feats(or whatever the PE analogue) for all combat styles that correct weaknesses and add strengths.

This is a good thing and must be applauded. I can't get on a boat in an RPG and not expect a giant sea monster battle. I blame Shining Force. Now a Kraken would be an awesome monster to face. Damn Shining Force.

I think that skills should all cost the same amount of points per rank, and all should be about equally useful in the game. I also don't get the Sawyer hate. We don't really know enough about the mechanics to start hating at the moment.

Just implement dual-wielding how it was in 3.X and Pathfinder. Slap an attack(hit) penalty on both weapons, off-hand only gets .5 strength bonus to damage, and it requires feats(or whatever the PE analogue is) to gain access to more off-hand attacks per round(or however PE calculates attack rate) and/or unique abilities.

I think the best balance is where some classes' OP abilities are limited(like concentration checks and spells per day for casters). From what I can tell, that is what Sawyer is going for with class design in PE. I also like the idea of removing encounters or mechanics that require the player to have one particular class in their party(like a locked gate only a rogue can unlock, an opponent whose mystical protections can only be removed by a mage, etc.) and instead providing many ways to overcome an obstacle and removing certain spells that made someone invincible and could only be dispelled by a very specific spell.

I want all classes to have the potential to become powerful. I think that designing classes with balanced progression where they do not gain super-powerful abilities early on or they not gain anything of use after level 10 is the best way to do things. A level 1 fighter should be a competent amateur at combat, while a level 20 fighter should be a master at combat(switch out "fighter" with x class and "combat" with whatever you feel x class is good at and the statement should still be true). I don't want one class to be amazing(or awful) compared to other classes. A fighter should be a reasonable alternative to a mage, not the choice of a guy who hits things with a sword or a powerful wizard who can throw around meteor storms every round with impunity. There are two ways to balance the two, one is to design the system where both classes do everything equally and the other is to design the system to have them be balanced by having strengths and weaknesses. For example, in an equal system at level 7 both classes would be able to deal 17 damage per hit, the only difference being how it was dealt(melee attack for the fighter, acid arrow for the mage), while in a strength and weakness system at level 7 the fighter would deal 7-14 damage per hit(using a longsword with a high strength score and specializing in longswords) and be able to hit a foe until they die, while the mage would be able to blast areas of foes with fireballs for 7-42 damage but be limited in the amount of spells they could cast, so when they were out of their spells they would be pretty vulnerable(compared to the fighter).

Being a bit more serious, there was an old Doctor Strange issue where this guy basically knew shout magic; each word, perfectly shouted created an effect. I'm really thinking that's going to be what the Chanter does channeling energy into the old texts and using those words to cause things to happen. I'm hoping its not just buffing, though, as I find buff oriented classes fairly boring. I think I might have that issue in my dad's collection. Would be a cool take on a Bard.

I cleaned my apartment top to bottom(great way to spend a day off btw), then got around to designing a few encounters for a GURPS game I am GMing. I have been thinking of trying to get an Arcanum playthrough in before December 26, might end up doing that.

The conspiracy theorists who thought that the end of the Mayan Calender meant the end of the world try to destroy the world in order to be right.

I think that the chanter(like every other PE class) should function in a similar manner to their Pathfinder analogues(Pathfinder > D&D 3.x simply it allows more versatility and has more abilities) because that is how they are described and what most of us are familiar with. That means..... Some spellcasting, mostly support and debilitating, with a small bit of damage and healing Wide variety of skills(or whatever the PE analogue is) Competent combat training(more than a wizard, less than a fighter) Variety of songs that have a multitude of effects

Yes please! I think that letting the player know the culture of the characters they will be playing is a pretty easy thing to accomplish(a few passages in a manual) that has quite a bit of benefit for those of us looking to role-play a character.

To be fair, most games these days are pretty damn buggy on release. You should always wait about a month till a few patches are releases or someone comes up with a fix.

So you would like a NWN2 system for crafting the basic weapons and adding enchantments to them, and a BG2 system for crafting epic/legendary/unique items? Because that sounds just dandy to me.

In general, I think that D&D crafting systems are crap. Oo, let's nerf non-casters EVEN MORE by giving ALL crafting abilities to casters who have to spend their precious experience points in order to make items for the non-casters! I'm sure the party wizard and cleric will be delighted to drop two levels so that you can have that +5 funky-ass exotic weapon you always wanted instead of using the +5 longsword you FOUND for FREE. That is why I said Pathfinder improved it quite a bit. No more XP costs for Magic Items.

Indeed Odin reigns supreme. Just look at him. My dog. A blue merle border collie. This was when he was 3 months old. He's now 9 months old and much bigger, but still cute as ever. You sir, have won the thread.

I think that 3.X E(what NWN2 is based on) did crafting pretty well, and Pathfinder(essentially 3.75 E) improved it quite a bit. I think that Obsidian should look in to Pathfinder for ideas on how to do enchantment of items, and just keep the NWN method of crafting normal items.

I'm currently playing Arcanum simply to get ideas for the PnP I'm GMing sunday. I really hate the combat system but the setting is easily one of the best I have ever seen. I'm also torn between starting a Planescape or trying out BGEE.

The God of Abraham does not exist. Odin reigns supreme!

I'm pretty jaded about horror in most games to be honest. I would prefer strangeness myself. I want to see aberration creatures again, and deal with cosmic entities completely alien to me. I think I want less Cthulhu and more Doctor Strange if that makes any sense.

@Ieo I do agree that assuming Romance is the absolute deepest relationship possible is wrong(I'd argue that relationships have "variable depth" from person to person, but that is another topic). I still love that idea about the "relationship branches", but I think that it would be even better if there were more than 2 options per NPC(this might not be possible with resource /time limitation, but one can always hope) and if the "negative" companion relationships actually have some depth to them.

So true, there are many types of bonds that can be formed under the umbrella term of romance: - oaths of friendship over the sound of cracking Orc skulls (lolmance) - characters trying to evoke your empathy with their 'traumatic' past (failmance) - characters with vague intentions playing hard to get (facepalmance) - exploring issues of transgender love (buttmance) - furries and quadrupeds as love interests (beastmance) - a budding interest in dead bodies/ inanimate objects (necromance) Dude, I think you might have misunderstood my statement. I was expressing dismay that no other types of relationships besides romance have been discussed because people keep fighting about romance. And the furry thing was just nasty.

So how many threads have there been and the only type of relationship talked about is Romance? Anyways, I would like the game to be dynamic enough to allow multiple relationship types per NPC, not the friend/enemy thing that usually happens. I would also like to see a mentor-ship , drinking buddies, grudging respect, barely contained hostility but still have to work together as possible relationships. I think Obsidian can do these quite well. And if there is romance, please have one end up like Gwen Stacy, now that would be awesome.

What would have made this video great is if at 1:50 Rob appeared to rub it in.

My biggest problem with "Speech" skills is that they don't really make sense. How does one learn to be persuasive or intimidating? Using attributes in conversation always made more sense to me. I'm also happy about the Health/Stamina split, if for no other reason than it reminds me of Megaversal. I also appreciate that mages in PE will not be protected by multiple layers of protection that need to be striped in a specific order or else the mage is invincible and wipes out the entire party. not only did it all but require you to take a mage, it was extremely boring and got old fast.