PK htiw klaw eriF

Honestly, I don't like it very much. It seems to be much more complicated than 2-8 damage. Personally I love the idea of a damage range plus a static bonus, like 2-12+5. It shows the player the base range of damage the weapon will do and what bonus they will get to damage.

It should function exactly the same way it does for the party, unless there is a damn good lore reason why it does not.

I prefer the feat system like the one found in 3/3.5E to be better than talent trees.

I have two questions for those who don't like romances in games. 1. If you believe that romances between the PC and NPCs are simply fanservice, do you consider friendships between the PC and NPCs fanservice as well? 2. If the answer to the above is no, then why is a friendship not fanservice, but a romance is?

No. Consoles simply don't have enough input options to utilize the abilities that will be present in PE. Not trying to dig at consoles(they are better for certain types of games) PE simply wouldn't work on them. Hell DAO barely did, and it was pretty simple(seeing as it used a much smaller list of actions than NWN2).

Aren't options 1 and 2 pretty much the same? Anyways, I do like the damage to be in a range, rather than a flat number.

Shouldn't the player decide what the line means? A well written line in a Role-Playing game should be able to be delivered in a number of different ways. I find it more immersion breaking when the PC does something I don't explicitly consent to. I think that the [x]tags should only appear when the PC is utilizing some sort of skill. That way, if the PC is attempting to [heal], [persuade], [cast burning hands], the player will know that the PC is utilizing one of their skills/spells. I do agree that "ability determined"(by this I mean conversation options that are available by having x amount of a skill or attribute) conversation options don't need to have [x]tags, since the PC isn't attempting to use a skill, but is drawing upon knowledge that they have.

I could see something like this working.

And all threats should use the intimidate skill yes. I do not see how there could be any confusion unless the threatening is done using some horrible eufemisms (I could maybe take you out for dinner [dramatic score]). The Player is the one ho puts the "motive" behind the line spoken. So if the Player selects a line that they do not intend as a threat, but the intimidate skill is used, then that is a problem. [intimidate] should appear , so the Player doesn't unwillingly and/or unknowingly intimidate someone.

Not even then. It should be pretty much the opposite - every even remotely threatening response should check the characters intimidation skill without displaying any tags. How does the game know that the PC is trying to intimidate someone? The only one who should decide if a response is a threat is the player.

This is where I think that things get a bit muddy. I never consider the PC in a RPG to be me, so I don't view their romance and friendships to be my own. I think this makes the whole romance debate difficult because not every player sees their PCs the same way I do. I think that romances should be included if Obsidian wants to do them They focus character development/reaction rather than fanservice/ego stroking Every "romanceable" character can also be a good friend or other type of relationship

I don't think that they should show a [x] unless the PC is actively doing it. For example, if the PC is using the intimidate skill, the player should know that they are using it. I agree with OP in the cases of [attribute/certain other skills] where x amount of the said attribute or skill are required to even allow the option.

What If I wish to role-play a PC whose tactical prowess is far superior to my own? Having a tactics option could allow me to do that, assuming they are done well. If you prefer not to use tactics(for whatever reason) then you shouldn't have to. I'm not advocating for mandatory anything, just the options that let the player do as they wish.

I think that there should be basic ammunition for weapons it is appropriate for. Ammunition should be able to be enchanted and improved with materials.

They should have options to Micromanage the entire party Have tactics for NPCs and the PC That way, if you want to let the game play itself, you can do that. If you want to only control the PC and let the party act like NWN's henchmen or DAO's tactics system you can do that. If you want to micromange the party, you can do that. Giving the player many ways to play the game should be a goal.

^Is he stuck in the 1950s or some ****? I would like to see him actually define "Communism" before he uses the word. The only thing this election seems to be good for is reinforcing my hatred of politics and give me more of a reason to game and spend absurd amounts of money on comics.

I don't mind inequality concerning a few quests here and there, the problem arises when one particular "alignment" gets consistently "punished" and another gets consistently "rewarded". If the "evil" acts consistently get fewer rewards than the "good" acts in EVERY scenario there is a problem.

I don't think that party members should gain any sort of experience if they do not perform actions that would normally be rewarded with experience. Maybe there could be some kind of "side missions" for them to go on like chasing a bounty or something of that nature? It should involve some risk and could keep certain characters more viable companions after they had spent some time away from the main party. I usually did as well, but that was mostly because I didn't use a mod that gave access to a "respec" item and thought that the "auto-builds" for characters were terrible. Also my PCs usually felt more comfortable around people they were already familiar with.

I think that the player should be allowed to export a character whenever they wish, and start a new game with said character.

I think that there should be a "store" at character creation, where we "buy" all of the PC's equipment at the base price. That way, we can have whatever equipment and supplies we feel like our PC should have. All leftover currency ends up in the PC's pocket.

I think the player should restrict themselves from abusing it. There are so many things in a game for a player to abuse(like reloading) that would be pretty damn difficult to restrict without making them frustrating as hell. I would bet that most people that will be playing PE aren't the type who reload every roll to make sure they get a success or spam resting to be fully refreshed for every encounter.

Yes, if it is something like "bring me 20 X". But that sounds more like selling loot than an actual quest.

I don't see why not. Although, I think a big reason why there were so many weapon artifacts is because there were so many types of weapons. I think that they could eliminate some "redundancies" of weapons found in D&D.

As long as they burn in the sunlight instead of sparkle, I'm good.

Humans should have no special abilities besides a "quick learner" or "skilled" ability that gives them an extra feat and/or skill points at character creation. Also, they should have no negatives, which other races can have.