PK htiw klaw eriF

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.

Yes,if perishable food is also taken into consideration. If a character consumes something that has "expired" then they should get sick.

I think that they should have some portraits like they did in BG. Also, I think that we should have the option to import our own portraits.

The ability to accurately play whatever character I create. That is all I need really. As long as the game doesn't railroad my PC internally, I will be happy.

If they do romance, they should do it well. Don't make much content "romance exclusive" or make romances boring fanservice. Essentially, don't do them like (modern) Bioware would do them.

I like turn based, but PE will not be turn based. It is going to be RTwP. I would prefer that they make the best RTwP game they can.

Do it like Palladium. Health is tied to one attribute and doesn't progress with level. Stamina is what progresses as you level and can ave several other things to enhance it.

Only if said rats are giant and have heat vision.

If they want to include romances and can do it without making too much content and character development romance exclusive, then they should do it. Just don't pull a bioware and flood the game with fanservice romances with all the personality of a cardboard cutout.

I don't advocate for turning PE into some grindtastic crap heap or anything, but I don't think you need to tie XP rewards solely to quests to do that. You could always have low XP gain for success for "menial" skill success or killing farmers or have some penalties for going random killings(like bounties, not being able to complete or start a quest, merchants refusing to deal with the PC, etc.). Also, I think that most playing PE will be roleplaying their PC, and will not go on a killing spree grind unless they feel it suits their character. I don't see how having certain quests that reward nonviolence or encourage people not to go on killing sprees is exclusive to having XP tied to quests only. I also think that quest design should provide many solutions, but again I don't see how that is exclusive to quest only XP.

I think that XP should be awarded for doing anything successfully, including slaying a monster, disarming a trap, talking down an angry mob, etc. I dislike the idea of XP gain being tied to completion of objectives only, which while it should provide plenty of XP, shouldn't be the only source.

I don't think there is anything more immersion breaking than a PC who does anything without player input. Level-Scaling is a close second though. I don't see why a petty thug should be a challenge for a high-level character or a powerful dragon should be fairly weak for low-level characters.

From what I understood, the stamina/health is a bit like the SDC/HP system found in Palladium. It isn't a bad idea, can be implemented badly, but that is true of ANY system.

Possibly included as a creature. But I don't think it could work as a playable race.

All stats should be important to all characters. Also, equipment shouldn't be limited by an attribute, if anything, it should be limited by proficiency or something.

I thought that randomness with non-combat abilities was a good thing. After all, it is possible to screw up when picking a lock, trying to bluff, or forging a weapon. I would like something like d20, Gurps, or Palladium style checks, where you have a certain chance to succeed, but can actually fail at something.

Or you can have a Champion of (a magic oriented deity) who crusades against evil with sword and spell. Or in the case of Barbarian/Druid, a savage who is devout to nature. That is just two examples of how 3/3.5E allows the player more options to create the character they want. I will agree that quite a few abilities in 3/3.5E do come in at too low of a level(if that is what you meant about frontloaded class design), but that is a class design problem, not a flaw with the concept of the multiclass system. Because how multiclassing works in general is how multiclassing works in 3E. When you invest x amount of levels into a class, you will be as proficient as a level x of that class at what it does. Also like I have stated, 3E allows more freedom than 2E, and as I have already stated, I place the priority on freedom, not on how optimal every option is. Again, I have. Both kits and prestige classes provide different abilities than the base class. The difference is that prestige classes must be taken sometime after character creation, and are (generally) not available to only one class. If you think it is impossible to create a multiclass that is viable(not optimal) without that one feat, then you do need some help. It should be. And 4E did an excellent job at that, which is why it is so loved by everyone and when I go to the comic shops 4E is displayed right at the register and 3.5E is stashed in the back. Oh wait, it isn't. You forgot something...... There was a bit more in there than "3E has crits". If you want me to clarify, I will. In 3E, lower level foes are still able to hit characters with spells, attacks, etc. that can make encounters with them challenging. The point was that i is entirely possible to design encounters using lower level foes that are challenging in both editions. I'm thinking the same about now.

You're welcome. No they aren't. Paladin/Sorcerers or Barbarian/Druids can be very powerful characters. Make a Sorcerer(16)/Paladin(4) then get back with me. Yes they did. Bold is where I addressed the weakness of a 3/3.5E multiclass, Underline is where I addresses the strengths. They were in the sense that they gave the character access to abilities that the base class did not. No you don't. A caster level of 10 is quite useful for a character using 5-th level spells(whixh can be pretty damn useful. They have a full minute of Haste which can be quite a devastating buff. In 3/3.5E you don't need anything(with regards to feats, skills, attributes, etc.) to make an effective character. Would you like me to provide guidelines on how to build a martial/caster without that feat? 3/3.5E allows ​me to do that, it doesn't necessarily encourage anything. If people want to make some oddball munchkinized super class, why shouldn't they be able to? Why can't someone have a barbarian/druid, paladin/sorcerer, or monk/ranger/assassin, even if that character isn't supremely optimal? Player Freedom in a RPG should be more important than anything. Umm, news flash, that isn't the point I was arguing. I was arguing that 3/3.5E allowed for challenging fights with lower-level fores, not that 2E didn't have critical hits or which system handled hit or HP better. Nice strawman though.

Is it weird that I really don't care much anymore? I mean, I'm voting against Romney because it seems that the only thing he actually believes in is that he should be president, but at the moment I don't care who wins.

People generally play different rulesets than D&D because lately it has gone down the crapper. 4E plays like an horrible MMO. 3/3.5E were really good IMO and were just as good as 2E(different sure, but just as good). Anyways, GURPs or Heroes Unlimited(or Rifts, Palladium uses a ruleset that can easily be adapted to fit any campaign) are probably the best to play.

I would like to see the subraces be acknowledged by the game if they exist. I honestly don't care at the moment to be honest.

No level scaling. I can't think of anything besides the dialogue systems with a voiced PC that manage to break immersion more for me.