PK htiw klaw eriF

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.

While I like the flexibility this system provides, creating a Deep Gnome Monk(5)/Rogue(1)/Dreadmaster of Bane(12)/Conjurer(12) in IWD2 makes me question it nevertheless. Why? Shouldn't the player be able to crate whatever character they desire, even if it is a little strange or nonviable ?

It did NOT. They had to put in feats like "Practiced Spellcaster" to make martial/magic multiclasses viable and that just added ANOTHER penalty to multiclassing (a feat cost). Folks had to house rule passive caster levels into the rules to make 3E multiclasses worth a damn without resorting to using cheesy Prestige Classes or unfair feat costs (some d20 system out there is sold using those passive caster levels, don't recall the company or the name of the system at the moment). First of all. you didn't address the freedom for customization that I stated I liked about 3/3.5E multiclassing. You went off on a rant on viability, something I did not even mention. Anyways, multiclassing was quite possible(and to address your complaint viable) in 3/3.5E. Just because there is a disadvantage for multiclassing(like reduced caster level or less skill points or less bab or having to allocate precious attribute points sparingly or etc.) doesn't mean it is completely horrid and not worth a damn. A fighter/wizard can still be an effective character, even if they have a lower caster level or bab than one of the pure classes. While that fighter/wizard may not be able to out fight a fighter or out cast a wizard, he can use buff himself to fortify his ability in combat where a fighter could not(use haste, enlarge person, greater magic weapon, etc.), or deal with a foe that got close like a wizard could not(use a weapon effectively instead of hoping that he passes a concentration check). Add in prestige classes(similar to those cheesy kits) that are completely optional and(in most circumstances) do not require a specific class and you have a good system that allows quite a bit of freedom for customization. BTW you don't have to take that Practiced Spellcaster to make a wizard/fighter work well. It is entirely possible to create an excellent build without one. But in that system, you are forced into an "even-split" in regards to the level of classes. In 3E, I can make a Wizard(19)/Rogue(1) if I please. I can't do that in 2E. So 2E does not provide as much freedom of customization as 3/3.5E. Which is what I place the priority on, not viability. As far as the lower level foes still remaining threats, in 3/3.5E any character has a 5% chance of landing a critical hit, and it is not unusual to be able to get hit(and take a fair bit of damage I might add) by foes 5 levels lower. So both systems can have low level foes that are still dangerous.

No. I dislike the idea of "unwinnable" any thing. I don't want to have an encounter be impossible simply for the sake of being impossible. I'm fine with having very difficult encounters, but the idea of one that is arbitrarily impossible is not something I would want.

I think 3/3.5E did multiclassing perfectly. Something like that would give the most freedom for customization.

You could use another option in the second part of the poll. "No character should have a maximum or minimum attribute". That is how I feel about that. Anyways stats should be useful to everyone, obviously some are going to benefit more from one, but all should still be useful to everyone. A good range of attributes(6 to 8 seems appropriate) would also be appreciated. More customization options are always better.

The player should be able to kill NPCs if they want to, but have to deal with the consequences. I dislike this whole "plot armor" thing that protects NPCs from death.

The game should only respond to actions without any assumption of morality. I do not want the game to assume that a PC is evil because the PC in question performed an act that would be considered evil. The PC is the Player's Character after all, and only the player can understand how the PC thinks and why they do what they do.

The classes listed seem to cover most of the bases(I'm assuming that Cipher is similar to either a Sorcerer or Psion/Wilder) and I don't think that any more are really needed at the moment(in the expansion, one or two would be great). I would love to see either some prestige classes or more variety of feats, skills, and spells. That way, we can have more customization options for the existing classes. Ideas for some prestige classes off the top of my head Weapon Master Spell-Sword Arcane Master(metamagic casting class, similar to the Arcane Scholar of Candledeep[or whatever it was called] in MotB) DeathKnight Divine Champion/Avenger Saint Feind Slayer A super specialized caster A prestiege class that fuses martial arts with a caster class Assassin Arcane(or Divine) Trickster Spy Master Warlock Sniper(extremely talented marksman)

Which sounds pretty much like a copy of what Fallout 1 & 2 have, where injuries are a byproduct of combat and need to be taken care of either by a Doctor, or if you invested in the Doctor Skill enough you could then fix the problem yourself with the use of a Doctors Bag or First Aid Kit etc... Or a copy of negative status effects from (name pretty much any PnP ). It is a good idea.

I don't know if PE should use the DA tactics system, but they should have a complex AI for every party member, including the PC. Letting the game "play itself" should be an option.

How will attack rolls and skill rolls be handled? How will AC be handled? Will spell-casters have to make concentration checks?

I think that point-buy would probably work the best.

No to randomization of dungeons/environment.

Full text. I also do not want the PC to speak unless I consent to it. The PC should never surprise me.

Like some people have already said, the origins were a great idea and well executed. I don't think that other than origins PE needs to take any ideas from DAO, mostly because PE will already have the best things about DAO(no morality bar, character skill determining success of combat, the PC will not say anything with out player consent, etc.). They should learn not to.... Constantly compare the game to classics. While I greatly enjoyed DAO(it is favorite BW game), it didn't play like BG(2) and should have been marketed more on it's own merits Not make a sequel that radically changes the mechanics. The combat system, dialogue system, and crafting systems were all changed quite a bit from DA, IMO for the worst. Please keep consistent mechanics throughout the series. Not put too much focus on romances. While romances can be a good role-playing opportunity, if overdone they end up as shameless fanservice, which is what they ended up being in DA2. Put cinematics ahead of gameplay content. I would rather play the game then watch it.

If this could be implemented efficiently and effectively, I would jump for joy. Having to take the environment of areas into consideration instead of just barreling through without any consideration would be quite nice.

In a combat system for a cRPG the main requirement I have is for success in combat to be determined by character skill and not player skill. The cooldown for basic attacks is something I actually like in RTwP cRGPs (IMO, DAO actually handled basic attacks pretty well). With spells and special abilities, I really like limited mana/stamina/uses instead of cooldowns. My preferred system would be a mana/stamina per day system that accommodates both spontaneous ability-use/casting and preparation of spells. The reason I favor this instead of a spells/abilities per day system is that magic users can prepare the spells they want without being stopped by a 8-th level limit, and combat classes can use abilities like rage or stunning fist more instead of quivering palm just because they have a "per day" limit for that ability.

More classes can't be a bad thing.

I think that multiclassing should be handled like it was in 3/3.5E, the only penalty is that a multiclass character isn't as specialized as a single class. Take a rogue/wizard character for example. The character will be less effective than a pure wizard(because they will have to focus somewhat on roguish abilities like stealth instead of magic) or a pure rogue(because they have to focus somewhat on magic instead of rogue talents). So while a pure rogue could fell mighty beings with a well placed sneak attack or a pure wizard could shoot down dragons from the sky with lightning, the rogue/wizard cannot. However,the rogue/wizard can invoke magic in ways a pure rogue could not, or evade deadly blasts that a pure wizard could not. Also, there should be no special stat ranges for any race or class. Every character should have the ability to raise whatever attribute they wish how they wish. TL;DR version The penalty of multiclassing should simply be being less effective at specialized things than a pure class.