Mr. Magniloquent

I believe Arcanum handled this best. There was a central plot in which all play-through(s) must culminate of which has limited outcomes. The ramifications of the player's actions outside of the main quest were then displayed and detailed independently of that story arc. I never felt pigeon-holed because all of my character's other (mis)deeds were included and prominently addressed. The finale was merely one more quest in the grande adventure.

It would make for some interesting quests though. Perhaps a murderer with class envy choosing targets within the gentry, gangs of sewer urchins banding together to rob wealthy homes, or perhaps a "cutting-edge" Animancer devouring hearts and souls to gain their power. The list can go on. It would certainly be well within class-struggle context.

I liked the body customization in Temple of Elemental Evil. Particularly when using enhanced resolutions, having that <3' halfling rogue could be hard to find on screen, lol. I also like the contrast of my short and plumb gnome wizard contrasted with my gigantic 6'4" warrior priest. Since the armors are scalable, I wouldn't think it too difficult to have the same ToEE feature in P:E.

I have a question for the Developers. Are the Godlike models more...articulated/exotic a deliberate attempt to dehumanize the Godlike models so that the same heads can be used for races with distinctly different in physical appearance?

What it ultimately comes down to, is individual spell design. As long as spells can level the field or immunize against classes of damage, most of the puzzle pieces should fall into place. One must beget the other. Powerful spells require power protections, which in turn require counters. The presence of counters requires powerful buffs (to warrant their existence/design), which beget powerful offensive spells. Etc, etc. If you have one, the others will follow. However, with no Raise Dead or Resurrection magic in P:E, I'm a bit skeptical that spells are actually going to be truly fearsome. More to that point, two non-spell casting classes have been repeated named as the "most damaging" classes. Beyond the simple heresy of that notion, one might reasonably inference a great deal about the caliber of offensive spells. While I have great faith in Obsidian to produce a fantastic game, I'm more than pessimistic that they're going to get spell casting "wrong". Let's hope my outlook is proven unequivocally unwarranted.

Are you trying to say that you wanted the Godlike to be more subtle, rather than overt in appearance? What you describe here is more of an instinctual force of presence rather than visible hereditary traits. I imagine that these qualities will be dramatized in game in descriptions and dialogue as you mentioned, but given the visual nature of video games and in intangible qualities of what you express...visual ques are very important. The death aspect are certainly more blatant than I was expecting, but I didn't expect them to appear mundane either.

Beyond convention/tradition, if Wizards had the same durability (HP) and could wear effective armaments while casting spells, it would lead to serious questions about the "adequacy" of non-spellcasting classes. To compensate, magic would need to seriously be dialed down. This has generally been what has transpired for cRPG spellcasting for more than a decade. Spellcasters are less fragile (more HP) and can cast more frequently. In turn, there is little to distinguish their spells from any other class ability beyond the animation. It's an elusive dilemma. Personally, I prefer the older methods. A spellcaster lives and dies by their spells. The spells are potent and costly, but the caster is next to nothing without them. Since we know there will be at-will spells AND per-encounter spells, it's extremely possible that a buff your class's build relied on for almost every single combat encounter would be per-encounter or at-will, rather than per-"day". While that would be alleviating, I still find myself being concerned. Even though I did not and do not find myself constantly leaning on spells like Protection from Magical Weapons or Absolute Immunity, this dynamic changes when you have to recasting your protections every battle. Rather than bathing the screen in fire, ice, mind-effects, etc. at the beginning of combat, I would have to be more reserved. There is a MASSIVE strategic difference between casting an offensive spell like Confusion in the first round, rather than the third. This is especially true when friendly fire exists, which we know is in.

That still has a major impact though. If, as a spell caster, you need to spend your first several actions in combat raising your defenses--that puts you at a major disadvantage. Those buffs better be extraordinarily powerful, because all of those classes that don't need to buff will be gunning for you. Party members may be able to screen some enemies, but not all of them--particularly ranged attacks. The second most major concern, is that having to buff every battle will seriously deplete a caster's spells per day. I doubt the protections which really make a true difference are going to be at-will abilities for that matter. It's the big picture and all of the ripples that occur within it that has me concerned about "no pre-buffing". It seems like a minor change, but I highly doubt it. I hope I am proven utterly wrong.

It is surprising that his response only included these types. One would expect "magical" or "spiritual" damage to make an appearance, given the "soul magic" thematic of P:E. As far as this list goes, "shock" may be the most broadly defined. While in a literal sense it lends to electrical damage, it could also be defined in the medical sense of traumatic injury or distress which could then be applied towards hunger, poison, and magical damage. Ultimately, I imagine that many more damage types will be included.

Removal of buffing has several ramifications. In many ways, buffing in the IE games could be deemed necessary. The threat of instant death spells, petrifaction, confusion, dire charm/domination, along with the prevalence of very powerful damaging spells made spell protections a rather note-worthy component. This matters, because spells possessed threat. Spells has substance and consequence if ignored. Since then, magic has just been treated as another form of DPS in RPGs. Limited by mana, perhaps with an AoE, but otherwise no different than any other class ability. Boring. Trivial. Banal. The mediocre spells don't need protected against in any real way. You just absorb the damage with your HP like any other attack. No real distinguishing status effects either, just damage with a different animation. I see the (potential) removal of buffing as thus: Removing the presence of durable spell protections indicates a lack of need. No need for durable spell protections indicates a low level of threat from spells (IE: HP soak is adequate). Low level of spell threat indicates generic, uninspired spell effects. Boring spells, with no "need" to ward against with spells precludes any intricate and satisfying magical combat (Absorptions, Reflections, Breaches, Pierce, etc.) I've had nearly 15 years of awful, boring, and utterly unimpressive spell systems. DA:O was supposed to save the day, but wound up being a Luke-warm MMO in terms of game play. Along comes P:E promising to resurrect the glories of the past which have yet to be duplicated or improved upon. I want to see that spell casting system intact--at the very least. No more bland magic systems because some twitch 12 year old doesn't like prudently planning out spells per day. Catering to that has poisoned the proverbial well. Enough is enough.

Since they had three different female models in the update, I imagine there will be diverse headsets for each god-like type. I am curious about how the phenotypes are selected at character creation though. If this update is any indication, it appears that they are selected by an aspect of a portfolio, rather than the deity itself. That's on the presumption that a player will get to choose the nature of their godlike influence at character creation. I am curious to see how they balance them out, hopefully as much by ability scores as through social complication. My bet is that two Godlike do not necessarily produce another godlike. If the lore is that they are selected souls specially created, then heredity doesn't seem to be the most important aspect of what makes a Godlike. I really wish they had chosen a different name though. Something like "Anointed", "Hallowed".

I generally don't enjoy balance in games. I find every item, skill, ability, and foe perched upon the pinnicle of the proverbial bell curve for whatever level you're "supposed" to be at tedious. In terms of abilities/skills/items, I prefer them to be narrowly defined but incredibly potent at what they do whether it be proactive or reactionary in effects. The same applies to foes. The ogre that slaughters me as a newbile adventurer should not still be a challenge half-way through the game because of "balance". This is mostly an area design dilemia, but I'm ok with that. I like the notion that I can come across something that may not be worth my time or a death-trap of which I have no hope. That's what makes it an adventure--the unknown. This feeds into how I prefer abilities to be "unbalanced". Few victories are so sweet as the challenges above your weight class that you barely overcame because you creatively used a skill or talent. When abilities are "balanced" to their cooresponding level or portion of the campaign their intended to be used in, these sorts of accomplishments and wild victories are much less possible.

While I loved the random loot hidden about, I can't say that I would miss it terribly. The Ankheg Plate Armor, Wand of Cold, and especially the Ring of Wizardry were a bit powerful to be thrown at you so early in game. I would rather see a true riddle and scavenger hunt, like the infamous pantloons quest. Even with the age of the internet, it took a long time for that secret to get out.

I think you may be correct in that it does not appear that someone will be able to handicap their character. I suppose that is to be expected given that Mr. Sawyer had said long ago that he wanted a system in which it was difficult to make a terrible character (AD&D fighter with 9 STR & 3 CON, etc.). I suppose the closest that players may be able to do this is build (and play) their character in as diametrically opposed manner to their class as they can manage.

I am very impressed with the models. I did not expect the godlike to have such...overt features. I wagered that their characteristics would be more subtle. Regardless, the models shown here are very striking, and I am very pleased with the overall art direction. Similar praises for the druid shapeshifting model. I wasn't optimistic about how they would look (being humanoid), but I'm rather fond of the one presented. Well done!

Bwahahahaha! Don't fret promancers. There are always solutions.

While it would be amazing to have end-user modding tools as the NWN franchise did, I don't believe it's within the scope and stated goals of P:E to obligate their inclusion. As long as they don't hardcode too many things (interface, character creation, etc.), then most of it should be rather accessible. The main obstacle for modding with the Infinity Engine was area creation, of which there are a multitude of tools which exist for such a thing. The limiting reagent, so to speak, is the talent to use them.

Right. Try not to get your knickers in a twist when you get an honest response. My point was, if you don't present your ideas in a detailed manner which flesh out the implications of an idea, don't be surprised when they're readily shot down or completely disagreed with when those implications are identified. I'm not saying you need to be meticulous, but you may want to think more than one step ahead when presenting an idea if congenial and receptive responses are what you seek.

This is a perfect example of something I'm noticing quite frequently on forums and the like, and it's really very detrimental to productive discussion, and I don't comprehend it in the least (and, quite frankly, grow a bit weary of it). Could you kindly explain to me why my only two valid options for response are: A) The direct opposite of every single facet/detail of whatever you've said, or B) Nothing at all, because we just either share the exact same complex perspective on "pre-combat preparation" or we don't. ? In terms of your suggestions--even beyond this thread, I find this to be generally true. I find many of your suggestions high in form, but low in substance. Almost every single one of your ideas has extreme ramifications for the entire structure of any resulting system. Many of them are reminiscent of someone attempting to create a specific dramatized scene, rather than the foundations for a working system. I don't think you realize this when you propose most of your ideas. At the very least, they are presented in this manner. P:E is meant to be a revival of sorts. Spellcasting is viewed (generally), as one of the unquestionable high points of the IE games and not something terribly broken. This thread does seek to address the minor drudgery of pre-buffing, but I personally even think something as simple as a spell-que from the NWN games would be entirely sufficient. My point is, when you continually suggest whimsical ideas which would severly alter one of the principle strengths of what is attempting to be revived here....expect conflict.

It's important to remember, that your statement hold true only if they work. Much like how casting Dominate on that fighter breathing down your neck is a wonderful play if it works. There is a good chance you won't get to cast a second spell if it doesn't. With the addition of counter spells like Dispel Magic, Remove Magic, Break Enchantment, Mind Blank, etc., that precious expended spell slot and action might not garner you very much at all. Spells like Dismissal, Banishment, Death Spell, Death Fog, and more go a long way in abating the threat of summoning spells being too powerful. Not every foe can cast spells though, and artificial hardcaps on quantity summonable is a clumsy and false-feeling mechanic for balancing summons. I truely think that creating a mechanic where summoners must exert control over their summons provdies solutions to this problem. Individual summons can be balanced ordinarily, then be assigned an invisible value which would determine the amount of control necessary to hold them. Weaker summons would require less, more powerful summons would require more. Some, like the P:E equivalent of Pit Fiends--or even Celestials for that matter, may not even be controllable. The method and discretion would be to the player, while operating within the context permitted by the established balance of the designers. Between this and hard-counters, I find it hard to think that the best of all proposals can't be had.

That is very simple. You make a valid point. To that effect, why have all of these complicated Confusion spells? A Confusion spell is a Confusion spell. No need to distinguish between them at all. Never mind areas of effect, duration, potency, damage types, blah blah blah. It's a spell. You get one. It doesn't matter if you want to cast against multiple targets, or apply different effects to different enemies. You get one Confusion spell. You cast it. When it's done, you cast another one. No artificial hardcap, nothing difficult to explain to people, no statistics that have to be balanced with spells in mind. Just... the Confusion spells themselves need balance. Sound good to me... For that matter...what's up with dual-weilding? Why does it have to be so complicated with off-hand, ambidextery, and other rules associated with the speed, accuracy, and effectiveness of using multiple weapons? You know what, everyone gets one weapon. When you try to use another weapon, the previous one goes away. Simple. No artificial hardcap.... Need I go on?

I can't believe you misconstrued what a wrote. My arguments were made to show how negative and baleful the concepts Lephys was proposing for magical buffing were by putting them in context to armor/melee defenses. I think you may need to reread what I wrote.

Personally, I don't want a saga just yet. I want a stand-alone story that introduces the world and gives them the opportunity to best flesh out their IP. This IP needs to prove it has legs before they try to run with it. I don't think another "save the world epic saga" amongst the sea of this overdone trope enhances the chances of P:E's success. It certainly won't differentiate it from anything else that way. As to endings, I'm not worried. Most Obsidian games have had satisfying endings to me. This is particularly the true of Arcanum--one of the things it did very well. Seeing many of your quests influence so many different aspects of the region gave things not merely a momentus feel, but one of resolution.

So, you're against characters wearing armor before they are engaged in combat? They shouldn't put on the chainmail when entering the dungeon, but rather when they encounter the monster? Likewise, that they shouldn't use a shield if they are equipped with a helmet--because they already have an armor rating provided by it? How about that shield only being usable against three attacks, then wearing off? I think you have a conceptual issue. Magical defenses are just another type of armor. That is it. Don't glorify it. It's armor. Being that it's magical, the effects it can protect against are more varied than mundane armor. That's really the only difference. Think about what would happen to the balance of offensive (martial weapons) if players couldn't wear armor until combat began? Think about the ramifications that would impose on not just the weapons themselves, but any and all abilities associated with their use. In a world of magic, magic is every bit a threat a a blade, claw, or tooth. Venturing forth into dangerous environments where combat is expected without such protection is innane, whether that protection be a magical veil or an iron plate formed around your torso. I think you are missing this perspective entirely.

I think one of the best things to do, in that respect, though, is linking, like the Ranger and his animal companion. I mean, there's still room for the summoned thing to be instrumental in taking hits in place of the summoner, etc., via differences in armor/defense values, etc. (summoned creature gets hit less often and/or takes less damage, but that damage still translates over to the summoner). You can even further balance that by having percentages. Maybe if you have one summoned thing out, then 25% of the damage it takes goes toward your summoner's health/stamina pool. If you have 3 summoned things out in combat, the percentage increases. Blagh, it's hard to make an example there without getting into the balancing of the specifics, which is kind of beside the point at the moment. I'm just pointing out the sheer method. If you want to summon a huge army of things, the number of things you summon produces a direct cost to your summoner, etc. That's just another potential factor, but I think it's a really good way to go along the stamina-drain lines. Between that, and some kind of cooldown on your other spells (summoned something? Can't cast a spell for 7 seconds, etc.), and the aspect of direct effort on your summoner's part to use any of the summoned creature's abilities beyond basic attacking, etc., there are plenty of ways to make summons a tactical decision in a variety of situations, even with a variety of specific summonable things. I think this idea is awful. Summons are precisely that--thralled creatures. They are pawns. They are not companions. The notion that the summoner would be bonded to fodder--let alone by their (effecitvely) HP, is counter-intuitive. This reads and feels like a gimp and a nerf, nothing less. The only instance where something along this lines might hold any water, would be where a caster may bargain a portion of their (actual) health in order to petition a demon or similar creature to battle. As a general mechanic though, it's absolutely terrible. I'm telling you, it's about control. We don't even need to really theorize about it. Baldur's Gate 2 did it, and it worked superbly. Fodder was easy to summon, massable, and reliable--if lacking in potency. More complex summoners like Nishruu & Hakeshar had hard counters and several of them. Djinn & Efreeti were a liability in that their abilities could harm the party through AoE. If damaged, they would turn on you. Elementals were powerful and reliable--if mastered. Otherwise, that several round mental engagment could not only have left you vulnerable in the heat of battle--but actually summoned a foe. Demons were very potent, but uncontrollable--a critical risk, and technically not members of the party (no xp from their kills without the aTweaks Mod). Control, control, control. Have the fodder be easily controlled or guarunteed to be controlled. Their role as pawns are important. More sophisticated and intelligent summons with power and abilities need to pose a risk to all involved. They can still be balanced to suit the appropriate spell tier without breaking the game, a control mechanic doesn't change that. It's simple. It's flavorful. It permits effective summons. It provides an element of risk and counter balance. It has already proven to work. What else needs to be said?