Mr. Magniloquent

Togglable is best. I do think there is a distinct possibility I will want to see rolls, as the rules won't be familiar to me. Also, since it is known that different armors will have different absorption qualities, it might not always be easy to distinguish the exact quality of an enemy's armor given the graphical style of P:E.

Excellent topic. Please let me determine where profiles, saved games, etc. are stored. I hate how gaming has overtaken my documents folder. That is where I keep *actual* documents--not a sea of folders from games. Please permit the usable storage of these items in the game's installation directory, like it used to be.

And, had it been his mage that miraculously saved the day with a "Hail Mary" spell, he'd likely have been pleased as punch. No because they wouldn't have been saving the day, at the point that happened it was 6 guys versus one mage and I appeared to have the fight in the bag. That out of the way I realize part of that is the D&D mechanics, I am just simply laying out that Baldur's Gate (and other infinity engine games) are not as "tactical" as people seem to remember them being. Most of BG2 tactics specifically just boiled down to "counter the mage". Install Sword Coast Strategems I & II. Completely. Different. Game. While spellcasters will become significantly more difficult, it stems from superior AI rather than cheese. The mods increase general AI to the same effect, making enemy fighters and regular monsters much more effective. Dragons get a significant boost as well, and are no longer speed bumps. Djinn/Efreeti & Demons/Devils become an absolute terror--especially with the aTweaks PnP tweakpack. The BG series was the best of its day, with nostalgia doing a fair share of heavy lifting today. The BG Saga modded....well, it outclasses just about every modern AAA RPG out there.

A soothsayer who experiences time in a non-linear fashion. As a consequence, they cannot form a cogent linear sentence. The NPC would give incomprehensible advice about the future that would only be decipherable by a player who has already completed the game.

If I had to choose, it's probably the magic/spellcasting system that I'm interested in. In find magic in most non-D&D games to be bland and mediocre. There are many things beyond that I anticipate greatly indeed, but to list them would be to list just about everything Obsidian is attempting with this game.

One thing that I always thought should be important, is that a character's defense (AC or similar) should be computed largely based off of their skill with their weapon being held. Agility plays a role in dodging and defense, but is extremely minor compared to fending attacks with your weapon. Armor also plays almost no part in avoiding attacks, but rather diminishes their impact. I understand that using armor as a means of avoiding attacks is rooted in D&D "hit to damage" simulation, and that misses are not miss so much as they are non-damaging strikes. That being said, I idealize a charater's melee defense as a composite score resembling: Melee Defense = (Martial Skill + Relevant Attribute + Relevant Bonuses). The same would apply to just about any other defense statistic. For magical defense, resisting spells might resemble: Magic Defense = (Spellcasting Skill + Relevant Attribute + Relevant Bonuses). Mind you, different attributes might be used to resist differen spells. All forms of defensive "responses" or "rolls" would take this format.

I'm looking for a setting similar to what might be described as, "Arcanum meets Planescape, with a dash of Cthulhu".

On a NWN Persistent World I played on, the creator felt bows were disproportionately powerful in the hardcore rules, low-level environment that the server hosted. Instead of tampering with ranged weapons, he controlled ammunition. Quivers were limited to 20 arrows a stack to simulate real world volumes. Arrows were also given a bit of extra weight to simulate the cumbersome nature of having many arrows slung around the shoulder. Their prices at vendors were also increased slightly. Arrows and bolts now had an expense that was reasonable, but still felt. To offset these changes, he used a mod that allowed recovery of arrows from fallen foes. Missed arrows were not recoverable. Arrows which struck an opponent at a 15% chance to become lodged or broken. Otherwise, all arrows which struck were recoverable from the corpse. This system worked extremely well. It created realistic and tangible hinderences to bow usage that kept their relative power level maintained, while supporting the gritty character of the server.

Agreed on all points. The BG2 portraits were also endemic with dread-locks. Icewind Dale portraits were nice, but I found them a bit bleak for my tastes. I imagine this was done to convey the darker and more harsh setting of Icewind Dale, but I still prefered the color and character of Baldur's Gate portaits. Portraits in Temple of Elemental Evil and Arcanum felt equally drab.

It's not quite the same thing, but in Baldur's Gate I would hoard gems as a safe investment against my Wild Mage. lol.

True exploration. Great overland map. Relevance and significant impact of skills made classes useful, unique, and utilized the depth of each. I liked how they used a non-Sword Coast setting (at least initially). Bonus feats based on achievements. Multiple PC conversation interjections. Pratical crafting. Traps! Overall, I felt it was an excellent adventure game. Exploration delivers discovery. Dungeons deliver death. Party composition is everything--cohesion and complimentary skills are significant and relevant. If they would have been able to merge these aspects with the powerful narrative of Mask of the Betrayer, they would have had another Baldur's Gate on their hands.

Hear! Hear! Quasi-permanent summons is a terrible idea. Summons are a spell, not a meaningful character interaction or plot device. There is absolutely no reason to develop an entire set of mechanics to give a spell superflous aspects of an NPC. In most games, summons don't even actually die. Anything conjured from another plane is simply expelled back to its home plane.

I have no problems with this. In a world of magic, people should be prepared for stituations that call for magical solutions. Likewise, in a world populated with monsters where the character's profession is to go out in the world and do battle with them--these kinds of scenarios are a fact of reality that they character accepts. Informal graves are filled with not just the unprepared adventurer, but the unlucky ones too.

We are in agreement. This was my intention. I believe I may have not explained myself as well as I should have, also. I thought it was implicit in that the balance of the number/potency of the summons could be balanced for any desired level. One high-powered demon might be as difficult to control as three lesser monsters, etc. Every summon would have a type of..."exertion score" that would play against the summoner's relevant casting skill/mental attribute. This would be entirely adjustable as the designers see fit to balance the type and number of summons controllable by one person given X abilities at any one time. I see it as an opportunity to allow summoners to have both potency and volume, while potentially creating a character development path for such an archetype. The required investment of feats and skills would cause the wizard to forgo other benefits of casting. In this way, as others have pointed out, would sub-due to powerful combination of summoning a horde while casting other spells at maximum effectiveness.

I don't think it quite achieves the effect you describe. If that fireball always dealt 15% damage to the caster, at the cost of dealing lots of fire-splosion damage to your enemies, THEN you'd seriously contemplate using the spell and treat it as a weighty decision, every single time. When it simply has a chance to produce only a positive effect, and a chance to produce only a negative effect, there isn't really much to consider. All that's really left is hope and finger-crossing. I disagree. 15% of X damage 100% of time is not the same as 100% of X damage 15% of the time. If using a spell incurs a 15% risk that you party will incur a loss of half, or even more than half of their total HP--that is incredibly different from being garunteed to only losing a significantly smaller fraction. Mind you, losing control of a summon doesn't necessarily mean it will turn hostile. It may stand idle, go berserk, or flee, some may even decide to remain and help--but under their own direction. Either way, it's an effective check on summoning, as it will have invalidated the player's action to summon. Summons generally function like a damage over time spell--they must be out over durations to reach their full cost effectiveness. When you summon a creature, you incur an opporuntity of cost of producing some other more immediate effect. Having that action invalidated through loss of control, or it being countered by another Wizard is a very real detriment. A check to remain control can occur as frequently or infrequently as designers deem at whatever difficultly deemed necessary to balance out the presence of a summon. Balancing out the quantity of summons on the field is the easiest and best way of balancing summoning spells. By giving a spellcasting mechanic and in-game reason for quantifying how many summons are on the field, it allows developers to create summons which are effective and/or plentiful, while simultaneously granting freedom to the player to determine what degree of risk they are willing to accept in exchange for such power. That feels like a distinctly suitable price for a summoning specialist.

That's only one method of balancing it, and I don't think it is a particularly fun or enjoyable one. While it makes sense for powerful demons, it doesn't make sense for other things. Take for instance, a golem. This is a relatively mindless and subserviant construct. Perhaps the golem was made from a mixture of the summoner's blood and a large amount of clay. Its lifeforce depends upon the summoner because it is from the summoner's blood/lifeforce that the creature is derived. It's not going to suddenly turn hostile upon its creator. It's merely a vessel to serve, a weapon to be wielded with the mind. Like any weapon, if the wielder becomes too fatigued to use it will stand idle without orders. A warrior's sword doesn't all of a sudden decide to stab its wielder. Like any weapon, wielding it also has requirements. Like a warrior only has one hand with which to wield a sword, a summoner might only have one golem summoning slot with which to wield his golem. Or perhaps the amount of mana reserved to maintain the summon is the restricting element, and more golems could be made if they were weaker or the summoner had more mana with which to control them. Not all summons are creatures to be dominated. Some serve willingly. Take for instance a Druid and his pack of wolf companions. They have a natural affinity or understanding with each other. The druid doesn't force them to be there, he requests their help. His standing/reputation with nature is represented by his summoning skill, and his gift to nature in return for their services is represented with mana or a spell slot. They won't all of a sudden, because of a rather thoughtless method of balance, decide to attack their master. He has already paid the price for them to be there. It doesn't make sense lorewise, and it isn't fun for the player. No, I'm sorry, but beyond the summoning of demons your method of balance is not applicable. It makes sense for almost all summons. Summons are generally monsters, elementals, djinni/efreeti, demons--things with no relation to the Wizard. All of those summons were transported their without their consent and forced into a battle that does not concern them. Most non-intelligent creatures would merely seek to flee as soon as possible, while intelligent monsters might seek revenge. Even Druidic summons have little incentive to fight. They do not differ from other summons in being brought into a battle that doesn't concern them, it is merely the magical compulsion which gives them motive to fight. What you described are not summons, but animal companions. Companions have a vested interest in a battle, as they are connected to the participant. Summons do not. I like your example of a golem being directly controlled by the conciousness of a Wizard similar to a warrior's sword. Even without that caveat, it makes sense that for minions that are created rather than merely summoned by the caster would not be concerned with control or betrayal, as that would be implicit in the creation of any servant. Summons that are ideologically aligned with the caster might decide that they will continue the fight at the Wizard's behest. Non-intelligent creatures would be more likely to do this, but intelligent creatures are more complex and have motives of their own. That attitude might also change if the summon were to suffer friendly-fire from the Wizard as well. Summoning changes the fundamental nature of an engagement. It introduces new participants with potentially spells and abilities. A difficult battle can be made intermediate when you summon a creature to even the odds. A trivial battle might be made into an intermediate threat should you lose control of the summon you just conjured to take out the trash. Save-scummers aside, the potential for a summon to turn on your party has a dampening effect in that the player will summon when necessary, rather than because they can. Even when needed, there would be no garauntee. It's also creates the potential for specialization, as a dedicated summoner would then take feats and skills which both diminish the risk and expand the benefits of summoning; therefore, forgoing other benefits to spellcasting. Consider and experince I had in Temple of Elemental Evil. I was fighting the final boss, but I was having alot of trouble damaging it. I was coping with its abilities, but it was a battle of attrition that I was not in my favor. During the course of the battle, the villain summoned a Glabrezu--which would have easily torn through my party. Luckily, my Wizard cast Charm Monster, and it worked! I couldn't believe it! Thus, my party held the villain and its lesser minions at bay, while the Glabrezu shredded through the boss. Do not underestimate the potential for having even a 10-15% chance of your summong turning against you as the principal balancing factor. For every reason you want a summon on the field, you do not want it to be against you. Think of it terms of other spells. If that fireball spell has a 10-15% chance of detonating directly on top of your party rather than across the field where you want it to go, you will seriously contemplate using the spell and self-censor accordingly.

Seriously consider what a summoning spell does. It teleports an entity from some far flung location, and dominates it--adding another friendly combatant to the field. This is very powerful when compared to other spells. Essentially, you get two things for one. A weapon that wields itself. How can this be balanced? Balancing summons has already been done. It's all about control. If there is the potential to lose control over their summon, related to either potency, volume, or both. If your summon can potentially turn on you, it's an entirely different risk and decision to summon one. I believe it's really that simple.

Many people do not like Vancian casting because it causes Wizards to often be passive actors with very limited numbers of actions. They are often torn between the choices of expending their limited and precious resource in an overwhelming manner on an "unworthy" engagement to participate, or throwing darts if not. The problem with non-vancian systems though, is that the frequency and reproducability of spells forces the scope of their effects and potency to be reduced for terms of balance. Enter the Scrolls and Wands. Scrolls allow you to hold infrequently used situtational and utility spells indefinately, without sacrificing spell memorization slots for more practical, desirable, and frequently used spells. Wands allow Wizards to remain a presence on the battlefield for ordinary engagements, so that they can save their "meaningful" spells for dire engagments and scenarios for which they were intended. To step outside of the proverbial convential box, imagine a scroll that is not consumed with use, but merely has a percent chance of being destroyed. My point is, that through the implementation of scrolls and wands, a spell system can be designed with maximum usefulness and originality, while preserving the utility and endurance of spellcasters. Furthermore, from a design standpoint, it is easier to create more consistent rules which limit wands and scrolls, than meticulously balancing out every detail of a spellcasting system without error. So don't forget about scrolls and wands! Food for thought. Ideas? Suggestions? Critiques?

I'll definately agree with several of your opinions. Combat was horrendous--that almost goes without saying. Graphics were lacking even for their time, no doubt. However, one of my biggest grievences was the geography. I found the overall design of the continent to be unimaginative, bland, and have little regard for what land formations create certain habitats.

I possess a nearly identical appraisal of Arcanum as the original poster. I would only add a few items. I loved the degree of choice Arcanum had. I felt that all choices presented were rewarding, if in a different manner. Similarly, I enjoyed how Arcanum didn't hold your hand. The world was yours to explore and would allow you to go a far out of your depth as you had the courage/tenacity to attempt. Very rare these days.

This is a very intriguing concept. I am a chronic and unrehabilitated potion hoarder. Unless I believe that I will lose the fight, or that a character might die should I not quaff like a frat-boy, I almost never touch them. I possess this bizarre compulsion where I'll have a near death character in the midst of a fearsome battle and I'll think, "Eh...I'll save this potion for when I really need it." It's a problem. Ironman modes greatly assage my affliction, though I do still tend to use them only conservatively. What contributes to this problem, is that I generally consider most other actions to be a superior choice than to use a potion and risk being struck. During engagements, healing potions do not improve your character's situtation, but merely prolong it. I almost always choose to move the character away, use a spell to turn them invisible or grant similar concealment, while having other character interfere with the attackers. Ultimately, it's a mixture of tactical preference and pathalogical habit. No mechanic is likely to change this behavior. Increasing their accessibilty would likely make the game trivial, and increasing their potency in combat would likely only feed my hoarding pathos. While I was immediately receptive to the idea of expiration dates, I agree with others that is is a sub-optimal solution.

Agreed. Though it doesn't sound like you're playing an RPG. Sounds more like some generic, adolescant, and vaguely Japanese melodrama where you can't make choices and "your" character is both pre-made and gender challenged. I don't have many concerns about this happening in Project: Eternity.

Hehe. A buddy of mine used to do this in NWN. We'd join a hardcore PnP rules, permanent death, role-playing server where money was scarce and talk was cheap. Both of us would be halfling rogues maximized with dexterity with pickpocketing focus feats. I'd find a mark, then drag him to a tavern with some ad-hoc story about needing help with a quest. Once seated and thouroughly engrossed, my stealthy friend would clean the mark out. Few things were more satisfying than having a rumor come around about two mysterious--and beguilingly well equipped adventurers in town. There was one server where our luck ran out though. I was able to talk my way out of it, at great monetary cost *wink*, but my friend was hung like the dirty theif that he was. Good times.

I enjoy modding communities very much. Obviously, games like NWN1 were designed to be modded, and the community has flourished with the fruits of that intention. For Baldur's Gate (I & II), I have a massive list of modifications installed. Spell enhancements, ability fixes/ehancements, class fixes, item fixes, AI enhancment, extended NPC dialogues/interactions (well written I might add), new NPCs, additional quests, etc. Overall, I have 27 or so modifications installed. The overwhelming majority are to make everything as close to Pen and Paper adherent as possible, but the enhancements beyond that are extensive. Modding goes far beyond Baldur's Gate though. Have you taken a look at the System Shock II community? The modifications and enhancements for that game are incredible, and breathe new life into it that make it beat many modern AAA titles. Dungeon Keeper and Evil Genius both have capable modding communities as well. Does anyone even need to mention every Elder Scrolls game ever released? There is even a mod out there where you can play Morrowind in the Oblivion engine. They are presently working on updating Morrowind to Skyrim as well. Dungeon Siege also has some very good mods. On that subject, someone actually remade Ultima V or VI in the first Dungeon Siege engine. Add Arcanum to that list. There are many great modifications out there. I think it is important to create a game with community modification in mind. I imagine that not only would it allow for more robust usage of develop property in the future, but it permits people who are most passionate about the game to give it license beyond its original scope. Modding makes good games great, and great games legendary. Legacy is important for gaming studious. Preserving quality for prosterity helps keep past successes in current memory. When people remember a quality game, no matter what happens, there will be buyers willing to take a chance that maybe--just maybe this game might be legendary, too.

I once got fairly involved in modding a persistent world named Montlethia for NWN1. The ease of use of the Aurora toolset and the massive wealth of user generated haks and models made it both accessible and a joy. Then, I was a capable programmer and a teenager with lots of time, so perhaps my perception was skewed. I am looking forward to seeing what the community produces for Shadowrun, despite having yet to purchase or play it. Unfortunately, it is more than likely that I won't have the time or inclination to take up modding for several decades.