Mr. Magniloquent

Power, duration, and number of the summons are all secondary considerations for balance. The true issue, is control. It is that simple. When a being is summoned, in most games, its will is automatically subverted and requires no effort to maintain. You now have an ally on the field. Other questions now become relevant. Its now needs to be powerful enough to be useful, but not powerful enough to invalidate other characters. Duration and numeration also factor into this same question. Shadowrun does an excellent job handling this. Summons are powerful, they are worth summoning, but they are like fire--a dangerous servant and a fearful master. The longer they are on the field, and the more you demand of them, the more your summon will resist your control. Not merely resist your control, but seek retribution. D&D has a similar mechanic, in that most spells only allow a caster to control "#d#/caster level" at any one time. This is what you need. Summoning a creature is not merely the act of calling it, but subverting its will. Maintaining control over a creature(s) needs to exert effort. Both of these require the chance to fail, with consequences attached. Maybe it returns to its home plane. Maybe it sides with you, but at its own direction. Perhaps it goes berserk, or actively seeks to slay the summoner. This way, a summoner can call forth beings of power in any volume for any duration they are willing to risk. Balance is provided by the reality that summoning is a double-edge sword. Mix in dismissal spells and other countering abilities, and summoning can be more dynamic and powerful than any CRPG has ever done before.

I imagine that the flavor of monks and this wound-centric technique could develop along these lines: Monks, no matter the denomination or path, seek to be master of self. They also tend to be cloistered and minimalistic. Should this type of person engage in combat, they are very likely to recieve wounds. Being masters of self, they attempt to regulate and control their wounds through their disciplines like any other function of their being. Over time, this would have developed into a more sophisticated method of not merely resisting injury, but returning the harm from whence it came. So, it's not that injury is necessarily sought, but rather that wounds are just another part of the self to gain mastery over, and utilize. Granted, I realize the explaination about Monks and armor in the update actually indicating that injury is desirable. I'm just attempting to reconcile how such a thing might come about; an origin if you will.

The class does feel reminiscent of the D&D Barbarian, no doubt. However, what immediately came to mind when reading the class description was a thread many moons ago suggesting that Monks take a European theme loosely based on "Flaggelants"; martyr-like monks with a masochistic bent to their rituals. I believe the class as described has great potential, though I will be very curious to see how they will flavor the class. I can see the wounds mechanic being a limitation on the types of philosophies monks would likely engage in. As is with everything, the devil will be in the details, and the execution of this concept will be delicate. I look forward to witnessing the outcome.

I disagree: Random encounters aren't a solution because this kind of artificiality is a symptom of a larger problem: The problem of enemies being thrown in solely because the designers think the player will get bored if they go 30 seconds without killing something, rather than being properly integrated into the setting. So long as the enemies have a clear, good reason to be there (and why they'd attack you on sight) the encounter won't feel arbitrary whether it's randomized or not. Actually, I tend to enjoy random encounters to a degree. Handled properly, they provide and element of danger and surprise. I agree with Sacred Path, in that random encounters create a journey, rather than a series of destinations.

Storm of Zehir has a perfect overland map. It instilled a sense of purposeful adventure and discovery better than any game that immediately comes to mind. There is so much that can be done with that format. The incorporation and utility of non-combat skills was also extraordinarily rewarding, and made class diversity and party composition very intriguing. I would be elated if they followed with a similar map. Frankly, if P:E could be a fusion of the adventure and party dynamics of Storm of Zehir with the narrative and depth of Planescape: Torment, I might stroke from sheer anticipation.

Well, the original Baldur's Gate could be considered to have three story arcs, and Arcanum could claim to have at least two. In any case, I believe that it is more important to concieve a story on its own merits. Dicussing how a story can be improved by the numbers of arcs, is like discussing what utensil to use for your meal before you even decide what to eat.

I personally feel that the city of Baldur's Gate from the original game is probably one of the best virtual cities ever made. The layout and continuity not only of the surface, but of it's sewers underneath give it a genuine feel. Nearly every building has something worthwhile in it, and many quests which incorporate different parts of the city. I'll never forget when I was randomly burglarizing homes, and came across another troupe doing just that! The city was large, but could still be navigated very efficiently. Last but not least, the city was aesthetically wonderful. It was a bit more sterile and lacking in some of the character as say...Athkatla, but it was still a beautiful city.

I want to say that Temple of Elemental Evil had this to a minor extent. Taller characters had greater movement speeds and weight burden maximums relative to shorter characters with equivalent attributes. It sounds very nuanced, but that can be difficult to implement meaningfully and will likely distract from core features. In my opinnion, these kinds of influences tend to influence character concepts in a negative manner. Less flavor, more adonises.

It worked well in a persistent world I played on for NWN1. It was also a hardcore rules server, where it was more accurately described as "surviving" rather than playing. Food mechanics are best served (ha) in a game where random harrowing adventures of little plot significance are periodically approached from a familiar and safe location. Narrative driven games don't benefit a great deal from it, so I doubt it will be useful in Project: Eternity.

I would humbly submit that Obsidian consider sampling some of the monsters from our long running thread of member created monsters. Even if they need tweaking, I believe there is alot of great material within that thread. See the smilies? I haven't debased myself with smilies since I was 15. So, perhaps you should consider this suggestion seriously.

Ghostbusters: The Eternal Slime!

I remember a fight within The Temple of Elemental Evil where my party of 5 had to face down perhaps 20 foes of equivalent level. There were many others were your party was matched 3:1. I even got waylayed by a horde of what must have been 30 Kobolds once. My fighter/rogue put the reach of his Halberd to deadly effect with his Great Cleave feat. Very satisfying. That game will be a decade old this fall (yikes!), I'm sure that Project: Eternity and it's Unity Engine will be able to match it.

My understanding of a Ranger was that they were a kind of rural fighting man. A pragmatic fighter whom incorporates their surroundings as a component in both their skills & technique, rather than exclusively focusing on bladecraft.

The units are not so important to me as the overall consitency and use of money. Items are generally not worth buying, or require an absurd amount of money. I'm not terribly concerned, as Temple of Elemental Evil & Arcanum are probably the only two games where I found things worth buying at reasonable prices. I hate the dynamic in many games where I end up hoarding money because nothing is worth purchasing, only to blow it all on the few absurdly expensive end-game items. So long as there are meaningful uses for money throughout the game, enough to where I want to spend it continually and earn more, I shall be content.

I made no mistake. I have every understanding of what I wrote. Why don't I up the ante, and just have a spell which kills everything on the field? They exist within D&D quite comfortably and can be readily balanced so that non-wizard players don't feel inadequate or render a scenario too easy. Regardless, you missed the entire point of the post. I was stating that types of elements are not what is important. Rather, the function of a spell is what makes magic interesting within a game.

I leave you guys alone for a couple of weeks and you're already back to tentacle porn. For shame! Let's see if I can work with that. Name: Gavel Governess Description: The only thing this matron has more of than etiquette and high-breeding, is wrath. Armed with a scornful tone and a wicked ruler, order and decency shall be adhered to! Abilities: Tsk-Tsk: As her namesake ability, the Gavel Governess may use a ruler or large wooden spoon to strike with such blinding speed that the attack has no chance to miss or be defended against. Victims take X phyiscal damage and drop any held items immediately, swearing profusely. Berate: As an extra-ordinary ability, the Gavel Governess may berate and chastise all within 10 meters about what naughty and dissapointing children they are. All must save vs. self-esteem at a -4 penalty or suffer total moral failure. Those who successfully resist are still burdened with guilt and as such, slowed. Time-Out: The Gavel Governess may pinch up to two opponent's ear at any one time. Victims are considered grappled, and take X phyiscal damage each round. Resisting the hold only makes things worse, and any failed attempt to wrest fee increases the damage by Y each round thereafter. Attributes: Special: May decieve negligent & aloof parents into believe everything is fine, and that the children adore her. Low: Patience, Wages, Love-life Med: Latin & Conversational French High: Expectations, Discipline

I'm not normally a rude person, but this is tripe. Furthermore, the sum of money requested for such kitsch is only further insult. I await a moderator's speedy removal of this pan-handling from our boards.

I'm not really concerned with new elements. A rose by another name. Any garden variety bolt spell is still a generic bolt spell no matter the element attached to it. The single most interesting thing about D&D has been it's spellcasting system. Observe: Grim Revenge Necromancy [Evil] Level: Sor/Wiz 4 Components: V, S, Undead (caster must be undead) Casting Time: 1 action Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level) Target: One living humanoid Duration: Instantaneous Saving Throw: Fortitude negates Spell Resistance: Yes The hand of the subject tears itself away from one of his arms, leaving a bloody stump. This trauma deals 6d6 points of damage. Then the hand, animated and floating in the air, begins to attack the subject. The hand attacks as if it were a wight (see the Monster Manual) in terms of its statistics, special attacks, and special qualities, except that it is considered Tiny and gains a +4 bonus to AC and a +4 bonus on attack rolls. The hand can be turned or rebuked as a wight. If the hand is defeated, only a regenerate spell can restore the victim to normal. This is an interesting spell. This is what using magic is about. It's these kinds of interesting spells that make magic in games worth anything. I have no interest in [Element] Orb spell iterations. These are insipid and banal. To me, interesting spell verge making or breaking a fantasy game. This is one area where I deeply hope Obsidian comes through.

I prefer the 2-Dimensional artist renderings in a game with a top-down isometric view. Comparibly to actual life, I don't spend a great deal of time looking at my own face. Therefore, characterizing NPCs is a much greater priority. For that reason, artist renderings are better at displaying an NPC's nature and personality. Custom portraits are able to flesh out details of a character much more richly than in-game renderings. I found in in game rendered portaits of Dragon Age: Origins to be far more forgettable than the painted portaits of older games.

It's difficult for me to evaluate the original Baldur's Gate, as I've played it with Tutu or BGT and countless other mods which have enhanced it greatly. I feel it would be unfair to judge the game through a modern lense without considering the modded content. The BG 1 NPC Project is superbly done, Sword Coast Strategems critically enhances enemy AI (particularly mages), and the BG2 engine with the Spell Revisions mod takes the already incredibly robust spellbook and majorly enhances it. When I first played the original Baldur's Gate, I was 10 or 11 years old. Clearly, this played a part in being impressed by it. Today, even the finest crafted modern game couldn't impact me as video games did as a child, so looking at a 14 1/2 year old game without any of the brilliant custom content out there....what else would you expect? Unmodded, yes, I can clearly understand the deficiencies of the original Baldur's Gate. However, fully modded, I still find play it preferable to Dragon Age: Origins on an (fairly) objective basis.

I read a great deal of the Numenera's website when it originally campaigned on kickstarter. It seems like a worthy RPG design with an interesting setting. They seem to be emphasizing simple and streamlined mechanics (notably the "Effort" mechanic), and a lack of fixed rules, allowing the DM to easily create and flexibly run campaigns. It seems to have a fair amount in common with the developments of D&D Next (5th Ed. D&D) , which I find generally encouraging. I'm not sure how or why they decided to use the Torment moniker other than brand recognition considering that Numenera does not use magic, and issues of souls/reincarnation might be difficult to handle. What I can't discern though, is whether this most recent kickstarter is going to be a tabletop campaign (which was already funded in another project), or a CRPG above and beyond that previously met goal.

I'm in general agreement with Shadenuat that it is important to keep classes distinctive. Concisely put, if classes are not distinct, why have classes at all? However, I do see the need to be able to utilize class strengths in flexible manners, which may cause some overlap. However, this overlap should never be anywhere near equivalent. Shoulder charging a door costs nothing, but is not likely to be effective but on the weakest of doors. A wizard's spell to unlock a door consumes a precious and depletable resource. Both have aspects of a rogue's lockpick ability, but are comparitively deficient in one significant manner or another. This is how I feel a melee intensive wizard should be treated. Consider: An armor clad wizard in the fray of melee is likely holding a weapon in at least one hand. What happens when a spell's projectile emanates from a hand or fingers gripped around a weapon? Does a spell manifest as a breath weapon make it through the helmet of such a wizard, or does it bottle up inside? Can a spell like a "Power Word: Stun" be foiled because the opponent can't hear it through the slits in an armored wizard's helmet? Will a wizard with a Grimiore in one hand be unable to cast the complex spells granted by it because their other hand is grasping a weapon and unable to perform the gestures? Should the option for a tin-can wizard exist? Sure. Whatever it turns out to be is highly dependant on exactly what demands magic places on the wielder. However, any magic system that ignores the above concerns probably won't be a very interesting one. Let's hope that they are taken into account, and that a player seeking the best of both worlds will have to accomodate for them.

I finally figured this monster out. It's a particularly devious creature to kill, and I'm rather proud of it. Name: Pyre Moth Description: The Pyre Moth is a unique moth roughly the size of a small bat. It is a dusty white color, with vibrant red trim along its thorax and wings. Pyre Moths tend to congregate in small swarms where light is present. As legend has it, a phoenix was engaged in a mortal struggle with a powerful demon. Unable to defeat the mythical bird, it cast a curse on the phoenix, disintegrating its body so that it could not be reborn. It is said that each feather of the phoenix became a pyre moth, and that they recklessly plunge themselves into fire in the hope to be reborn a phoenix once more. Abilities: Immolation: When in the presence of fire, the pyre moth to the best of its ability will plunge itself into the flame before and above all else. Even the smallest spark is enough to immolate the moth entirely. This adds X fire damage to their normal attack, in addition to enabling other abilities. Ignite: Pyre Moths, as a standard action, may ignite another unlit pyre moth, or itself on an immolated pyre moth should it not be. Funeral Pyre: While immolated, if the pyre moth is slain, it will erupt into a minor conflagration, inflicting X fire damage to all within Y meters. Furthermore, any dusk moth which has died in this manner will immediately ressurect with full health and stamina, but is not immolated. Attributes: Immune to & healed by fire. Vulnerable to cold and polymorph magic. Low: Health, Stamina, Durability, Strength High: Speed, Agility

After all, there should be a "natural balance" between those who can metaphyiscally manipulate and mold reality to their will...and those who can't. Elegantly waving around a metal object should produce similar effects to studying the nature of, and commanding the fabric of existance, right? That aside, weapon imbalance usually stems from hitpoint problems. Deadlands handled this very well. Even the mightiest could be felled by a lucky shot from a greenhorn kid with a rusty pistol. Keep health "realistically" low, and skill becomes far more relevant than the items one weilds.

The Dragon Lance series is the only fantasy I've read, and I have actually DM'ed only a very few times, but took the solemn duty quite seriously. Playing with your favorite character was ill advised within my campaigns. Most of my RPG experience comes from many moons ago when I role played a notorious villain on a NWN 1 persistent world called Montlethia. I eventually turned content creator, so I guess that could have been considered a form of DM'ing as well. For inspiration, I think of monsters players are under prepared for, like Rust Monsters or anything that teleports or attacks the mind. Once the primary tactic of the monster is chosen, I think up a plausible reason why a monster would have that ability and then expand secondary abilities with that flavor. I also try not to have redundant abilities across different monsters, which forces me to think outside of the box. For some time, I've been trying to think up a phoenix type enemy, and I've almost got it. It's going to be a burning moth type creature. That, however, is for another post when I have the details settled.