Mr. Magniloquent

I would like to see Divination magic play a much greater role in games. Knowledge is power, yet Divination spells are nearly totally absent in most games. Aside from Baldur's Gate 2, which had the best spellbook of any game ever created, Divination largely absent. If it's useful to know, it's useful to have a spell which grants that knowledge. For example: An enemies's strengths and vulnerabilities. True names. Words of Power Protection spells (Premonition anyone?) Detection (Items/Illusions/Invisibility/Traps) Exploration Insight into person's nature (Alignment, Susseptibility to perssuasion vs. indinidation, etc.) I imagine that they are more difficult to code for, but let's not make excuses! One can never reach too far when making a proper magic system.

What of Concealment Cover Blindness and any similar effects where missing is both appropriate and central? Anyone?

I like everything, except for the proposition that no attack ever misses and/or does not inflict some form of damage. It precludes many different combat activities: An highly skilled veteran swordsman is incapable of evading, parrying, or blocking a rookie nave's blade. All archers are experts, at any permitted range. No combatant can ever truely make a mistake. Conditions such as concealment become irrelevant, as an attack will never miss. There are more, but they have already been addressed. While the notion of a minnimum attack only taking stamina is reasonable (as parrying & parrying require exertion), it still fails to resolve conditions of concealment or cover.

I would like it taken a step further and making morale instead into an all encompassing psychological/mental health statistic. Enemies suffering from loss of psychological well being/morale might either flee, go breserk, surrender, or fall hopless to their inevitable doom. Social skills, spells, and abilities could be used on enemies within combat in order to illicit any such reaction.

To me, there are two principal problems with druids. Druids are clerics, yet everyone attempts to treat them as a different entity. Clerics of different faiths are too similar. Power, abilities, training, should be defined purely through domains. If your diety is the god of Love, Peace, and Meekness, why would its clerics train with weapons, armor, etc.? The answer to fixing druids, is to first fix clerics by fixing the range of their spells/abilities via domains & portfolios. After all, a cleric is what a druid is--nothing more or less. The illusion of distinction is present only because that the nature (ha) of their diety tends to be focused with material aspects of the literal world rather than ideology or social action.

Many things within the Project: Eternity setting will need defined before these questions can be answered. What is a soul and what is its role? Do souls grant sentience? Do souls animate whatever they inhabit? Are souls necessary for life? What is undeath? Are gods a passive or active force over life & death? Do all gods have dominion over life & death? What is the role of a priest? How potent are the abilities of a priest? Is there a distinction between Divine & Arcane magic? The list continues. Frankly, I would like to see Wizards have as much ability to manipulate the undead as priests. While the distinctions between Divine & Arcane magic within D&D worked well and served to differntiate the powers of wizards and clerics, I prefer magic = magic. Gods tap the same font as mortals, just more adeptly.

I've said it before, but I don't like the distinction that Cipher's manipulate souls, as it is implicit that other do not. In a magic system that is Vancian(ish), having a magic-user prohibited from casting other forms of magic is innane. As a biochemist, does this mean I cannot perform synthetic chemistry? Absolutely not! While one is a bit more practiced, I still excel at both as they are both chemistry and have more in common than not. I feel that magic (when not confined to the abomination of skill trees) should be similarly accessible. I'm hoping that Ciphers turn out to be something of a prestige class such as a Shadow Adept within D&D, rather than a Necromancer from Diablo II.

Developers have stated that they will be attempting to make all skills reasonably equal in implementation--IE: all skills are placed into the game because they will provide some sort of tangible and regular benefit. What combination of these skills will be "optimal" is largely dependant on what you are trying to accomplish, so...you should be able to do as you will.

I would appreciate if summoning were a bit more useful/flexible as well. It's good to have the option provided, though there does need to be limitations to prevent from being over powered. In general, Power/effectiveness of the summon should be the inverse of it's duration & quantity. The Call Elemental spells in Baldur's Gate 2 had a wonderful mechanic where the summoner had to contest its will against the elemental, else the spell would fail or the elemental would become hostile to the caster.

Nostalgia: Avengence Jokes aside, it will likely be some inside reference among the developers which has the trappings of classical fantasy. Think, "Water-cooler jibber-jabber which evolved into a marketable ressurection of classic role-playing" turned into Essentia: Reborn.

In essence, that is one of the fundamentals I set out to accomplish in creating my own RPG. I wanted every statistic to matter by have have a reciprocal statistic. Strength - Melee hit/damage, carry weight, grappling, moving objects, climbing Agility - Speed, acrobatics, gross motor skills, initiative Dexterity - Fine motor skills, device manipulation, ranged weapon accuracy Constition - Physical health, resistance to disease/poison, endurance Reasoning - Cognitive skills, problem solving, memory, arcane spell casting Resolve - Will power, sense of self/identity/strength of character, determination, ability to be influenced Perception - Spatial/Interpersonal/Spiritual awareness, trap detection Charisma - Social savvy, ability to interpersonally influence others Every skill was specific, but had a reciprocal to most actions. Any type of character, no matter how contradictory or narrowly focused could be made. A switft and agile yet clumsy acrobat, an easily influenced charmer, a weak but cunning finesse warrior, a durable wizard, etc. The possibilites are endless. The object is to create specific yet interdependant attributes, which balance equally across mental and physical abilites. That's the major reason why I would like to see a mental health statistic in Project: Eternity. Not only does it open up a greater diversity of strategy, but it imposes a greater depthy of character creation within customization and conceptualization.

Your barbarian wouldn't require intelligence. Resolve, not Intelligence/Reasoning was the governing statistic of Will. They could be immensely strong and durable, dumb, yet viable. It was developed to provide a counter balance to the reality of a person who is one-dimensional. A Wizard with total investment into their spellcasting abilities is a glass cannon whom can endure and do little else. Fighters typically do not suffer this conundrum. If all one does is lift weights and practice combat, while neglecting to cultivate their mind (philosophy, self identity, willpower), then they will be a mighty physical combatant, but easily manipulated or defeated either through words or spells. It's a counterbalance. One can still reach far, but they do so at the risk of over-extending themselves in other areas.

Thanks for the repsonse. As I had it, the loss of one's Will generated a permanent mental imparement that could only be resolved through healing technology or magic. When dropping below 0 Will, a character would roll 1d6 and permanently suffer from whichever cooresponding effect was rolled. They were: Confusion, Unconciousness, Paralysis, Berserk, Fear, or (my favorite) Suicidal Compulsion. The exception was with diplomacy skills; they would produce a specific effect (Parlay, Fear, Confusion, Berserk), but when used it combat were subject to "Adversity", in which your skills would be penalized by rolling twice then using your lowest roll. Aside from combat, a character's Will was subject (like Call of Cthulu) to special trauma like witnessing horrific actions/entities, enduring the death of a loved one, or even a humiliating loss in a contest. Just as with how disease and poison could impare physical attributes, aquired phobias and pathologies could hinder one's mental scores as well. Whether or not a second vital statistic would work in Project: Eternity would depend on how Health & Stamina are ultimately configured. I am under the impression that For every X Health a character has, they possess Y Stamina. Stamina is a derived resource used to perform actions and participate, while Health determines your mortality. A major question is whether Health can be attacked directly, or if all damage must be subtracted through Stamina first. If Health can be attacked directly, then a second statistic for mental health would work very well, must like it did within my own system. Otherwise, it would likely be redundant.

My only significant grievence with Watcher's Keep was the discontinuity between the floors. The building was supposed to be a prison built by Helm himself to cage powers of the planes. So why not throw in a library, laboratory, portal maze, and some open auditoriums? I felt like the first three and final floor(s) of the dungeon worked well individually, but did not feel cohesive in the same building. The two floors between the final and the portal maze were just filler and could have been left out. It wasn't a bad dungeon, and I did enjoy the different elements of it--they were mostly well done. I just wish it had been more consistent in terms of being a singular prison, rather than a schizophrenic amalgum of enitrely different dungeons.

For an RPG I once designed, there was not merely a derived statistic for physical health, but mental health. Much like when a character goes below zero Health, they are either dying or dead, any character with less than zero "Will" would suffer a comparable experience. This mechanic had several benefits: Discouraged lop-sided min/max builds. Created multi-dimensional options for attacking and defending. Honed & distinguished spellcasting attributes. Created a secondary spellcasting mechanic. Provided combat usefulness for traditionally non-combat diplomatic skills. My RPG had the character attributes of Strength, Agility, Dexterity, Consitution, Reasoning, Resolve, Perception, and Charisma. Physical health was derived from Constituion, and mental health was derived from Resolve. Much like Constution governs your body's fidelity to resist outside physical influences, Resolve performed the same function for not just your character's mind, but their sense of identity and persona. The details of these influences are below: Discouraged min/maxing of melee oriented characters as they must consider protecting their mind just as spellcasters must necessarily consider placing points in secondary stats so that they may carry things, have reasonable health, armor, etc. Two methods versus one traditional method for slaying an opponent--openning up new strategies. Reasoning/Intelligence not lumped with other abstract character traits in dealing with the mind. Characters could now be stupid or intelligent while simltaneously having strength of personality or lack there-of. Spellcasting is complex, quasi-irrational act of exerting will over reality. Spells required Reasoning to learn and memorize, but required Resolve to cast safely, as failing to properly exert one's will over the forces of nature would cause a spell to backfire and damage their mind. Therefore, Wizards needed to strike a balance of their choice between reaching into the depths of arcane power and suffering from their flagrance, or safely casting a slightly more mundane repertoire. This not only provided an interesting mechanic and flavor, but helped moderate the power of spellcasters. Persuade/Intimidate/Bluff skills could be used beyond diplomacy with NPCs. Within combat these skills could be used to calm an attacker into parlay, frightening off weaker creatures, or un-nerving opponents and causing them to become confused or breserk. The point of this post was to suggest that, like physical health, mental/pscyhological health should be considered as a core mechanic to Project Eternity. What does everyone here think about this concept?

The most important concept is to decide upon is whether deities are derived from mortals or visa versa. I personally prefer deities being secondary to mortals. A different take, with soul-centric philosophy would feel something like this: The cosmos predate deities. Gods should be incomprehensibly powerful, but exist within the framework of the cosomos--not above or outside of it. Being derived from souls, gods should only exist for things which have souls. IE: Only gods for living things--not gods with an explicit portfolio of Storms or Fire. A diety should embody only the innate aspects of the sentience they are derived from. War, Invention, Healing are not part of sentient beings--they are products of their qualities. Anger, Curiousity, Love, Ambivalence--these are the things which make a soul/mind. This is the only way I can think of truly distinguishing P:E pantheons apart from every other mythos ever created. Life begets souls, souls beget deities, deities beget life.

The most important concept is to decide upon is whether deities are derived from mortals or visa versa. I personally prefer deities being secondary to mortals. A different take, with soul-centric philosophy would feel something like this: The cosmos predate deities. Gods should be incomprehensibly powerful, but exist within the framework of the cosomos--not above or outside of it. Being derived from souls, gods should only exist for things which have souls. IE: Only gods for living things--not gods with an explicit portfolio of Storms or Fire. A diety should embody only the innate aspects of the sentience they are derived from. War, Invention, Healing are not part of sentient beings--they are products of their qualities. Anger, Curiousity, Love, Ambivalence--these are the things which make a soul/mind. This is the only way I can think of truly distinguishing P:E pantheons apart from every other mythos ever created. Life begets souls, souls beget deities, deities beget life.

Viconia: "Minsc, that tattoo on your face. Does it have tribal significance or did some nursery’s fingerpainting class assault you with blue pastels?" Minsc: "I do not like the tone of your voice, dark elf! The face I have is the face the ladies love! Boo loves Minsc’s face, too. Don’t you Boo?" While Minsc is certainly memorable, I cannot claim he was the best Baldur's Gate character. I think Edwin, Jan, and Haer'Dalis (not necessarily in order) from Baldur's Gate II rank as the most interested NPCs as far as I am concerned. Xan, Xzar, and Eldoth from Baldur's Gate I stellar personalities as well, though I do believe it was the Baldur's Gate I NPC Project which made them such robust characters. Amoral NPCs with scathing wits tend to make the best characters overall. However, that's not to say other personalities aren't necessary or don't have their place. I thought Jaheria & Khalid were great companions, but seperately they left much to be desired. Aerie was abnoxious, but provided great context for other character to engage her. Most NPCs followed this dynamic. Even though the technical depth of NPC interaction was greater in Dragon Age: Origins, I cannot say they were superior to the NPCs within Baldur's Gate. The only personalities I found interesting were Allistar and Zevran, but this was not the most significant weakness. Despite the depth of interaction they had with the PC, they didn't have any meaningful interaction with eachother. Thus, to me, they didn't feel like breathing cohesive parts of a whole, but rather separate novellas to read and discard at whim. I suppose the exception was with Morrigan & Wynne, but that was only one easily avoided empass. Baldur's Gate II provided several conflicts for multiple characters. Edwin vs. Minsc. Keldorn vs. Viconia vs. Jaheria vs. Aerie vs. Korgan vs. PC vs. Haer'Dalis--and more! Those were just the more critical interactions. That's what made them feel real. These existed outside of their interactions with the PC; therefore, they were. NPCs interacting with eachother I feel is more important than their interaction with the PC.

Exquisitely spoken. This is precisely what I was trying to convey in my earlier comments. Dakkon's Circle of Zerthimon is exactly as I would like to see grimoires behave. A book of spells, but a personal one which requires understanding in order to utiltize.

I wasn't thinking of sentient books like done with The Book of Vile Dakness in P:T. Perhaps some grimiores of intensely old and powerful wizards could gain sentience, but not in general. Merely that, in order to properly understand a spell which dominates the mind of another, one might have to persuade/intimidate/bluff X persons before they are capable of comprhending/casting it.

I like the idea of a Grimiore being attuned to the creator's soul. As in, it bears their signature due to proximity--not that it literally houses a fraction of their soul like a phylacerty. With the widely used mechanic of Wizard's warding their spellbooks against use by others, this could lead to interesting possiblities. Wizards trying to utilize or invoke another's grimiore would have to unlock its secrets via becoming like the former owner, to understand its residual soul and intiricacies. A grimiore created by a sinister Wizard might require a prospective user to perform ill deeds and tasks to "understand" its powers and methods (like Planescape; Torment). A grimiore created by a a clever Wizard might require a prospective user to become more manipulative and underhanded, etc. The concept is not so much that the book is sentient, but that since magic is channelled through souls, that each soul will have a unique brand of casting manifest in the type of spells they predominantly utiltize/know.

I find it a bit peculiar that firearms exist in a setting where the printing press does not. I think that it would be very telling for a variety or even a single culture to have all of the knowledge required to build a firearm (metallurgy, chemistry, physics, geology, etc.), yet not have thought of a printing press to record or convey this knowledge ever occur to them. This speaks very ill for the people and theif state of lives within P:E.

What does level have to do with anything? Unless oyu think that being a higher level automaticly means you MUST run into more magical tiems..because..why? The gods themselves put them in your path? What does the wrold care what "level" you are? What NOT run into a legendary magical items early on? Why NOT run into completely mundane weapons late game? Waht you propose is exactlx the opposite of good atmosphere - scaling for scalings own sake. Nothing more than ego and greed appeasing. More powerful characters have more resources. Powerful entities are more likely to have significant conflict with other powerful entities than with those significantly weaker and lesser resources. An archmage has no need or business going into your average Kobold Den, but an apprentice does. An apprentice would be ill advised and have no real business travelling the planes, but and archmage does. Magic items should be proportionate to the encounter. More powerful characters are more likely to experience more powerful foes and encounters. The inverse is true for less powerful characters. It is possible for your level 1 Paladin to aquire a Holy Avenger, but it is not only improbable, but typically makes for imbalanced and poor game design.

I particularly enjoy low magic settings because not only does it become more difficult for classes to act outside of their roles, but it increases the importance of their individual roles. High magic often allows classes to be able to stand alone and make many things irrelevant. In a low magic setting: Skills become critically important. With the easy button of magic done, skills are your best recourse. Support classes are desperately needed AS support. Items don't make you invulnerable, and potions aren't falling from the sky. A spellcaster's spells are covetously valuable, and can actually make an impact in the emergency and unique scenarios when they are needed. Fighters are valuable because they are capable of enduring rigors of battle--not merely because they are the best platform for L33tz Gear. In a high magic setting: Skills/Class/Ability are almost irrelevant beyond flavor. There is an item for it, or an inexhuastible well of spells for that. Low magic settings produce archetypes, roles, and and the need for parties which cooperate. I find this far more interesting.

The appreciation for the moment did come a bit later, lol! The astonishment took some time to wear off, not to mention trying to rationalize why I hadn't heeded the warning signs from previous arguments. Even with that brutal introduction to the full scope of BG NPCs, it never softened the wrenching choices in BG 2 where I knew that the party would never be the same again. These moments alone immortalized the series without equal to me. I wasn't aware that there will only be eight official NPCs. This makes fatalistic outcomes more complicated, though I find it still worth the risk. Planescape: Torment still made me choose when I only had seven companions when consulting The Book of Vile Darkness (Ha!) and I managed just fine. Even though P:T NPCs were technically more composed, I still have a more potent memory of BG NPCs because of their fatalistic confrontations that could arise.