Mr. Magniloquent

Given that the NPC companions will be of an engrossing nature with their own personas and agendas, how severe can we expect conflict and consequences arising from derision to be? There was a moment in BG: ToSC when my party was deep within Durlag's Tower near death and out of resources, I attempted to rest before gracefully exiting that death-trap when an argument broke out. Khalid and Jaheria had decided that Montoron and Xzar weren't desirable company anymore, which resulted in my party hacking itself to bits in a squabble I had no ability to stop. It was an absolutely exquisite moment. Baldur's Gate II followed up these conflicts well with many other characters ending in irrevocable impasses where the PC had to make serious choices that could result in party members leaving forever or dueling to the death. I am very excited at the prospect for these consequences; particularly in a no-reload environment. Is this an aspect that anyone else looks forward to?

While there is a place for grandeur, I prefer the intimate and soulful music of Arcanum to most soundtracks. Arcanum was also a somber and morose setting, where the world was in the decaying stages of transition. Given what is known about P:E's music, I imagine a string quartet should suffice. I speculate it will be a cross between the melancholy of Arcanum and the mystery of Planescape: Torment, with occasional overtures of Baldur's Gate battle music for prominent conflicts.

In games where a strong narrative is present, this is typically not possible. Given the stated goals of P:E and the talent behind it, I imagine any and all exploration will be intended to be completed prior to culmination of the plot. I imagine a game becomes significantly harder to balance when a player is permitted to journey around it once the main plot ends, and it would restrict the types of conclusions that could be reached. Post-completation exploration would be nice, but I would only want it implemented as an after thought. Create the best game with the most engrossing story first, then decide if there is anything to be gained by being able to continue beyond that point.

Storm of Zehir was the best system I've seen in a cRPG yet. Every member can contribute to their best abilities, as in every other scenario an adventuring party finds themselves in. The only complication is that dialogue where a party with a maximum of one PC, wonderful interjections from NPCs as in Baldur's Gate or Dragon Age: Origins become significantly more difficult to integrate.

The more skill checks, the better. Skills differentiate the classes deeply, and make the unique assets of a class much more immersive and prevalent. When only combat skills matter, class almost become irrelevant so long as you can kill something. I've had to use skill and ability checks walk a normal pace through a blizzard, step across a stream without slipping, etc. These make your choice of class and build far more significant, and really make every task a team effort.

I like the aquisition of BG2 NPCs best. Any character who could be found easily and join easily was with purpose. Other characters had slightly more complicated introductions whether it be a simple rescure (Viconia & Cernd), a minor trek through a dungeon (Aerie & Mazzy), to a complete series of quests and/or an entire major dungeon (Edwin & Hear'Dalis). Overall, a great balance was achieved. Overall, my greatest requirement is the time frame of discovery. It needs to be relatively early, even if party experience is irrelevant as in Dragon Age: Origins. Party composition is more than just maximizing experience and party balance. Your party's characters flesh out and frame many of the narratives within your own story. Being able to go through your entire adventure in the best of company, rather than only fractions of it is critical.

I feel it either needs to be pivitol, or all together unimportant. Either my keep is central to the game and worth my time to invest in it for the sake of outcomes and quests, or it is a safe storage locker to rest up and craft. Anything inbetween tends to be a distraction which detracts from the adventuring aspects of the game.

I think no dungeon has ever been so perfect as Durlag's Tower in a cRPG. It has incredibly challenging bits of combat that wear you down, a multitude of surprising and lethal traps, an interesting and brutal end fight, lots of diversity in level design while still being grounded, with riddles, excellent treasure, and a nice little story to boot. Add in the portal maze from Watcher's Keep in BG2 and I would catatonic with happiness.

I have great faith that their antagonist with be satisfactory at minimum. With a list including Sarevok, Irenicus, Khergan, Isair & Madae, Yourself, etc., I have very high expectations and little fear of disapointment. Even in games like Mask of the Betrayer where the antagonist was abstracted, it was still marvelously done. I wouldn't worry yourself, CaptainVanguard.

Be careful what you wish for. Planescape: Torment already defied this convention with Cranium Rats. Positively lethal. Who knows what they might concoct to outdo that horror.

That's a concise expression of my antipathy towards the description given to the Cipher. A separate class which manipulates the souls of others implies that Wizards cannot, or shall not.

Psionics != sci-fi. It's a fantastical effect that has nothing to do with levels of science or technology. It's like calling the Force sci-fi, which it's not. The division of magic into environment-altering effects (wizards) and mental effects (ciphers) is no less arbitrary than the division into arcane blasters and divine healers. It's specialisation of a school of magic, with the potential to have a much deeper treatment than vanilla enchantment spells. Your assumption that it'll just be "the same effect" is unfounded. So you're saying that a Psion is only a semantic change from a Wizard? That both classes use their force of will to manipulate magic/reality in the same manner? That's not a very compelling argument to make a distinction for a new class and mechanic. Illusionist & Enchanters already exist, and their title distinguishes them as specialists in mind manipulating magic, while still recognizing them for what they are--a Wizard. The distinction between Psion and Wizad is just a supernatural versus magical. If these systems produce identical effects, then developing a parrallel system is pointless. If it is merely a title difference to denote a specialization, then it is even more pointless. Furthermore, there is very reasonable suspicion that the abilities will be redundant, because using magic to produce mind altering effects are already abundant and well established (Sleep, Hold, Charm, Suggestion, etc.)

I just see it as introducing a nearly identical mechanic. Using psionics to persuade someone rather can casting Charm or Friendship. It's science fiction vs. medieval fantasy. I would rather them spend their efforts creating spells which influence the mind, rather than an entire new class and mechanic to achieve the same effect.

Sneak Attack represents a clever and underhanded method of taking advantage of a distracted or debillitated opponent. It is a situtational and unconventional method. Fighters do not recieve Sneak Attacks for the same reasons Fighters do no recieve Barbarian Rage and Damage Reduction. It's a difference in style and method. Fighters are the primary melee combatant, using the most conventional methods because they are the most proven methods. The Rogue class often defies convention; hence, so to does their combat abilities.

Taking the darker path was deincentivized in the Black Isle Infinity Engine games because they were aware children were a major audience. Since this game has a deliberate and stated intention of dealing with darker role playing aspects, I am optimistic that you will get your wish for greater dark path rewards. As we all know, being a bastion of altruism is rarely as profitable as less stoic approaches to life's problems. It would be enjoyable to play a game which properly reflected that.

Um, how are these different? You generate a random number, compare it with another number (save DC or %) and the effect succeeds or fails. In both cases there may be mechanics to pierce resistance. But don't think the devs have weighed in on that bit. It was a poorly written question, I do concede that. Better phrased, my concern is that the potency of a Wizard's spells will not scale well. When all of your effectiveness is concentrated within very few exhaustible actions, a Wizard needs reasonable confidence that their spells (when focused) will work 85% of the time. Any ratio approaching less than 4:5 success to failure with a non-spammable casting system becomes a severe liability and restricts the practicality of many spells. I wish to know what the mechanics for determining this outcome look like, and if it will be possible to build a character so that they have a high certainty that their scant allotment of spells will do more than breeze by. It's a question of quality vs. quanity and how that influences the types of spells available. Quality vs. Quantity. Hold Monster vs. Ice Bolt. D&D 3.0 Edition vs. Diablo. I wish they would just declare it a vancian system and be done with it, rather than any quasi-cooldown system which will likely ruin and bastardize any alternative. Pathfinder has done an excellent job circumventing the problem of a Wizard firing a crossbow more than spellcasting. That's the same direction they should be looking to for answers.

This class actually worries me a bit. If a Cipher is someone who manipulates souls, that implies the Wizard does not. Rather, Wizards are just going to be some AOE bore tossing generic elemental spells.

I suppose that works. A recharge time equivalent to resting recovery could actually be superior if in game resting were actually absent. It would abate the overwhelm, camp, overwhelm strategy. However, being able to utilize multiple iterations of the same spell (memorizing multiple Confusion spells for example) might be excluded by this approach. If this is true, then can I be at the very least optimistic for spells to have meaningful effects beyond direct damage? Fireball and Magic Missle cause me to yawn. Wizards without Hold, Sleep, Fear, Petrification, Death, etc is just an overly complicated Archer.

My primary draw to medieval fantasy games is spellcasting. Hence, my greatest draw to Infinity Engine games (D&D) has been the incredible sophistication of the spell casting system. While Vancian systems have their complications, every other system I've experienced pales by comparison. Since P:E has chosen to use cooldowns, I have some very serious concerns. Meaningful Effects Will spells be able to meaningfully alter the status of an opponent? I speak of spells like Emotion, Hold, Confusion, Domination, Sleep, and even death spells. Outside of vancian systems, the most wizards can hope for is "Stun for 0.089786976 seconds every X seconds" or "Slow for 1.09809 seconds every X seconds". Cooldowns & mana casting are the primary culprits for this devolution of spellcasting. Since P:E has chosen cooldowns, I am deeply concerned. How much should I fear spellcasting will be a stupor of generic damage spells with different durations/animations? Potency & Resistance How will the effectiveness of spells being determined? Will there be a roll to save type device as in D&D where DC is pitted aginst Saving Throws, or a percentage based system (45% likely to effect opponent)? Likewise, will wizards be able to meaningfully increase the potency of their spells, or will they have to accept the harsh reality that their limited quanity of spells will only work 40-60% chance at best? Spell Protections & Counterspells Perhaps one of the most shining aspects of the spellcasting in the Baldur's Gate series were the myriad of spell protections (Spheres, Shields, Traps, etc.) and their counters (Breach, Spell Penetration, Warding Whip, etc.). Will this degree of depth be present in P:E spellcasting? I apologize if these topics have been previously addressed. Should that be the case, I would very much appreciate links to those discussions.