Utukka

"backstab" has been changed, to sneak attack, in the DnD world a long time ago. Sneak attack is an important part of being a rogue and a lot of their skills are geared around it. Eliminating this skill just because you want to see a fighter do higher damage in a fight all the time would be silly. This game and past crpg's are based around combat which really restricts a LOT of skills a rogue and the player can effectively use. Thus making combat skills a higher priority for a rogue to have to ensure that they server a purpose in a party. In a perfect world/game a rogue could scale the walls and throw his voice to confuse his enemies so that he could sneak by. Always avoiding combat unless he has the clear advantage on his target. No, I don't want to eliminate the skill because I want a fighter to do more damage. I want to re-do the class so it makes more sense and gets more character and depth. By your own admission in a perfect game a rogue would play differenlty. So why not try and make hte rogue play better? It's not impossible. The D&D system isn't perfect and beyond improvements. Clearly some progress can be made. Again - it all boils down to game/encounter/level design. You CAN make it balanced for a rogue. Also, a lot of people - you included - seem to have a very narrow definition of what makes a class usefull. You're thinking strictly in the lines of battlefield lethality (DPS) and complety ignore battlefield utility. What a rouge should be able to do outside of battle: - scout areas - set traps - use varioues devices, pick locks, etc... - sneak (but not in broad daylight. Sneaking is often done rather poorly. I'm all for having to keep to darker corners and taking the longer way around. Also possibly dousing out light sources. Visibility AND sound matter.) - get around various ostables (climb walls, jump over chasms, walk on ledges, etc..) - sneak up on a unsuspecting guard and preform a insta-kill (knife to the back of the skull) Inside of battle: - move around fast, flank and confuse opponents. they should NOT become magicly invisible and do sneak attacks then. Only normal flanking. Their speed and sliperyness is a great asset on a truly tactical battlefield in itself. Of course, such a system is not easy to pull off I like this one. It lines up with my own thoughts on the matter. Rogues should not be DPSers or magic stalkers, but with the supposed importance of formations they should have the ability of battlefield mobility: able to get past enemies on the battlefield in order to take out key targets, such as being able to acrobatically evade a shield wall of fighters to get at the delicious mages and healers behind. They should be able to lock down the key targets as well, blinding them or tripping them up. I actually think the Witch Hunters in WAR actually worked well as the general theme for a rogue: evasion of enemy front lines to take out the back lines. Invisibility or 'stealth' as some call it isn't actually necessary for this, just the ability to evade and high mobility. Because then he'd be a Fighter. Really, any heroic class could be considered special forces. They are all specialists who are called upon do go beyond what common soldiers would need to do. I'm not sure you intended it to be taken this way, but I quite like the idea of the whole party being considered as a special forces squad. There was a discussion on the GURPS forums as to what basic skills should every adventurer have, and it was pointed out that your typically adventuring party would realistically be built like a spec ops team and should all share skills like stealth as they invade the enemies' strongholds, but that your typical DnD style system undermines it: everyone accepts that every class should have a combat skill yet other skills such as stealth and climbing are not considered as essential skills when they should, instead considered niche skills for specific roles. Think of the original Conan the Barbarian film: all three characters (Conan, Conan's shag piece and archer guy with moustache) use stealth throughout most of the film. They stealthily enter the bad guy's tower, they stealthily enter his main temple (repeatedly), and yet they also fight like brutal warriors. I'd love to do a game like that, one where you actually felt like you were raiding the bad guys homes like a crack team of specialists and not just walking in with no concept for stealth like you do in most games. But I've digressed. *Suddenly a stormtrooper runs up to the White Rabbit* Stormtrooper: Sir, we have reports that people are claiming false things about plate armour again! Me: Do they never learn? Well, I think we were done here anyway. Everyone, remember to vote White Rabbit for a human-free tomorrow. Come Minions. *White Rabbit and Minions stride out* You're right, I didn't intend it to be taken in that manner, HOWEVER, I actually do agree that in a realistic point of view, that the entire party would be more like special forces. As you said, it would make sense for any adventurer to be able to fight hand to hand, use stealth etc. A class in a system such as this would be more of a "specialization". In other words, everyone might be able to use stealth, fight hand to hand, pick locks, cook, w/e....but your class would open up a *few* unique abilities and/or higher levels of PROFICIENCY in certain areas. For example, a rogue would be better at opening locks, a fighter would be better at parry/blocking, a mage would have access to higher level spells. Would be interesting to see a system like this put into place. You would need to prepare for the massive amount of complaints of classes being too similar however.

There's plenty of old people in real life that aren't qualified to greet the door at Walmart....pretty sure a few could slip through in PE.

Because then he'd be a Fighter. Really, any heroic class could be considered special forces. They are all specialists who are called upon do go beyond what common soldiers would need to do. I know, it wasn't meant to be taken literally. My point was to give him an example of the same logic being applied elsewhere.

1) I agree that anyone could backstab. 2) I think backstab perhaps is due for a name change, as someone suggested "stealth attack" or else, doesn't matter to me what it's called. 3) It's because of class distinction but not entirely just for the sake of making rogue more "different". I view the idea of a class as a "specialization" or career choice. This implies that they will be "better" at a particular aspect compared to someone else who may be able to do it. For example, there's a manual out there for just about anything, including as you pointed out, sword fighting/tricks to it. Chances are if you've been through highschool or college, you've taken a Chemistry course or history class along the way. Now you've completed the task, read the same stuff, and by all rights, you may just be as correct as me or the next guy, but odds are, the Chemistry major or History major is gonna know a thing or 2 that you may have missed or forgotten along with being able to solve the issues more efficiently with less errors. Who's taught what is all up to the game creator at any point. 4) Along the same line of thinking, why wouldn't a rogue potentially be as adept at weaponry as a fighter? I imagine if I was gonna be solo, sneaking behind enemy lines, I'd want to be extremely well trained with a weapon for when I inevitably do fail and have to fight my way out. A rogue in my mind could be potentially construed as special forces.

That's pretty much what the underlying reasons for wanting it seems to be in most cases. The problem people started out stating at the beginning of the thread was "Kill based xp makes non-combat builds impossible or sub-optimal". Solutions have been presented numerous times that cleanly handles that issue. Those solutions are completely ignored, and "Objective based xp is the best" continues to be asserted. Which means the issue cannot be what was originally stated, since a number of strictly better solutions have been proposed. I suspect the issue is actually a combination of... "I do not want anyone anywhere to be able to metagame" "I do not want anyone anywhere to be able to farm" "I am bothered if I know people are out there doing that" Which is why I said that I don't think people are fully disclosing their reasons for wanting objective based xp, because if those reasons were actually asserted, cross-examination would render them invalid very rapidly. If you go back and read through the thread, you'll find the defenses for Objective based xp very rapidly become behaivior management issues instead of gameplay issues. The oft sited "Farming", "Exploiting stealth", "Going back and killing everyone after getting the reward", those are all behavior management issues, trying to force people to play "The right way". This. Especially what I bolded.

Seems to me the issue here is that people are mad that someone could "powergame" or w/e and walk away with slightly more exp for doing everything. For example, sneak past then come back and kill. God forbid you just stick to roleplaying which is what you are arguing for and stop worrying about what someone else is doing. Guess what, if I want to play a certain way, I'm going to play the way I want to regardless of what is "available" or what some guy across the world may be doing.

Not to mention in PnP, you don't have to write out code for everything. I would love for every action or decision to matter in the game but I'm also a realist. A game designer can't tell a good story while still giving you the option to be good, evil, indifferent, or too lazy to get off the couch in 10,000 different quests that are all interconnected that also factor in your looks, wardrobe, race, and sex compared to the NPCs or antagonists goals and previous experiences or views on the matter. That aside.....I would like the REALISTIC approach of having multiple options in a quest line that allow me to create influence and change that reflect my views or opinions while still leading towards the goal intended by the developers to further the story. "PC can deal with the corrupt cleric, but will they kill them, turn them over to the clergy or the law enforcement? Each of the options should have a unique response from the quest." That sounds as a fairly reasonable example to me. Sorry if any of that comes off rude but people need to realize we aren't playing the sims. YOU WILL NOT BE GIVEN THE OPTION TO FLIP BURGERS FOR A LIVING.

This. What I'd like to see however is this.....1) Don't make me destined, the choosen one, the autoknown hero to be...whatever. 2) Just because I'm "young" doesn't mean they need to treat you like a fool, unskilled etc. Would be nice for an enemy to actually look at you as a serious threat or a potential serious threat for a change. Couple examples from history Alexander the Great (20) Hannibal (26) Modern day examples in Sports Sidney Crosby Tom Brady(used to be young and successful, now old and successful)

I imagine going through any part of the game multiple times in any scenario would get boring. The difference....starting dungeons = low level, lack of skills/equipment and weaker monsters. Compare to running through the underdark for the 5th time when you could have any number of items and abilities at your disposable with arguably more interesting combat. A new "class" can do only so much in its infant stages to make the replay more fun. The Point. It's not necessarily the "area" that is repetitive, it's the lack of ability. If they allowed you to talk your way out of Irenicus dungeon or wait to be rescued, would that make it more "fresh" over time, for a few more playthroughs it would be better, but not for long. All that aside, I still love it regardless.

I imagine as long as PE doesn't sell the story short and has fun gameplay, they will do just fine and would lead to a bigger 2nd kickstarter in the future. If they decide to do another(I know they said they'd fund game 2 off of the first game sales). As for story, the more in-depth, the better. I'd love a long term story to unfold throughout multiple games/expansions. BG series is 1 of my favorites, played it countless times. As for "closure" or foreshadowing....both are good but not entirely necessary in my opinion. For example, a first game in a series ending on a cliff hanger doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing. I'm not saying leave it like diablo 2 did so actiblizz can ruin a great series, in short, a d1 to d2 type ending would suffice. I suppose diablo being killed could be seen as closure but hey, it leaves some questions at the end. Also, if the enemy has a secret plan that they've been working on for a long time, I'd rather them not leave clues all over the place and potentially just blow my mind when the enemy sets it off. Perhaps he even leaves clues that lead me to a wrong conclusion.....

Either way can be good it appears, loved the BG series, loved Diablo 1 & 2....not a fan of d3. I assume you know the story of both series. I think I would prefer a BG style in this type of game, progress from start to finish with the same guy as long as power doesn't become out of hand too early.

I think a few people missed the part where KS reports what you raised to the IRS automatically. Tax dodge chance = 0

I always thought finger of death, disintegrate, and others were very fun to use. I'd like to see them in but of course, it all depends on implementation, would be nice to not have to have death ward or some such spell just sitting there taking up a spell slot in case some random mage just happened to be in the forest who had finger of death ready to go.

Not sure respec is overly necessary in a game like this, especially if it's gonna be anything like BG2. What would you even respec besides a few attribute points, weapon proficiency, theif abilities, or race/class? If it's similar to diablo or torchlight where you're leveling up skills or adding statpoints, then sure, a few reasonably placed respecs would be fine. For example, 1 respec available upon creation, 1 earned upon defeating the game on "x" difficulty, and MAYBE an expensive in game way such as huge gold sink. That would give 1 free respec, roughly 3 earned respecs by defeating the game modes, and of course, potentially being able to spend a good sum for 1-2 more totaling 5 available with some effort put in. The main thing to remember.....balance the game as if respecs of any degree don't exist. Once they start influencing decisions towards gameplay or story, it can become a slippery slope.

Orcs are an atheistic, warlike society. They view farming and diplomacy as tools of the weak, combat is what defines you. The best warrior/conqueror is a Orc worthy of leadership and is the inspiration for all little orcs, "The Orc to be". Does that solve the problem?

POE is essentially just a passive skill tree and stat points combined into one. It just allows for customization in a different way than having 2 seperate systems(stat points per level and passive skill tree). You could achieve the same goal with 2 different systems or maybe even 3 if you split IAS faster cast etc into its own tree that would be less "logistical/connect the dots". You also kinda answered your own knock on WoW, the system itself of having 7-15 passives isn't the issue, it's the fact that 95% of them are worthless and also never EVER have a downside. Lack of creativity or design is the true fault, not the system itself.

Would rather not have to deal with identify, yet to play a game that it doesn't feel like a chore or waste of time in the end. If you must have as a gold sink then ok but worrying about lore or reasearching the item, not for me, focus more on story/more interesting combat/noncombat mechanics. Also for those suggesting a "discover as you use", that would just end up being extremely annoying in the long run in MY opinion. Last thing I want to do is have to use a million different items just to "figure" it out.

Whatever works the best, old or new.

Though the opposing parties never had a chance to fireball or cloudkill u while your party was still covered with the Fog of War and couldn't see it coming. Don't forget how they would just stand in it as well as if nothing was happening.

I'll agree with the "animals attack" approach, at the very least, give a good reason to why these animals are behaving the way they are. As for the "mook" species such as Orcs being pure evil from OUR standpoint....it "slightly" makes sense in my opinion. Humans can't even get along with each other yet alone a different species that could potentially replace us on top of the food chain. Pretty sure if Orcs were real, we'd be at war with them, hell, it would probably be a uniting cause amongst humans to destroy the threat before we resume our war with each other. Yet if you take this view, what about teh dwarves n such??? Fantasy is the only answer. I know you are ok with it but I just wanted to touch on this subject without going further back. All that aside, I don't see these guys going Diablo 3s route.

If it adds to the experience, it should be added in. The game shouldn't be "lessened" because a person who wants all achievements doesn't want to have to make a 2nd character. Just my opinion tho.

You could have a "degree" of randomness to a creature such as a troll. Perhaps not all trolls are created equal. One may be better than another BUT it could be from a "pool" of "troll abilities". Especially if all things are to have "souls".

If they had more npc,s sure. Also, as much as it makes sense for them to fight....if they're trapped in a dungeon barely surviving and they know they have a tough road ahead, it doesn't make sense for them to just hack each other to pieces at that time. Big difference between an event such as a party member slaughtering an innoncent family infront of everyone and the 2 just disliking each other and fighting while they're already in a dangerous situation.

Base movement speed = 10(Just for an example) Robes/Clothing = +1 to movement speed, so (11) total. Yes I know it sounds funny to get a bonus from that from a realism standpoint but it's just an idea. Could always just not give a bonus at all here and just have light armor be the same 0 reduction to movement. light armor = no penalty to BASE(10) movement speed or evasion, low damage reduction (5%), low chance to "deflect" (5%) medium armor = small penalty to movement speed and evasion, middle damage reduction (10%), middle tier "deflect" (10%) heavy armor = medium/high penalty to movement speed and evasion depending on "how heavy", high damage reduction (15-20%), deflect (20%) -Chance to "hit" not affected by target armor, solely based on the "creatures" ability to hit -Then take in dodge/evasion chance OR a combination of calculation hit vs dodge/evasion. Whatever is mathematically best. -If dodge/evasion fails, roll for armor "deflect" Deflect being the ability to fend off "glancing blows", some weapons might not be deflectable compared to others -Deflect fails, Damage dealt and Reduction/resist is applied based upon armor. -You hurt, the end. Problem solved. Sorry if it's hard to understand for some people.

A game a little harder is better than too easy because all classes get godlike powers to match an overpowered one. I agree but obviously it comes down to how "overpowered" and how "weak" we are talking. Look at d3 for example, few builds that dominate, handful that work, then a ton of worthless abilities.They have quite a bit of skills that you can easily look and see that they need buffed.