Heresiarch

I really don't like insignificant static buffs like +5% to health or +3% to damage or whatever, they give the game the sort of mumorpeger feeling. Which makes no sense in single player games at all. What I really like is powerful buffs which limit the mages ability to cast by an upkeep of sorts. It makes you think if you want to go into all-out magical carnage or strengthen your melee damage or defence or whatever instead. Not to forget powerful attack spells. I don't mind long casting times, susceptibility to interrupts (with potentially devastating effects), AoE effects which do not discriminate friend from foe, al long as I am able to unload (at least, in theory) a completely decimating spell with my mage to run the tide of battle.

Actually, I don't like some of the so-called roleplay dialogue techniques, when there's a load of dialogue choices and every bloody one of them leads to the same result. Say, an NPC comes up to you and tries to talk you into defending his village and you are presented with the following answer variants: 1) "I will gladly do it, my good man" 2) "Do you have the money to pay me for it?" 3) "Go bugger yerself!" And no matter which one of them you choose, you end up defending the village. If you bluntly refused, quelle surprise, those insightful bandits don't wait till tomorrow and attack right when you are leaving. To make matters worse you always get the same reward at the end. The only thing that changes is whether you are pronounced the goddamn hero, the greedy mercenary or a bad-mouthed bastard. That sort of thing is just lazy and adds no depth to RP at all. If you are playing a greedy merc you should actually be presented with opportunities to make more money than a goddamn hero. While a goddamn hero should have an opportunity to sacrifice his interests and put himself in danger because of others, when every sensible person would have walked away. If you play a bastard, you should be able to find those bandits and talk them into cooperating with you to rob the village. Or make them do all the dirty work, kill them when you start to share plunder and take off. That's what roleplay is all about.

By the look of things if a character progresses any further, he will become a solid block of metal with two slits for glaring eyes. I really like flashy abilities much like epic feats in NWN or special abilities and 10th level spells in ToB. Character-specific abilities also felt cool, like Slayer transformation or Sarevok's Deathbringer's Assault.

nwn2 has many problems, but spell variety isn't one of them. it's implementation of 3ed spell system is considerably more flexible than bg2's ad&d attempt. but fundamentally, they're both d&d. i'd say comparing them, out of very specific context, is rather pointless. Comparing AD&D to 3.5 edition is like comparing Classic World of Darkness to New World of Darkness. The similarity exists only in name. Not to mention the fact that the actual implementation of PnP rule in NWN 2 left much to be desired. Spell variety in NWN 2 was almost non-existent. I wonder how exactly the spell list was debated. "Mirror Image? We'll just add extra AC. But what about Imprisonment, Time Stop, Wish, Symbols, Spell Turning, Recall, Contingency? Meh, nobody uses them anyway, right? Let's throw in some more attack spells. How about Lesser Sphere of Yesterday's Leftovers? Or Greatest Yet Not So Great Stoneskin? How cool will it be to use Premonition as yet another one of them bloody DR spells?" Do not forget no spell sequencers and a bad joke for automatic quicken spell.

We have learnt a little about spellcasting system and grimoires quite some time ago, so I find it strange no one actually brought up the topic before. There is the common level convention in spellcasting, but different games treat the actual assortment of spells available rather differently. I will show three most prominent and relevant examples. 1. NWN 2 Spell of higher level are mostly scaled up versions of previous level spells. Some less blatantly obvious than the others, but the evident lack of variety is rather sad. Let's face it, all attack spells at all levels boil down to a simple formula: up to xDy of z damage in a cone/area/single target with or without some next to useless debuff at the end in a failed attempt to add flavour. Invisibility and concealment spells do pretty much the same thing and there is about 6 different types. Accursed Spell Mantle exists in 3 variants from Least to Greater and the Lesser Spell Mantle with empower metamagic actually work better than the Greater version. In effect low level spells and debuffs actually become useless. Metamagic works for some spells, but they effectively use up higher slots, so it isn't really necessary unless you're a sorcerer and hard-pressed for the number of spells. In fact most metamagic feels like it was created exclusively for sorcerers, favoured souls and spirit shamans, because for other casters it's just too much hassle with little effect. Only epic spells add a bit of variety into the caster arsenal and they are very few. 2. Baldur's Gate 2 Attack spells are quite few and do not duplicate each other. Each has a distinct purpose even on different levels: meter Swarm is a huge AoE, Horrid Wilting deals massive damage and spares friendlies, Death Fog deals persistent damage, Chain Lightning affect an all enemies in caster's close vicinity, Melf's Acid Arrow with it's periodic damage is great for disrupting enemy spellcasting and so on. Upgraded variants of spells (Invulnerability Globe, Mantle, Spell Deflection and Turning, Summon Nishruu and Hakeashar) actually felt like they were worth the difference and knowing both variants didn't hurt, because it simply gave you more flexibility in terms of spell slot utilisation. Even all three versions of the Sequencer felt extremely useful for different ends, because you could only have one of each level. All of this contributes to all spells having a unique feel about them. On your first playthrough when you come upon a scroll with a new spell, you feel extremely anxious about using it. Low level spells remain useful and even low level buffs and abjuration spells do not become irrelevant. 3. Arcanum A very different approach, which is none the less non trivial. Only five level spells exist in each of 16 spell colleges. All five have very different effects, so they don't become obsolete. It come down to player's choice which array of spell he prefers, since you can't have them all. There isn't really much to say about it, other than that the extremely flexible spell system together with classless character model allowed to create any sort of character you like and play the game exactly how you please. But even if the player is locked into a mage profession this kind of broad choice with no redundancy allows for deep tactical decisions.

I don't like the concept of tanking in single player games. It's completely artificial and redundant and there is no enjoyment in it what-so-ever, except in MMOs. Same goes for dedicated healers. NWN2 seemed quite stale and rolls really got in the way of combat flow. Too many checks, too much minmaxing required to make stuff work reliably, too frustrating if you got your build all wrong. DAO was plain boring, because it seemed a middle ground between tactical and action RPG, which made it both long and non-dynamic. I liked the tactics aspects in BG2 and IWD2. It was a combination of managing spellcasting (buffs, CC, attacks, disspelling), frontline combatants, who go into the fray against the enemy meat shield, and a dedicated magekiller to give enemy spellcasters a hard time.

Yeah, The Old Republic, right. I couldn't tell if it is an abysmal MMO or an offline RPG with monthly subscription. What I could tell, though, that it is a damn shame and an utter fail. Except, maybe, for Star Wars drones. No disrespect to SW drones meant, everyone has their weakness. So MMO sounds like the way to go if your goal is broken hearts and shattered dreams. After playing ME3 I can tell that's what Bioware specialises in these days, so best leave it to them.

Well, if you claim that leather armor is useless you've never been stabbed with a knife, while wearing a leather jacket. Trust me, it can make all the difference between ruining your clothes and ending up with a blade in your guts. Not every blow in combat is a dagger or a spear thrust delivered squarely into your chest. As for the usage of leather armor (that is armor made exclusively of leather) Greeks made extensive usage of leather armor and also covered their shields with layers of hide. Byzantine Clibanarii also used lamellar armor made of leather scales, as did Japanese warriors, so did Vikings. I suppose if it were not effective some of them would have already raised the issue on the forums, althings or whatever.

PST all the way. Did anyone actually read all those wall of text and replies in BG? I sort of went diagonally most of the time and tried to gather the meaning from key words. And I am a big fan of reading actually. But when it's all bare dialogue it's simply not engaging enough. In Planescape a huge load of experience of presented through text. Memories, thoughts, feelings, actions, meeting Deionarra, Lothar, Ignus, and other random NPCs... you just can't create detailed enough visuals in an isometric game and, thus, you can't create a proper narrative with dialogue only.

I think if you have a quest that you could finish in the first place, but cannot do so anymore should be marked as failed. So you don't break your head over it, trying to find a way to complete the quest that isn't there.

For one thing, Imprisonment was reversible with Freedom and Disintegrated characters could be revived with Wish. So I would be OK with instant kills only if party NPCs are immune to such effects.

Medieval history was a passing passion for me, so I wouldn't remember the sources even if I tried to. Then again it was contemporary accounts, rather than videos from fine gentlemen, falling from a horse in plate armor, so I would give them more credit. Scholarly articles are the best, grated, but I am yet to encounter any of those titled "On the piercing of plate armor by English warbow at point blank range", so I can't present anything of that sort to support my case. So I suppose I'll have to conclude our argument with saying that your ignorance and trust in self-proclaimed experts, posting videos on YouTube, is so unashamed and appalling, that it must take the simple lack of knowledge to a whole new level. Now when this rather heated argument is done for, I'll get to the point I was trying to make in the first place. Realistically, plate armor is history once muskets come into play. Realistically, plate armor is only fit for battlefield situations, not for running around a town or forest or for doing any travelling in it. But we are talking about a fantasy game here, so we shouldn't put too much stock in realism.

Once again I can't say if people are trolling... Is this picture supposed to be an evidence of something? Because the armor looks nothing like gothic plate and it has a face guard, which real combat plate armor never sported. If you at least saw a suit of plate not to mention wear one you would realize that mounting a horse in it is like trying to land a 767 without any training. And this is based on what? any sources, tests? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3997HZuWjk In many tests you can see the archers claim "clear penetration", but I am yet to see an arrow go far enough to pierce through the padding underneath and to do any kind of real damage to the flesh. A lone knight would stomp the lone archer into the ground most likely. Numerous historical accounts. They have a lot more weight than a video some guy posted on YouTube. For one thing plate armor has many weaker points than the breastplate. Secondly, I doubt they smelted steel and forged the armor the way it was done back in the middle ages. It also looks like steel rather than wrought iron, so it would be a really high-end piece anyways. Thirdly, their weapons are not an accurate representation of crossbows at the time. At point blank range an arrow from a bow or a crossbow with about 150 lbf could easily pierce any contemporary armor.

I imagine the penalties for boresighting to target your spells from inside the tank are going to be huge. I don't really care what the bonus for a specific armor is. Be it +50% damage resistance, +6 to sheer badassery or +25 anti-meta-spell-penetration-resilience, as long as armored spell-caster builds are going to be viable and competitive I'll be fine with it.

As Merlkir has pointed out, your statements about plate armour are incorrect: the belief that knights needed a crane to get on a horse is pure hollywoodism and the only historical reference that exists that it could ever be based on is that of a French king who needed to be lifted onto his horse not because of his armour but because he himself was too fat. If armour was that immobile you would never ever wear it, as people would just walk over to you once you fell off your horse, lift up your visor and stab you in the face. And as for the arrows bit, if that was even remotely true then it flies in the face of how the use of shields was reduced with the introduction of full plate as they were no longer essential to protect themselves from arrows. Oh, and firearms were first introduced around the same time as full plate was, which was late middle ages and the two technologies developed alongside each other. I am not a Hollywood guy by any means, nor do I buy the "common wisdom" demonstrated in any movies. For one thing I never said that a knight could not get up if thrown off the horse. Unless it was a particularly inflexible piece of tournament armor designed for maximum protection. However, you could not remount in full gothic plate, not because of the weight, but because joints simply aren't flexible enough. A suit of plate designed for battle allowed just enough flexibility to swing a sword and maneuver a shield and a lance. You could not go running around in it and it still weighed a lot to be worn over long periods of time. Not to mention extensive maintenance to keep the rust out. Secondly, suits of armor designed for battle never had any sort of visor. It's posh and foolish to allow such a great vulnerability in a a piece of armor which was supposed to stop lance thrusts. Thirdly, arrows. Full plate knight could shrug of a volley from archers, sure. But at close range 110+ lbf needle-head arrow or a crossbow bolt will run through any armor. So a lone knight pitted against a lone archer would soon become a pincushion. That's exactly the type of situations we are talking about in PE. Lastly, full plate appeared by the end of 14th century. Handguns before 15th century were more of a practical joke, than an actual weapon and they weren't used in armies. Even the arquebus in the 15th century was more about smoke than stopping power, since it often could not reliablypenetrate plate armor. After the muskets were introduced full plate armor became useless and was worn only as a decor by high-ranking officers or officials or during tournaments. Look at how cuirassiers shed their armor from three quarters in 16 century to breastplate and helmet in the 18th.

I think people shouldn't factor reality in too much. First of all you can easily crawl away from a knight in full armor. It's the type of stuff you don before battle and take off right after. In plate armor you won't be able to mount a horse without help. Of course, plate stops just about everything short of a stiletto between plates or war hammer, which simply smashes metal in and brakes the armor into pieces. But arrows from composite bows or heavy arbalests (not large necessarily, just the ones that aren't hand-loaded) pierce right through plate, mail and what have you. Not to mention bullets here. So realistically outside of heavy cavalry full plate is both useless and silly, but it rapidly jumps into ridiculous category once you introduce firearms.

I suppose the difficulty settings will come be something like this: Easy Normal Hard Slowpoke But seriously, I don't think it's a good idea. It's even more artificial than simply changing health/damage. I always thought that a nice difficulty increase would involve more enemies, tougher enemies (not just more HP/DPS, but upgraded class of enemies with more abilities), and most importantly better AI. I was extremely glad to see it in XCOM, but I can't remember any RPG, which used the same pattern for difficulty. Which is a real shame, I think.

Like a musket you can shoot without reloading, while draining your own health? That reminds me of something...

Actually, I would like it very much. My memories of DA2 are still fresh. Running around as a mage and throwing blood magic all around in downtown Kirkwall, while people kept asking me to hunt those terrible apostate blood mages. Didn't make any sense to me at all. Like every person in town was thinking to themselves, "Hey, that THE Champion, right? He simply can't be an abomination himself, can he?" I'd also want some lasting consequences, not simple acknowledgement of the fact. If you are the local equivalent of a living walking horror you should be treated like such.

PlaneScape Torment didn't have conversation skills at all. But it had tags for truth/lie/bluff. Mostly because some people do not believe that you can use bluff that way at all. You most certainly can. People have a way of assuming things. If you don't behave the way they expect you too, they assume they were wrong about you. In a fantasy setting it means that an old man with a stick can convince a bunch of bandits that he's actually a powerful wizard and some trainee with a sword, who has accidentally hit an arrow in flight, might pretend to be a great swordsman. It might even go on for quite a while depending on the perceptiveness of people you try to fool.

True, but then Fallout was a skill-based system so perks make more sense in that context. In a class-based system, talent trees can be better targeted toward individual classes. They may even provide a multi-class (or prestige class) like capability. I am trying to say that you can do the very same thing without trees. Or at least without making people spend x mandatory points for not-so-useful talents which were arbitrarily chosen as a prerequisite for the talent they actually wanted to get. Like all those placeholder +x% damage/spell power/whatnot talents in Skyrim, which I felt were a complete waste. I don't have anything against structure I just dislike it when my choice in talent customization is limited to few paths. Such thing are better left for specializations or subclasses, since they don't really represent a choice, they merely make you spend points in the preallocated tree.

Party AI shouldn't be 100% reliable nor is it expected to behave in the most efficient manner. Still you would expect your priests to heal without your direct orders, fighters to switch to another enemy once they are done with the current one, and rogues to flank their enemies for extra attack bonus. It's just an example, mind you. But on the whole the battle shouldn't stop the second you forgot to issue direct orders to your group.

Actually, tree is merely a structure. You could form D&D talents into a tree (with many loose branches) and it would actually benefit you, since you will be able to see which prerequisite talents you have to obtain and what ultimate talents suit your gameplay style most. That said, I am no big fan of many talents/feats. The old Fallout-style perks, which were few and had quite an impact on the character, did much better job of flavoring the gameplay in my opinion.

Actually, I don't see how the points contradict each other. One side (and you, presumably) is saying that tagged lines should not be the one and only "correct" choice in a conversation, while all others lead to bad results. Another (that would be me, for instance) says that coding should stay, because it makes sense, brings flavor, and facilitates roleplaying. We are not arguing that it should always be the best result. Different to be sure, maybe, unlocking additional content like Wisdom did for memories in PST, but not the best. So the argument doesn't really exist.

Except then you will have no idea whether it is utter stupidity or an extreme insight on the character's part. So they should indicated that some answer is due to high intelligence or wisdom or spot skill or what have you either by markers or by additional narrative in the dialogue box. Same goes for bluff. You can be sincere about your threat to rip off someone's face and eat it for breakfast or you can just say it for scaring them away. PST had lots of dialogue where you could be truthful or lying/bluffing and it seemed very fitting. Eh, no. If you're not intelligent enough to figure it out on your own you shouldn't be playing at all. Can't say if trolling... Have you performed a statistical analysis, which shows that games, which did not employ tags or some sort of coding, consistently managed to do it for all players? If not, then it's merely your opinion, which does even not contradict mine. Every game I played from Fallout and BG to NWN and Dragon Age had plenty of situations where my expectations of the effect of numerous lines of dialogue were pretty far from the actual result. And that was nothing, but frustrating and annoying. In fact, the only game I remember where such an issue was non-existent is PlaneScape Torment. And it did employ tags and textual descriptions in good measure.