Hormalakh

I sort of agree with this. I think it's better if races are only loosely confined by their innate abilities, and are more individual than we usually see. A racial group might have a certain history and reputation as per racism, but it shouldn't be confining as it usually is. I sort of agree and sort of don't. When 'race' amounts to elves and dwarves rather than skin color, the implication is that these are entirely different species. A dwarf isn't a vertically challenged human. A dwarf is a dwarf. The same goes with an elf or any of the other races. When you remove 'racial concepts' entirely, all you've got is a bunch of humans divided by how pointy their ears are or how tall they are, which is pretty boring. Which isn't to say 'likes to drink ale, speak in a Scottish accent and use an axe or warhammer' should be an in-born dwarven trait, or that there shouldn't be members of a race who stray well outside the norm. It is merely to say that there should be some commonalities in thought and behavior between members of a certain race to remind us that these races are not just humans with minor physical differences. This is where knowing biology and physiology can really help. Being able to know how races are distinguished in the animal kindgom can help you come up with truly well-thought out racial creatures. A very basic example is the horse, the donkey, and the mule. These are all horse-like creatures, but have truly different physiologies and biologies. In fact, the horse and donkey mating create the mule, a creature that while a hybrid cannot reproduce. Imagine a world where half-elves are sterile. Or half-dwarves.

so you're saying you're a race traitor?

hey man, whatever floats your life raft... Ideally, I'd like a whole party of frail nerds. In the IE games I liked to go with 4-5 mages at a time. And you could do so because mages were kinda OP. Now try going 4-5 bards. that would be quite a feat.

^Right... it's an abstraction. And it doesn't have to do with brain or computer processing power. It has to do with not having us being bored to death everytime our characters need to relieve themselves or sleep or anything else that's mundane because duh realism. These are artistic choices the developers make to make certain parts of the lives of our adventurers stand out and other parts to fade into the background of oblivion.

Uhh the first 3d perspective game I played was the first game I ever played. It was called Wolfenstein 3D. IF that game isn't archaic then I don't know what the heck you're talking about. OR rather, you don't know what the heck you're talking about. Perspective became an artistic choice before it became "archaic."

Wow. I'm positively shocked at the results so far. Nobody wants to play priest. Well about 2% do. Why are the priest choosing people most excited about playing them that the rest of us aren't seeing?

^That's the goal. But how to do this is the problem.

This is exactly my intention when starting this thread.

It wasn't my intention to have an "attitude" towards certain classes. My main point was that I wanted people's perspective on how we define the term classes and whether we can apply this definition in distinguishing between the classes given (from fighter to monk to wizard to cipher) by applying mechanics that follow this definition. That's all. The main idea tha tI've gotten back that seems to make the most sense is that classes are defined by special abilities. If that is the case, then magic casting is a special ability as is whatever a fighter does and whatever a monk does. Because many people define the "special abilities" as what distinguish classes, then we should apply this definition not only to the core-four, but also the rest of the players. Unless we say the core-four have one set of definitions and the rest of the classes are a "core-four plus special abilities" subset. Does that make sense?

Well well, what an interesting first person to pick to do your developer interviews. I now know the name of the person responsible for the either the amazing or extremely poor AI in P:E. Mr. Weatherly, please make sure you look at this thread and learn from the mistakes that BG and its ilk have made. Magic isn't the only place you need a robust AI. http://forums.obsidi...w-not-to-do-ai/ Read it, internalize it, and make us proud. I really don't want to be screaming your name to the heavens when I play P:E. "Weatherlyyyyyyy!!! Where are my smart hobgoblins?!?!?!" Make me remember you as the first guy who did a fantastic job implementing AIs in fantasy RPGs. Sincerely, An AI enthusiast

Some people want to watch the world burn... In other news, I find it interesting that there are currently about the same number of people (taking into account the fact that this poll is highly not scientifically accurate) wanting to play a core-4 class (priest) as there are wanting to play a class which, for lack of a better explanation, has players who can barely utilize the forum (barbarians). I wonder if this is part of the problem with priests or if paladins are just thought of as "priest + fighter"? Obsidian will probably have to think about the priest's role in this game a little bit further to make it as exciting a class to play as the cipher. Everyone wants to be Poirot....

What is wrong with you?

Only 52 people voted. Out of 70-something thousand who have backed the game. The numbers are too low to be a reliable predictor. Let's get like 500 people to vote then we'll maybe get a better idea. Maybe barbarian players don't know how to use the forum?

Finally! Some answers to the questions I've been asking.

YES Well I'm satisfied. I feel fulfilled and loved and basically a real human being now. Without you and the rest of the devs acknowledging my existence, how would I be validated as a person?

Interesting results so far. I have no idea what this all means, but it's interesting. Barbarians FTW!

Anyone play the game Jack Smith? I would like that as a mini-game. Check it out here: http://armorgames.com/play/14015/jacksmith

So make fighters have sub-class type abilities in early levels. Unarmed ans barbarian. Don't make a whole class, eh?

^then why define them as classes? make them subclasses. We really don't have this problem with chanters, ciphers, druids even though they could probably be described as "sub-classes" of wizard, wizard, and wizard.

As long as Obsidian truly "decides." As in, it becomes an actual decision-making process and not just "let's use what's been done in the past." A lot of the fears stem from the lack of thinking that has gone into making those classes in the first place. I really find the poll interesting. The two classes that have not been voted for are the monk and the barbarian. It's too early to tell, but the poll is indicating towards those classes needing some major "thinking about and decision making."

Why didn't you vote monk then?

Right. The point is to see which classes will get the most play. I want to see what classes people are excited about and which ones people aren't.

Changed. Thought it would be funny. Clearly, it wasn't.

Hello. Based on what we know AT THE MOMENT about the different classes and your previous experiences with other IE/D&D games, I wanted to know what class you will choose to play as a party first. A few rules: There will be no multi-classing, so pick only one. You have one class you can pick for your PC. You will be obviously picking up other companions to help fill out the required skills in different quests, so just think about the class for your PC. Do not consider what we know about the companions (which is absolutely nothing). If you are going to be playing a game filled with only your characters from the player house, tell me the class that you will be playing for your PC, the one you relate to the most. We only have descriptions given to us from OEI and what we know from prior IE games and table-top experiences. Limit yourself to that and don't say, "I'd play this class first if I know that they will have X and Y implemented for sure." No design input from players, no aspirations for your classes. This is the first play through, so no meta-gaming. Think about what's been important in previous experiences and what you've enjoyed playing in the past or what might be exciting for this first play through. Comment below with which ones make up your party and other thoughts. Let me know if you think the poll sucks and what I should do to change it before the editting window runs out.

Isn't it weird though that we define the core classes with one metric - how they fight - and then define another group of classes with another metric - that they are really melee fighters except they fall into a certain category (monk, barbarian, some could argue paladin)? It's like monks and barbarians should actually be subclasses of the core class, "fighter." The rest of what defines them caan come from the character and the equipment s/he wields. A barbarian would wield hide armor and double-handed sword and a monk would have no equipment. Then the dialogue options you choose would be related to your role-playing that certain fighter. A wizard, cipher, priest, rogue do not have these issues because they are defined completely differently. They are not defined by the equipment they carry or the character that they define. The reason I bring this whole thing up is because ultimately these classes (the monk and barbarian and maybe some others but to a lesser extent) will not be played in the game and are thus a waste of developer time. Yes, yes I know people play barbarians and monks. But why spend so much time and energy creating a whole new class when you could just fit them under the fighter class and add a few special abilities that describe those classes (barbarian rage is available for fighters and unarmed expertise too) and just play a fighter? Then when you want to be a barbiarian, you play a fighter with the special abilities of rage, you wear barbarian hide, and wield a double-handed sword. If you want to be a monk, play a fighter with the special abilities of unarmed combatant, don't wear armor and wield a staff or other amulets that give you armor class. You are effectively a "monk" through role-playing and an effective equipment/special abilities design. Why do we believe that monks and barbarians require a wholly separate class? Why are paladins a wholly separate class without just being priests that are good in combat? We get a little bit of that in the description (clerics are devoted to a god, paladins devoted only to a cause) for P:E. So, that's why I'm asking what defines a class. When we can describe how classes are defined and use one singular criteria to distinguish among all our classes, then we can truly flesh out what makes each class stand out. Otherwise, we've got monks and barbarians really being a subclass of fighter and paladins being a subclass of clerics. If they just give the special abilities to those larger roles, and make a few restrictions (you can't have barbarian rage and unarmed mastery at the same time) then what's the point of spending all this time creating wholly new classes? Edit: I've added a poll (in the general discussion forum because that place gets a whole lot more traffic) to make this same point. I want to see how many people actually play these classes that are "vague" for lack of a better term. http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/62349-what-is-the-class-you-will-be-playing-first-as-a-party/ I got the idea from monoka's link to that blog. Very good read.