Hormalakh

I'm sorry: I thought you meant that there should be only one "most efficient" build and multiple "efficient enough" builds. I was arguing that you should have multiple "most efficient" builds, not just one.C Carry on.

Telling us now that it's going to be delayed will go down a lot easier than telling us in April 2014. They have reasons now. In 2014, it might sound like excuses.

There are other reasons to have casting time other than interruption, namely action time. It shouldn't take the same amount of time to cast 10 level 8 spells as it takes to cast 10 level 1 spells. For example, if it takes the same amount of time to cast magic missile and meteor storm, for example, then lower level spells are no longer worthwhile (until you use up all your upper-level spells). Timing should be a consideration for battles, especially since this is a real-time with pause based game. Edit: As for interruption, I don't have any qualms about implementing a concentration check or method to limit spell disruption.

The problem I think isn't that there shouldn't be efficient builds, it's that in an RPG you would want many (not infinite) different kinds of builds, all of which either complement each other, or are just as efficient as other builds. The problem lies in limiting builds to only 1 or 2. In your example, would you call an RPG a good one if the only viable fighter build was a dwarf as you described? I wouldn't call that game an RPG, I'd call it an action game. What's the point of building your own character if there's only one "most efficient" build? There shouldn't be unlimited builds, but with strategy and thought, you should have a good number of "most efficient" builds in any RPG. That makes the game worth playing again and again. Edit: Grammar

Honestly, I wish they'd say it would be out Mid-summer 2014 instead of what they're saying now. Just give it a few more months of QA testing and get it perfect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_Muslim

Yeah, I don't mind if law and order is implemented correctly and somewhat realistically. I just think it should have some sort of internal logic.

I guess my issue has to do with merchants being hostile, meaning that they attack me and then die. And then I also have to deal with guards. Or if a pickpocket robs me, and then runs away. I should be able to kill him (if I catch him) without insane repercussions (50 guards attacking me? Where were they when the pickpocket was having his way with my gold?) I don't think that everytime I do something the NPCs don't like, they should attack me. If I have an argument with them, fine ignore me. But a merchant should know better than to duke it out with a party of adventurers. This happened quite afew times in BG2. I'd go in and kill the Harpers in their hideout, then the beggar on the side of the street would always be hostile toward me. Really?

In BG2 and possibly some other games, whenever you robbed someone or killed someone, guards would appear out of nowhere, become hostile against you, and if you ran away (maybe to the next map or something) would stay there until the end of the game. Whenever you returned to that area, they would never leave and sometimes that locked out whole areas for you, just because you stabbed a measly pickpocket or stole some coins from a merchant. Can we safely assume that this will not be the case? Guards will disappear after a day or two? Please?

Like I said, it *might* be the case that the town has a "sheriff," but that doesn't mean that you can't defend yourself. Ever played BG2? You couldn't cast magic in Athkatla without a permit, but if you did, you just had to deal with a party of mages, you didn't necessarily get imprisoned or anything like that. Once again, it was just one possible scenario. The main idea is more important than these details.

Well, the time stop argument doesn't really work, as it was (together with Improved Alacrity) an end-game "I win" button basically, There is nothing anyone can do against that, so strategy/tactics do not apply, and it is irrelevant to the argument at hand. But low level spells like Magic Missile would indeed out-perform stuff like horrid wilting and meteor swarm, because once we removed each other's spell shields, i could interrupt your casting of wilting/swarm with a faster MM. I haven't played SCSII or other mods like it, but if they address the problem I brought up about low level spell abuse, no one has mentioned how so far, in terms of actual mechanics. The problem seems to be that many people "feel" like casting time adds a layer of strategy to combat, but ignore the fact that it also leads to very cheesy exploit-type gameplay. In throne of Bhaal there were enemies, bosses I grant you that, that Time stop didn't affect. It sucked when the rest of your party was sitting ducks and it was 1v1 against Demogorgon for example. Ouch.

Update today, Adam?

What??? He attacks me and I don't have a right to defend myself? What kind of ****ty law is that? Some laws are quite ****ty. Laws aren't always fair. This was just a scenario in any case. The main point was whether you'd like to see some characters demand something before they leave, whatever it may be. You can kill them if you disagree, but you'd have to lose something in that process (other than a companion): a 5 on 1 is kind of over-kill isn't it? I'm sorry, but this makes absolutely no sense. If a companion makes some imaginary agreement up (AKA: There isn't a legibal contract that I signed promising them something) and is able to attack me and I'm not able to defend myself, that's stupid. That doesn't add to the games complexity, unless you think bad, nonsenical mechanics do that. That doesn't add to the games variety, unless you think bad, nonsensical mechanics do that. That doesn't add to the story, unless you think having a town, or hell who country (whatever area) built around ridiculous laws adds to the story of the game. In which case, I should also be able to take full advantage of the stupidity of these laws. Which I can pretty much guarantee they won't do. The only way you could possibly do this from a story stand point is having a companion who can do forgery who signs your name on some such contract and the area you are in holds such contracts in high regard and the person who overlooks it fails to see the forgery in which case all this would boil down to is a noob trap that screws people over on their first play through. This would be no better than having three random dialogue options at a certain point in the game and if you choose the second one you randomly get a permanent -6 strength modifier with your character. Who said you couldn't defend yourself?

What??? He attacks me and I don't have a right to defend myself? What kind of ****ty law is that? Some laws are quite ****ty. Laws aren't always fair. This was just a scenario in any case. The main point was whether you'd like to see some characters demand something before they leave, whatever it may be. You can kill them if you disagree, but you'd have to lose something in that process (other than a companion): a 5 on 1 is kind of over-kill isn't it?

And then if you're an evil character, you can get arrested and thrown in a dungeon for the rest of the series, while people in later games give passing mention to how wicked you are. /sarc Seriously, why do some of you want to see other people's characters and gameplay choices wrecked just so your playstyle and your particular take on good and evil can feel validated? My post was made with quite a bit of snark. Don't worry, your level 12 player will live on in our hearts and minds regardless of what I say.

Yeah I didn't like how I wrote the poll either. I didn't want it to be just yes/no though. Anyway, I'm not pushing anything. Just want to see what people think. Chris Avellone talked about interesting relationships in this game, and I thought this was an interesting mechanic which I don't usually see in games. I don't see why one or two companions can't be able to do this in game: it builds realism and makes the player actually care about what they do in-game and not be psychopaths to everyone they meet. If you don't like it, don't pick those companions. It isn't about "letting you play your game" (I don't understand what that means really) it's about making the game interesting. If you don't think this is interesting, fine.

I should've known that any game Tim Cain makes would be awesome enough to think about this before me Very cool

Shoot sorry, I wrote another thread to gauge the forum's interest in this type of relationship: when you kick out your companion from your party, because he has been with you for a long period of time, he demands a portion of the loot (his cut) since he helped with the adventure. You either have to pay him (gold,treasure, xp, whatever) or kill him or keep him in your party (if he still wants to stay in your party.) This wouldn't affect new party members since they've just recently started traveling with you, but the party member who's been by your side saving your skin from time to time deserves some respect and a second-thought before mindlessly tossing him to the side for the more powerful new companion that completes your party the way you wanted it to be completed. Just a thought. Wht do you guys think?

Umm pike-and-shot regimens were pretty much common place by then. Are you sure G.A discovered the salvo?

Say you've had a companion that has been traveling with you for a big part of the game. Say it's been since the beginning of the game and now you've met a better companion that would totally complete your party. But, when you tell your ex-companion that it was no longer meant to be, he doesn't take it too kindly. In fact, he thinks that he's been working with you all this time, and that it really isn't fair for you to leave him at the tavern and go pick up that "hot new elf chick" to be in your party. In fact, he thinks that he deserves a fair share of all that loot you've been hoarding to yourself this whole time. He's leaving alright, but not without his cut of the loot. You'll have to kill him or pay him. And if it's in a lawful town, you can't kill him without answering to the law. What do you guys think? Would you like to see your party members force a cut of the loot or no, when you leave them?

Eh I disgree with the "they'll reload crowd". It's a critical miss. A critical miss should affect the player like it did in some older games. In fallout, you'd drop your weapon or get crippled, etc , if i'm not mistaken.

Uhhh solid state isn't as long-lasting and reusable as disc-format.

"lost" bah! don't make me laugh. We never talk about money "gained" from people sampling your game. But if it's pirated, it's definitely a loss. Anyway, don't steal this game people. support the devs. Pay them for this game.

Bye Tony Evans. I didn't know you, but just know that your name evokes some strong feelings even 9 months (I think?) after you left. *tear* edit: 2 years! and 9 months. That's amazing. We really loved you buddy.

You have to sacrifice your player at the end of the game for the good ending. In P:E2 you have to start a new character sheet. That would be quite the sacrifice.