JFSOCC

This would be fantastic. But that would make the rogue so much cooler than all the other classes! I like the idea of there being an ability the rogue has that time sort of slows down and the rogue gets 5 or so seconds to get in position before time resumes. (as if he was already on the move when the threat started)

I think the problem is that classes are inherently archetypes, and nobody is an archetype. If you must frame differences, decisions would need to be made, but this thread shows that we can't even decide on it. Everyone will work with their ideas of what a class should be, and then apply it to an available archetype. Or you could argue from the Archetypes "what should they have" but that only works if everyone has the same idea what constitutes the Archetype. same problem. What defines a class? What (ultimately) the designers choose. And I don't know if everybody can be pleased. But we can all have our say in what we like and enjoy.

fair enough

I thought guild wars did exceptionally well with both the maguma jungle and the crystal desert. have you played that? I am playing it and I dont like their enviroments. Jungle is not dense, crystal desert is not desert. MMOs are worst thing to show well made enviroment guild wars 1 or 2? I'm talking about 1, and the crystal desert is undeniably a desert there.

"zomg he looked at my thread, he must less than three me!"

I thought guild wars did exceptionally well with both the maguma jungle and the crystal desert. have you played that?

In combat: Warrior: skilled in various forms of combat, does a fair amount of damage with attacks, can take a fair amount of damage from attacks Rogue: debuffer. uses tricks to make enemies waste skills, interrupts spellcasting, lowers enemy stats weakening them up for other classes. (with poison, traps, precision attacks to cripple, etc) Mage: diverse class, I would play it as a ranged attacker with fairly low defense but high offensive spells. (I was never that charmed by spellcasters so I rarely played them) Priest: Buffs party, heals party, good against specific types of enemies, fairly good at defending. outside of combat Warrior: welcome in most places as a hand that can help out. could climb to get to better ground unexpectedly. I'm thinking more of a special forces type character, meaning still quite adept at stealth and surprise takedowns. (like the green beret in the commandos games) could glean information concerning warfare rogue: utilitarian character,good with mechanisms (opening locks, setting traps -or setting them off- as usual. Good at gathering information via speech, subterfuge and observation skills. Socialite that moves in various circles, both courtly and low. mostly out of sight of prying eyes. Mage: great deal of utilitarian spells, can repair bridges, call rain or storms, levitate small distances, teleport. scientific mindset makes him welcome in Academical circles and high courts for their knowledge. Good at researching information found in books and tomes. Priest: man of the people, welcome amongst the commoners for guidance and help. good at gathering information from the people, makes himself useful through simple medicine, a listening ear with friendly demeanor, and might be asked to adjudicate disputes. A wandering bureaucrat of sorts. Also welcome in religious circles, though not all.

Keldorn the man who put his own wife in prison because we don't do divorce. That to my mind is one of the reasons why he was an interesting character: even him doing that didn't break him, if a character can make that kind of decision there is more or less nothing you can do within reason to break him. I think one of the weaknesses of the perception of "lawful good" (or to a lesser degree, lawful evil) is that at some point or other these are going to conflict with each other. It's certainly possible to put a character in a position where they have to choose either their own personal rules or what the actual good thing to do is. As paladins are historically the lawful good exclusive class, lets stick with them for now. So for a little example using Keldorn, presented with a choice of the lawful choice (send his wife to prison) or the good choice (forgive his wife) he decides to go by his personal code. A "lawful>good" character is therefore one which while they will try to be LG generally speaking, if they have to choose will go for lawful, while some given the choice will go for lawful<good, but its the nuances of either where you get the real juice of the characters. We don't need alignments. I didn't really want to repeat that since i've mention it in several threads already. Alignment is a narrowminded black and white way of looking at the world, and completely unrealistic. A person doesn't do evil or good just because they are evil or good, they're not prone to lawful or chaotic behaviour because that's just their alignment. that's ridiculously stupid and I won't stand for it. Obsidian wants to make a more mature game? then alignments must be out. People have motivations, sometimes those make them come in conflict with others.It sort of worked for Keldorn, not because he was lawful good, but because the has the religious zeal we know from paladins, he was a narrow-minded idiot who wouldn't stray from his dumb absolutist path. Except that the reason he couldn't ingame, was because switching alignment would have made him lose all the paladin levels. that's not a good way to write characters. I'm happy with the idea that you can influence your companions however. not their alignment, but the way they view the world.

So you're saying that it would be... Hammer time?

That's about the absolute basics though, the interface. That would still tell you nothing about the game. (except that it has traps) look i played BG1 and 2, IWD1 and 2, fallout 1 and 2, arcanum and PT without reading a single page from the manual. all i had to do was to look at the tooltips appearing on the interface buttons to know what i could do and how to do it (well maybe not in arcanum but it was still manageable). it was all pretty straightforward. i picked up an item... do i need a big sign to tell me "click here to open the inventory"? im pretty sure i can see the button just fine and i think i know i picked up an item so i dont need a sign to explain it to me every time i pick something up. same thing with quests: a simple "journal updated" message is enough... i can open the journal without a constant indication that the journal button is *here* today the fashion is to make games retard-proof, so even a guy with minsc's intelligence can play them, thing that makes those with a bit more brain or experience in the sport feel like the developers consider them idiots. and you can see that in everything, from the controls, to the interface to the level design, it's al made so that you wont need to use even a single brain cell in order to go on in the game. You misunderstand me, I'm not arguing for hand-holding tutorials. I do feel the game could be taught to the player, but in subtler ways. What you described isn't a tutorial in the sense that it teaches, that's all I'm saying

Keldorn the man who put his own wife in prison because we don't do divorce.

I watched limitless yesterday. Blew my mind.

just browse http://www.reddit.com/r/earthporn/ for inspiration And I think I might have posted something earlier.

Definitely not part of the horror crowd, not for 15 dungeon levels straight, I get miserable just thinking about having to wade through 15 levels of depression.

I've never played with the psionic classes, so I can't answer your poll

Combat wise, I can see myself playing a rogue as a debuffer/hexer. Weakening tough opponents, not through damage but skills that weaken defense, reduce stats, lockdown skills. interrupt spellcasting, or create false targets making the enemy waste their useful skills on air. I can see the rogue as a dirty fighter, and I can see the rogue as a force multiplier support character.

Great topic. In KOTOR2 Kreia had some great dialogue, one when you ask her if she is a Sith, and she dismisses it as nothing but a title which does not encompass how she views the world. and when you can get a prestige class, and you can tell her what you want to be, and her response is something along the lines of "OK, then be that, all it is is a change in mindset" Classes exist as a way to frame different ways of playing the game, but also to balance that no one person can do everything in every way. That munchkin playing style which so often detracts from the experience you get by roleplaying. If you can limit the player's character options enough that no-one can do everything, then I suppose you could do away with classes from a gameplay perspective. But often the classes also define the world. From a narrative perspective having different classes can make sense.(but so can not having different classes) People in that world might be limited in options by what type of soul they have. letting the player play his character the way he or she wants to play on one side, a balanced game on the other. (and yes there might be other ways to balance the game) Having a party means you can compensate for shortfalls in your character, makes having a party more meaningful too. So yes, classes limit a player, but these limitations can make sense from a gameplay perspective and a narrative perspective. You simply can't have everything.

The problem with how KotOR2 handled alignment shifts is that, while it may have affected their appearances, what items they could use and how much Dark and Light Side force powers cost, it didn't change their personalities in the slightest. At least in BG2: Throne of Bhaal and DA:O when you converted someone to your way of thinking, it changed some of their dialogue. In DA:O, if you "hardened" Alistair, it could even have an impact on the ending. But it was bad that hardening was better, rather than different.

There's a couple of things that annoy me to no end in this. The first is the gaming company that sees players having fun and learning to do new things (drain health 1s vs damage health) and the company immediately decides the players must be stopped from having fun. Play it the way we intended and not the way you'd like! Much the same with acrobatics, Skyrim was filled with these platforms you can't jump to but have to go around, if you could jump like in oblivion or morrowind, you could bypass much of the caves (and miss out another 40 meters of corridor and 4 draugurs). But that'd have been fun! The second is the players, who remind me of little children with dolls. They go around twisting the head of the doll until it breaks, then they'll go crying their doll is broken. Yeah, you can probably break a freeform game in some way. But who the hell told you to smith 4000 iron daggers in the first place? Your exploiting the game and then complain when the balance breaks! Don't break the balance unless you want it broken! ---- Not meant as a personal attack, but as a general rant. No idea how Pipyui plays ES games. I know I liked my "damage self 1pt" fire spell practice, followed by !heal self 1pt" restoration practice. But I didn't damn well complain afterwards it was too easy to level up. I agree with the first, not the second.

That's about the absolute basics though, the interface. That would still tell you nothing about the game. (except that it has traps)

peragus WAS a tutorial, but it was so good and subtle that you didn't notice. It introduced you to the item system, made you earn a level to show you how you level up (and tied it into the story) and introduced you to the party. There were sections with other party members to explain you could control them too, and that they had different skillsets. It had obstacles you could overcome in different ways, which demonstrated that you could play in various ways. Peragus was a good tutorial

All the swamps I've ever been in or near in RL are neither spooky nor oppressive. They're just soggy and filled with bugs the size of your head. Not to mention a ****load of other things that bite you, including but not limited to snakes, alligators, turtles, and leeches. Swamps shouldn't be eerie and dark and ****. They should be DISGUSTING. I did enjoy the swamps they had in kourna in guild wars (nightfall) they weren't eerie, nor disgusting, they felt alive.

So the word-choice isn't ideal. This is a discussion forum and so far discussion has been pretty good. Obviously this forum functions as a type of barometer for the developers to take inspiration from, not copy directly. If you disagree with OP, argue the point.

sequelitis is awesome, it's a shame he hasn't posted for a while

What's it matter what other people do; it's a single player game. And I want it to be a good single player game. How are you gonna talk about the psychology of people and then say that's a good idea; all it will do is cause people to "rest" in a spot for 10 months. No it won't, because it is fairly superfluous, and most people won't know about it until they are confronted by it. Also it'll come whether they wait for it or not.