JFSOCC

I agree they're pretty large, maybe there's a workaround? resized? link to image in your sig. Change your avatar? I dunno...

As far as I know, no specific modding tools are being developed, much to my disappointment. That said, it might still be mod-friendly.

From the other thread:

I'd like to see resolve influencing more than just concentration (not getting interrupted every time you're hit.) A person with a high resolve would keep going despite setbacks or obstacles. So, maybe something which allows you to last longer? Resolutely keeping walking while you're tired, getting back up after being knocked down. Less fatigue over time? More stamina regain between combats? maybe decreases duration of negative effects? that last one would make it a nice counter to high intelligence opponents.

Right, but how can one make such a judgment call (that this encounter had a special attack that was impossible to predict)? Player Party X walks into a room of Clay Golems. They did not expect to encounter clay golems, and no one in his party has a blunt weapon. Clay Golems win. Reload. Ok, that may have been impossible for Player X to predict, but what about Player Y, player Z, Player A, and Player B? What if they just happen to have Hammers, maces and morning stars in their arsenals? Should we all be deprived of such encounters just because it MIGHT be impossible for someone? But that's not what is being argued. If there is no other way to beat the clay golems than blunt weapons, the party had no reason to expect the golems, no knowledge about how to beat clay golems (no lore, no previous encounters) then it is a single solution combat, and yes, that is terrible design, and failing because you had no blunt weapons is not your fault but the lazy design of the encounter.

you have done your very best not to listen to what is being said to you. This is why I didn't reply to you earlier. You're so convinced of your own opinion being the only right way to view things that you have stopped listening, and repeat yourself like a broken record. You're not willing to hear what others say, and that's a problem because then you're not really taking part in the conversation. If you truly believe that this (your post I've quoted) is what everyone is saying, then I feel sorry for you. Because I believe a learning curve is not dependent on trial and error. That's not learning good play, that's memorizing the answer. Nor does anyone say that combat should be easy or one dimensional. Many have made the argument that it is pre-buffing which is one-dimensional. I do believe players should be able to fail combat and die, but not because they couldn't possible know how to deal with their next threat, when it was coming and what it would do. If you think think combat cannot be challenging without encounters that cannot be beaten the first time, you must not have played many games. Lastly: Time stop a great spell? Time stop is the single most overpowered game breaking spell I've seen in any IE game. Surviving it involves luck, not skill. I'd like this discussion to move on, I haven't heard new arguments for a while, on both sides; just examples and reiterations of previous arguments.

I usually get the pronunciation right, I think it has to do with living around many similarly pronounced languages.

There are going to be two major cities, and while not officially confirmed, there's going to be a lot of wilderness areas and quite a few towns.

I'm very curious what resolve does outside of combat, as well as the other stats. I'm also curious if any stat governs skillpoints, I'm guessing not.

I'm guessing it's the order in which Pallegina is a paladin.

character sheet UI looks really good IMO. And can I see flowers in the grass behind the menu? excellent! the maps are looking a lot better! vegetation is the key, and you can really see it. Well done! I'm curious, what does concentration do, and how do various classes use it? <edit: asked and answered> And I am very, very pleased to see a button which says "export"

That's not true at all. (and hasn't someone already given us examples on this thread?). If you enter an old abandoned crypt, common sense, not meta-gaming, will see smart players buffing themselves up with anti-undead buffs the moment they walk in the door. If you see a swarm of fire elementals in the distance, it's common sense, not reloading, that will make smart players ready their protection from fire/outsiders buffs. If a game is any good, the player will get hints from the environment, or from NPCs on what's in store for him if he enters a certain area. Buffing choices should come from THAT. Additionally, some buffs are just common-sense UNIVERSAL. if you know that you're going to be engaging in combat soon, then why not cast haste, or stoneskin, or invisibility, or protection from evil, or bless, or all of the above? You'd be *stupid* not to. You'd literally be a lousy player and the rest of us shouldn't have to suffer a soulless dumbed down game just because some casual gamers find it too complicated or 'tiresome' to have to engage in the BASIC practice of planning ahead. Good god, people. What kind of a garbage bore-snore would BG2 have been without the buffing element? This sounds like it is very personal to you, so I get that you're defensive about it, but I do think you've got some things wrong. If buffing is required for every encounter, then you're required to have spellcaster*s* in your party. Those spellcasters are required to have the relevant buffs (and enough off them in order not to have to rest-scum) You might argue that "yes, of course you need spellcasters in your party" to which I counter "Why couldn't I have an effective party without them?" Why would I need buffs to deal with *every* encounter. Most buffs weren't situational, they were standard requirements for getting through many encounters. On the preparation argument I have this to say: Buffs had a round limit, if I buffed my party 3 minutes before the encounter, they would wear off at the start, or halfway through the encounter. So pre-buffing was a stupid idea, unless you knew exactly what was coming and when. Now I didn't enjoy buffing and I didn't do a whole lot of it, which is why I did a whole lot of reloading, and eventually (hey I was a teenager) cheating by means of savegame editing. But others here who have done a lot of buffing are telling you that in their experience buffs removed the tactical element to combat. Buffs allowed them to breeze through many encounters where enemies had no counters. That doesn't sound like interesting tactical combat to me. I'm all for planning ahead, and I'm not even against buffs, I think the chanter will be a valuable party member in this sense, as will the paladin. I hope though, that their buffs are not as overpowered as to be unbreakable without a hard counter, especially when I choose to play a party without these classes (you may know that I don't particularly enjoy paladins, so I will not likely have them in my party) If some buffs are common sense universal, clearly they're not optional, there is no choice involved. You want to beat this? Buff. Are there other ways to beat this combat? No? Then we have a problem. You're right that you'd be stupid in the old IE games not to cast these spells. In my opinion, that's a problem. Obvious choices are false choices, or no choice at all. I would argue that a game which doesn't allow for solving encounters without buffs is the dumbed down game, not the one which allows you to find and use different tactics to deal with the encounter.

By telling you what you should invest in, that manual is essentially removing a core feature of role playing games: player choice.

In one single post you addressed pretty much all my fears about combat. I found myself nodding along, because yes, I had these problems during my playthroughs.

That was definately supposed to be collateral. How easily a typo can make one I feel like a fool! definitely

a kansas city shuffle is when everybody looks right, while you *snaps neck* go left.

I have a different idea to deal with wealth accumulation: Make wealth amounts tie in to unlockable "prestige" content. IE content or reactivity which is only unlocked when your money amounts pass a certain level. Being wealthy would then have a point other than the practical "I can buy anything I want" More importantly, it might make it interesting not to buy anything you want so that you stay wealthy enough to be invited to dinner parties with the nobs in P:E. "rich" quests which involve scheming with the nobles, manipulating economies, being asked to participate in grand building projects (leaving a legacy!) This means that being rich is not pointless after you've perfectly kitted out your team/stronghold.

If it can be modded in you won't hear me complain, but I don't think a money incentive is necessary.

hype generation aka advertising.

So I learned that season 3 of sherlock ends tonight (the UK version which is so much better) which means, there's 3 episodes of sherlock I haven't seen yet. Hooray! I seem to recall ladycrimson that you too enjoyed this show a lot? well, it's back. Edit, ofc I could have expected that the last posts in this thread are on about it. That's what you get when you don;t keep up with every thread. oh well.

http://thechive.com/2013/04/02/actors-that-die-the-most-in-movies-14-photos/

Agreed. I would have loved for the possibility to refuse that Grey Warden and then suffer through some tormented anti-quest while the world is crumbling around you. thirded. About backtracking, sometimes it is an issue, though some quests sending you all over the place can be quite good (especially introducing you to various locations in town) But the risk of avoiding backtracking entirely is a linear game. I don't mind it if I can go back for help, or after a quest is finished go back to the big big city (hub) or even back to the quest giver to claim my reward. I do mind it if the quest itself sends me back and forth a long corridor to move levers to unlock doors at the other side, then back the front, then back to him, now back to me. I'm on a horse... wait what was I saying?

[first name] [last name/clan name, family name/ place of origin name, name of parent] [nickname] only used by your companions and presumptuous **** [title] (needs to be unlocked, can unlock more than one, you'll be addressed by your most important title, or the title that is relevant for whomever addresses you, provided they're aware of your title) [alias](unlocked only for those who have had cause to hide their identities)

the issue with this system is that someone who doesn't care about intelligence but does care for strength can easily take an int hit for a str bonus. (min-maxing) Anything irrelevant to the character build could be given up for points that boost the build. I like a traits system like this, but anything that gives you more points to spend should give you less points than an equal bonus would cost.