JFSOCC

Knight is a noble title, semantics. Priests aren't "employed," they're devoted to their religion. They don't get a salary from the Pope. Protestant preachers aren't part of any bureaucratic heirarchy, they're independent and the only qualification they have is their reputation and their charisma/ability to rile people up. Priests, bishops, cardinals and the like were never chained to a pulpit. These are people who were just as subject to exile, defamation and assassination as any other member of the elite in medieval times. As for gladiators (who, along with knights, aren't a class in P:E,) they were, for the most part, slaves who fought to entertain the masses in the Roman era. They were trained and utilized methods of combat which had no value to actual warfare (nobody ever went into a real battle with a trident and fishing net.) tl;dr It's not an issue because none of your concerns are present in the game so far as anyone is aware. Dreadnought is a specific term with specific origins that does not fit what you are describing. If you're so desperate for barbarians to not be called barbarians you should propose an original term and not a term which comes from the real world and blatantly doesn't fit the qualities of a "barbarian" in RPG parlance. Keeping in mind that "barbarian" is from ancient Greek and refers simply to "anyone who does not speak Greek." Which is a euphemism for "lesser peoples who are not civilized, as the Hellenes are the only civilized people on Earth." Barbarians in most RPGs exist in worlds where Hellas and Hellenes don't exist, so it's not even an appropriate term to begin with. Like Dreadnought. Barbarian comes from Latin, and means stutterer, because the Germanic languages sounded like stuttering to the Romans. And Dreadnought is not a specific term with specific origins, the battleship is just the first official use. Because it was a ship which had to fear nothing. This is pretty much exactly what fits the barbarian class. "If you're so desperate for barbarians to not be called barbarians you should propose an original term and not a term which comes from the real world and blatantly doesn't fit the qualities of a "barbarian" in RPG parlance." -1. Don't put words in my mouth I haven't spoken. 2. All terms will come from the real world or they're meaningless, you idiot. 3. My proposed term fits the class as snugly as any name ever could.

I just want to point out that Excalibur was given to King Arthur by the Lady of the Lake, and is not the same sword he pulled from the stone.

I would like different death screens/cinematics for different deaths.

I don't know how I feel about legendary weapons. For one, I don't think we would have known about Excalibur if King Arthur never found it, it's the knight that makes the sword famous, not vice versa. Nor do I like the legendary weapons in Baldurs Gate II, since they were very class specific. On the other hand, Epic loot, of course, why the hell not? As long as it doesn't break the game, having really cool weapons is fine by me. I prefer to have weapons be legendary narratively rather than in item strength. The old IE games were pretty good at giving items backstories even if they were 'only' moderately powerful, and I think that's the way to go. When only a few items are considered legendary, then taking those items becomes a no-brainer. I kind of prefer to have or grow an attachment to my weapons, but that can't happen if they are objectively inferior to other found] weapons. It'll become just a numbers game at that point. This is why I'm worried about the crafting skill. I would have preferred to have very modular weapons which you can personalise. That said, I see no reason why both these options couldn't exist next to eachother. Like I said, I'm a bit conflicted.

I'm glad I never sat at your table. I don't see how earning XP isn't enough to earn a level in any class the character is eligible for or why a wizard wouldn't take one level of Fighter for some martial ability, especially in a low-level game. I would have adapted my play to the options available to me, of course, so if you had been my DM, I would have gone and sought for that mentor. But I would still have taken that class as my second. It's all about encouraging roleplaying rather than rollplaying. Do as you wish while playing a cRPG by yourself, but when sitting around the gaming table I was very firm about forcing the players to aquire a mentor or pay for training for their first level in a new class. To site JFSOCC as a prime offender, if the party didn't have a ranger then how would his character obtain those specific outdoors abilities (ranger-related skills/feats)? He couldn't, so I'd have forced him to seek out a mentor or paid trainer as part of the campaign in order to pursue advancement as a ranger. Having taken up the new class, I'd have further required him to invest a minimum of 1 more level in said class within the next 5 level-ups or his character would be denied advancement. Yes, that's right, you'd be looking at a minumum of a 2-level investment for every single class chosen, so multi-classing was no longer an inexpensive, rules-lawyering, technical way of picking up abilities on the cheap. Instead, players truly needed to think about whether or not it was a worthwhile investment over the long haul. Opportunity cost makes life difficult for the powergamers and keeps DMs sane.

I get your argument, but there is no reason that alternatives to combat wouldn't have to require equal effort. Maybe convincing said dwarf involves a **** ton of work, and he doesn't like you in the first place. Perhaps you only get the dwarf option after you've done other work before, and the option involving him is a reward in itself. Maybe, the easier option gives you less XP, but the same loot. There are many ways to balance effort and reward, and I disagree that combat is the only method that would involve effort.

I have never been that afraid of thin men, they're annoying, but they drop quickly. If you do fear them, get some snipers, some support. Or just give all your soldiers medikits if you're really worried. poison lasts three turns and wears off, meaning decent armour makes it really ineffective. give them a scope for +10 aim. aim counts, I've got a 90 aim heavy and she rarely misses. Heavies are great for suppressing fire. later on you get a skill that does bonus damage on suppressing fire, take it. Suppresing fire always "hits" so it's a great way to have sure damage on targets, great for eliminating damaged units. combine that with holo-targeting and all your other units gain +aim bonus. Heavies are certainly not useless.

Heavies are great once you get the blaster launcher, but you get that really really late in the game. Always hitting, heavy damage, large explosive radius. I agree that Snipers are OP at higher levels, but man does it feel rewarding for getting them there. And yeah, easy is too easy. I've warned you! next up, a normal playthrough for you. And I'll do either an ironman classic, or a normal impossible playthrough.

Cyan is making a spiritual successor to the Myst series, called Obduction. As much as I am a fanboy, not everything I see I like. Rand and Robin still haven't fixed their falling out, Richard Vander Wende seems not to be involved. And they're proud to mention some names I'm not too enthusiastic about, Like Stephan Martiniere, who contribured to the failed URU: Ages Beyond Myst, and such terrible terrible movies as R.I.P.D and Total Recall (the horrible 2012 remake) Still, fanboy, so backed... http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cyaninc/obduction

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cyaninc/obduction If this turns out as well as Riven I would be SO HAPPY! Anyway, backed.

satellites are essential. You rush them early and you can't really go without them.

https://twitter.com/RyseGame/status/390146055494303744?screen_name=RyseGame& Ryse has been worked on in sweatshop conditions.

Finally finished classic campaign. Here's the stat page: http://imgur.com/a/SF7TC

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-10-16-ubisoft-shares-plunge-20-percent apparently delaying a game, and some bad sales make investors nervous. This is why businessmen need to stay away from artists.

You are Deanna Troi You are a caring and loving individual. You understand people's emotions and you are able to comfort and counsel them. Deanna Troi 80% Jean-Luc Picard 75% Will Riker 65% James T. Kirk (Captain) 50% Geordi LaForge 50% I don't mind this list at all.

this the mystery code girl?

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/64382-what-are-you-playing-now/?p=1379817 Stanley parable. I played the HL2 mod and it was a well crafted experience worth playing! it confronts you with some very meta-game assumptions players make when playing games, and then throws it in your face. Very refreshing.

Next week better be good or there'll be some torches and pitchforks!

I felt that both expansions should have been part of AC2, it would have elevated a decent game to become a good, maybe even great game. And you don't play AC for the plot. ----

HH's playthrough of xcom enemy unknown got me inspired to finish my own classic campaign. I have the gollop chamber installed, but I'm waiting till all of my soldiers reach colonel and have their gear maxed out, and I want 4 firestorms in every continent, so I've been holding off on completing the game. Lost a Major today, veteran of 20 missions. It's been the only loss in a long time, I was being impatient and I rushed him to his death. I am ashamed But it was great fun playing it again.

http://xkcd.com/1222/

I dunno, the worst of us is a subject of debate, I imagine. I find myself disagreeing about as much as I agree with others on this forum. Generally I notice that if we discuss some really bad ideas it gets clearer that some of these posts are misinterpreted, or when argued can be interpreted differently. Oft times discussing bad ideas leads to good ideas. I suppose this thread is more about what influence you fear from the community. I don't really fear the influence, even from people I disagree with. I know that this game is not going to be exclusively catered for me, and I'm OK with that. However, there are certainly things I see as fairly popular which I don't consider to be good. Some of which I may have indulged in a moment of weakness, but I try to avoid it if I can: "the worst of us" conservatism: I see a lot of nostalgia for arguably bad mechanics from the Infinity Engine games, and sometimes I wonder whether some members want a new game, or the exact same game distilled down to the last drop of nostalgia, regardless of whether or not it is a good idea. This attachment is too conservative for me. I'd like to see artists grow, and I encourage them to try new things as well. "the worst of us" "too much effort" I've seen assumptions made on how much developer resources features or mechanics would take, and I generally don't like the argument because really, unless you're an experienced developer yourself, you probably have no idea how much resources it will take to implement an idea. I find this a dangerous argument as it dismisses suggestions based on something you can't possibly know. You may envision a mountain of work where a developer might see it as three lines of code. Another "worst of us" notion I have is with idea that anything can be made optional. When this is related to difficulty, I can sort of understand, but often the suggestion to make something optional is another way of saying "I don't like it, but you go and play whatever game you want". This argument is dangerous because it refuses to discuss the suggestion itself. Instead the suggestion gets placed in a limbo of not being officially dismissed, but not really being discussed either. This is killing with kindness, and I believe that it's more respectful to actually argue why you would or wouldn't like it, and leave the judgement on it's optionality to the developers. If you truly don't care enough to argue against or for the suggestion, or offer an alternative, then perhaps it's better to say nothing at all. "the worst of us" communication: Arguments where arguers have different definitions of the same terminology, leading to miscommunication of ideas. Pro tip, if you find yourself typing "What I meant to say was", you're probably not doing a great job communicating. "the worst of us" argument: people posting opinions as fact, cherry-picking sources, or trying to convince others by holding the floor rather than by argument. I attempt to have my first post in a topic state my views, not convince someone else that he or she is wrong. If you feel compelled to convince someone of your views, don't waste space repeating yourself. No thread should have two posters replying to each other with large quoted pages going over each previous reply piece by piece. If you get to that point, you've already taken a wrong turn somewhere earlier. Finally "the worst of us" in negativity: Negativity is a very negative trait, it's ugly and doesn't ever help discussion. I see a lot of creativity and suggestions shot down without examination. And I'm sorry whenever I see that happen. Someone may be very bad at stating their ideas and suggestions, they may even be terrible suggestions. Neither is grounds for being dismissive. Someone's bad idea may be a bad solution to a real issue, in which case you could conceivably argue for an alternative, while acknowledging that the issue is real. Just because someone doesn't have the (right) answer, doesn't mean the topic isn't worthwhile. There are some posters here who seem very fond of shooting down ideas without acknowledging the thoughts behind them. This is a very nasty way to punish posters taking a risk and a nasty way to kill creativity.

From MW: "Definition of DREADNOUGHT 1: a warm garment of thick cloth; also : the cloth 2 [Dreadnought, British battleship] a : battleship b : one that is among the largest or most powerful of its kind First Known Use of DREADNOUGHT 1806" So... in terms of definition and in terms of historical perspective, no. First known use is during the Industrial Revolution, not exactly P:E's setting, first known use had to do with textiles/clothing, not exactly what you're describing. That's not even counting the actual military history of the short-lived ship designation. What you're looking for is something like "berserker." Or "moron." no, it's not. Do you think when the royal navy decided on the name for their ship they had idiots go "But we've never had this name before, it doesn't fit!"? Because PE doesn't take place in our world, and a class which in it's essence is about fearless fighters should definitely have a name which indicates that. Who cares where it was used in earth culture? I certainly don't.

Try using the scroll wheel on your mouse, it makes selecting the right elevation much easier. Also, easy, tsk tsk. You could easily do normal now. Easy teaches you nothing.

I consider Assassins Creed to be a guilty pleasure, despite all that is wrong with the plot and narrative of these games, I can't help but enjoy them. It's just fun faffing about, as Ben Croshaw put it.