Jarrakul

I haven't played 4E, so everything I say about it should be taken with a grain of salt. But my understanding is that it's well balanced but poorly differentiated, as the OP says. Earlier editions were well-differentiated (within categories, as Josh points out there wasn't much separating a fighter from a ranger) but poorly balanced. And, like the OP, I agree that both differentiation and balance are important. Differentiation because feeling samey is boring, balance because being unable to contribute is similarly boring. Which is why I'm concerned about things like the typically quadratic nature of spellcasters and concerned about the sorts of abilities non-casters get feeling too much like spells. It sounds like Josh continues to agree with my concerns (which is pretty convenient, I must say), and has plans to address them. So I'm pretty happy with what I'm hearing.

I'm thinking probably dwarf chanter. Dwarf because I have an inordinate love of dwarves, chanter because bards are always the right choice (even when they're not). I haven't decided if I want to go boreal and be skald-themed or mountain and be keeper-of-the-ancient-runes-themed, but either way it sounds like fun.

Understand, I'm not saying that there's no reason at all to scale spells. I am saying that combining spell scaling with spell levels tends to produce quadratic results. Note that many systems (from Diablo 3 to pen-and-paper Shadowrun) have no concept of spell level or anything like it, and instead only focus on spell scaling. This is cool because it allows a given spell to become more powerful (eliminating exactly the situation you describe) without inherently leading to exponential growth. Which is neat. But it also means that you can't (easily) have spellcasters gain access to entirely new spells as they increase in level. Any spell that you can cast, you could cast (if you chose to learn it) at first level. Not as well, but you could. Now, there are ways around that. Certain spells could have certain minimum requirements but, once you meet those requirements, they might be no better than your old spells. This is slightly boring, but it generally works. Similarly, a non-scaling system with things like Fireball I, Fireball II, Fireball III, etc. works but is also slightly boring. As usual, I'm left concluding that there is no perfect solution, and that the ones the devs chose is at least as good as any. Now, I do want to point out that all of this only matters if you need to avoid quadratic power growth. If you just design all classes such that they grow quadratically in the same way as spellcasters do (which is hard to do without just turning everyone into casters-in-all-but-name), you can avoid the problem at its root.

It depends what version you're playing. In BG2 unmodded, their damage was much the same because mastery and above was awful (+1/+2 for specialization vs. +2/+4 for grandmastery). Fighters had an advantage, but it was very small. In BG1 unmodded, most modded BG2 games, and the BGEEs, mastery and grandmastery are both awesome (+1/+2 for specialization vs. +3/+3 for mastery and +3/+5 and an extra half attack for grandmastery). This usually meant that fighters did noticeably more damage than paladins, but not by so much that paladins were by any means weak.

Also, scaling spells produce a double-scaling effect (spells scale and you get better spells) that is in part responsible for the typically exponential growth of spellcasters relative to non-spellcasters in most RPGs. The refusal to scale spells should help curb that tendency.

It sounds to me like every arrow is classified as either bodkin or broadhead. But if they are classes above the lowest level of arrows, then I have no problem with them being finite in one of the many ways discussed. As Lephys said, it isn't about always having good arrows, it's about always having the option of using your bow at all (although it might well be a bad option in many circumstances, which again is fine).

I would argue that it's more like rangers and rogues are dealing the damage that the fighter used to, while (from what we've heard) the fighter is doing the damage the paladin used to. Still high, but a bit under peak. The paladin is probably doing much the same damage as the fighter is now, which just happens to also be where they were in BG/IWD relative to the peak (although not relative to the fighter). Of course, this is all based on very loose information, so I might well be wrong in my assessment.

I seem to be getting credit for an idea which I voiced support for, but did not introduce to the thread. While I think it's a neat idea, and does to some extent offer a middle ground between two groups that are probably not totally reconcilable, forgottenlor first introduced the idea of finite-but-infinitely-refillable quivers to the thread, not me. But I'm glad to see it getting support, so, with that said, uh, carry on I suppose. EDIT: Misspelled forgottenlor's name.

I would assume that the paladin is going to be perfectly respectable in combat. Not as good a tank as the warrior, or as good a damage-dealer as the rogue, but he'll also buff everyone around him. Which actually sounds awesome to me, but then I play melee bards. As for stats, I'm not a fan of rolling... ever. I like it better in PnP, where it's possible to get a bad roll and you just have to stick with it. In CRPGs, you just keep rolling until you're amazing, which kind of defeats the point, imo. But even in PnP, I find its main effect is to render me unable to play the character I want to play. I'm a pretty hardcore roleplayer. I come to the table with a character concept in mind. I then work within the rules to make that character come to life as best I can. Rolling for stats has disrupted my efforts more often than any quirk of the rules or uncooperative GM. So I hope you'll understand when I say I'm not exactly a fan.

I would be totally cool with a "quiver of x arrows, once it runs out you have to take time to refill it but you never run out of refills" way of doing things. That'd be kind of neat, because then you'd have micromanagement that affects combat in a meaningful way, as opposed to micromanagement that merely takes up the player's time. I am fond of the former, but not of the later.

Classes are largely combat-based, but there will be separate non-combat abilities that everyone can take. Classes will gain a bonus to certain non-combat skill groups (rogues get bonuses to stealth and mechanics, for example), but these bonuses are apparently not dominating to the point where you'll never bother taking a non-combat skill you don't have a bonus to. I don't know if there will also be non-combat class abilities, like invisibility, but if there are I suspect they will be a minority.

From everything I've heard (mostly from update 74), it sounds like Paradox's role is limited to advertising and distribution. Which sounds fine to me. I can't imagine that's Obsidian's strong suit, and I don't feel it should be. They can stick to making a great game, without stupid publisher input, and then let a publisher advertise and distribute what the studio made in exchange for a cut of the sales profits. Kickstarter profits (basically the salaries that we've paid for) go 100% to the studio, which makes perfect sense since Obsidian advertised to us well enough on its own. Also, if Obsidian's smart, they probably managed a pretty favorable deal. After all, they've got something north of 74,000 backers worth of free advertisement already.

@Suburban-Fox, from a realism standpoint, you're totally right. From a gameplay standpoint, I could not disagree more. In real life arrows are expensive, but they kill people. Generally in one or two shots if you don't miss. In games, they do not. In real life, if you kill one guy a month, you are one of the most prolific killers around. In games, you kill multiple people every day. In real life, sometimes your perfectly good sword breaks off in the first enemy you kill and you need to buy a new one. In games this does not happen. Games do not live in the same reality as real life. Trying to apply the same rules simply does not make for a fun game (for most people anyway; some folks are simulationist to the point that they want to see their character go to the bathroom). Hence, I think normal arrows should be unlimited. Because micromanaging them isn't fun, and doesn't make the game more interesting. It does make the game more realistic, but realistic is not the same thing as fun. As for arrow-retrieval, I think it should be automatic for much the same reasons. 98% of the time, you'd have a chance to recover your arrows anyway. The remaining 2% is not worth bothering about, because it provides additional aggravation after every fight just so that it can be even more aggravating 2% of the time.

As far as grimoires go, it sounds like you'll be able to add new spells to existing grimoires, provided they have room. The update mentioned something about paying a nominal research fee to add spells from an enemy's grimoire to yours after you beat them. Presumably there will also be stores that allow the same thing. So I wouldn't worry too much about only having premade ones, since it sounds like you'll be able to build your own fairly easily.

This is quickly descending into a mud-slinging contest, but do want to say that, imo, IWD and its expansions had the best stories of all the IE games save PS:T. They were, pretty consistently, the stories of grand plots and machinations by important people on many different sides right up until the moment those plans got horribly messed up by this random group of adventurers that just came blundering through because they had no idea what they were doing. I kind of love that. You definitely weren't the main characters, in the traditional sense, but you were the focus of the action, which is all you really need to be in a game. Honestly, I have no idea why people are so obsessed with being important in games. Sometimes it's more interesting when you're not. Now, IWD2 on the other hand had a sad, sad waste of a plot. It was trying to be a very special episode about racism, which would've been bad enough, except all the racists were right because the half-breeds were all evil sadistic bastards who worshiped the god of evil sadistic bastards. But IWD1 was good.

I was being tongue-in-cheek. But if you want to actually argue about it, I'm a scientist and I have only ever worn a lab coat for one specific lab in college and the occasional Halloween costume. About half my friends are scientists, and only about half of them wear lab coats in the course of their jobs. None of them wear lab coats when they're outside the lab, even when they're actively doing outside-the-lab science. In my personal experience, the most common sign of a scientist is a sweater, and even that's only maybe 30% of the population. Yes, the lab coat is iconic, but that hardly means the average scientist wears one at all, much less when doing field work. Pointy hats are the same, except there's no practical reason to wear them in the first place, so even fewer mages will bother with them. If a mage wants people to know he's a mage, he can carry multiple large books and shoot fire from his fingertips. My point is not, of course, that no wizard will ever wear a pointy hat. My point is that it'll be a matter of fashion. Much like crowns and circlets, which are just fancy jewelry until someone decides that this one makes you king. And, for that matter, like most other hats unless it's raining. If you're going to enchant something, circlets seem less cumbersome and less likely to get knocked off than most other headware (especially tall pointy hats), so as an adventurer I'd favor circlets and other compact hats pretty strongly. Crowns, admittedly, are for when you want to go all mage-king.

Totally with you. To reiterate my initial position, I'm in support of unlimited normal arrows and some sort of encounter-based limitation on special arrows. Automated retrieval is my favorite option, but I'm not picky as long as it's not needlessly annoying.

"Over the course of the game, druids can acquire additional spiritshift forms to give them more options." -from the update So you can have multiple forms. You just only start with one. Seems reasonable to me. As for wands, it sounds like they're basically just weapons, rather than charged spell-producing items as in D&D and the IE games. Which I'm totally fine with, personally, and mages getting bonuses with them sounds good. I also like most of the spells. I notice a few old spells reappearing with new names (Ray of Fire will forever be Scorcher in my mind, I'm sure), which is cool. I hope the weapon spells are a lot better now, as they were usually quite lackluster in spite of their thematic awesomeness.

Yes, tracking arrows in BG was awful. No argument there. But with a 100% automated retrieval system (and a good arrow UI), arrows become encounter powers. Which means they now have an entirely different dynamic than "save until the biggest guy, then unload the best arrows." In theory, it should be a vastly more interesting dynamic, although you never really know until you try with game mechanics.

I'm pretty sure that if I can reduce everyone around me to a pair of smoking boots, I won't have to wait long for mortal authority. I'm also pretty sure that being an actual mage would enable you to pull a rabbit out of a crown.

What don't I like about turn-based? Honestly, I have trouble answering that question. I can identify two things I don't like about it, but they don't feel like the whole story. I'll list them anyway, because they're what I've got. First, it's slow, and I don't like slow combat. It bogs down when it should be most frantic (when there's a million enemies on screen), and I'm left there sitting and waiting when I should be reacting. Which leads into my second complaint. The ability to react is highly limited. I can't go "he's shooting a fireball, better scatter fast." I have to go "he's shooting a fireball. I hope he misses." I don't like that. I like being able to react to things. JRPG combat sometimes addresses that first complaint, at least to an extent (FF7 and Chrono Trigger come to mind), but almost never addresses the second. Western turn-based stuff tends not to address either. That said, I did enjoy Shadowrun Returns, especially Dragonfall. The combat was not exactly the highlight of the game for me, but it was enjoyable enough to add substance to the top quality fluff. So it's not as though I can never enjoy a turn-based game, I just won't enjoy it as much as I would if it were real-time.

Skyrim is allowed to have good ideas. We don't want Eternity to be very much like Skyrim, but that does not mean eschewing everything that Skyrim did ("there are swords in Skyrim, so there should be no swords in PE"). Having said that, I'm not especially a fan of Skyrim's arrow system. I feel like it just came down to "mass up a bunch of arrows, and then shoot the strongest ones." Which works, but is not demonstrably more interesting than not tracking arrows at all (Dragon Age-style), at least to my mind. Plus, I want my Black Arrow.

Perhaps an "auto-pause after ability completes" option would be useful for the turn-based fans? Since we can't have an "auto-pause on end of turn," without having turns.

Personally, I really enjoy IE combat, because of the RTS-ness. It can definitely be broken, particularly through copious use of wands, scrolls, and potions. But if you don't do that, it can be really fun. That's a pretty big caveat, I will readily admit, but compared to most other RPGs I find it more interesting to control six characters than one (and I'm rarely a fan of turn-based, so I don't have a lot of good things to say about ToEE). But the IE games were not without their problems, chiefly the ruleset. 2E D&D is mediocre for pen and paper, and it certainly doesn't get better on computers. The rules used were the IE games' greatest weakness, in my opinion, even though the fundamental structure of the combat was fun anyway. Hence, I am rather excited to see Eternity take a whack at recreating that structure under a new set of rules. So basically, I see where you're coming from, but it falls quite far from my personal experience. That said, there's a good chance that Eternity will fix the problems you have with the IE games. It also might not. Here's hoping.

I dislike pointy wizard hats, but then I dislike most hats. Give me a good circlet or crown any day. That said, since we're almost certainly going to get hats, I'd much prefer pointy hats to most other varieties. Especially if the other variety in question comes from DA1.