Churchwarden

I think all classes SHOULD be able to focus on combat-related skills, but they don't have to be equal in a damage-per-round (DPR) measurement. Different types of damage are useful, but crowd control and debuffing mechanics are also useful and impact the overall fighting prowess of a class.

I think the distinction between backstab and sneak attack is important to this discussion. Sneak attack implies that the stealthiness the rogue has practiced gives her the element of surprise, and so she is able to make an attack on an unaware opponent, whereas backstab is simply an attack from behind. Anyone should be able to attack from behind, but it should be easier for a rogue to catch someone from behind unawares because of her skill at sneaking. I think "flank-style backstab" should always confer a melee damage bonus, but fighters shouldn't necessarily be able to get behind someone that easily. To come closer to "real life" (the doom of all mechanics discussions), two fighters pitted against one enemy should not have an easy time getting outright flank. The flanked enemy, if she has any skill in combat maneuvering, would immediately try to get out of the flanked position. It does make sense for rogues to have sneak attack and thus be more able to maneuver behind someone without being seen. The difference lies in the sneaking, which is a rogue's skill.

Roleplaying a hidden mastermind is also very appealing (think Darth Sidious), especially for an evil-tilted party.

And earlier in this same thread.

A great game compels the player to immerse himself in both the narrative and mechanical aspects of the experience, intertwining the two in such a way that he becomes a passionate fan of each.

This encapsulates my preferences very succinctly. Additionally, I also loved the music from IWD1, especially the Kuldahar theme. Little things about the artwork in IWD like the grainy wood on the main menu and loading screens were atmospheric touches that impacted the feel of the game. My biggest hope for PE is to surpass all the IE games by creating more lively, interactive cities, where I can sandbox around as a thief or priest or something doing class-oriented activities that aren't necessarily quest/main story driven.

I don't think you can take AC to that high level and not include HP in the abstraction. If what you said is true, and AC is only responsible for preventing damaging contact to the physical body, then it should be possible for me to do HP damage without hitting the target's Armour Class. Which we know is impossible because AC is the target number for an attack roll. Why should I be able to do HP damage? Hit Points, as we know, are not isoalted to a measure of one's health, they are also a measure of one's combat training and fighting ability. Which is why they increase with level, the character's phsyical body between level 1 and level 15 doesn't change enough to justify the increase, however their combat training and ability to effectively fight does. Thier experience lends them to be a tougher target. In this capacity, HP are also a character's "Battle focus" or ability to continue to apply their training to prevent physical harm. (I illustrated this in a previous post using the level 1 and level 15 fighter getting hit with the same arrow.) With that in mind, if what you suggest would be true "AC is a measure of preventing damaging contact", then it should be possible for me to reduce the character's battle focus without causing phsyical harm, which means I should be able to do "damage" to the HP pool without hitting the AC target. (Which isn't possible) This would represent a barrage of attacks the fighter parries, none of them does physical damage but they do reduce his battle focus, eventually he may slip up and take a grazing slash. I suspect this is why Obsidian is venturing to create a stamina pool in order to represent this battle focus outside of the character's physical health. I agree that AC systems are legitimate and they work, but this muddiness between HP and AC intertwining has led to some of us Game Masters and Dungeon Masters to strive for something clearer. And it usually results in redefining Hit Points. I'm not sure I understand what point you are contending in my post. I acknowledge that HP are not representative only of one's health, but what does this change in my comment? If the phrase "damaging contact" were switched to "harrowing contact" or "draining contact" would it change your interpretation? Just to be clear, I'm not opposed to decoupling health and stamina, as PE plans to do, but I think a 2-resource vitality system does not preclude the use of a single defense score such as AC. What if, for example, rolling a "hit" guaranteed stamina damage, while beating AC by say 5 or more would deal stamina and health damage? Once a person is drained of stamina, she takes a major hit to her AC, making it significantly easier if not entirely guaranteed, to damage her health with attacks. Decoupling defenses to dodge/parry/damage reduction is not necessary to decouple fighting resources (i.e. HP) into health and stamina, and my point was only that AC is viable, not that HP shouldn't be decoupled.

Tracking reputation with multiple parameters is something I would also love to see in PE. I think actions like slaying a village and having it known would be engaging. Also, since the setting is not the communication era (i.e. cell phones, and nearly ubiquitous internet access) I think it would be great if my PC could have more or less defining character features that make him easier/more difficult to recognize to an unknown NPC. If I had a face tattoo of a dragon, and I slaughtered all but one witness, people would fear the "man with the dragon tattoo." If I looked like a pig farmer, people would assume I was one before they knew anything more about me. If my PC managed to do some heroic/infamous things that affected the whole of the world or even a large region, I would love for him to gain recognition and have a harder time hiding from his celebrity identity. Everything he does is more widely known and critically judged as he becomes more famous. Extending this idea to dialogue tracking as I mentioned in another thread could help him build a reputation as an honorable man, a bully, or even a pathological lier, the latter of which is most entertaining for me to imagine.

I like the concept of AC, but it's not favored here apparently. Everyone is trying to explain AC in terms of "to hit" chance, but it isn't a measure of making contact, it's a measure of making damaging contact. anybody will gain some protection against a body blow by putting armor on, which is why heavy armor boosts more than light armor. However, someone in light armor can benefit from an unusually high agility, if they are so gifted, which also contributes to AC. AC is more of an abstraction than hit chance/damage reduction, but it is a legitimate, effective game mechanic and has been for a while.

What if, rather than specific tags popping up, you could select a social skill (e.g. bluff, diplo, intimidate), then select the line of dialogue you wanted to use that skill with? That way there would not be tags, but you could choose to use your skills as much or as little as you like, giving more control to your character's personality and relationships with different individuals. Furthermore, the game could keep track of the number of times you choose to be intimidating, lie, diplomatic, etc., and you could get a reputation in different towns/regions (for lying, you would get a reputation as a lier if you were CAUGHT lying a lot). Thoughts?

While I prefer a single physical damage defense score as I said earlier in the thread (due to its simplicity and me not having an issue imagining why someone didn't cause damage on any particular attack), I agree this discussion could benefit from fewer anecdotal examples and more clear suggestions. Here are my thoughts on a (martial) defense system in terms of game mechanics. This only pertains to armor, not shields/weapons that could be used for block/parry. I'll leave that to others. I support these 3 variables for a given piece of armor: +X damage reduction -Y stamina/round of combat -Z realized agility score (altered from "naked" agility), which modifies hit/miss It's a simple system, that is moderately reflective of "real life." It decouples dmg reduction from hit/miss chance, which people seem to prefer, while also accounting for the added encumbrance of wearing armor and the required stamina to do so. Picturing a mirror match between an individual and an exact copy of herself, consider one in leather and the other in plate. Plate wearer will tire sooner, be harder to damage, and be easier to hit, while leather wearer will take more damage when hit, be harder to hit, and not become winded as quickly solely based on her armor's heft. Does it need to be more complicated than this? If so, please explain.

I agree about "straight nostalgia" because nostalgia isn't what it used to be But, for example, we are all looking forward to the isometric view and the beautifully painted landscapes, right? Nostalgia has definitely helped to fuel the excitement with backing this game. I doubt most people are looking for a strict repeat mechanically, but we all hope that it can improve on what was done before while still reminding us of the good ol' days.

Well if it's LEGENDARY, I agree that most people would have common knowledge of an item, but what about a UNIQUE magic item created by some crazy hermit or mad sorcerer that was buried hundreds to thousands of years ago in some forgotten cave or lair? Why would anybody, even scholars, have detailed knowledge of the item?

I agree that making a game that is true to original IE games is important for the backers who have jumped in two-feet first to see this game made, but I don't think the issue of "hardcoreness" is determined by HP vs. HP + stamina. It's not going to be inherently easier if it uses this different mechanic, but it could definitely lose some of the viscous nostalgia that is oozing from the project right now if it meanders too far from what everyone remembers.

From the way you described it I certainly hope your right. If at anytime I ever read a review that says.. "I survived and my other party members got up after the fight was over", then I'm not buying it. that is not baldur's gate, planescape, or IWD. That's dumbed down nonsense. What if a party member went unconscious, but your opponent didn't have time to deliver a killing blow because he was immediately attacked by another of your party members? Are you saying nobody should ever fall in combat unless they are dead?

Maybe identifiable marks like runes could give some information about the item to an arcane scholar, while not everything is explicitly knowable without use. If it's a unique item, it should be much harder to fully identify it's magic than if it's one of a set of items that were produced for all the members of an order.

If people are intent on a system where individual stats explain different aspects of defense, armor should most definitely hinder mobility/chance to dodge. A fighter fully clad in armor is not as agile as a gymnast. Also, fatigue should be affected by heavy armor, such as in Dragon Age: Origins, if realism is the focus of the mechanics. However, along these same lines of thinking, hitpoints should be connected to stamina/fatigue, since hitpoints and stamina are not clearly separatable in "real life terms". If I have one hp and 100 stamina, in most games, I can fight as well as if I have 100 hp and 100 stamina, so hp isn't really a measure of my state of health, right? I mean if hp were a quantized unit of life points, 1 hp would mean I were on my deathbed (not deftly swinging a broadsword). Both numbers are representative of whether I can still fight effectively, and if either runs out, I should be a sitting duck. Why then shouldn't they just be combined (as vitality maybe) for realism? In this way, wearing heavy armor could penalize a character's vitality in a fight against a lighter armored foe who is very deft at dodging. My point is that in a real fight between two opponents who are equally athletic, one who is unarmored is more mobile and less encumbered. His strategy will be to do what he can to outlast a more heavily armored foe, and unless he is cornered, he should be able to wear out the armored guy and then take advantage of his exhausted opponent's exposed weaknesses. It is difficult to account for all aspects of real life in game mechanics, and I usually prefer having room to justify it in my head rather than relying on flawed overcomplex attempts to simulate it with a roll/calculation.

I think armor should merely affect whether or not my character is hit, in terms of the mechanic, which is altogether different than whether or not it represents the opponent making contact with my character's body. Characters with high armor class as a result of heavier protection (plate, e.g.) are probably not dodging much, but from the RP perspective, they are harder to hit in a damaging way, whereas agile characters with light armor but lots of dexterity are probably actually dodging the attacks due to their increased mobility. I think that unique items or class specific-powers that mitigate some damage are fun mechanics, but in general I don't think of armor class as a measure of whether or not I'm easy to "tag" by the opponent, but rather, whether he/she makes contact in a damaging way. Rather than armor class, I think of it as "Defense Class." I don't need a million different derived stats for defense (armor, block, parry, dodge, etc.), but if I can increase my defense through different character traits like agility, wit, weapon expertise, or brute strength/endurance, then the reason it's a high defense can be easily justified in terms of my character's awesome training. If I'm carrying a shield, I would love an animation that shows me block an attack, or if I am wielding two daggers, either parrying or deftly dodging, but I think it's better from a mechanic viewpoint to simply have a single defense stat.

For me, the beauty of RTwP is that not every character has to be managed every round. Martial classes with strong basic attacks can stand up front (or in back if archers) and slash/shoot away while the wizards, druids, etc. can be micromanaged on a spell-by-spell basis. Tactics are still important with "autoattackers" who need special positioning to be most effective, and they are often the characters I spend the most time tweaking their gear. With six party members, I like not having to manage every single character every single round of combat.

for 1e D&D: http://www.dragonsfoot.org/

Real-time w/ pause is a great system. It can be turn-based or not and thus accommodates both sides of the split vote in this poll.