Lephys

In the game, they're DPS reports. And don't forget to put the new cover sheets on them. I'll have someone send you another copy of the memo. "That's a nice grimoire you've got there, Wizard... *whips out filing cabinet*"

When you say "clerical spell casting," I just imagine the character toting around a filing cabinet, and submitting forms to be stamped for approval by a deity before actually starting to cast the spell.

What do you derisively bark at the Rogue whom you force to carry all your stuff? "Mule on, Rouge!" Call me a recent installment of Halo, 'cause that was a Reach!

^ That's a perfect example of the whole detail bit! See, that one's got a bunch of little stones on it, and a little gate, etc. But, from a distance, you're not going to see all that. But you'll STILL see the distinct outline of a tower. Some banners bearing the same heraldry might just be a solid white tower shape. Some could even have more detail, up close, than that one, on the tower, as long as the overall tower silhouette was still maintained at a distance. Etc. Anywho, just emphasizing that, for what it's worth (I'm aware I'm not telling a lot of you what you don't already know).

@Mor... To clarify, I'm well aware how Sneak Attacks work. I'm literally just talking about Stealth (with a capital S) as it is named and specified in the mechanics of the game. I apologize if my wording made it seem like I thought sneak attack = attack from Stealth mode. That is not the case. But, yes, I'm just curious, since nothing has really been said specifically about it (I don't think?), how the combat state affects Stealth mode, if at all. One of the conditions that contributes to sneak-attackery is "attack within the first 2 seconds of combat." So, that makes it seem as though, in combat, enemies are a lot more aware of your presence (mechanically) than they were before combat began. Understandably so. But, I'm just curious exactly how the mechanics treat this.

I wouldn't even say intensity of glow, etc., is an issue, so long as it doesn't linger. If 5 different people cast a spell at "the same time" (just... overlapping, not necessarily at the same exact instant/frame), but each one has a "casting... casting... casting... EFFECT!" burst of glowy effects that only lasts for a quick flash, then leaves behind distinctive spell effect patterns that aren't stepping all over all the other visuals, I think that would be fine. Granted, not every spell needs a glow effect.

If you couldn't turn it off, you could turn it to like... .0000001:1 It was a slider. I'm fairly certain all the way at the bottom was "off," but, I'm not 100% on that. I'd have to go check when I get home. *shrug*. Most people don't even know it was adjustable, though. This was on the 360 version, btw, so I can't say with certainty that it wasn't specific to that version. But, as far as I know, it was a direct port.

EX-COM: Affiliation Unknown.

Well, yeah, I'm not saying "because you have stealth, you just get to be stealthy." I mean, I wonder if combat's going to make it so that enemies are just too alert for actual stealth to work, or if it could still work so long as it would've worked in not-combat (you're outside their detection zone, etc.). And/or, if the typical scope of combat encounters is even going to be big enough to ever feasibly allow for such a thing without your Rogue having to run 75 meters away from everyone else, try to stealth, then run back in, etc. That's why I mentioned obstacles and such. I mean, I had a lot of fun with stuff like this in PnP D&D. You had to be fighting in some place with lots of corners/alcoves/trees/foliage, though. You couldn't just step 3 feet behind an enemy, "stealth," and go unseen from there. Well, not with how our DM did it, anyway. I guess, technically, the rules kind of allowed for stealth success in broad daylight, in the middle of a dirt field. 8P But, yeah, I'm just wondering if it's possible to utilize stealth in combat situations, and, if so, if it's ever feasible.

Ditto. It's like saying "Man, I LOVE ME SOME SCI-FI, but I sure hate spacecraft and lasers, u_u"

Yeah, typical boss fights are bad, but I think it's the cookie-cutter that's the problem, and not the very idea of some singularly tough opponent. You've gotta make the reasons he's tough more tactical and less quantitative. More "He uses really crazy combinations of abilities and/or moves in a really crazy fashion," rather than "he's got 75% more HP, resistance, and damage output than you do."

^ Actually, Oblivion had that option. You could adjust the scaling ratio, from "off", all the way up to 2:1. It was separate from the difficulty setting, methinks. Just a fun fact.

^ No worries. It started as a total joke, but then, halfway through, I realized "Man... I kind of want to do that...", haha. If I'm ever 100% just joking, I try to make it obvious. But, since it wasn't completely a preposterous idea, I stopped myself short on making it blatant.

I think the best thing would be to just have distinct visual effects for each different spell effect on a character. However, this becomes tricky when you have more than like... 20 spells, which the game has. So... what if: A) The sort of glow-effect/visual for a given spell was a subtle-yet-distinct icon-shape on the character, themselves? And B) Multiple effects on a character resulted in their visuals being cycled through, in order, rather than trying to display them all at the same time? With the rule being that buffs can only be cast in combat and will only last 'til the end of combat, I can't imagine we'll be seeing many instances of a character having like 17 effects on them. Thus, anything up to about 5 or 6 at once wouldn't be too bad. There's always pause, if you really need to stop for a second and see what all's on a given character. Maybe every half second, a different spell effect "pulses" atop that character's body. *shrug*

Character interjections. I know it's not really a technical, game-settings switch, but being able to switch between "Just let me do all the talking" and "if you've got something to say, chime in with it" would be pretty useful, I think.

Sorry for the confusion. I was being silly, and throwing about some literal humor regarding this sentence: 8P. Nothing to see here, people. Just terrible, terrible jokes. *stormtrooper voice* Move along!

*covers ears* AHHhhh! You said the word even the Knights Who Say 'Ni!' can't stand!

Ohhhh... that makes a lot more sense. I totally misread that. Wow... Thanks for setting me straight. Still, though, I would like to see outright differences in those powers (change in radius, change in regen rate, etc.) depending on what you do, rather than just "you follow your chosen faith, it gets better, you don't, it gets worse." I guess I'd rather the choice be which faith you follow (in your actual decisions and actions throughout the game) than choosing some template up front, then having everything compared to that baseline, and either being rated positive or negative. Even if it all just affects the one main faith-based power. One Priest's Holy Radiance (for example) could deal more damage to undead (than usual), one could have a greater radius, one could regen stamina at a greater rate, one could deal slight damage to foes, one could gain a chance to apply afflictions, etc. All the while, you've still got choices that matter, and your choices still produce results in reputation and story/lore regardless of however your character's mechanics are directly affected. I just think that'd be much more interesting across the board than "Oh, you chose Path A at the beginning? Well, now you still have to choose whether or not to follow that to a T and gain bonuses, or stray from it and have your faith power diminish." I think if you're going to have a mutually exclusive choice like that (various different paths, and you can only choose... what, 2 behaviors?), they should all bring something unique to the table, even if it's minor, instead of just having this mutually exclusive choice that results in either gaining or losing the exact same thing. Just getting to pick which behaviors will make you better (in the same way), and which behaviors will make you worse (in the same way) is a bit bland, in comparison. That's if that's even how it works. All that was said is that your faith power will either grow, or be diminished. They didn't say specifically how. Maybe they're already planning on having the different options contribute various bonuses and detriments. *Shrug*

^ That makes me wonder if it'll actually be usable in combat. Maybe, so long as you're outside of the enemy's detection radius, you can enter stealth mode to the same effect, even in the midst of combat? Your Rogue can run off and hide (or just go behind a tree/wall, etc.), then pop back out "in stealth" to land another Sneak Attack on that foe who's re-focused its attention on some other party member? *shrug*

That's all fine and dandy in a purely-lore state. And, I'm all for significant reputation effects and consequences for your behavior. But, this is a game, and, mechanically, I'd rather see it encourage you to follow your "creed" with the incentives you get from doing so, rather than with the penalties you'll suffer if you walk out of line. It's not that I don't think it make sense. I just think there's a better way to do it, than with sheer penalties when you place a foot wrong. I'd rather there be some interesting twist that occurs when I choose to follow the god of destruction, and I decide to mend and heal stuff. Maybe my healing abilities start gaining destructive qualities, as "punishment" or something; I take some damage whenever I heal someone, or I have to choose a target for some minor damage that's near the target I want to heal, or I can't cast the heal, etc. I don't just get my abstracted mechanical numbers dialed down on a numerical potency scale for being a Priest wrongly. I suffer an apt "punishment" that affects my decision-making, rather than my overall character effectiveness. As someone else pointed out about the lore, if anything, Paladins would be the ones to suffer straight-up potency by going against their core path. Priests' beliefs are (from the update) "more philosophical, open to criticism (both their own and from others), and malleable from individual to individual." Seems like you'd have a lot more interpretations of the same path, there. "If these people are dying of sickness we cannot cure, is it not benevolent to end their misery?" As opposed to "Oh no, I've chosen the non-benevolent choice... now my benevolent healing powers are diminished!" Again, mechanically, apply that to ANYTHING else, and it just reads so negatively. "Fighter, if you use a weapon you're not specialized in, your fighting abilities will start to diminish!" "Wizard, don't go studying spells of some other school, or you'll start to suck at spell-casting!" Hell, just by choosing this path instead of that one, and being able to bolster your abilities by following your chosen path, you've already got a mutual exclusion of bonuses going on. What you've chosen versus what you didn't choose, and following it to gain effectiveness versus failing to follow it and missing out on that additional effectiveness. Not to mention the reputation/dialogue/lore effects of your decisions. "Hey, I thought you were a priest of such-and-such! HOW CAN YOU DO SUCH A THING?!", etc. Throwing an extra penalty in there just seems like folly. And, though it's neat in the lore, mechanically, it just reads as "never, ever do anything that's even the slightest bit against your specific faith." There is no "Hmmm, it might be interesting to go against my faith a bit," which should really be a positively interesting option, just like class builds that don't necessarily play to the classes' strengths -- they're already worse, comparatively, for missing out on the utmost strengths of that class's abilities and style, so why would you tack on more penalties? "Oh, you're going to wield a weapon instead of a want, mister Wizard? Well, you don't get Blast, AND I'M GOING TO REDUCE THE POTENCY OF ALL YOUR SPELLS, BECAUSE YOU SHOULDN'T USE WEAPONS, but I'll let you use weapons, and just punish you for it, on top of the existing difference between the sheer effects of wielding that weapon versus wielding something else, u_u"

Speaking of Inn names, I work in an office attached to a manufacturing plant, and we print a lot of manufacturing-related reports, and one of them is entitled the "Three Upright Arms Summary." I immediately thought "... that's an inn in fantasy-somewhere."

*nod nod*. It's just like the game, Monopoly. If you've got Baltic avenue, you don't sell it to another player, even though it's hardly of any use to you.

@Faerunner: I was mostly being silly. Although, the class/race choices are all so interesting, I kind of almost want to really do it roulette-style, haha. I probably really won't, though. I'll just replay the game a lot.

GOOOOOODcelllennnnttttt! *fingersteeple* Two quick tidbits: 1) The Chanter ability names are AWESOME! 2) I once again must praise the tactical design of such abilities as Salvation of Time, which lead to very reactive/emergent decision-making and results in combat. Oh, and lastly, some feedback on Priests: I really think the better way to go with the whole "you're going against your faith" thing is to slightly alter the potency of various effects/factors in their abilities. The idea of going with the current making you "better" and going against it making you "diminished" is just really rigid and simply reads as good choices versus bad choices, rather than this choice versus that choice. I would say just have how a priest behaves affect whatever aspect of his abilities is affiliated with that behavior -- the more benevolent you are (to go with a simplistic example), the more your helpful/healing abilities get a boost, while the more aggressive you are, the more your offensive abilities get a boost, etc. But, that seems weird when applied to paths that have been specifically chosen by the player. I'd figure that if we get to choose these "paths," the ones we choose should offer up some mutually exclusive bonus, kind of like school-of-magic specialization in DnD (or, I think, the deity selection for Priests in some of the versions?). But, anywho... at the very least, I'd make it a trade-off, rather than just "You didn't do what you were supposed to, so have a minor penalty." Say I choose the path of benevolence, but I make some kind of non-benevolent choice. If it's going to decrease my powers affiliated with benevolence, it should probably somehow benefit my powers of something else-ness. Maybe it's cast time, etc. *shrug*. If your choices are going to mechanically affect your Priest, I think both outcomes should be interesting in their own way. And "my stuff gets worse" isn't really very interesting. That's pure deterrent. Then it starts feeling like the whole good-vs-evil morality thing in lots of games (only now you get to choose your own custom-tailored morality bar -- choose the god of Smashing Stuff, and destruction is "good" while non-destruction is "bad," etc.); do good and people like you and you get free stuff, etc. Do bad and you sometimes get to take things you wouldn't have gotten had you been good, but you pretty much get gipped in the long run. Just my thoughts.

^ I believe your image meant to say: "DOOO NOTTTT WANNNNNNNNNNNNT!"