Lephys

The better question is this: Why can the Wizard only rip DOORS off their hinges, and not rip enemies limb from limb? If he can just run around casually forming magical energy into physical force, why doesn't he just step out onto the battlefield, then hurl all the enemies into walls and boulders, or simple crush all their armor in on themselves, winning every fight in seconds? Either a Wizard uses raw magical energy in the same way that a Fighter uses the kinetic energy from his muscles, or a Wizard does things differently. That being said, if a Wizard can open a door with a spell, then so be it. That's not addressing the point. The point isn't that magic and physical force should never ever be able to accomplish the same task. It's that they shouldn't always be able to accomplish the same task. Thus, the simple fact remains: Either we won't have any situations that check magic power/capability or physical strength, exclusively, OR we will, but it'll just be a class check. There's nothing else to distinguish how you're breaking down a door, and how you aren't. If we don't have any of those situations/scenarios, then so be it. I'd just like to know whether or not we will, or how that's being handled, etc. You are right, though. The main concern is a non-combat one, not a combat one. I couldn't really care less if my Wizard with 20 Might always punches people harder than another Wizard, since it's not really that big of an issue (what with skills and class talents/abilities and such making a MUCH larger impact on effective damage). There are perfectly feasible times when strength checks can accomplish things that magic checks cannot, and vice versa.

Yeah, instead of a formation, it's like a sixmation.

False. There's something wrong with wanting revealing armor. There's nothing wrong with wanting revealing attire. The problem arises specifically when you want the revealing stuff to be armor, especially when: A) Non-armor will satiate your desire just fine, and B) The world is full of magic that can produce protection in lieu of armor. It's completely arbitrary to insist that armor both serve its function (of providing a layer of covering protection to the vulnerable "human" (humanoid) body AND somehow, paradoxically, not-cover the human body. You might as well be like "I want a cat that's a dog." You can have both animals. There's no reason to destroy both simply to create an animal that ends up being neither.

I second this question, because it's a darned good question. As for the rest, you could still have them scale a bit. I mean, if a PewPewLezzerBeam spell does 5 damage at the start of the game, and 20 hours in, almost everything has at least 4 armor and that spell still only does 5 damage, it's kinda moot that it's now at-will as compared to the per-rest that it once was. It could just scale at a lesser rate than other spells. Basically, it can scale only to stay not-useless, but not scale so much that its damage X its at-will usage rate = OP.

Guys... we're forgetting the best example here. They're like Terminators. Not in that they necessarily terminate, but in that, they will do anything to not-fail their directive. Including somehow hard-resetting themselves even when they've been corrupted by a hostile, more advanced female-form terminator, and/or detonating their own nuclear power cells.

"To bring forth these scribings, a ring you will need, Which makes this stone message quite useless, indeed."

I hope all the inscribed stone surfaces are white with a blotchy red pattern all over them, and the ring flips out a little red monocle that, when peered through, makes the red pattern seem to vanish, thus revealing the secret message.

I don't understand. A) Last I heard, you couldn't just take a player with -1,000 perception and avoid some traps simply because you, the player, can see the physical pixels comprising the traps; you have to actually detect them with the character, or they're not even visible to the player. And... B) Even if that weren't the case, Phone-Snake movement aids neither the player's ability to see stuff with their own eyes (to know to even avoid it), nor the player's ability to accurately move-command their characters through the trapped area without having them step on the traps. I honestly don't detect even a hint of cheapening, in any form or fashion. ... What?! You still have to work at it! But, it's a click-and-move interface, not a 3rd-person action-movement one. Once you're able to navigate one character through a field of narrow safepaths, you automatically possess the capability to simply repeat those same movement "waypoints" for all the other characters. The only thing that would prevent you from doing so, at that point, is not a lack of skill, but a lack of short-term memory. In which case, I personally don't feel that there's any benefit to punishing those without short-term memories. It's not trivializing anything. If you have a hallway with a bunch of moving/rhythmic traps, then, guess what? Having everyone run down it at once, in a single-file line, isn't going to help you much. But, if all the traps are stationary, and it's simply a matter of "only step on this one path," then, you either have the path figured out, or you don't. You're not going to send your lead guy down the safe path, then have difficulty figuring out where to direct party members 2-6. "Oh, I don't know! Maybe I should right-click ATOP The spikey pits this time, instead of on those safe floor tiles I just send the other guy down... IF ONLY I could've sent them all at once, I wouldn't have to deal with this extreme test of skill!"

I don't understand the sentiment that the actual pathing "step where I step" feature is somehow cheating. You have to manually control a given character through a field of traps, regardless of how nimble or light-footed they are. Then, you have to do the same thing with everyone else, individually, because if you move them as a group, they don't CARE what path they're taking, as long as they arrive at the destination in the chosen formation. It doesn't matter if everyone's moving at the same speed. You can't select the whole party, click somewhere, and get them ALL to walk in between those two traps at the front of that hallway. Keep in mind, this is in a situation in which you are moving a party an area with multiple hazards: either traps you couldn't disable, traps you don't feel like disabling, or environmental hazards that aren't even traps. If it's complicated or couldn't be done for whatever reason, then fine. But, for what reason would it possibly be a bad feature? It doesn't affect your ability to detect or otherwise interact with traps. Or your characters' abilities to make saving Reflex throws or something against them. It simply allows the player to move the whole party, manually, in such a way that navigates around visible/detected and avoidable hazards, at one time rather than individually.

I dunno... why doesn't a whetstone give a blade a sharp edge FOREVER? The arrows have to be in the quiver, because the enchantment from the quiver can only sustain itself on an arrow away from the quiver for a matter of seconds. *dusts off hands* Also, maybe a scabbard/sheathe does bestow power to a sword. How many swords do you carry in a sheathe? Oh, that's right... 1. So, does it really matter if the enchantment's source is the sword or the sheathe? As long as you've always got both for every sword, who really cares? "What if the HILT bestows the enchantment?" I dunno. Maybe that's a fascinating point, too. @Brainmuncher, I understand what you are trying to discuss, but that whole limitation aspect of "how do we control/balance the potency of these special ammo items?" ties directly into the component of how to limit. My point was, I'm not really against you technically having an unlimited quantity of arrows (as in, you don't have to go buy more arrows because you fired 30 of them and didn't retrieve any, etc.), so long as the limitation is handled in another, albeit more abstract, way (you can only fire so many arrows in a given amount of time -- per rest, per encounter, etc.). Functionally, it's still handling special ammo. It's just doing it in a different way. But, yes, it all comes down to limiting the availability of such things. I just don't think having to physically account for quantities of arrows is the fun part of management/limitation. That's all I'm getting at. I couldn't care less if you technically never ever have to count out your arrows and buy them all at a shop. As long as you have to account for/purchase the capability to effectively use however many arrows in whatever span of time.

You could always use interesting-language forms of the words for the animals, like "Lobo" for Wolf, just as an example. I mean, I know a lot of the lore and names are going with a certain form/style of language, but I'm too uncultured to produce an example befitting that, so I went with "Lobo."

I didn't mean to suggest reputation checks to determine dialogue options in the game. I was just kinda sipping on my bubble pipe, and pondering dialogue options from a "You've got an RPG full of stuff, and you need to write dialogue for it... GO!" approach. Sorry. I know I'm androidishly confusing at times, and by "at times," I mean "mostly always." 8P Still, I dig the specific infos. That's good to know. I was thinking of The Walking Dead game. Which, don't get me wrong, I still very much enjoy and appreciate, but... in it, you have a remain-silent option ("...") about 50% of the time, but it's often actually something more specific than that and they don't tell you. Either you end up glaring disapprovingly (for example) when you didn't know you were going to, or when you'd LIKE to do something specific like that, the game pretends you're on the phone with the person rather than face-to-face with them, and that they can't gather any information whatsoever from you without sounds coming out of your face. So, again, it's good to know you're such options the way you are, and conveying the specifics to the player. I think that's one of the most important rules of Dialogue Club: Don't say/do things the player doesn't know you're going to say or do.

Even if that's perfectly accurate, we could still see some changes before finalization. However, the list seems pretty legit, either way.

So the specilizations strictly affect damage? Or will they ever produce any other kind of bonus (accuracy, effect duration [of the weapon type -- estoc's armor breach, sabre's DOT, etc.], that sort of thing)? And, if not specifically weapon specializations, will other talents/choose-able character improvements allow us to boost aspects of weapon effectiveness other than damage? For example, maybe you have the Knight specialization, but then you've got some sort of Greatsword-only talent that grants +5 Accuracy to Greatsword attacks, or a bonus to Greatsword attacks in a certain stance or something tactically interesting.

I'm sure they'll be able to help you out with much swiftness, Madzookeeper.

Man... I really need to get back into drawing, and do some sketches like that. /reminisce

I don't think the finite-or-not ammo question is really a question of whether or not to require management on the player's part. You don't have to buy spell ammo, as a Wizard, but you still have oodles of management. Ammo could very much work similarly to the spells-per-day/encounter system, only with differently adjusted numbers. I mean, you're already going to have oodles of various attacks with whatever ammo you're using, so the ammo type is only one layer of the results of an attack. But, yeah, as much as it's great for flavor/simulation, I don't think requiring each and every arrow to be accounted for is really adding anything to the functionality of combat that can't be achieved through abstracted/pseudo-automatic means. Say your quiver holds 15 arrows. Maybe you buy something that fits into your quiver (or get it enchanted/modified in some way) to produce 3 fire arrows. Now, maybe that costs... I dunno, 5 gold. And if you were to have to buy 3 individual fire arrows, maybe they'd cost 15 silver a piece. Well, the cost and limits work quite similarly, the major difference being that you don't ever run out of fire arrows and need to take time out to go make another purchase just to be able to use them again. Want to use more per-encounter? Buy an upgraded/additional socketed gem/attachment/enchantment/whathaveyou, for like 5 more gold. It's functionally similar to buying more arrows. The only difference is, you can't fire 30 fire arrows in one encounter, then have none to fire in the next 6 encounters in sequence Or, another option: Have some kind of quiver modification that, when activated/toggled, essentially turns your arrows into fire arrows when nocked/fired. You could buy different ones of different strengths, and each would lose "juice" at a different rate. Maybe you could even get them recharged, or maybe they even recharge on their own slowly if you don't use them for a while. I realize that in terms of number of fire arrows you have at your disposal, that's functionally almost identical to just buying them individually, but, it's still more streamlined and less manage-a-bunch-of-ammo-counts-just-for-the-sake-of-simulation-y than having to carry around 200 fire arrows in your pack and re-load your quiver all the time, and worry about how many you have left, etc. Plus, it gets around the whole "It'd be preposterous to carry around that many arrows!" limitations of verisimilitude. *shrug* Basically, I like those spiffy simulated aspects of roleplay as much as other people (I like the aspect of durability, darnit!), but, when you're managing an entire party of 6, I'm much less concerned with representing the exact process of management of all the little things my characters are dealing with and more concerned with simply making sure the management of those factors is represented. I mean, I don't think "Just make all things infinite and call it a day" is a good solution. That would just be ignoring the management aspect entirely. But, I'm entirely fine with things that make the "OMG, make sure you have enough individual arrows in your pack, and then move those to your quiver, and then retrieve some after the battle, etc." aspects a little more automatic is fine with me. It's not like my character's not still doing it. I just don't need to manually do all that, any more than I need to aim his bow for him to properly fire at his target, or have him lace up his boots before leaving a tavern, or separate various coins into various coinpurses so they don't all get mixed together, etc. It's not about kicking ammo management to the curb. It's just about not having the player manually manage 6 different characters worth of exact ammo quantities of a bunch of different types.

I think a good foundation would be to produce a variety of options based on potential motivations, rather than personalities/speaker-types, etc. Or, at least it could be a first check. If no one would ever have a motive to do that, then it doesn't really matter if it fits any of the character types you're after. Like the witty person running into a situation in which there's just plain no reason to be witty. Then, on top of that, as a second layer, you could have various "flavors." If your motivation is information, you could have various different ways of seeking further info via dialogue option, depending on the particular speaker in question. Maybe you threaten. Maybe you joke. Maybe you "Yeah yeah, get to the point already!". Maybe you're super intellectual and have an "academic" (for lack of a better word) interest in almost everything anyone has to say about anything. Another general guide is just sort of speaking types. Maybe you say the same thing, but speak formally, or maybe you use contractions and/or slang a lot. Maybe you're polite, or maybe you're blunt and to-the-point, ignoring formalities. Also, I'm fond of the "..." options (simply remain silent), but it might be quite nice to have various "action" options there. You know... like "... [fold arms]", or "... [glare]", or "... [roll eyes]", etc. It just seems like when I simply choose silence, I kinda hafta guess what it is my character is actually doing. Do they just seem like they didn't hear the other person? Do they seem to be ignoring them? Or is it clear they're being actively silent, on purpose, in direct response to what was said?

I'm pretty sure that's supposed to be a sabre with a fancy hilt/guard. She's holding it quite high up, away from the foreground of the illustrated space, and the tip of the blade is even farther away, still. So, I think it's just a perspective thing. 'Cause... if you really look at it, it looks a bit thick for a rapier. The perspective might be a bit exaggerated, in such a case. *Shrug* Just my guess.

You could add a "single vertical line" party formation or something, but I have doubts how effective it would be re: AI party members still not triggering traps or such - because of in the way objects/furniture and the shortest-distance-between-points that tend to confuse much of the generalistic AI pathing that I've observed. Well, yeah, I admit to a less-than-noobish amount of knowledge about the coding of AI pathing. But, I'd imagine you'd functionally (aka "this probably isn't the proper terminology for such things, but is meant to convey the idea") have waypoints set based on the lead character's path/location. In other words, you're not giving the party members the destination of where everyone's ultimately trying to go. You're giving them destinations of where the lead character was just standing. Again, it might be really complex when it comes down to it. I dunno. But, it wouldn't be like a "set this formation, then just click on the other end of the hallway." Basically, you'd still have to maneuver one character, manually, around traps. But, everyone else would follow the same path, and only move when/after he/she moved. So, instead of having to move them all individually/manually through the Corridor O' Traps, you could move them as a group, but achieve the same effect. *shrug* You'd have to like... path-record or something. I dunno. I intend to learn all this, one day. Baby steps.

Ahem. LOL If you can't comprehend that "we're not going to be doing romances" doesn't mean the game will be devoid of anything even remotely label-able as "romance," I don't know how to help you. I didn't invent words and their meanings. And come on... I'm like... amateur-lific, at best.

I'm making a case for the existence of desires/feelings between people that go beyond "Yay, let's just hang out sometimes, 8D!" But, to use friendship to make a point, I'd no more welcome friendships done in the style of Bioware romances than I would copy-pasted Bioware "romances." I know it's semantics, but it's a specific use of the word, and it's a specific idea that crops up when you put that S on there. But, yeah, I want to be able to be friendly and I want friendships to be able to develop, where appropriate in the game, but I'd hate to see, for example, the Dragon Age: Origins "Like-o-meter," even if it topped out at "best friends" and didn't go into "Lovers" territory. That's kind of been the core of anything I've said on this topic the whole time, that people just seem to not comprehend. You can take out "romance," specifically, and still be left with a horrible, horrible mechanic. Interactions being strictly platonic doesn't somehow make the implementation of those interactions any better. Crappy Implementation - Romance = Still Crappy Implementation. If Romance, itself, were the culprit, then the mechanics would be fine once it was removed.

I cite the absence of attack misses, for the 37th time. They said no misses, it was discussed, they re-decided on misses (but a lot fewer than in pretty much any other game, ever). No romances? Great. Maybe some romance, though. Kinda like misses. Not full-length, Bioware-esque arcs and sub-plots, but maybe greater-than-zero romance options/interactions/choices. Maybe just enough of an aspect in the characters' behavior/reactivity to make them not arbitrarily robotic and devoid of emotional attachment. "Hahahah! NOTHING affects my desire for companionship with another human! NOTHING!" People have already made the comparison a bunch of times, but that would be just as silly as having no anger in the game, or no philosophy. Which is why I'm pretty sure there won't be "no romance." And I'd like to know what Team Eternity's thoughts are on treating it like they did misses. If a hedge is in your way, maybe you can prune it, instead of digging it up.

A quick thought: What if bows/crossbows functioned a little differently from other weapons, in that, instead of weapon speed being the duration of every single attack you make, it is simply the duration of nocking an arrow/reloading the crossbow? Thus, it would never take less than [Weapon_Speed] time to make another attack with, say, a bow. BUT, you could feasibly fire an arrow, then move around, knock another arrow, move around some more, then fire another one instantly whenever you chose to, because that character already had another arrow nocked. *shrug*. Maybe you'd still have to be standing still to nock an arrow, or moving would slow the process, and/or you could acquire talents that would allow for nocking-while-moving, and/or even firing/releasing an arrow accurately while moving, etc. But, that's just going further with the idea. Reloading a crossbow would most likely never be possible while moving, unless maybe it was one of those "Ha-HAH! You didn't know I was concealing this little crossbow!" crossbows. 8P

That is a good question. I wonder if, in the world of PoE, there might be some instance(s) of a brothel-type establishment consisting solely of Godlike employees... A) Because of the exotic factor, and/or... B) Because they don't have to worry about birth control and such, as they are sterile If that's the case, I mean. If they're "Geralt-like," as you put it. I have absolutely no clue as to how anything you just quoted begged this question. Could you be a little more specific?