Lephys

I like managing spellcasters, but I'm not super fond of the micro- part (with regard to what is essentially the difference between uselessness and peak effectiveness).

I'll see your material -- silk -- and raise you one type of that material -- spider. Then my t-shirt will be BULLETPROOF! 8D!

I wasn't meaning to suggest that we make the dungeon simply "like the Mines of Moria." I was more making the comparison in that it was born as a place with a populous and a culture, and that whatever state it's in now, years and years and years after whatever happened to it initially, it all stemmed from that origin. It's a different animal from just "here are some caves that smugglers used to store stuff in, but then they all died and now it's overrun with baddies." Granted, it's not going to be all a big homogenous thing. It's a bit like layers of the grand canyon. Different causes at different points in time (and stemming from different particular sources -- magic research that was going on in the original civilization, some cult that moved in years later and summoned something in the dungeon, someone sealing away an entire section because they deem it too dangerous, etc.). But, I just mean that, in general, it's kind of a unique animal, like I said. Especially a dungeon of this size. It'd be different if it were just a single labyrinth of rooms beneath a keep or something. There's a lot of room for reactivity and various world lore interactions with the place, is all.

I'm not against this at all, but I'd definitely like to see it function in a "realistically"-treated unique way. What I mean is, there's not much point in having a gun draw from real-life military technology (as per this thread) if you're just going to have a magic one that arbitrarily bypasses all limitations of that technology. Questions pop up like "Why doesn't EVERYONE use that?", or even "Why not just use a wand instead if it's going to function almost exactly like a wand?" Stuff like that. It's just considerations. Like I said, I like the idea, but we'd definitely have to figure out how best to treat said weapon. I don't know if it's as simple as just letting a gun shoot magic. The important question I'd ask is "how can a gun be affected by magic in a way that is beneficial and distinct from both pure magic and pure gun use?"

I, for one, demand an update covering all their holiday festivities and New Year's Resolutions. u_u

I'm not saying they can't use another Kickstarter project to do it. But, if you look at the game Starbound, they seem to be using the same type of tiered-pledge setup, but aren't using Kickstarter (they're just accepting payment through various options at their site -- such as Paypal -- and keeping track of their pledge total, with stretch goals and all). I wouldn't really say some other method is better, but rather that a separate Kickstarter might be a bit overboard if there's a simpler way to do it. Also, the Torment Kickstarter ended, but they were very close to the Stronghold stretch goal, so they basically just said "Even though the Kickstarter is over, the stretch goal is still in effect" for another week or so. They just accepted more pledges through not-Kickstarter, and if they met the goal, they met the goal. Since they've got a backer portal now, they could easily just say "Hey, here's where we're at, and if people want to pledge more and/or new people want to buy stuff that haven't, and we reach this point, we'll add in wilderness areas and/or companion characters." I'm sure that, either way, the funds pledged are going to go towards the project. As long as people know that up front, it's not a big deal, really. Of course, it's up to them, I suppose. They could go either way. But, even in the initial Kickstarter campaign, all the pledged funds that exceeded the last met stretch goal but fell short of the next one weren't refunded or anything. They're just goals for the total to "stretch" to. Not minimums to accept funding. So, even though adding stretch goals this late is unorthodox, I just didn't figure they'd need to launch a separate campaign for supplemental content to an existing, in-production game that already had its own Kickstarter campaign. *shrug* And in way too many words, that's just my thinking on the matter, for what it's worth (or isn't, perhaps, ).

What can I say... my thought-kiln has a hole in it, so it doesn't operate at optimal temperature.

I don't think he procured babies, in his example. I think he's just referring to easily-found babies, existing peacefully in their natural habitats, upon which spells of an illusionary nature could easily be cast. Also, what I really should've said in response to this: ... was simply: I have a feeling the next illusion spell you cast on some babies is going to make them look like yourself, to that Priest.

I'm with Adhin here. I'm not even coming close to seeing what the point of having INT affect base damage would be if classes got significant base damage modifiers with given weapons. Even if that were the case, you still seem to be missing the point that the least brutish instance of a given character -- regardless of class and weapon skill and equipment -- is the one with the least Intellect, while the most brutish instance is that with maximum Intellect, regardless of Strength or any other stat for that matter. Let's play "who's the brute," shall we? Your party gets captured, has all their equipment taken away, and is tied up. One character is strong to the point of being able to headbutt/wall-crush the guards into unconsciousness/comas AND break his bindings (almost unbelievably so -- his captors felt the bindings were more than sufficient for anyone they knew of), while the other character can't do any of those things without additional tools or resources. Who's the brute? You guessed it! The first character! Does a Wizard get a .1 Base Damage modifier on his own body, while a Fighter gets a 1? So, a Wizard the size of The Rock just sits there whining about wishing he had his grimoire or a weapon so he could actually do something, but the 4'-tall, 80-lb Orlan Fighter can punch through walls and lift Mountains? Why even have a stat named "Strength" then? And why does the possibility of excessive class-based bonuses mean that we don't know how to roleplay? o_O

*shrug*. Additional stretch goals just means more funding collection. Not necessarily through Kickstarter.

Literally the only purpose of the swords-and-maces example was to point out the relationship between trait/bonus design and game content design. I was in no way pitching the idea that it was somehow a good idea for a trait. But, since you happened to bring it up, I'll roll with that, as it actually still pertains to my point. Your assessment of it as a "non-trade-off" is assuming it's a trait in a game whose design doesn't revolve around content that requires the use of multiple weapon types per character. Not that PoE necessarily does, but, the point is once again that, IF the game's content supports it, then it's really not a bad trait. You can't fault the choice the system offers you in choosing a trait any more than you can fault the game for not validating that choice in any way. Like I said, EITHER the trait is out of sync with the content, or the content is out of sync with the trait. Only the designers can really say which is which, because it depends upon the circumstances and intentions of the game's design. This is all just in response to the sentiment of "that's a bad method of trait-offering at character creation, because the game's design could just not back that up as an actual trade-off."

It's not about being "meta" or optimal. It's about being able to make that type of character. The game's representing strength in its affect on everything BUT the force of weapons. You can make a "big brawny fighter" who, what... is really healthy and can carry a lot? And also happens to wield giant weapons? Awesome. "Hey guys... that Wizard hits harder with this greatsword than I do, because he's got so much Intelligence, but I'M THE BIG UNINTELLIGENT FIGHTER WHO'S SCARY BECAUSE HE'S STRONG! FEAR MY NIGH-INFINITE HEALTH RESERVES AND CARRY WEIGHT!" There is no stat in the current system that makes your strength worth anything in an offensive capacity, that doesn't ALSO make you quite smart. So, no... you can make a very formidable, storage-mule dumb Fighter, but there is no actual dumb strong brute Fighter. You've got smart "brute" (high intellect), Accurate brute (high Dexterity), Opportunity-maximizer brute (high Perception), and formidable pack-mule brute (high Strength). That's about all the aspects you've got. The "my only saving grace is really that I swing real hard" brute doesn't exist. Because a high-strength brute doesn't swing real hard, and a smart brute A) isn't really a "brute," and B) has other saving graces. Also, you can't really make a physically-feeble yet non-physically uber-powerful Wizard/magic-type. Why? Because if you hit hard with spells, you're going to hit just as hard with weapons. Sure, the other classes will get better melee weapon proficiencies and abilities and such, but you're still going to smash people's skulls in when you DO hit them. Not to mention that, if you want to make a Wizard who's really magically powerful AND highly accurate (with his magic), he's not going to be equally as accurate (AND damaging -- thanks Intellect *thumbs up*!) with any melee weapon he chooses. Here's a fantastic example, because people still seem to not understand the "problem" that's being posed: Imagine Charisma was in the game (even though it's not), and it affected what charisma normally does (basically your skills of persuasion, and people's reaction to you, etc.), AND your Accuracy. There, now try making a badass Ranger who isn't the friendliest, most persuasive guy in the world. And maybe now you get it. It's the fact that Intellect is granting you Intellect AND the only representation that exists of physical strength's affects on offensive capabilities. This is not about being able to make a dumb Brute who's the best character in the game, or even any specific amount of goodness in relation to any other build. It's simply about being able to make a dumb brute, period.

Along the same lines as Stamina's role in this game dealing with short-term (basically per-encounter) capacities to withstand trauma/non-permanent-damage wounds (the Health lost represents any permanent damage that's taken, along-side the non-permanent Stamina-represented trauma, basically), I'd say that some kind of injury system might work, if the injuries were short-term things that mainly just affected Stamina, and went away at the end of an encounter. You know, like Winded, or Dislocations or something. *shrug* I mean, at the very least, it would be pretty cool to have SOME amount of effects to your Stamina that don't actually affect your Health, simply because they're related to your immediate ability to remain conscious and fight, and not your actual injury/lack of physiological long-term well-being.

I'm down with both. I mean, I don't specifically see any reason to JUST piss off your companions, just for kicks. "Hey, guys, I know there's an important story here, and I need your help to get things done, but... Priest, I just tricked you into punting INNOCENT BABIES! LOLZ!" Hehe. BUT, I realize that's not what that example was for, so it's not really a good one to use (except to just say that I don't think the game needs to allow you to arbitrarily piss off your companions, just to be a huge, evil butt.) But, yeah, I think you should definitely be able to deceive your companions, for lack of a better word. Know that if you tell them some information you know, they'll not be happy with the plan? Withhold it, to get the plan executed. Could really use their abilities/skills, but with a matter they don't feel is a worthy cause? Lie to them about the nature of the situation (maybe convince them to interrogate someone by letting them think they're some horrible criminal, when really they've done nothing wrong and you just think they have useful info). I still also think that you should be able to influence their decisions and actions, through dialogue amongst other things. You're not changing their personality. Their personality is one of the factors (one of the strongest ones) in their decision-making process. It's the brunt of their self-influence, their internal influence, and you are a part of their external influence. All of the factors of a situation affect how they look at it and what decisions they make about it, and you're just another external factor for them to consider.

@Osvir: REALLY like the idea of "signature" weapons/items, as you put it. I mean, you read the lore on all these old relics, and it's always some progression from a mundane item, like "This used to be the blade of some guy who was a soldier -- passed to him from his really-skilled-blacksmith of a grandfather (so it's all awesome quality construction to hold up over time and whatnot) -- who then happened to fight in the battle of such-and-such, when the Dark King invaded the old empire. He died valiantly sacrificing himself to ensure the death of the dark-magic dabbling foe, causing the blade to become imbued with his spirit. It was then granted to the new king of the land, as the blade representing the sacrifice required to protect the kingdom. It became lost, until it was found by some order of magic-y people, who further enchanted the blade because reasons and circumstances... etc." And yet, all you ever do is find already-awesome items that you then can't really make more awesome, or make mundane items kind of cool, but in a sort-of mundane and non-unique/story-worthy fashion. It'd be pretty great if you could potentially CREATE such lore for a given weapon/armor piece, throughout the course of your journey. I'm talking more story-worthy effects, and not so much "+5 fire damage, now +5 ice damage! Now +10 damage to evil! NOW +20 SOUL DAMAGE!" accumulating on into the night, until it can cut down mountains.

It's a good idea, really, in general. There are actually various other threads (of varying ages) around, usually talking about "world map travel," etc., if you're interested in reading similar ideas. Also, I hadn't really ever thought about weather. The survivalist-type would probably know how to identify warning conditions for bad weather. Since PoE will have scripted interactions, you could easily have the weather-related benefit manifest as a warning/check by your survivalist character when bad weather's coming your way, giving you the option of pushing on, or changing routes to continue on more slowly but safely, OR taking shelter, perhaps in a number of ways. If no one had sufficient skill to accurately identify weather warnings, you'd simply be left guessing, and choosing to do whatever you will with no warning. I like it.

Yeah, I'm gonna go with joke, and not "bug zapper" theory here. Why would people only interested in Call of Duty even have any reason to bother with the poll if Call of Duty wasn't an option? "Look! A webpage dedicated to a game that's supposed to be like a bunch of other games in this poll I've never even heard of... Better vote, after making my way to this site to even SEE the poll for God-only-knows what reason...!"

*Holds fist out for bump*... Solidarity. u_u Also... I want to use a scythe. Yeah, not even a war scythe. Just a regular harvesting scythe, no matter how impractical. I'm going for intimidation. Besides... look at some of the Chinese/Japanese weapons created over the years. I think if someone really trained to master those, I can believe someone might feasibly train with a standard scythe. Also... I like Ice Magic. And lightning. Storm magic, I suppose?

My favorite thing about this thread thus far: - Obsidian makes internal design decisions with the money they've already got, leading to the game being released later than it could be had they made other decisions instead = totally fine. If the game comes out in 2015, but that's just based on no extra stretch goals, that's totally fine, because the game isn't actually "delayed." - Obsidian actually consults with us on design decisions they'd like to make, but don't want to do without additional funds = OUTRAGE! So, in short, more work on the game with the same amount of resources... acceptable. More work on the game only if additional resource goals are met? HOW DARE THEY?!

There are plenty of things BG had that PoE doesn't. Like the DnD ruleset, for instance. I think the idea was "if it was a main goal of the IE games, then it's what we're trying to accomplish here with PoE." I don't think multiplayer was really what BG was all about, so they're less worried about things like it than they are the meat-and-potatoes of BG and the other IE games.

We all tip our hats to the folk who play RTwP and don't pause very much at all, and still handle all the threats and situations. They possess increased reactive skills. Or rather, they're employing that skill (as people who play turn-based games could still have awesome reflexes and speedy critical thinking, but just happen to not be employing it at the time.) However, that hardly means that in a turn-based game, you have to worry about fewer factors simply because those factors aren't encroaching on you every waking moment. Yeah, and in a RTwP game, you never have to lock-in your decision, and be completely inable to alter or change it until you suffer all the consequences of an enemy's reaction to it. You get to go *right-click on Orc* "Attack that Orc, Warrior!" one half-second, then the next half-second decide "Oh crap, that other Orc just knocked the Mage on his arse! Nevermind, Warrior, go help the Mage instead!", after he's only taken 1 step towards his initial target. So, yeah... greater quantity of reaction-prompting factors at once, AND greater reactive freedom/capability in RTwP. Fewer reaction-prompting factors at once, AND far less reactive freedom/capability in TB. I'm not going to say it requires more skill, and I think it's honestly a bit silly to even compare the two in a competitive fashion (as if they're the same thing, and one's just faster while the other is slower), but it's a fact that, in turn-based, every decision you make is committing to quantifiably more consequences and reactions before you can make a different decision or react yourself.

*shrug*. If I had to guess, maybe on 1-counts they de-manifest, and on 2-counts they re-manifest. Or, you know, there's the whole poltergeist moving of objects thing, so maybe they just lift heavy objects a number of times in succession, much like living folk at the gym? However they do it, I bet they get into... scary-good shape.

Better just take out traps altogether, then, eh?

This is true. It might be best to pair them. Of course, I think taking out the super generic ones helps. Like, in Shadowrun's system (PnP Shadowrun, btw), you have Edges that basically just boost a stat, and I think Flaws that just drop something else. If you eliminate those from the pick-and-choose system, it's immediately a lot better in that regard. Of course, a lot of that is also much easier to make relevant in PnP than in a CRPG. You could pick something you think you'll never use, only to have your DM/GM pepper its necessity throughout your campaign, 8P. Also, in Shadowrun, in particular, I think you could basically choose as many as you wanted, so long as they were balanced (positive Edge points and negative Flaw points). In a CRPG, you'd probably need a lower cap. Imagine if, in Fallout, you could just choose ALL the traits (with their paired pros and cons). @Cubiq: I agree with you as well, although I'd argue that that's much more a problem of specifics than it is with the system itself. Nothing made the game not have much desirable stuff in locked things (in your lockpicking example), or prevented the devs from giving you some idea of how useful each stat/value is. If you put a skill into a game, for example, that ranges from 0-100, and there's hardly anything in the entire game that requires more than 60 in that skill, then you either needed to cap the skill at a lower point or you needed to include more stuff in the game that requires more than 60 skill. Otherwise, your design for those last 40 points is pretty useless/lopsided, as the system is claiming that the skillpoints are of global base value. It's like having a Swords skill and a Maces skill, and having 100 swords in the game, but only 3 different maces. If there's a trait that makes you better with one but worse with the other, it's not the trait's fault that the game's designed to pretty much ignore mace-users.

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." You don't really need to be able to specifically strive towards evil just to have the opportunity to antagonize good. I mean, we could debate that the very act of intentionally foregoing good is, itself, evil, but... the point is, you don't need to be able to choose between "destroy/enslave the world" and "build/help/save the world," when you can choose between "help the world" and "help yourself," etc. In fact, both choices could actually be good, even. If you've got limited amounts of poison antidote at your disposal, and you COULD give them to some townsfolk to cure those who are ailing/dying at the moment, OR you could keep them to venture into the nearby den of poisonous creatures that's tormenting the town (so as to treat your own poison incursions from bites and such in clearing out the den). If you keep them, then the townsfolk aren't going to be happy, because they don't want those people to die. But then, if you give them away, you can't guarantee you'll make it through the den alive, and more people will just keep falling victim to the poison.