Lephys

I would actually say that, more specifically, the direct control of magic forms the essence of the Mage class. A Warrior bearing magical items (such as a helmet that glows in darkness) no more undermines the significance of the Mage class than a peasant wielding a crossbow undermines the significance of a masterful archer. Just... FWIW.

As long as there aren't any amateur-stitutes, or -- *gasp* -- NOVICE-stitutes... u_u

My worry isn't that they won't be the perfect equals of Fighters or anything of that nature, but rather that there was really no mention of anything that didn't pretty much SOLELY help entities other than the Paladin, herself. I mean, I suppose it's possible that things like "Shake It Off" could be self-targeted. But, I'm worried that if 80% of the Paladin's abilities are simply "improve things about other people in a strategic fashion," then that sort of dictates the tactics of the entire party that are viable when a Paladin is present. Got a Rogue who needs to skirt the battlefield and strike at people from opportune angles? Well, obviously he's not going to hug the Paladin's proximity, then, so that's -1 potential person's worth of effectiveness for your Paladin's party-boosting benefits. Got a Ranger who's an awesome archer and needs to stay far away and work his own angles as well? There's another person that isn't really Paladin-friendly. Got a Wizard? There's probably another who isn't going to stand toe-to-toe with the Paladin Posse for some fervor boosts. I'm not suggesting there isn't any value to the Paladin outside of how many other characters you can "buff" via proximity. But, if there is, then we haven't really heard about it thus far. So, I'm mildly concerned about that unknown, until it becomes a known. I'm totally cool with a Paladin with a nearby task force always being more effective, overall, than a sole Paladin with no one else around (no matter what build route you take), but I still think no class should be so restricted to the buff-beacon role that they're all but useless when no one else is around. "Oh no, this big troll tends to knock everyone about quite often, scattering the party. Better sit this one out, Paladin, since even the Wizard's better than you at single combat." That's all. Also, I'm still very curious about the "flinch mechanics," as I'll call them, because I think that could be a very good basis for Barbarians, even, if not Paladins. Without even tying it into a class mechanic, I'm still curious as to how that'll work in general. (Flinch mechanics being the effects of physical hits/effects -- like taking a crossbow bolt to the shoulder or being lit on fire -- on the on-going flow of actions by the target. Delayed attacks, falling to a knee for a moment, impaired movement, disarms, knockdowns, defense detriments, etc.)

I'm highly anticipating seeing what Josh and team are doing with attributes, since he/they are most likely LEAGUES ahead of my piddly evaluation of one-or-two attributes within a handful of contexts. But until then, I like this exploration of what could make sense for attribute-effect changes from the usual stuff. Maybe simply looking at each stat and what it could feasibly affect, individually, then sort of cross-referencing, would be more productive than my slowpoke method of just trying to look at everything at once. *shrug*

[nitpick_C-C-C-COMMMBO_Breakerrrrr!] One Wizard's dagger is a-Gnome-ther Wizard's short sword. [/nitpick_C-C-C-COMMMBO_Breakerrrrr!]

Yeah... I realize I could've been more specific in separating my two thoughts: 1) I definitely agree that almost any weapon should, at worst, be simply lacking in some effect for anyone but persons of a given class (overly simplistic example time!: A "Spellblade" that is a pretty nice sword, but also grants you a per-encounter unique spell if it detects its wielder bears Wizardy soul essence/focus/substance/nougat), but still be wieldable in all its physical-property goodness by any class. 2) That being said, I do think the possibility of some weapons simply preventing anyone not of a certain class (or really any other grouping: reputation, race, chocolate-lover... okay maybe not that last one, ) from "wielding" it. And by that, I mean, you might could hold the sword for 2 seconds before it burned itself out of your hand, or, as per my earlier example, made itself 50 times heavier until you let go, etc. But, you couldn't actually use that weapon in a constantly-equipped, practical manner. I think that latter case should probably be much more rare than the former. Slightly off-topic: I've always been told that it's a common misconception that the sword in the stone was, itself, Excalibur, since Excalibur was actually given to Arthur later by the Lady of the Lake. However, I'm not actually anywhere CLOSE to an expert on the legend/historical basis of King Arthur, so I really have no idea, for certain. Maybe the sword in the stone made its way to the Lady of the Lake for safe-keeping while Arthur was still just a lad? (Why let the Level 1 Princeling carry around the best sword "in the game" when he's got Novice-level Swordsmanship and no weapon proficiency feats? ) I'm just curious about that. But, yeah, just for what it's worth, the focus of my sword-in-the-stone example was simply the effect keeping the sword in the stone until a given person grabbed it. While it was in the stone, it could've even still been all awesome and magical (if it was, itself a magical sword, and not just a sword magically held in a stone, externally), but if it's stuck in a stone, then it's not useable. It's like medieval fantasy biometrics, 8D! "Fingerprint scan, complete. Arthur, Prince... Confirmed. Deactivataing Stasis Module..."

Splend-tastic update! ^_^ I was actually thinking earlier today about how offensive capabilities seem to just kinda steamroll any effects from incoming damage/strikes in a lot of games, with, perhaps, the exception of a select few things (usually just abilities that cause burning, or status effects. So, I was actually going to ask about how "hit mechanics," for lack of a better description, are intended to function in P:E; when my Warrior takes a crossbow bolt to the shoulder in mid-swing, does he flinch a bit? Does that attack get delayed? Does he simply suffer a penalty to that in-progress attack roll? The reason I bring this up is, I really love the whole class "roots" of the Paladin, but I was wondering specifically how to cover the "just make myself more awesome and focus less on Fantasia-ing the rest of the party's effectiveness" end of the character progression spectrum, and I was thinking that, perhaps, the Paladin's extreme fervor could result in a sort of unflinching, relentless focus in a lot of self-only passives. But, that would kind of depend on what kind of flinching/wavering we could expect out of non-Paladin combat. I suppose I'm mainly just wondering if your Paladin will be of much use if you get separated from the immediate vicinity of the rest of your party (maybe a foe knocks/teleports/throws you far away?), and/or you're the last person standing, etc. I'm just wondering if you'll be able to build a more solitarily-effective fighter out of a Paladin, or if you'll mainly just be choosing specializations that are all along the "make everyone else better in some way" spectrum. As for the Orlans, I like them! You do realize, though, that you're now obligated to implement, SOMEwhere in the world, both a village of extremely sophisticated/intellectual Wild Orlans AND a town/city/settlement of "savage" Hearth Orlans, right? It's pretty much mandatory now, u_u... Also, I'd be remiss not to suggest that you implement two party-loving Orlans, who happen to be Wild Orlans, who refer to themselves as "Two Wild and Crazy Orlans!"

I agree that it most likely won't be a factor, and that's all well and good. I simply don't like telling people an absolute "yes" or "no" on something based on likelihood. That's all. I understand that I'm being frustrating, and I apologize. I wasn't trying to simply be finnicky with you. It's just, we don't even know what all will be affected by/will affect resting, because we don't even have any info on some of the specifics in the game that could or could/not involve resting decisions. So, I'm not trying to simply say "You never know... within the confines of the current rest system, they could just toss in fire-building for no reason." But, they could very well have whether or not you build a fire affect how well you rest (maybe in a cold area) and/or how easily you can be spotted by nearby outposts, etc. Josh said he wasn't too fond of the idea of using a "rest resource" to limit the very ability to rest. That doesn't mean we can't have resources and/or options within the decision to rest, itself, and still always be able to, at the very least, rest in some capacity no matter how much of any resource we have. A fire is just a very common thing in the whole "what all should be involved with camping?" mechanic brainstorm, since it plays a very important part in camping in real-life (which is where we get the idea for video-game camping in the first place.) *shrug*

Then please tell me, good sir... how much damage does something that instantly-kills you do? I would ask that you please stop trying to start an argument over the spells in BG2 and in IWD that happened to sort of cause death but are obviously not of the instant-death variety against which I am arguing, as we've already clarified. If you would be so kind. I'm just trying to save you the wasted effort, since no one's telling you that all the spells in BG2 and IWD were infinitely powerful. Nor have I even cited specific ones from those games as infinitely powerful. Not a one. It has a point to those who comprehend fundamental concepts. Death (in RPG mechanics) is the point at which you've sustained as-much-or-more damage than your health pool allowed. Therefore, it exists on the variable scale of damage, which is only NOT-variable if everyone is limited to 1 hitpoint, and everything does at least whole numbers worth of damage. Which isn't the case. The damage scale starts at 0, and ends at Death. The Hold effect is inherently binary. You are either prevented from moving, or you are not prevented from moving. If you're moving, then nothing's preventing your movement, and vice versa. As you, yourself pointed out. Poison is another. You either have poison in your bloodstream, or you don't. There is no range that goes from 0 to poison. There is only not-poisoned, and poisoned. Hence, we have phrases like "half-dead," and "close to death," while we don't have phrases like "half-poisoned" or "he's close to poison." If you're not poisoned, you're fine. If you're not Held, you're fine. If you're not dead, you're not necessarily fine. Continue ignoring context, would you? This is fun. Obviously you've never used a dimmer switch? The knob can be turned all the way down to turn off the light, OR it can simply be pressed as a binary toggle. I don't know... who AM I kidding? o_o

Unfortunately, it isn't, as this only tells me that, if campfire construction is an actual option (as opposed to inherently accompanying the use of a campsite or not in the game at all), it will only be an option at designated rest sites, rather than functioning as its own "this allows you rest" resource. I do believe it's quite likely that Valci was wondering, specifically, if we'd be able to build a campfire anywhere, and we simply couldn't rest without building a campfire. But, as he actually just asked if we'll have the ability to build campfires, the official information we have so far doesn't actually allow me the certainty of knowing whether or not my character will ever have the option of either lighting some logs in a pit, or not doing that, when you do rest.

Since I haven't heard any official word, one way or the other, I personally wouldn't deduce anything one way or the other. For example, I'm sitting in the interior room of an office right now. So, if you ask me if it's raining here, the answer isn't "No" until I find out otherwise. The answer is "I haven't the slightest," until I find out otherwise (travel to an exterior window and check). Let me emphasize that I, personally, haven't heard any official word. I'm not claiming such word doesn't exist. If you know something I don't, then I'm not telling you you're wrong. I'm just going on the information I have, at the moment.

True, true. I am curious, though... would the damage of a weapon really always be directly proportionate to your strength? I mean, if I stab you with a dagger, it doesn't really take that much force for the blade to slide on in (assuming it's striking a cuttable material, and not solid steel or something). So, if a 13-year-old boy stabs someone with a dagger, and The Rock stabs someone with a dagger, I'm not sure there's going to be THAT much difference in the actual amount of damage inflicted. There probably wouldn't be as much difference in the damage as there is between the boy's strength and The Rock's strength, right? Whereas, if you change the weapon to a maul, THEN it probably matters. Even if your armor stops the maul from physically making contact with you, the boy's maul swing is going to do almost nill (it might make you lose your balance?), while The Rock's maul swing is going to crush some ribs and organs before rapidly introducing your face to the ground beside you, if not knocking you several yards in the process (depending on your size and all that jazz). I'm not trying to get too technical, but, I just don't see a 20-STR person always dealing 2 times the damage of a 10-strength person, no matter what the circumstances. That's why I liked the idea of your weapon damage formula so much. However the specifics work out, you'd think STR wouldn't simply = the most damage. And that's what I'm getting at, here, with my "maybe THIS stat could affect THIS aspect of damage?" For instance, it seems to me that DEX would do more for your ability to parry (to dexterously wield your weapon and account for the movements of your foe's weapon more easily/accurately) and such than it would to help you completely dodge everything alltogether. Why? Because it's much easier to redirect a sword stroke enough to not effectively hit you (in terms of how much effort is required, not in how easy it is to accurately do) than it is to move your whole self in such a way that the sword stroke misses you entirely (statistically... it's obviously easier for some sword strokes). It always bothered me that, in some games, you'd have your high-DEX character (maybe a Rogue) simultaneously engaging an enemy in melee combat AND leaping completely to the side on 30% of the strokes. It was like the Hokey Pokey. "I'm out of range, and BACK in range, ATTACK! Back out of range, back in range! Attack!" I would think leaping wildly out of the way, or Matrix ducking swords and such would grant your enemy so much time to recover from his miss that it would negate any advantage you'd actually get from having not-been hit. *shrug*. I could be wrong, though. Anywho, so, yeah, in that way, instead of just one obvious "give him high constitution for HP and good armor for damage stopping!" choice for being a "damage sponge," you could actually have a high-DEX melee fighter who constantly deflects more solid blows and basically handles his opponent better than even a low-DEX melee fighter with 22 STR. See, that added consideration doesn't make you take high DEX as a melee fighter, but it does give you an interesting factor to consider. And, for someone not wielding a melee weapon, it wouldn't help them out in that same way. (I realize, by the way, that DEX already affects your ability to essentially not-take-damage, to an extent. Without expressly stating that, I probably seemed like I was suggesting some entirely new role for DEX, heh.)

Spiiii-der SOUL! SPIII-DER soul! Doin' the THINGS THATTTT A spi-der soulll can! Can it shoot WEBS?! NOOOO IT can't... 'cause ittttt's a SOUL! SPIII-DER soul, LOOK-ouuuuuuuuuuuuuut! HERE COMES, a SPI-der souuuuuuuuuul!

There are. And, for that matter, they're also in the game. And the ultra-powerful melee combatant is still finitely powerful, and will still be less of a threat to more heavily-armored opponents with higher health quantities than he will be to lesser-armored opponents with lower health quantities, and he can be affected by any number of status effects (disarm, weaken, etc.) that further affect the extent of damage of a blow from his weapon against a given target, all without even preventing him from successfully striking the target (which is yet another option). Not to mention the variable status of the target (stoneskin, Mage Armor, etc.) and its effect on the same foe. And yet, an instant-death spell remains infinitely powerful, because if you reduce its damage by 15%, it still deals 85% of infinite damage to you. Thus, you have no choice but to avoid the spell all-together if you don't want to die. So, recap: Don't want to die to strong melee dude? Mitigate his damage output via dozens of tactics and circumstantial factors, OR don't get hit by him (which isn't always possible). Don't want to die to the instant-death spell? Don't get hit by the instant-death spell. What determines whether or not you die to the melee dude's strike? His damage dealt to you, after a plethora of damage-altering factors, as compared to your available hitpoints AND your own defensive damage-altering factors. What determines whether or not you die to the instant-death spell? Luck. You're right. They're exactly the same. If we're going to get rid of instant-death spells, then we should obviously get rid of high-damage melee opponents. Stun logic. Simply stunning. False, yet again. If there are 10 total abilities (lights) in the game (there can't be infinite... so I've picked a finite example number), and 9 are dimmer-switch dials, and one is a simple on/off switch, the on/off switch isn't doing anything the dimmer dials haven't already given you the capability to do. It just gives you 2 states of lighting, instead of... I dunno... hundreds, for each light? So, while removing the on/off switch would leave us with only 9 switches, and therefore quantifiably fewer lights to control, there's nothing that says we couldn't simply put a 10th dimmer switch in attached to 10th light. Boom... overly simple switch (instant-death) removed, and yet now we not only have the same number of lights (abilities), but even more control over the 10th one than we previously had. ALL while every single light switch retains the ability to be completely off (no effect) and completely on (death). Simply put, an additional way for you to die in game filled with ways for you to die is not, in-and-of-itself, adding anything that the game already lacked. Therefore, if it doesn't actually produce new and different factors for you to deal with in tactical combat, it's actually just giving you less. If we took the finished game, and added in another enemy, with nothing but the ability to run in circles, would the game gain any depth? "Oh man, I know all the other enemies CAN run in circles, but this enemy can ONLY run in circles! That's something we haven't had to deal with before!: The complete absence of any other factors being produced by this enemy, other than circular movement!"

While I agree with you in general, I'm not going to rule out the rare possibility of a weapon with metaphysical features that not only don't function for a person of the wrong soul-resonance persuasion, but also function negatively for that person. Think Sword In The Stone. Nothing stopped anyone from "using" that sword, but it sure as hell wasn't coming out of that rock for just anyone. So, a weapon could feel your grip, sense that you dedicate your life to a deity, and just say "Nope," multiplying its own weight by 50 until you let go of the hilt. I honestly think that'd be pretty interesting. Also, to the "there is no good/evil in P:E" comments further up, that isn't precisely true. There is no absolute, universal, primal scale for good and evil in the world of P:E, but that doesn't mean people won't still have concepts of what they believe to be good, and what they believe to be evil. So, if some Paladin from the days of yore went around smiting a group of individuals who opposed him and everything he stood for (which he and others happened to consider "good"), and he happened to label what they did as "evil," and a sword can be imbued by the strength of his own soul (or even by a deity who happens to also value the same things he values), then that sword could only function for those who pass a check to make sure something measurable about them is acceptable (with class-restriction, in P:E, it'd probably be something about how their soul functions, to make them a Paladin, etc., or it could simply be that that deity watches that sword and only "activates" it when someone it deems worthy comes upon it, *shrug*). In other words, you can design a switch that only activates at 100 degrees Fahrenheit, regardless of whether or not you would apply the term "hot" to that temperature. Someone who made that switch could say "This switch only works when you get it hot." Hot remains subjective, and yet it still describes the function of the switch, as set forth by the person who made it so.

zeh-<click>DIG-eve <brief pause> gill-ex would be my wild stab in the dark. Hmmm, wrote fark instead, not sure what that means. *The character to whom that name belongs rolls his eyes while letting out a sigh of exasperation* "... It's pronounced 'Steve.' Gyah!"

Ooh! What if they actually kept your gear from getting wet? Maybe certain items could be ruined/spoiled/damaged if they get rained on. *shrug*

I believe they're working on the backer site right now, and, as far as I know, it's supposed to include a pledge-management interface for us. I'm not 100% certain on that, though.

Which is exactly why "as often as possible" is limited to "only so often." If it wasn't, "conservation" would literally be moot. Imagine if, in a first-person shooter, you had limited ammo, but, whenever you ran out, you could simply click "replenish ammo" and you were full again. Well, you really just have unlimited ammo, with the added, pointless middle-man step of having to actually manually replenish it. "I better worry about not running out of ammo, 'cause them I'd have to click a button and get more, and that would be awful." So, the very existence of a limitation is what facilitates the significance of resource conservation. And that brings us to now. Here, on this forum, discussing the best way to take into account all factors involved so that the resting system actually gives value to the game and adds a layer of positive depth, rather than simply adding frustration (or adding more trouble than it's worth). Simply saying "well, it requires more effort, and that's just plain bad" is just as silly as saying "Well, it's kind of interesting to think about, so therefore it's definitely good and can't possibly cause any problems." The only way to look at this is to look at both at the same time, and that's what we're doing. So, it'd be really fantastic if we could actually skip to brainstorming and evaluating the possibilities and their pros and cons, and give up on the pointless "discussion" of whether or not an unspecified resting mechanic is inherently good, or inherently bad. P:E already did away with its black-and-white morality system, so I think we can do the same with our mechanic discussions. I think Trashman's described system, above, is an EXCELLENT start, at the very least. Commence the constructive criticism! 8D I'm going to go ahead and suggest that, perhaps, the time-limitation on resting (of once per day only) be slightly abstracted into a "cooldown" for a given campsite. The reason being that you're probably going to go through areas (between campable sites) that really only take about 4-or-so hours worth of trekking (maybe a couple more with your proposed minor resting), tops, to get through, but are quite tough areas (for lack of a better word) and will basically have you begging for full healing when you emerge at yet another campsite. Or... to put it more simply, I'd hate to see you go through a cave system, get all scuffed up, emerge on the other side to find a campsite, and say "Great... we hafta wait like 6 more hours before we can legitimately rest again." Or... I'm not sure balancing everything so that it DEFINITELY takes you at least 24 hours (game time) to plow through a dangerous area wouldn't kinda trample on the lore, if that makes any sense.

I'm sorry... I forgot to add "your quarterstaff broke" or "you got disarmed and your weapon was thrown across the room." Take your pick of reasons. You know what? Since that example failed, let's change it from killing something to cutting someone free from bindings. "Don't worry! I'll just use my sling!" doesn't quite cut it. How hard would that person be squirming furiously at your Wizard, screaming "DUDE! JUST PICK UP THAT SHARPENED PIECE OF METAL AND CUT THESE BINDINGS!" While you're standing there hissing and screaming "IT BURRRNS USSSSSS!!!", and recommending that he remain calm for the next 8 hours while you prepare the spell Animate Rope. Is that better? I can keep covering bases, if I need to.

It's just that they could simply be campsites, with weathered firepits in them, but you might still actually get the option of whether or not to build a fire in that pit or simply set up bedrolls at that site and have a fire-less camp. Most likely, it's all just tied together, and for all practical purposes, the decision to rest and the decision to build a fire are one in the same. But, it could still actually be a separate factor in resting, for all we know. That's all I meant. I just didn't want to tell Valci that there's definitely no way the player has the optional ability to construct a campfire.

^ I'm pretty much in agreeance with you in everything you're saying, Trashman. I'm not trying to force these things where they don't work or don't belong, so, for constructiveness' sake, I would ask that you please simply tell me what you feel won't work and why, and simply forego the "these things don't need to be forced" lesson that I assure you I already know. It's a good point. I'm just already in agreeance with it. That's exactly the idea I'm going for. With the example equation applying to a particular weapon, a Warrior with 17 DEX and only 11 STR would actually be more effective with the given weapon type than one with 11 DEX and 17 STR would be (45 versus 39). I think that type of system is much more interesting than "if you want to be good with weapon damage, pick STR." When there's a valid basis for it, having 2 facets to something's effectiveness rather than just one always provides more choices. Then, you get to forego things like "Oh, you pretty much don't want to pick Orlan if you want to make a Warrior who can hold his own. They get a -2 to STR." That's automatically not a given, because STR isn't the sole, inherent deciding factor on whether or not you are absolutely better or worse with weapon damage. I just think, if something like damage already has so many aspects to it, why shouldn't we explore ways in which various aspects of human capability might affect its various aspects?

Haha! YES! Or, they just go on without you, handle the situation, and you miss out on the rewards AND the XP. Not to mention beneficial reputation. "Oh, we rescued the king's daughter all right. But HE didn't! *points to main character* Ohhhh no, he got a little scratch on his knee, and decided it'd be best to take a 4-hour nap and bust out the poultices, because it's not like this little girl could be slain at any moment by crazed bandits, or that we could accomplish our task WITH A SCUFFED KNEE! >_<" Then the kingdom puts you in the stocks for 3 days and pelts you with rotten fruit and refuse.

^ It could still be called "magic." I mean, it's gotta be called something. Just like exercising is called exercising, or labor is called labor, even though everyone can do it. Hell, in today's world, it'd probably be its own acronym.

I'm excitably all for this! Stat-leeching. If any stat hits 0, you die. If you kill that foe, however, the leeched "amount" of whatever stat is released, and returned to the target of the leeching. *thumbs up* ^ This. I'd love to see something, for example, that kills you if you deal too much spell damage within a given amount of time. Depending on the circumstances, you could toss those 3 extra fireballs and suffer the death, if you think that would be a worthwhile trade. Or, you could just throw 1 fireball (in the event you had planned on throwing 3), and, instead, adapt your tactics to keep that caster alive-and-well and still manage to take down the enemy via another means (maybe you summon something, or augment another character, since that doesn't count as destructive spell energy being channeled by you). Or, I still think some spell/ability that, if stricken by it a certain number of subsequent times in a single encounter, would instantly kill you, would be interesting. There are MUCH cleverer ways in which to threaten the player with crazy deaths (and allow the player to do the same to others) than to make up a "this kills you" ability that's impeded by a single saving throw/resistance check. BG2 obviously had abilities that weren't instantaneous, single-die-roll kill-or-don't-do-anything's. So, what I'm saying is, look to those for inspiration, and let's leave the overly simplistic chance-death spells at home. Take Power Word: Kill, for example. It's far more interesting to have your Warrior get low on health and have to worry about him being susceptible to a quick death at the hands of Power Word: Kill now when you really need him to be on the frontlines, not-worrying about his instant-death, and having to use everyone else to compensate for his lack of frontline presence, than it is to simply go into combat saying "Man, I sure hope no one instantly kills any of my full-health party members, instantly, just because a single die roll gets lucky, and for no other reason."