Lephys

Party combo tactics FTW!!!

I see what you mean, but my mana/stamina bonus example was meant exclusively in the context of a system in which you could never use both (so, basically, no dual-classing.) But, again, it was just a bunch of example context to point out what I meant about covering various exclusive options (if you have exclusive options) with a handful of bonuses that would each only apply to one class (or type of class). But, like I said, TRX's suggestion of just having a handful that you can only pick one from would make a lot more sense in that regard. And, while I know percentages can get tricky, usually if you get the number right (for something like a quantifiable bonus to something each level) you end up with a pretty solid, steady bonus. I just don't want my level 30 Elf Mage to be .0000001% different from my level 30 Human mage, ya know? Racial differences shouldn't really diminish as you progress, I don't think. Also, that longsword problem is more of a balancing issue. You shouldn't have one weapon type that's significantly better than all other weapon types (at their highest "tier," or unique item instance, i.e. "the best (insert weapon type here) in the game"). Especially with P:E's armor/damage-type system, a longsword might be slashing, so it will be situationally better or worse depending upon the armor type of the enemy you're facing. That's just for what it's worth, as I know you weren't necessarily making a point specifically within the context of P:E's systems there. But, yeah, if some longsword is quantifiably more powerful than any other weapon in the game, then you've got a problem even if NO one gets a bonus with longswords. To address the issues with my previous example, I realize giving bonus regen or total mana can be a problem later in the game, but imagine if each race got a different caster-related bonus. Now it's a trade-off. If Elves get +10% mana regen, then maybe Dwarves get +5% Spell Focus or something, and maybe Humans get 1 additional per-encounter spell per level (from the per-rest pool of spells). Something like that. That way, no one's inherently "the best" race to pick for a caster. Of course, some of that might be best left to class progression, still. But, with the ability to pick from various racial bonuses like TRX suggested, your Elf COULD get a bonus to attack speed with slashing weapons, or something. Maybe Elves who train as Warrior-types (mainly honing martial weapon skills) develop faster muscle-movement, and Elves who train in the arcane (and don't use martial weapons nearly as often) develop a more pronounced attunement to mana. Something like that would explain the choice. And that way, you wouldn't have "Oh, Elves make good Mages but terrible Warriors." You'd just have "Elves make good mages if you're interested in faster mana recovery instead of other races' bonuses, and they make good Warriors if you're interested in slashing weapons." Again, *le shrug*

Yeah. I was kinda thinking, at the very least that... well, example time: IF you were dealing with class-exclusive (or at least core-class-exclusive) resources like mana (only used by Wizards/Clerics, etc.) and stamina (only used by Warriors/Barbarians, etc.), then an Elf might get +10% total mana AND +15% stamina regen (classic, spendable stamina... not P:E's health-system stamina.). That way, if you made an Elf character who used stamina, you'd get THAT bonus, and the mana bonus would be moot. And vice versa. And some other race might get +15% mana regen, and +10% total stamina. I know that's extremely simplistic, but I think it gets the idea across. Of course, simply having them as options would be awesome, too. Because, you'd think that if a Dwarf was supposed to be extra-hearty, that would translate differently depending on what he developed his heartiness in. If he trained as a Wizard this whole time, he might get a Concentration bonus, whereas as a Warrior, his heartiness might translate into a resistance to physical effects like knockdown/stun, etc. Or even -10% to damage from critical hits. *shrug* Oh, and TRX's comment about profession traits you could improve over time made me think, I also would rather not have racial bonuses that diminish as you progress through the game. Like +50 mana, specifically. You get to the end of the game, and you've got 1550 mana, and you're like "Wow... sure am glad I got that racial bonus...". I mean, if it's a significant amount (you actually only have 400 mana by the end of the game), it's not so bad. But, I'd rather see something that improves more with every level than another race (which is why I switched to percentages in some of the examples above). A hard bonus to a skill wouldn't be so bad (+7 to Lore or something), since that's typically limited to a 1-100 point system.

That's quite valid for humanoid opponents, but what if you're fighting giant beetles, who have heavy armor? You're not going to be able to visually identify them by their shiny steel plate armor. So, the game's probably going to have to include some kind of mouse-over info, or an icon beside a healthbar indicating armor type. If that's the case, then it doesn't really matter, in the grand scheme of things, if the humanoids appear to be wearing the correct armor or not, since you'll still know. They could always do that thing (like Fallout did on several an occasion) where they have multiple model variants for the exact same item (Metal Armor comes to mind in Fallout). There could be 5 different models for short swords, and even slightly different groups of models for Goblin short swords as opposed to Bandit short swords, etc. Of course, they could overlap, because Bandits could still wind up wielding Goblin-made short swords (they killed and looted some Goblins at some point), and vice versa. So, you really wouldn't need that many individual model variants (which would be not too much extra work, methinks, since they'd be so similar... maybe a different hilt here, a slightly different blade shape there...) to end up with a large variety from which to randomly equip enemies in encounters (within certain parameters). Also, if they focus more on customization and improvement to player-character armor, these model variants could work for producing NPC variants as well.

Or "Plate - Male" if it's tailored to fit a male. . That wraps up today's episode of... Fun With Homonyms!

Well, one obvious problem with infinitely-respawning combattable creatures is the potential for isolated infinite level progression, like in Final Fantasies of old (and not so old.)

Well, you're more than welcome to your preferences. I'm not trying to bash them or anything. I was just trying to get at the fact that the core of the design of this game might be drastically, fundamentally different than what you're looking for. I mean, JRPGs aren't typically built around loads of customization. The developers of those games typically do all the skill/stat/class/personality specifics for you, and you sort of linearly progress with everything from there and enjoy the ride. And I get that. I enjoy them as well. I just don't know if it's a very good idea to expect a cRPG to be that similar to a JRPG, with the exception of mathematical-mechanic similarities like HP and damage and levels, etc. Also, I was just trying to point out that hoping something isn't in the game simply because you don't like it suggests a conflict of interest and choice. I mean, it would be mildly paradoxical for me to say I love FPSes, but I hope this new one doesn't have headshots in it. That's sort of core to the damage system in almost every FPS known to man. Damage/armor types have been around quite a while, as well, even if they don't show up in every RPG (RPGs have a much more vast amount of factors for variety to affect.) And, just like how, without headshots, some of the fun is taken out of sniping (part of the bonus of a sniper rifle is its precision, which doesn't matter nearly as much if you can't get what's essentially a realistic critical hit), without damage/armor types, your Rogue with twin daggers and your Paladin with a two-handed warhammer aren't nearly as robust in what they can do in combat. The fewer damage factors you have, the more it's just how much damage you do versus how much damage your enemy does, across the board. Your party members just become man-power. That's why in JRPGs you've got different elemental damage types and such. If your Mage did 50 damage with Lightning Bolt, no matter what, and your Warrior did 50 damage with his sword, no matter what, then the only real difference would be purely aesthetic. Not only are some foes weak to electricity and some are resistant to it, some foes are weak to physical damage and some are weak to magic damage. Not to mention the commonly found "armor break" and "magic defense break" skills and such that work along the same lines. In JRPGs, they expect you to use "Magic Defense Down" on an enemy with high magic resistance, and in P:E, they expect you to use a huge mace on an enemy with high armor. They're really pretty similar, when you think about it.

Well, she was obligated to kill anyone who stood in her way, but she didn't much care to kill everyone who stood in her way, so maybe her "defective" torso "armor" was intended to weed out as many bosom-susceptible folks as possible from the "get in my way" pool. *shrug*, Haha. But, anywho, I totally get what you mean about wild animals. Thing is... you could have some pretty basic AI running for that. Most wolves are going to rely on pack numbers, and circle you (flank you), for instance. And if there are 6 of you, and 12 of them, and you take out 5, they might honestly all just pull a strategic retreat. They're not all vicious, starving creatures with a vendetta against humanoids. I know we talked about enemies' fleeing behavior in reaction to the changing of battle factors in another thread, but I really want to see a lot of wild animals not even engage you unless you're charging them or are approaching their lair, or they happen to be really, really hungry (more of a random encounter than "every single wolf you ever see in the woods.")

Forum search didn't turn up much specifically for this, so I thought I'd start my very first topic. (I got the idea from the Barbarian thread, 8P) What kind of problems and qualities are there in various racial bonuses and traits (sometimes penalties, for balance) from previous games, and, naturally, how could this help determine how to handle them in P:E? Personally, I'm not a fan of the "this race is basically meant to be these 2 classes, and that's it" "bonuses" that are sometimes seen in RPGs. "Sand Elves -- Suffer an inherent -3 to STR, but get 150 bonus mana!" That's basically saying "You want to make a Sand Elf Warrior? *snicker*... okay, you totally can... *snicker snicker*" Really, I don't think the penalties are even necessary at all. I mean, if a Half-Giant gets +3 to STR, then everyone else automatically gives up a +3 STR bonus by picking something other than a half-giant. A Sand Elf with no STR penalty will still always be 3 STR weaker than a Half-Giant. And bonuses shouldn't be quite so narrow, I don't think. Especially in a game based so heavily on souls being a common source of ability power, regardless of class, it's probably much less restrictive (yet still varietous) to grant our fictional, example Sand Elves +10% soul energy or something, which would apply to all classes (still hypothetically, as I have no idea how soul power will mechanically function.) I just mean that the lore would support something like that. Racial bonuses should allow for some kind of benefit to almost any class, even if it's not the same for each one (Just like a common bonus to Soul Energy might allow a Rogue to maintain Stealth for longer, whereas it might allow a Wizard to cast more spells at once, or even target more enemies with the same spell at the cost of additional energy... the mechanics of soul energy could be different for each class.) Similarly, weapon proficiency bonuses should be decently varied, if they exist, so as to account for a variety of class choices. If you grant Sand Elves a bonus to effectiveness with wands, staves, and tomes, you're basically making any non-caster class choices pointless. I mean, even if it's possible, no one's gonna make a Barbarian who runs around dual-wielding wands... So, just thought I'd strike up a communal brainstorm on the matter.

Regarding the spell-writing thing, I think a more streamlined solution would be to have spells be very basically predefined, and modified from there, instead of having just a completely blank slate to make up all your spells. Kind of like Mr. PotatoHead. He's already a potatohead (you can't just literally make him anything in the universe), but you get to decide if he gets one eye, or two, and there that eye goes, and what kind of eye it is. In other words, you get sufficient variety and customization, but you get the benefit of not 7-million-options for you to have to pick from just to create a spell. You could even kind of combine the 2. Instead of earning Firebolt at level 2, then customizing it as you leveled up to become Acidboltic Missile or something, you could be presented with a new spell at level 2, and go into the spell-weaving interface, and choose "Bolt spell." Then, pick a minimal few features for it (like fire, and maybe one of three bonuses to speed, range, critical chance perhaps, or effect? [blind, burn, knockdown, etc.]). Then, as you level up, you'd unlock more spell improvement points. You could either distribute them throughout all your spells (you'd always earn new spells at certain levels, complete with enough points to spend on just that one new spell to give it form and effect), or you could just boost the crap out of certain ones as you went. You could also have the typical, predetermined spell system that most RPGs use, simply with the above system of spell improvement/customization. Maybe you could throw in some create-a-spells at higher levels. It really just depends on what you're going for. As you can see from this thread, creative minds run rampant when presented with too many options at once (I don't propose keeping them to a minimum, but simply under a maximum. That's the only reason I'd say go with the tree-type system (with a good variety of spell types as the core branches). Well, and to streamline out the non-viable options. I mean, you'd have to balance that somehow, or everyone'd have Magic Missile explode in an acid-fireball upon impact (of each missile) that then created chain lightning made out of holy bolts that then summoned an ethereal wolf for every enemy they struck.

"How do you like my familiar? He's a meerkat, 8D" "Are you crazy? That is no mere cat!"

Mayhaps they have reputation scouters. "Hey Vegeta... what does the scouter say about his past accomplishments?" "... It's over hill giant clans and DRAGON SLAYINNNNNNNNGGGG!!!!!!! *crushes scouter in fist*"

Like ants bringing down a rhinoceros beetle. It lacks chivalry, but it's effective. Haha. I think he was just a point about why daggers were commonly carried instead of 2-handed claymores. I doubt he meant that there is no dagger that was ever designed to be more effective at something than any other dagger. That is interesting to know, about rondels, though. I've heard of them, but never knew what exactly made them different.

Why not just hire mercenaries to rescue NPCs and save the world? Also, why is it impossible that you'd have, say, a Dwarf in your party who has been alive for more than 40 years and who grew up within an ore-location-dependent industry? All this "When do people get the time to know about things other than combat AND be good at combat?!" stuff... There are plenty of people in our military who joined when they were approximately 20. Before that, they grew up on farms, or studied engineering, or fixed cars and other vehicles all the time. Hell, my brother didn't even wait for cars. He started building bicycles for kids in the neighborhood when he was about 13. By the time he had his driving permit at 15, he was already repairing and customizing his own vehicles for hours a day. He never received any school training for it at all. You couple that with the abstraction of time in RPGs that we don't mind (unless you want the game to actually take 7,000 hours to complete, and/or for all stories to encompass your characters aging 30 years) and you've got a pretty good range of skills characters can be expected to have. Why is everything always either "something about this bugs me, and therefore it's 10-million-percent ridiculous" or "I like this and therefore it is the single most purposeful, efficient mechanic we could ever incorporate into the game"? That's not how things are. There factors to consider when deciding "should characters in this world we're completely making up from scratch be capable of crafting?", and they depend on yet other factors. If you're not fond of the idea, then don't craft. I doubt they're going to make the lass boss fight take place at a giant forge, where your party must all partake in the crafting of a massive, magical cage within which to trap the ultimate evil for all eternity. You don't have to justify your opinion. You're allowed to dislike crafting. But, I can hate something and still see the merit in it. I hate doing mean, horrible things in RPGs, but I can see the value in having the option to not always be a guardian saint.

From a game mechanic standpoint, a "giant" (relative to their realistic size) firefly would be awesome. Instant Light spell in dark caves! ^_^ Based on the role they're going to mechanically play in P:E (based on what's been officially stated thus far), it would seem prudent to stick to the smaller, less-martially-capable creatures. They don't necessarily have to be small, but I think a Dire HoneyBadger would be a bit much. It's already a creature that's magically amplified by your own power (as it's, to some degree, a part of you. Maybe it shares your soul?), so even a butterfly is going to be pretty fierce at level 30. I'm not saying anyone specifically suggested larger/more-war-ready creatures. I just wanted to mention that. I think a flying squirrel would be awesome, or a lemur-like animal. Maybe a large dragonfly. Hedgehog. Wombat! Tortoise! Tree Frog!

It's no biggie. He probably just wasn't... "familiar" with that post.

Well, I hate to tell you, but if it's as simple as "I don't like damage types, and therefore I don't want them in the game," then your ideal game wouldn't have any magic, or poison, or bleeding... and the only difference between abilities would be how much damage they dealt and how quickly. Same goes for weapons. I'm sorry, but the complexity of things like damage types are part of what it means to play an RPG. You can't like chocolate cake, but hate chewing the chocolate cake simply because its effort. The effort is part of the eating of the cake. If we all had a gland in our mind that just let us taste whatever we wanted, people would still eat chocolate cake. If the only reason you don't like damage types is that they require more effort, then you don't like anything that requires effort. And an RPG game cannot require zero effort and still be a game. Therefore, either you don't like playing RPGs, or you have some other reason for not wanting damage types in the game. I don't particularly like the color red, but I don't think removing it would make the game any better. There's a difference between not-liking something and that something not-serving a purpose. That's all I'm getting at.

Cloaks, potentially with hoods. They can possess magical attributes, provide pleasant character aesthetic choices, conceal your equipment to various degrees (affecting bluff, to a degree... Bandits try to rob you point-blank because they don't see that dragon-scale armor you're wearing until it's too late), affect your reputation with various characters/parties/factions (somewhat like the "uniforms" in Fallout, NV), support various levels of identifiableness (identifiability?) within a sort of incognito system (within the stealth system, sort of?), AND... They can ward off the rain if they're regularly oiled and maintained, u_u...

I know exactly what you mean, and I can see this got things a little off-topic, so I'll keep this brief. There's not actually anything inherently sexist, or even wrong, about programming female types that only some groups admire and not others. However, I do realize the point behind "then why aren't the dudes all scantily-clad, too?", even if it's often inaccurately stated (as automatically making things sexist), as well as the "the designs of those females completely detracts from the practicality and believability of the rest of the game world" point. In short, there are many reasons why it is silly, from a standpoint of reason, for so many female video game characters to be sexualized while pretty much nothing else in the game matches up with that, but it is not inherently wrong or sexist, as it is perfectly possible to admire the human female form without thinking women are worth nothing more than the aesthetics of their form, or that they are lesser than men, etc. I mean, if some company made 17 different beverages that all tasted the same, no one would say "You're being FLAVORIST!". People would just say "Wow, you've got a pretty narrow design scope for your product. I'll look elsewhere, thanks." Annnnnnywho, what I wouldn't like to see in P:E is ONLY-sexualized-female-armor. Just because it's nonsensical to not also have practical armor. If some hot Barbarian girl wants to wear a chainmail bikini because she choose to adhere to the hassle-free, hardly-any-armor, berzerker-movement friendly Barbarian equipment policy, and she just loves chainmail as well as showing off her body, I don't think there's anything wrong with that. To say otherwise would literally be contrary to the entire sexism argument in the first place (by saying that admiring the sexuality of your own form, if you're female, is inherently wrong). BUT, if all females are scantily-clad and flirty, I shall be disappointed in the extreme imbalance in the range of female character models. u_u

This is absolutely true. That's precisely why the importance is not on how powerful you get, but on how powerful you become relative to the rest of the world. If you become a god, and you're fighting other gods, you're obviously not going to run into the problem of one-shotting them. However, the fact that you'll be one-shotting pretty much everything else is a concern. But, on the other hand, a small child can one-shot a rat with a slingshot. That doesn't mean he's too ridiculously powerful, only that he's ridiculously powerful as compared to a rat. If your character's/party's power range takes you into deity territory, and the story leaves you in the midst of mere-mortal territory, you've pretty much got a problem. But, if the story moves into deity territory (your surroundings consist of deity-level conflicts), then you're still fine. Relativity is key.

^ Exactly. So, in the event you can EITHER use combat OR non-combat to handle the same situation, you get a reward either way. In the event that you can only use combat to accomplish a certain goal, the "pacifists" are "punished" (terrible word choice, by the way) by failing to complete that goal in any way, shape, or fashion. Vice versa with locked chests and situations that require only non-combat skills. So, since you admit that some (maybe even many, since we don't really know exactly how much) of the game will require combat, are you suggesting that combat-endorsers should get all the combat-exclusive benefits, PLUS extra XP and loot in the combat/non-combat hybrid scenarios? Or, if you want to look at it the other way, that the non-combat people should get not only NONE of the combat-required rewards, but also fewer/lesser rewards from the things they happen to accomplish without combat that could've been accomplished with combat? No one's saying "You're stupid for wishing we got XP upon killing." That's a perfectly valid system. But that doesn't automatically mean that not-doing that is completely and utterly ridiculous. It's an abstraction. Hell, in the typical XP-for-kills system, you leveled up with that XP, then increased your lockpicking and herbalism and pot-cleaning skills. How does that make sense? You don't see people on here going "THAT'S BULLSHYTE! We should ALWAYS get more XP than they get when we brew some potions AND kill things!", and yet RPGs have pretty much been using that system for about 10 years now, if not longer. I'm also not saying that imbalance isn't a valid concern. IF the game allowed all combat scenarios to be circumvented with a non-combat skill, then yes, combat would lose out. But, as long as it's balanced okay, there's nothing inherently unfair about the proposed system. At least that anyone's pointed out so far.

Yeah, I get the original idea behind "junk" stuff. But, it loses almost everything in translation into a video game. I guess I just wish it had more than one use (selling for gold.) Because, mechanically, it literally just becomes a delayed tiny pile of gold. That "tarnished candlestick (junk)" is literally just an IOU for 1 silver, 3 copper, with a name that helps you pretend you found an actual part of the game world that just happens to be worth a little money and nothing else. I don't mind the situation of finding tons of herbs (that are all usable crafting components) and those herbs actually having a sell value. Maybe you have no interest in crafting, so you just sell them all, as they're useful to someone. Of course, thinking about that, how often do random people know exactly what herbs are what out in the world? Really, only certain people (who learned how to identify those herbs for a reason) would even know what they were. So, one way to handle the "this only has one use to me, and that is sell value" items might be to only allow your party to "find" herbs, for example, if someone in the party has enough skill to identify them (could be tied directly to Apothecary or Survival or something...). What I mean by this is, even if some chest in a dungeon has 17 useful Apothecary herbs in it, is your group of 6 Barbarians who don't even know the difference between mushrooms and grass REALLY going to go "Oh, hey, this is a potential thing for us to take that will be worth 7 silver a piece!"? Hmmm... I hadn't really thought of this before. I mean, who's to say you know exactly what everything you see/find is, and its worth? Maybe you open a chest, and you find some junk in it (a broken pocketwatch or something.) The fact that it's listed in the loot interface suggests that your character(s) know it's worth "2 copper" or whatever. But, why don't they take the chest, itself (it's a small wooden box that probably isn't welded to the floor)? It's worth a lot more than a broken pocketwatch. And who's to say there isn't stuff in the chest that just wasn't of enough significance to list in the loot interface? What if all the "junk" that was readily identifiable displayed no monetary value until you found a value for it (such as some person in a town saying "I lost my family's old pocketwatch... it was looted by bandits", or some smith saying "I'm in the market for any metal scrap things"? And things like specific herbs wouldn't even show up in the loot interface (much less have a value listed) unless someone in your party KNEW "Hey, that's a meelodinus flower, and I can make a potion with that!". i.e., they open the chest and say "Hmm, a nice sword, an ornate flask (worth money because I can see gold and gems on it), and... some random plant? It looks like a dandelion... those are literally everywhere. Why would I loot that?" Any thoughts? Crap, I should really put this in one of the recent economy/loot threads...

Cheap. And there's no reason why the progression of power should be big, or why the PC should be powerfull at all... well, other than ego stroking. I really don't want to see power scaling such that at high levels entire armies are needed to bring you down. Anything more than 10 lvl1 guys, and the power scaling has already gone out of control. I mean what - do enemeis have scouters? Bandit: "OMG! His powur lvl! IT'S OVER 9 THOUSAAAAND!" Frak the chap, shallow portraly of power trough stright up stat increases. Challenge should be mantained always. Enemeis should be SMART about how they fight. I don't care if you're a lvl99 super-samurai-swordmaster ... unless you moveat the speed of light AND have eyes on the back of your head AND the enemies line up to fight you 1-by-1, you're not getting out alive out of an ambush staged by a dozen run of the mill bandits While you do have a point in some of what you've said, I have to say that a fantasy world involving souls that act as power sources for superhuman (relative to the capabilities of humans in reality) abilities in which you really don't get very powerful would be pretty bland. Sure, 10 low-level bandits might be able to take on your level 30 party, but everyone would have to be pretty powerful at that point, still. Not to mention dragons and other mythical beasts... You either don't have them in the game (again, bland fantasy) or you do and the player's party must be able to match them in "power," eventually. I'm not saying your main character should just go pick up a tree, sharpen it with his teeth, and hurl it so hard at the dragon that it gets impaled into the cliff face. But if your whole, 6-person party still had trouble with 10 level 1 foes (wolves, maybe?), then if they got to a dragon, it'd be instant-lose. They would literally lack the ability to do anything to that dragon. Or what if a town is being overrun by some humanoid creature (like orcs or goblins, whatever they may be in P:E's world)? Are you saying the game has to forcibly limit it to a mere 10-or-so at a time? The rest just stand around whilst you fight? And that's only at approximately level 1, apparently. What if you're level 15 and they're all level 7? They have to either be complete pansies (in which case you're at least 50 times more powerful than everyone else in the town who can't fend them off without you) or they have to be a handful in number? See, you have to consider more than what would be a nice power/capability comparison in a single, hypothetical fight. This stuff has effects on almost everything about the game (story, lore, balancing, etc.).

You've got a perfectly reasonable point, and I think that maybe some degree of realism in this respect could be a good thing. But, at the same time, 100% realism would just be boring versus the alternative. Maybe in a fantasy world, in which mythical (to us in reality) creatures and such can attack a village at any time (instead of just other invading armies, which always take a human amount of time, and can be more easily scouted and prepared for), traveling adventurers just leave their armor on most of the time. Maybe they take it off at camp when they're not on-watch. And, since we'll have a camping/resting aspect in the game, maybe they really do. The point is, it's good to allow for some exaggerations, or we'd obviously have bathroom breaks, and people would get the cold, and you'd have to keep handkerchiefs in good supply or they'd suffer from sniffles (-1 to hit) for a week, etc. So, I don't think sacrificing realism purely for the coolness of armor and equipment aesthetics, BUT, I think we should consider both, as well as the detriments that come with certain degrees of realism. To clarify, I think some form of "only partial/lesser equipment inside town walls" would be a pretty cool idea and could work just fine. But it would still probably be a little abstracted. You wouldn't want that literally anywhere there were people, purely because that's how it would probably be in real life. But maybe one or more towns/cities in P:E will require peace-tying weapons (which could lead to interesting story occurrences) and removing full-armor inside the walls. *shrug*

In one part of the game, Trog'Dor the Burninator at a legendary adventurer who was carrying The Magical Axe of Rewardment. You cannot Stealth or Diplomacy the axe out from his gullet. You slay him with magnificent combat prowess, and are rewarded with The Magical Axe of Rewardment. Let's go ahead and say you also get XP, because it was an objective to slay him. You go down the hallway, and you come upon a heavy, locked door that only a master Lockpicker Rogue can pick. If you happen to have a master Lockpicker Rogue, you unlock it, and inside is a small shrine with the Wondrous Sword of Rewardment. No combat was involved, but you get an awesome piece of loot because you focused on a non-combat skill enough. Let's say you also get XP because it was an objective to retrieve the lost sword for some faction. Seems to me the people who suck too much to take out that dragon "miss out." So that dragon favors combat. Oh, but the treasure shrine seems to favor non-combat. Whoooaaaa, dilemma! Which does the game favor?! Now please explain how the two above examples cannot co-exist in the same game. The key word being "explain," and not just create a hypothetical example of a game in which combat is never required, and then pretend that was the explanation I asked for. Also... I'm fairly certain that it's impossible for both of these to be true: "Combat will be obligatory in certain situations." "There is no disadvantage in avoiding combat." See also "Trog'dor the Burninator" example above.