Frenzy-kun

I think it's better when you specialice the characters. The point of having different classes is that you choose what you want to do in the game. If you could do everything, there would not be classes. Also, I think that it improves the replayability value. Being able to do what you were not gives more reasons to replay as a new class. The problem comes when you want to be able to do everything. Then, there is no real choice. If you can have it all, it's pointless to choose. The more symilar each class is, the less interesting. And in the worst case, you are supposed to play with 6 different characters, so you will be able to configure that party to be able to cover as many possibilities as possible. Not like NWN where you got only two characters and you had to deal with that.

Ironically, what you just described would be what you said you don't want DLC to be. What? I don't remember saying much about DLCs. DLC is a format type. I don't care about if the content is on CD or is downloadable. An expansion is aditional content, and if it's downloadable it's a DLC, that's it. What I don't support is removed content as expansion (I don't care if it's burnt in a CD or as DLC), but new content should be new (or old content that was scrapped due to resource constrains, not because they wanted to make extra cash). The thing I am saying, a expansion should be like that. Expanding the game, not expanding the campaign. What most of you are asking is a sequel, not an expansion. And let me tell you, the thing I hated the most is that throne of baal was an expansion instead of a new game. That was not an expansion. That was what was supposed to be a brand new game made into a expansion. If you really want a sequel, then ask for the sequel, not make a half baked sequel sold as an expansion. At least that's my point of view. If you desire to continue the story then answer should be: no, I don't want expansions, focus your strenghts in the sequel and make it compatible with my character. I'm not saying it should expand the campaign either. It should ideally be a new story set within the confines of the main plot which furthers the story. We can argue semantics all day, but you seem to be confusing what story is in order to justify your dislike of DLC. I am saying just the opposite. I think there is a communication issue because I never said I dislike DLC. I dislike content to be removed in order to be sold appart, not DLC. I believe that an expansion should make the game to grow in width, not in length. Now an extra ninth episode, not an extra 7.5 episode, but content around. New areas, yeah, that's cool. New quest, also. New NPCs, new side stories, new equipment, all is welcome. DLC or not. Sold by parts or as a whole. But I don't like as stated when they are selling me something as a new part of something that should be closed and tight. When someone tells me that the expansion contains some untold facts I feel cheated. For several reasons. The first one is why it has to tell me something untold in a story that it was supposed to be completed. Wasn't I supposed to have bought a complete game? Because the message says that it was uncomplete. Is it a brand new story telling me what happened after, or even before? Then, why are you selling me an expansion instead of a game? I just can think on two options: the story is totally improvised as an excuse to sell more, or they just don't want to work on a new game and they prefer to go cheap making an expansion. Both of them sounds bad to me. It has been never a problem of DLC because I never said I dislike DLC. I am not sure if you are mistaking me with another person or that I don't explain myself properly. It's just my preference. I don't like the game to be expanded story wise because I want the game I buy to be a whole by itselft, no unresolved questions. I don't like to have to buy the expansion to answer the questions. I dislike the feeling of feeling forced to buy the expansion because the mere existance of that expansion makes me think that the original story or campaign was uncomplete. Even if those questions are created specially for the expansion and didn't exist in the original concept, when someone tells me "hey, buy this to know something I didn't tell you" my reaction is "why didn't you tell me?". I don't like this feeling and that is why I don't like expansions to extend in any sense the campaign of the original game. Again, I have nothing agains DLCs, I have against expanding something that is supposed to be completed. If the main campaign has room to be expanded, then expand it in the main game, don't force me to buy an expansion to have the experience I was supposed to have at first.

I like it. I also would like also that every weapon has a different combat style or purpose. In IE games changing weapon was just a matter of having a bigger dice or just being able to use it or not. Most of the clerics grow the same way in proficiencies and for fighters it was a matter of what looks cooler on the first run or what are the best available weapons in the second. Maybe speed, but I really think people didn't care much about the attack speed. I would like to see that every weapon has their own usage. For instance: Short swords: can be used as well for cutting or impaling. The character will use the attack according to what suits better the armor of the enemy. Also, extra +1d4 damage to backstab. Daggers: extra attack per round. +1 to attack rolls while backstabbing. longswords: 10% possibility of parrying an attack. Doesn't distinct if it misses or not. Parrying an attack gives an extra attack oportunity. bastard swords: redundant. Stick to longswords. Twohanded swords: reflex saving throw or get the shield disarmed (removed during the rest of the combat). Spear: greater attack distance. Characters moves always a little backwards between attacks to increase the distance with enemies. Halberd: attacks to all the enemies in the area of the swing. Axes: Inflicts bleeding status on hit (endurance saving throw). Accumulative. 1HP damage accumulative for every attack or action made, plus 1HP every 5 seconds. Status removed with any healing skill or with regeneration. Maces: Inflicts stun status. Endurance saving throw. Clubs: redundant with maces. Flails/ whips: Inflicts damage once per head (Multihits. Useful agains mirrored images or stoneskins). Hammer: Reduced damage against soft armors. Increased damage against hard armors (plates) Bow: Attacking from distance Crossbow: multiple shots in one strike. Sling: Inflicts stun. Critical hits in the head deals x5 damage and faints (save to avoid). Darts: If hits the enemy, it sticks in their body dealing 1 extra HP damage every round. Up to 4 darts. Every round there is 1d4 possibilities of every dart to drop down. Quarterstaff: 1d4 to block the incoming attack. Doesn't prevent extra magic damage (like the extra damage from fire arows) but prevents casting spells to be disrupted. Saving throws +1 plus 1 for every magic level. Time of effects reduced by 1 round per magic level. Wands: Casting time reduced by 1. Magic damage increased by 1 +1 every magic level. Saving throws against your spells have a penalty of -1 plus one for every magic level. Time of effects increased by 1 round per magic level. Missing something?

Retraining. If I mess up the build of my character I'd like to be able to fix it. I don't have 60 hours to redo half of the game because I messed it up along the way. And if I restart I'd rather start as a new class instead.

Ironically, what you just described would be what you said you don't want DLC to be. What? I don't remember saying much about DLCs. DLC is a format type. I don't care about if the content is on CD or is downloadable. An expansion is aditional content, and if it's downloadable it's a DLC, that's it. What I don't support is removed content as expansion (I don't care if it's burnt in a CD or as DLC), but new content should be new (or old content that was scrapped due to resource constrains, not because they wanted to make extra cash). The thing I am saying, a expansion should be like that. Expanding the game, not expanding the campaign. What most of you are asking is a sequel, not an expansion. And let me tell you, the thing I hated the most is that throne of baal was an expansion instead of a new game. That was not an expansion. That was what was supposed to be a brand new game made into a expansion. If you really want a sequel, then ask for the sequel, not make a half baked sequel sold as an expansion. At least that's my point of view. If you desire to continue the story then answer should be: no, I don't want expansions, focus your strenghts in the sequel and make it compatible with my character.

A game is about fun. Even if some features are unrealistic, it doesn't mean they are fun. I think the purpose of the feature is to remove a tedious inventory management into something that keeps symilar gameplay characteristics.

I aggree with you. Then there would not be any reason to have a spellcaster. More if it requires time to cast or can be interrupted. After the ideas thrown by Hormalakh, I really think it suits better a specific class like an alchemist that can create splash/throwable chemicals using potions or even ingredients. D&D2 style Thief kit: Alchemist Advantages: * Once per day every 3 levels the alchemist can launch a potion of choice to any place or character at 8 + dextery modifier meters of distance. The distance is increased by 1 meter at level 4, 8 and 12. * Once every day at level 5 and once more every 3 levels the alchemist can create a splash potion parting from other potions or raw ingredients. The original potion or ingredient will be lost in the process. The splash potions will give the effect to every character in the splash radius. The splash will cover a radius of 3 meters and will gain an aditional meter every 4 levels, at level 9 and 13. The splash potions cannot be given to a non alchemist . * Once per day aty level 6 and once more every 3 levels the alchemist will gain the chemical trap skill. By using a splash potion, the alchemist can set a trap that will trigger the potion's effect when a NPC steps on the trap. * 20% acid resistance and an aditional 5% every 3 levels to a maximun of 50% at level 12. Disadvantages: * Alchemist cannot backstab. * Alchemist cannot hide in shadows. *Alchemist cannot set standard traps.

I would never use a super expensive and rare object if I have chances of wasting it. If I have a character that is about to die, I'd never bet it on launching him a potion that might not hit the target. Specially having the no miss option that is using it over yourself. So I would bet for a class feat. Maybe rogues could launch potions. Maybe a rogue or wizard kit. Or maybe a feat to ensure potions launched will hit the target.

This time I agree with you. Bosses should be something more than a harder combat. In every game, bosses suppose a change in the standard gameplay to offer new gameplay value. But I would improve the idea a bit, and add new elements that cannot be found in regular gameplay phases. Since this game has combat rules and people usually dislikes to break the rules in order to give bosses new abilities, the concept of arena could be easily exploited. An arena prepared for the combat. For instance, some archers over an unreachable places covering the main enemy. Magical barriers that requires of strategic movements in order to deactivate. Some areas in the floor where anyone over it gets healed, having a character to make a ritual and preventing enemies to step in the magic circle. Well endless situations. I think personally that they overdid with sendai in TOB, but that could be also an example of what could be a nice boss. It could be improved by letting the player to destroy the statues.

I disagree. I hate unfinished stories. I want the main game to be solid and complete, with no holes to be filled by expansions. In fact, I also dislike that the new areas are totally separated like in an extra episode. What I really think an expansion should be is a game expansion, not a game completion or adition. expansion should give new areas that fits the game world, should have new characters, new missions, new objects, new classes, new races and new quests. Expansions should add new features on top of the original game to make the replay a totally new experience. But in no case the expansion should be filling gaps. Expansions should be an extra ingredient for the pizza so it tastes different, not adding a new ingredient because before it was tasteless. If the expansion brings 5 new characters, with their own quests, their own items, their own dialogs in the main story, new romances, interjections with older party members and all this stuff, then it's good. I'd play again with a new party made of those new members. Even more if this is complemented with new areas, new quest, new items and new customization parameters. Having a continuation like ToB won't make me play the game again. Having two separated areas like TotSC, will make me load an old game. One of the things I most hated of ToB is that the "Equipment" was in watcher's keep. Everything else in the game was pointless except for one or two things. One visit to Watcher's keep and you could scrap almost any non consumable item in the game. An expansion should add this equipment all around the game world so when you play again you find new stuff.

I totally agree with this. There is a huge difference between making a quest about finding someone, with the correct clues, than having to find someone to make the quest.

That really depends on what you're trying to do, though. It worked for Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale, but PVP was never the purpose of those games. Or D&D, for that matter. So 'balance' was never really on the agenda. The idea of D&D was never "my level 3 pally can totally pwn your level 4 rogue!", but more "okay, your pally can beat my rogue in a straight up fight, but just try getting through all of those traps without my help.". It's not so much about "my paladin is better than your rogue" as it is about the rogue not being able to do anything when undead show up, or the paladin not being able to do anything when there's a trap. The issue isn't optimality, but usefulness. Obviously some characters should be better in some situations, and that's okay. In fact that's the way it should be. But every character needs to be at least useful in every common situation, and you need at least some degree of balance to accomplish that. Also, as much as it isn't supposed to be a competition, it's really frustrating to be obviously second-string. As is always the case for non-spellcasters in 3E after about 5th level, and for thieves in earlier editions. Fourth eliminates this problem, at the cost of differentiation, as noted before. I think you mistake being useful in every task with being competent on every task. It doesn't matter the situation, even a plain fighter is useful in any situation. Even a thief can take his bow and deal some damage to those undead. In DnD2.5 there was no character useless. They had each role. Unless as I say, you mistake being useful with outstanding in their tasks. Even in exploration, a ranger had their nature knowledge and the paladins had their religion knowledge. It's not all about disarming traps, unless the DM is short on ideas. What's not good is that every character should excel in every role. That's greedy. If, as someone said before, you want a mage that can weild swords, make a multiclass character, gaining benefits from two roles and of course, the drawback of not being able to master them all. It's not good for anything that implies customization to be able to be competent on every possible area. Multiclass for instance is useless in D&D4 except for some cheesy combos. The sinergy between classes is totally broken. The concept of party is diluted and it becomes a matter of quantity more than synchrony. It promotes individualism. And all that because the greed of wanting to be competent on every field. To have a real life example, you cannot expect the mechanic to fix your computer, and if he does he won't be able to probably deal with the hardest situations or his measures will imply drawbacks. A game after all is all about rules and constrains to achieve a goal. If there are no constrains, there is no game. Walking in the street is no game. Walking trying to avoid to step in the lines of the paving stones is a game. Pretending to be whatever you want with no conditions or limits goes against a game phylosophy. And in any case you always have the tools to make a character that suits your game style, between them, selecting the class that does that job. Wanting a paladin that casts spells and backstabs because "paladins looks cooler" is bad for a game. Good for selfsatisfaction, but bad for a cooperative game.

I can understand that the purpose of RPGs are playing as you want. But I really think that the class concept is not where to apply this. Yeah, in a mixed pool as you suggest, some classes do some jobs better than other classes. But for that reasons we have the stats. If you have more strenght you already will work better on physical combat. If you go for constitution you will behave better in melee than any other character. That's good. You don't need to stack bonuses over bonuses. It's not needed to stack fighter benefits over stat benefits over feat benefits, because if you can, then that's it. In my sense it's stupid to have a fighter with less than the max strenght. In the end there is not much of a choice. You cannot have a fighter with 13 strenght if you want to play competitive. But if you stick the stats to what the strenghts will be, and you focus your class to what role the character is going to have, then it will make sense. You could have a fighter with 13 strenght and 18 dextery and constitution. Then, he is a tank. He won't be the best damage dealer, but if the role of the fighter is to hold the enemies and prevent them to pass through, then you could keep your casters behind blasting through enemies' defenses. Or even more, you could just cripple the enemies by casting hexes on them, poisoning and letting your defender to last long enough for the poison to make a huge difference. If we go to the extreme of a soft limit, then the classes becomes pointless. You could just have a common ability pool, and then your characters could choose the ones that suits better. You don't need to be a mage to behave better than a druid in spellcasting. Just have bigger intelligence. The concept of class is giving a role in the group. Having a fighter in the backline casting protection spells is odd. Specially because as you say, a priest would do better, and if they don't, it's pointless to choose a class. In the end, it leads into little choice, because the game is focused in letting you choose, rendering it as choosing a class as a matter of how fancy it is or what dressing style they have. While focusing on how every class behaves in combat would lead into being able to develop each class into different outcomes according to the stat distribution. Having the possibility of making any class into any playstyle brings nothing in the end, because if you like to cast spells around you can always choose the caster's class. If you choose a fighter is because you want to slice in two the people with a sword, not because you want to bring disease into the enemies. I cannot figure out why a player would want a warrior with a wizard's role except for the whim of having the word "fighter" written in the character sheet or the whim of having the graphic of a sword instead of a beam of light. I can understand that in the PnP games they give more variety, since you are controlling only one character, for a year of campaign, and it will be really boring to have no choices. But in a game where you can control up to 6 different characters, I cannot see the purpose of removing the limit between classes. Because even if you want to be a fighter but love to cast spells, you can make a fighter and then hire a wizard for your team. And I am concerned because in D&D4 I have no interest of replaying with other classes since their game style is pretty symilar. And I don't want it to happen to PoE. If all the classes plays the same, I won't have any motivation to replay as a new character since I will be doing the same.

I prefer 12 levels where on each of them you really earn a substancial boost than 100 levels where you notice the boost every 5 levels. After all, you have 6 team members, which means you will level up 72 times. Once every 2 to 3 hours of game (though it's not uniform). About the level cap, I have contrasted feelings. At first, when you cap before the end of the game, the last part of the game loses a bit of interest. You know you won't be able to keep leveling up, ergo the XP loses it's rewarding value, and you already have your playstyle, that you will keep repeating over and over. On the other hand, I hate when you level up to take out the optional most difficult boss to get the best weapon... which is pointless because you have no need of it anylonger. If the final boss is easier than the optional boss will be a piece of cake. I think most of those issues are solved with a solid postgame. Competitions. PvP and arenas as a way to test your skills. Extra bosses and challenges helps for the people who don't want MP.

I open this post to see if I am the only one who feels this way about the fact that all the classes, specially fighters, has been buffed with plenty of skills, making them to play as you are supposed to play other classes based on ability's pools (like wizards), and as consequence, making them to lose part of what made them unique. There was a notable problem with AD&D fighters, as well as in 2.5. Name it Baldur's gate. Warriors were boring. A lot. The only thing you could do with them was to click on the desired enemy. Rangers were more or less the same, though you sometimes had to run away from your enemies, but that was it. I jumped directly to D&D4, and what I found was not much better. Yeah, they are not boring anymore, but they are not fighters either. The huge amount of skills makes him look more like a wizard than a soldier. Yeah, instead dazzling ray you name it tornado attack, but I cannot really find much difference between a wizard and a fighter now, since everything is about using skills. Name it martial, name it arcana, the "way of playing" is the same. In E4, the classes splits in strikers, controllers, leaders and defenders. As far as I remember in BG, when you had a wizard you can be any, and with priests you could make any character into any of those cathegories. A wizard with spirit armor, stoneskin, and tenser's transformation could easily be the best tank in the game. A wizard can be both controller with docens of controlling spells and striker with some spells that could almost insta-kill every creature in the game. But now that's not it anymore. Every class is more or less the same. So many different classes and yet, so similar. But when comming back to baldur's gate, you find out how every class had a diffeerent role, and as well as a different way to play: - Wizards were managing the situation. Change your wizard, changes how the combat develops. Status, mass damage and hundreds of spells to deal with any situation. They mostly interact with multiple enemies. - Clerics buffs and heals. They can hold enemies in the front line when done. They mostly interact with alies. - Rangers and bow thieves attacks from the distance, targeting the weak enemies and interrupting wizards. They mostly interact with wizards and other archers. - Thiefs can backstab, hide, set traps in the field. They are the one who takes care of almost all the exploration part finding traps, disarming them and picking locks. They mostly interact with scenario. - Warriors and Fighters holds the enemies and prevents enemies to advance. They mostly interact with other warriors and single units. Evert class had a different way to interact with the game. You had to build a team that suits all the roles. Instead, in D&D4, although you can still do the same, it feels like they are all the same because all the characters have everything: buffs, debuffs, mass damage, single damage, a huge skill pool. You find an enemy and use your "spell", just like wizards. Sometimes I feel that I have no reason to choose a wizard anymore because I can have the same playstile but with higher resistance in a fighter. I am not saying that warriors should stick with rage and that's it, but if everybody can use "magic", then magic users have no reason to exist. I think for instance druids should not use cleric spells, but focusing in shapeshifting. Druids should buff themselves, not others. Then clerics should buff all the team at the cost of the combat abilities that the druid has. Wizards, sorcererers and warlocks should be based on area damage and controlling, striking and empowering, and hexing and debuffing, respectively. Fighters should work on holding and parrying. That's a different class. If everybody can do a bit of everything, then those distinctions are diluted, even if they still have an orientation. Specially if it overlaps another class main point (for instance a deadly strike for a fighter that deals the same damage as a thief's backstab. Then, what do you want a thief for in combat?). It also removes the utility of multiclassing, where you basically reduce the raw power of every class to obtain versatility. Multiclass in D&D4 is used to obtain cheesy combos, not to obtain versatility like in BG2, where your thief/cleric as used to get basic healing and exploration and focusing the other 5 members in raw combat, or you create a fighter/mage to be able to stand in first line as a wizard. A cleric/fighter to make a non lawful paladin. Plenty of things that are worthy because of the value of being polivalent, something missing in D&D4. So, my suggestion would be to avoid the situation where everybody can do everything. Focusing on one role, and the different kits should be different ways of approaching that role. After all, you play with a team. It's not like you have only one character and he has to deal with every possible challenge, but you have a team that has to deal with every situation. I would like a game where you select your classes according to what you want them to do, not because what you think looks cooler. A game where you potentially can make a team of 6 wizards, 6 fighters or 6 rogues because every class can handle every situation doesn't seem very appealing to me. Sinergy between classes is needed so every class does their role to complement each other in different ways. One of the best and most important part in this kind of game is your party configuration, a level above character customization, and having polivalent classes ruins that part. I really prefer a boring fighter that behaves as a fighter rather than a fighter that behaves like a -sword magic wizard-. Do you share the same feelings?

I don't like the idea of the druid getting some cleric spells. I love classes to be unique in their playstile, and when they overlap, it feels cheap or it outdates the other class. I really would stick the druid with shapeshifting and autobuffing, and leaving damage and debuffing skills to wizards and team buffing and healing to priests. Right now I see no reason to use a wizard instead of a druid. Wizards are weak, unlike druids, and those druid spells covers almost every situation a wizard or priest can do,but being able to resist more and to use armors.

That reminds me of the swordmage class in the game bravely default. It was a mix of swordsman and wizard, where you imbue the weapon of choice of magical powers, from elemental damage to draining, status effects or extra damage. I think that would be cool. A class that is pretty limited in what they can do, but that as a multiclass could reinforce others. Give fire to your fighter's sword. Stun with the ranger's arrows and drain half of the damage dealt with your rogue's backstab.

Have you played the IE games? I never had less than 50 arrows at any one time. The author is talking about a hypotetical situation where there is only one arrow and can be recovered. Not talking about IE.

I disagree with this. Having 60 arrows makes sense as you say, but having one, no. Having one means you have only one attack per combat. I think the author refers to this situation. Something that is really unique. You can have one arrow that can be recovered 90% of the times. The result will be totally different that using 10 arrows of the same type because in the first situation you cannot hit the enemy 10 times, just once. It's the difference between an object with 100 charges and another with one daily use for 100 days.

To answer the topic: I really hate that the enviroments are not interactuable. I mean. you replace the graphics by grey blocks and you cannot really know in which place you are. All is the same. I really miss some interactions with the enviroment. It's not all about battling, looting, chatting, and making missions about battling, looting or chatting. To be able to interact with the bushes and put fire on them /with consequences. To be able to interact with the water, cross rivers, swim or dive, being pushed by the currents. Hazards and traps on contact like poisonous flowers, brambles, muddy floors. Walls or rocks that can be wiped with strong spells. gigant spider eggs that releases spiders if something breaks them. Heat, cold and other weather effects. And about the point 2: the looting. Quantity (and quality) of the loot is always good. Saying that less to choose is better is wrong. But I can understand that there is something wrongwith the feeling of entering in your first dungeon and find out the bastard sword +5, +100 against the final boss and inmunity agains -THAT- spell. There are several issues here. First, the game balance, where getting stronger is needed for a correct game progression, and if you are supposed to be in epic level, it's normal that you HAVE to have high level weapons. Now, there is another point where people forgets that yeah, you can find a superb sword in one dungeon, much better than the one you were saving money for. But remember. If the player doesn't use sword, he will still need something. And if the player gets a different route, he won't have that sword. He might find a bow in the other route, and then have the funds to purchase the sword in the shop before going for the original route. Not everybody plays the same. And also, remember that choice is important. You might have -the sword-, but it will be much funnier if you have several swords to suit your game style. One of the worst things in Baldur's gate 2 is that at the end, you have the weapon. The crom faeyr is it, and it's so good that you need your cleric with proficiency in hammers yes or yes. No clubs, no maces, maybe flails for the second hand, but you MUST have the crom. Same for carsomyr and paladins. Have a paladin? THSword, sorry. Yeah, this shield looks super cool, but better you give it to your priest and stick with that sword. And the issue here is exactly the lack of alternatives. The real issue here is that what is supposed to be unique is not. The magic weapons should be for certain something special. But to make it a worthy reward, you don't need to reduce the quantity, but the availability. If magic weapons didn't appear in the very first drawer you open in the game, then it will be something valuable, even if there are more. The best items are the ones that requires some quest or effort. The vorpal sword in BG2 has charisma. Carsomyr is better, but seems cheaper, just because it is given to you. The equalizer is the same. You have that gem all over the game until you find the blade, and now... it's a not worthy sword! The solution is to make magic weapons hard to get. And all of them should have the same combat value. And one character, even a thief with its limited weapon pool should be able to have a choice. All those weapons should be hard to find. By needing to reforge them, by being in a secondary quest, by sacrificing something else, by paying really prohibitive prices. In baldur's gate 2 we have several tiers of weapons: -Normal weapons -Magic weapons (+1, +2, +3) -Cool magic weapons (magic weapons with secondary effects) -Legendary weapons (carsomyr, crom faeyr...) -Upgraded weapons (TOB) The real issue here is: - Normal weapons are outdated, since you already begin in the paragon tier. - Magic weapons are so easy to find, and easily outdated by cool weapons. - Cool weapons are easily outdated when legendary weapons appears. My proposal would be, appart to make them quite unique, removing the magic weapon tier by joining it to the normal weapons, making them to just represent the progression of the game (so a +1, +2 or +3 weapons are just better quality weapons, but not magical). The magical weapons should be the "cool ones", and they should all be even, so if you find two magic swords it will be a matter of preferences to choose one or the other, not a matter of outdating. Then leave the legendary -and- upgrades to the last quarter of the game, being sure that there is enough weapons for the players to choose, trying to avoid the "unique" weapon. No need to remove anything. Just a proper distribution, using the magic weapons as a reward for hard task, not as something to be sold in the next shop. Everything that doesn't suit this should be stripped of any uniqueness (like the +1, +2 and +3 weapons) making them to look average. To balance, you can have a "rusted" magic weapon that is only +1 with a special feature, and then later in the game you can find something to fix it back and it would become a +3. Because after all, the damage and accuracy will depend more on the quality of the blade more than the magic inside. +3 weapons are very well forged weapons, and +0 something of bad quality made for poor people. And then the magic comes when you really have magic. Fire damage, protection agains psychic, extra damage to dragons. That's magic.

Well, I have to say, that if NPCs are as any PC can be, then PC would not be special. And NPCs either. Altought it's true that having a custom skill tree for every NPC is also out of place, NPCs needs something that makes them special. A player should never be able to create a PC exactly like a companion. I think Baldur's Gate is a good example for this. Every NPC was unique. They were a character following the game rules, but with some exception. A exception that suited their role in the game. Minsc, a ranger with access to the rage skill is the perfect example. Jan Jansen with his special equipment and the ability to create his own ammon. That was super nice, and it makes it interesting to replay with other companions. The characters still suits the rules, but they have their unique selling point. How to make the character to not to feel behind? Easy: give the PC another unique skill. After all the PC is probably some kind of choosen one, it will be easy to grant him some benefits that makes him also interesting, even if you play with a team made of custom characters, the MC will be also unique. I really think that as long as this special change suits the role of the NPC, it's more than welcome.

You have to think that the purpose of this dungeons is not to expand the story but to offer harder challenges extreming the game mechanics. Specially designed for achiever type of player. But it's true that with some effort you can make this kind of dungeons worthy. Since it will be clearly difficult to integrate every achievement in the story, it's possible to add a separated area that works as reward area, focused on the achievement. One of the problems I see here is that there is no much interest in going into those dungeons before the very end of the game. Much like the optional bosses. There is an issue here. The dungeon is supposed to have nice objects that improves your equipment as reward for completing the challenges, but also the challenges are hard enough to require an already good equipment. I would solve those issues by making the base of the player as the mentioned "reward" area for this dungeon. Let's say in the dungeon there is people that you could rescue, and then this people will go and live in your base. This people could provide some services as well as remind you how awesome you are for rescuing them. Those services may make you to want to go to your base, and with some missions and events triggered during this visit after some points in the game , you can guide the player through the dungeon when they are supposed to go. This way the players will explore the dungeon progressively as they advance in the game, making all the items you find inside useful.

I would say no for a reason. Mankind has an awesome mind and can create new races very easily. Orcs are already overused and I think anything new and fresh could be much more interesting, even if it's something equivalent. But of course, this is just personal likings, no real reason but that.

I find it a good idea, so the spells could have a different strategy: strong but easy to avoid or fast but unavoidable. Still, I see here a problem. Usually wizards and spellcasters has very weak stats and they are easy to get rid of if they can't cast their spells. If we give to an enduring class like the fighter a way to avoid spells, the spellcasters classes will have a huge drawback. I would rather go for some trap-spells. Some spells that are placed as traps and if anyone gets close enough to the trap, the spell will be casted. Of course those spells needs some kind of pros. In fact, a class or subclass could be specialized in spellcaster traps. Something that reminds me to the spell triggers in BG2. Cast 3 spells into a trap and good luck avoiding it.

Hello, I think the enviromental hazards is something that I missed a lot in Baldur's gate. Specially in the first one where you walk all around almost empty forest. Actually Baldur's gate was one of my very first RPGs I ever played, and I came from the platforms genre, a genre where the level design was so focused on enviromental mechanics and where each location had their unique elements that made it totally different than each other. The jump to a game where your only real interactions were chests, enemies, traps and people was a bit shocking at the moment. So I really wanted to see something like this in BG series. Something unique in each level that makes you want to keep exploring to see what new challenges are waiting, more than just more difficult enemies. As far as I saw in the information released, you wanted to come back to the original BG's map formula, having vast locations that gives you an awesome feeling of being lost in a forest. Well, I think this hazards and weather mechanics can be awesome to compensate the emptyness of those forests in the original BG. There is no need then to make all the locations worthy (that you still can) because just going there to see what kind of mechanics and challenges you are going to offer in those locations can be a real motivation to explore those areas. I can imagine for instance a desert so hot that you have to be protected under shadows because long exposition under the sun will reduce your health. This will change the way the player moves and explores the area without being a real constrain (like reducing your combat abilities or being continuously annoyed by residual damage). It also could be nice because the players may go at night to avoid heat and explore the unprotected areas. If you combine this with some gargantuan skeletons, bones and skulls to project shadows all around you could have an awesome location. For extra ideas... I also Imagined when you said hazards to have some poison ponds that poisons creatures thats walks over them. Or also, your thief could go there with an empty bottle and get for free some deathly poison for his's weapons. Much more interesting that lava pools that, let's say, you have very few opportunities to get something good out of it. Another ida could be boats where the team (or maybe just one character, for extra challenge) can move through rivers and water pools. A nice reward (new areas to explore) for finding the boat (or building it). Splitting the team is something that requires almost no effort but makes you face the came in a completely different way, and every class has a different way of facing those situations (totally different from the mixed team where let's say, the strategies usually follows the same pattern : boosts -> break protections-> all out -> resist). So, summary, I agree completely with the idea, and I also agree with the point that they should not be annoying. They just have to change your way of facing common situations or, if they are annoying, have some useful points.