Faerunner

I was just thinking the other day that I prefer the word "ranger" to "hunter." I don't know, the word "ranger" connotates not only a forest protector, but one who uses ranged combat, which makes sense considering bows would likely be weapons of of choice for woodsmen and huntsmen during this implied time. The word "hunter" just seems to imply one who hunts animals, which is a bit under-whelming. (Plus I just never liked the word "hunt" or "hunter." I know it seems petty, but I just do.)

How are you guys making me love you more and more every time I think I can't possibly love you any more than before?

On the contrary: I love game lore, I always found the random lore on load screens, codex entries, etc. fascinating and helpful to understanding the world, and I always felt they were far enough out of the way that you didn't have to read them if you weren't interested. (For example, while you find random codexes everywhere in DA, the game just informs you that it's there so you can decide whether you want to click it or not.) Also, no offense, but if your character is supposed to be a denizen of the world and be familiar with surrounding laws, religions, customs, etc. I think it makes sense for the developers to find creative ways of slipping information to the player. Not only can you feel confident about your character's place in the world (understanding it yourself), but your character doesn't have to ask a million questions about things s/he should already know just so the player can learn how the world works. Remember: You might just be entering the world for the first time, but odds are the character is supposed to have been there his or her whole life (unless it's written in the game that your character has severe amnesia, just woke up in a strange land, etc.), so it makes sense for the developers to find ways of letting you know what's going on without having your character have to ask who his/her long-reigning king is, why the local garrison doesn't like him/her, who his/her childhood friends are, etc. Last but not least: If you don't want to read an encyclopedia lore book, then don't read or buy one. I'm sorry to be blunt, but I think it's pretty selfish to ask the company not to make one just because you don't want to read it, even though there are people out there who might want it.

This update honestly makes me feel so happy. The concept art and story ideas seem, as usual, utterly gorgeous. I think the armor looks fantastic. Also, sorry to harp on minor details, but, thank you so much for letting the women wear actual armor. That is, thank you for having female armor cover the same amount of skin as their male counterparts. Actually, thank you for having the armor cover period. While I'm not against light or revealing armor in general, I prefer armor to fit the class and equally cover both genders. It just irks me when the same piece of armor that covers a male character reasonably (for his class) turns into a glorified bikini for female wearers for no discern-able reason beyond titillation of the straight male viewer. Come on! Then again, you guys seem to have been great about this for some time. On the TV Tropes Chainmail Bikini page, your games (KOTOR2 and NWN2) are some of the few to avert the "improbably revealing outfit" standard of so many games. It's such a minor thing, but it still makes me happy. Anyway, about the role-playing: "We really want Project Eternity... to introduce you to this new setting, to make you feel personally invested in your choices, to engage you with the personalities and factions involved in the conflict, and to give you all of the freedom you've come to expect from an Obsidian RPG." You make me fall in love with this game the more your post about it. I know it's going to be flawed (everything is), so don't be afraid of viewers being disillusioned, disappointed, or anything like that. It sounds like this game will embody everything that many of us love in RPG's, which is more than many companies are willing to do, and which is more than any of us can ask for. I cannot wait to read more updates! <3 EDIT: Sorry to be over-zealous, I'm just now very excited about this game.

The art for this game is absolutely stunning. I haven't seen its equal. To be quite honest, the concept art for the godlike remind me a lot of the Planetouched for Neverwinter Nights 2 (Mask of the Betrayer). However, I actually think this is wonderful because those races are the intellectual property of someone else that you have to abide by (and I personally feel the owners don't put as much thought into it as they could) and those games didn't get a chance to explore the psychological or sociological impact of having "otherworldly" blood. It seems like you folks are going for sociological explorations for these various races. Their racial differences aren't just aesthetic, which is nice, and it seems like they don't either cooperate as "good races" (like humans, elves, dwarves, etc) or fight each other because some are "evil races" (orcs, goblins, etc). I am becoming very interested in the societies, cultures, beliefs, and customs of all of these people and I can't wait to learn more. By the way, the 3D animation is absolutely brilliant and fascinating to learn more about. ^^

I REALLY like this, but I think they should provide a bonus to your skill check (if you happen to have them in the party in that situation, and they don't hate everything you stand for), rather than mulliganing your skill check with their own. For example, say you have a skill of 50 at Intimidation. I know P:E might not have an Intimidation skill, but just pretend it does for the sake of the example (however it works in P:E, this will still work the same way, just not with a hard skill value.) If you try to intimidate some person who has an Intimidation difficulty check of 55, you're going to fail. BUT, if you have Thorbert the Dwarf in your group at the time, he totally backs you up when you Intimidate, and your collective Intimidation is 65 now, so the NPC in question looks at the both of you, gulps, and spills information/lets you pass/etc. Basically, it could've worked like that in NWN2. I'm not sure. It might just have you fail (because of the example 50 versus the difficulty check of 55), THEN have your companion step in and add their boost. All I'm getting at is, if you have an Intimidation skill of 5, and they're just gonna step in when you fail and give you a roll of 65 anyway, it kinda detracts from the usefulness of your main character EVER specializing in Intimidation (unless you play alone, or always have the wrong people in your party at the wrong times). I suppose this is an interesting idea, but I think it would be more difficult to implement, especially conversational skills. What's more, I don't think that just having a character with certain skills stand near my character would automatically make her more competent in those areas. For example, my sister is very charismatic whereas I'm very socially awkward in real life. Just having my sister stand next to me when I try to talk to someone doesn't magically make me socially gifted just because she's there. I get just as flustered and tongue-tied when she's there as not, so she often has to step in and use her own silver tongue to ask questions and make requests that I can't. That's how I envision it for companions with their conversation skills. My character can try, but ultimately the companions know what they're doing. It's the same with languages and technical skills. Your last comment "if you have an Intimidation skill of 5, and they're just gonna step in when you fail and give you a roll of 65 anyway, it kinda detracts from the usefulness of your main character EVER specializing in Intimidation" concerns me too. I don't mind my character not being the best at everything. If my character has a low skill roll and a companion with a high one happens to be standing near, I want them to step forward the same way I would want a real friend to step forward.

First impression: hey isn't this is the MoTB story hook Second impression: wait, isn't this The Black Hound story hook Thinking further: waitaminute, isn't this the story hook for every Obsidian game ever? I agree so much with the first line, it was my first thought on reading the hook too. You made a great observation about the other games though. I've only played NWN2 and MotB, but now you've mentioned it they had the same core idea, but they still managed to be different and enjoyable despite this. Probably the same with most of their games. If what you say is true though, the basic hook is no indication of the game's plot because the details and characters are going to be what makes P:E shine. Since Obsidian has made many great and enjoyable games in the past, I have faith in this project.

Another thing I like is when companions use their knowledge or conversation skills to help out with quests. This doesn't mean I want quests we can't complete without them, of course, but I think that if they happen to be along and the situation calls for knowledge or skills they have, might as well have them contribute. This happened quite often in NWN2. For example, at one point a captain demands his soldiers attack you. If you fail to intimidate them into stepping down, your burly fighter dwarf will step in and intimidate them for you. At a few points you run into injured animals that your friendly neighborhood druid Elanee can talk to and recruit for assistance, if you aren't a ranger or druid. During the music contest I mentioned, your bard companion Grobnar can offer musical advice if you have high enough influence. When facing down a psychic demon from an astral plane (for lack of a different term), if you fail to bluff her into giving away her true motives, your cheeky rogue Neeshka (who's also a quarter-demon and knows about this race), she'll step up and bluff her for you, which causes several of her guards to leave. The elven wizard Sand can speak to the jury for you in your trial if your character has no social skills. This isn't even getting into the NWN2: MotB companions. I know this might be a bit more challenging with Project Eternity since there are so many companions and they're all optional (and the game is set up so you can get along without them), but I think it would be fun to include instances where their knowledge or non-combat skills can help affect the outcome of a quest if they happen to be along. I like feeling like my companions are there to to more than just kill things, make comments, or approve/disapprove. If I happen to be in a situation where my character isn't good at something but one of the companions is, I think it would be fun for them to help.

There are so many choices on this poll. To sum it up, I like quests that involve creative, non-violent problem-solving. Most RPG quests I've seen seem to consist of going over and killing, retrieving, or rescuing things. "Go over there and kill x orcs." "Please go and fetch my staff." "My children are trapped in that barn with those monsters, please rescue them!" So I really enjoy quests that can have more conversation or skill-based solutions. For example, the NWN2 quest to stop a lizardling tribe from attacking a village, which can end with you talking to the chieftain and negotiating a peace agreement between the lizardlings and villagers (rather than just killing them all). The beginning of NWN2 Act 2 involves the protagonist being framed for massacre you didn't commit, searching the destroyed village for evidence in your own defense, and then presenting the evidence you find (or don't find) in the trial itself (which is creative and hilarious). The American Idol-eqsue side quest in Neverwinter which involves you getting into a musical contest with a narcissist in a ridiculous sweater, which can end in a number of ways, from winning to setting him on fire and stealing his instrument. So, apart from puzzles (which I actually detest), any quest that doesn't always involve simply killing and/or retrieving things always makes me happy.

"One of our first steps was to think about gods. Deities can be a good starting point when developing a world. They reflect the views and beliefs of the world’s inhabitants, and they can inspire ideas for characters, organizations, and conflicts." - This seems like an excellent way of creating a universe. It sounds like the world, societies and people in them will mesh very well you'll have a solid idea of what makes them who and how they are. I can't wait to learn more about this universe you're creating. ^^

This is amazing. I love reading your guys' updates. I always used to wonder how video games and, especially, my favorite RPG's were made. Watching this process is almost as enjoyable as playing the games. While I eagerly await the completion of Project Eternity, the weekly-ish updates are so interesting that it makes the wait much more enjoyable. ^^ The dwarves look amazing, by the way. ^^

I'm not fond of generic mumzy or housewifey kinds, like the Human Noble's mother Eleanor in Dragon Age: Origins ("T'was the gentler arts that landed me a husband," even though she used to be an amazing fighter, indeed) and especially Hawke's mother Leandra Amell from Dragon Age 2. ("My children deserve to be among nobility!" Well, you should have thought of that before you abandoned your noble lifestyle to marry a vagabond apostate and only returned decades later to call on said wealth when your new life wasn't working for you, shouldn't you?) I get that not every player is not going to like every character. I understand that the developers are working hard to make sure every companion is optional so we don't have to be around characters we don't like, so I'm not worried about companions... but for crying out loud, if we get saddled with some useless, simpering, whining, nagging, fussing, self-entitled little housewifey-poo who can't function without her husband or a mumzy that has no life outside of her children, my character will seriously attempt (if not commit) matricide. I don't know if our characters are going to have parents in the game, but if we do, I implore the creators of Project Eternity to please not give us generic mumzy types like Eleanor from DA:O or Leandra from DA2. I'd prefer a baddass like Adaia, I'll take an abusive drunk like Kala, I'll accept an emotionally distant and neglectful foster father like Daeghun, and I'll even take the cliche dead or missing parents; but for crying out loud, please not the mumzy type! D:

This all sounds so interesting. I've always wondered about the work that goes behind games, so seeing all these updates and sneak-peeks is fascinating! I'm particularly interested in the nature classes. Shapeshifting and animal companions are my favorite parts of being druids and rangers, so it's nice to see them stand out here. For rangers though, even though we'll be close to our animal companions game-wise, I hope we can be close to them roleplay-wise too. As in, I hope we can interact with them, the way we could do for animal companions for NWN1 or the Mabari War Hound for DA:O. For druids, I hope each animal form has rather unique (and useful) abilities, so they don't end up being "different forms of fighter" as discussed in the Druid thread. The combat seems pretty straight-forward but effective. I like the idea of some weapons doing better damage against different types of armor and spells against different levels of mental or spiritual fortitude (or willpower, what have you). It seems like it's rather easy to memorize but keeps players alert while they play. Could just be me, but I still like it. Can't wait to hear more. ^^

Having a limited stock of arrows shouldn't be discouraging, since spellcasters suffer from the same limitation. It's a matter of the developers properly balancing the game and players being more flexible in their tactics. If each archer has, say, 24-36 conventional arrows available at a time, those should readily last through most battles. They can then use their gear inventory to hold special purpose arrows for those situations where the opponent would be too tough to finish off rapidly. (Note that most medieval quivers only held up to about a dozen arrows; many archers just carried the arrows stuck through their belts.) I don't think it's entirely accurate to say spells suffer the same limitation as arrows. True, you probably can't cast as many spells as you can loose arrows (depending on how many arrows you have), but spells make up for it by being much more powerful and much more versatile in uses. Magic can buff, debuff, damage directly, damage elementally, raise dead, summon allies, inflict every status wound there is and then some, rain fire and ice, etc. Arrows don't have as many abilities. You just knock, aim, draw and loose. They might be able to do a few neat tricks like stun, volley, inflict status like burn or poison damage (depending on the enchantment of the arrow), but not nearly to the degree of decent leveled spells (at least none that I've seen.) I don't think of limiting arrows as balancing a system so much as inflicting an even further handy cap. What's more, in most games I've seen, spellcasters can cast as many spells as they have in their spellbook, mana pool, et cetera until they run out of mana or spell slots. They can cast as many spells as they have room for; they aren't limited to just a dozens spells when they have plenty more they're perfectly capable of casting on standby. I also don't see the point of being limited to loosing a few dozen arrows per battle if you can store way more in your pack. Being limited to loosing just a couple dozen arrows when you can have many more makes about as much sense (to me) as being limited to swing your sword, ax, mace, whatever just a couple dozens times before being forced to put away your melee weapon and switch to something else. Imagine running out of sword swings when you've only taken 1/4th or 1/3rd of your total opponents' health because "realistically," you should be tired by this point. Especially if you configured most/all your skills into melee fighting? It'll be an uphill battle. Also, yes, real medieval archers could only fit a dozen arrows in their quivers, but this is a universe with magic. Slightly different situation and resources.

I understand your point of view, but I have to respectfully disagree. I don't think it's the same because healing potions are relatively optional. You can get by without them with healing spells, resting regularly, or avoiding getting hit too hard. Spells have phenomenal cosmic power, a wider variety of uses (damage, healing, buffing, etc) whereas arrows are pretty much limited to one or two uses (physical attack, maybe stunning), you can use scrolls or magical items to cast spells without drawing from your mana pool (whereas with arrows, you pretty much have to loose them) and you can replenish your spells by resting whereas you can't magically restock on arrows by taking a nap. Spells and healing potions also don't take up nearly as much space in your pack. In WOW, most melee weapons took damage every time you hit a target, so you had to take them to get repaired about as regularly as you had to get more arrows, so at least they were evenly handled. With NWN games at least, you never have to worry about melee weapons blunting or breaking the way you have to worry about ammo running out. This means you can use the same melee weapons endlessly, while you have to use ranged weapons in limited doses, or have to pay much more to keep fighting rather than being able to craft your own arrows. To me, this is very uneven. I guess what I'm trying to say is tactically "knowing when to splurge and when to conserve" is great for those who enjoy it, but is not as great for those who don't. Archery as it is requires more calculating than any form of combat, which can be discouraging for those who enjoy it but don't enjoy stressing. Melee and even spellcasting does not require knowing when to splurge and when to conserve as much as archery, and I would like the designers to even the odds if possible. I'm very sorry to have assumed. I guess I based my "most people" assumption on the games I've played and the forums I frequent. Far too often, I seem to see people say, "Don't do archery, it sucks," or "Only do archery if you really, really, really love it," or "Don't expect it to be as good as..." or "I love archery and I enjoyed role-playing as x archer, but..." I just don't want it to be this way for Project Eternity. =( I like the idea of restocking arrows in between fights, though I'm not sure I like the limit to available arrows during combat. In a way, it's even worse since limited arrows means running out much earlier in a fight, which means resorting to melee or spells much more than before, which can be even more discouraging for dedicated archers.

I know this game takes place in a universe with firearms. It sounds like the firearms will be difficult to use, but effective against magic-users. As neat as it sounds, will we still have good old fashioned archery with bows and arrows, crossbows and bolts, etc? If we do, how will it be handled? I'm not trying to be rude, but archery tends to not to be very good in most RPG's. I know it was terrible on the Aurora Engine, which is what the Neverwinter Nights games were made with. I know most people tend not to like archery because it tends to not be as accessible as melee, so I imagine game designers don't put much effort into archery for the next game since most players didn't go for it for the last one, which in turn drives away more potential archers, and it's just a downward spiral. 1) I was wondering if the folks at Project Eternity were planning to try to make archery more appealing to players? 2) I was also wondering about ammunition. Most games like NWN and WOW made you have arrows on you at all times. If you run out of arrows, you cannot fire with the bow. This makes it realistic, but it can be a little stressful since arrows often miss and you can't retrieve them. You always have to buy them instead of being able to make them, so every time you fire an arrow you see is little pieces of gold or silver flying away from the target. You can overstock to decrease the chance of running out, but then they take up tons of space in your pack and it's just stressful. I know I often use melee weapons just to avoid stressing about running out of arrows, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. 3) On the other hand, Dragon Age gives us unlimited ammunition with regular arrows; just limited amo for enchanted arrows like fire or ice arrows. I know it isn't realistic to have a quiver of unlimited arrows, but it also relieves the stress of running out of arrows or space in the pack by over-stocking. I was wondering if anyone would be interested in something like that? 4) If not, maybe a retrieval method? I know most games let us find random arrows in random places, but we only tend to find a handful at a time (6 here, 14 there), which runs out very fast. If we don't have unlimited arrows like in DA, I was wondering if we could retrieve most arrows we loose. For example, we shoot at a bandit and manage to fire 6 arrows into him by the time he goes down. When we loot his corpse, we find those 6 arrows + whatever randomly generated loot he already had. 5) Also, if memory serves, in NWN2 we could craft and enchant most weapons... but not as well with bows or arrows. While we could craft or enchant incredible armor, weapons, magical items, etc. if memory serves, we were limited with what we could do with our bows, and we couldn't craft or enchant arrows at all, which just increased our dependency on merchants or random luck. So basically, my questions and/or suggestions are this: -Will archery be about as strong as melee attacks in P:E so it won't be seen as weaker? -Will loosed arrows do a similar amount of damage as the swings of swords of a similar tier? -Will we have unlimited ammunition like in DA games or limited like in NWN games? -If we have limited ammunition, could we be able to retrieve (some of) the arrows we loose? -Could we be able to craft our own arrows so we don't have to worry about buying them all? -Could we be able to craft and/or enchant bows and arrows just as well as melee weapons? -Could we be able to buy cheap, regular arrows and enchant them ourselves so we don't have to pay for expensive enchanted arrows or wait to filch them off enemy bodies? So, discussion time. Do you like archery? Are you looking forward to playing it in P:E? Are there any ways archery has been handled in past games that you like? Do you have any suggestions for archery in P:E? Do you like how archery has been handled in most games and think I need to give this a rest? What are some of your preferences in all of this? I'm just asking because I love archery and I would like to see it handled well in this game.

The first problem with this thread is that you assume the player wants to be a human and has a problem with elves. Secondly... I have no idea what you're trying to say. It seems like you assume every conversation will start out with some kind of dice roll like in D&D combat. Just like how the start of every hit it basically rolls to see if you hit or miss, then rolls to see how much damage you inflict, and vice-versa for the opponent; you seem to assume that it rolls to see how nice you are to a character, and whatever it lands on is how you have to behave. If the computer decides your character hates the person you're talking to, then you have to be rude to them? You have to be racist against them? Even if your character has no prior history or reason to feel that way? I thought the whole point of this RPG was to have complete control over our characters? Most PC RPG's I've played give you multiple ways to respond in every conversation. The NPC says something to you, and you can choose one of a few dialogue options that let you be polite, aloof, rude, hostile, maybe respond with something more complex (like funny, friendly, flirty, roundabout, direct, etc) depending on the situation (crack a joke for a friend, be evasive about giving information, cut straight to the point). Why your character chooses to respond the way they do is left up to you. For example, you might have the option to be rude to an elven merchant, but only you can decide why your character chooses to be that way. Maybe it's because your character is racist, but it could just be because they dislike merchants, they dislike this particular merchant, they're jerks to everyone, they're just having a bad, etc. Considering how Obsidian has handled dialogue in the past, I don't see how the computer could decide how our characters feel for us. I don't see how every conversation is going to turn into a game of Russian Roulette where we never know how our character is going to have to respond regardless of how we envision them. I just don't see it.

No, this I have to disagree with. If the writers want to create a setting that only works if some races are "objectively evil" (which is an oxymoron since morality is subjective), then I think they need to adjust the setting. I can understand sapient beings from some societies or cultures having systems, values, or lifestyles that we from the perspective of the player cannot agree with (like orcs living in war tribes), or performing some actions that we might understand but not be able to condone (like lizardlings attacking human villagers because of territory disputes), but I do not buy that people from those societies or cultures do it because they're inherently evil. I can understand some societies having values or behaviors that others might disagree with, but I don't think they should be inherently evil. No. Enemy stereotypes are not necessary. Making only non humans pure evil is not necessary. I understand the need for antagonists since every story needs conflict, and there would be no conflict if everyone got along. I understand the need for cannon fodder since over 80% of RPGs are lethal combat, and we need targets that good-aligned characters don't need to feel bad killing. We need enemies that attack first so we can claim self-defense when we kill them. However, I believe singling out some races to be pure evil, and attacking the player only because they're pure evil, is a very out-dated attitude. Even Tolkien seemed to express doubt in his decision to depict orcs as pure evil later in his life. I really liked how the writers of the NWN games sometimes questioned races being inherently evil. For example, in the opening conversation of NWN: SotU, a human paladin and a half-orc sorcerer have a discussion that goes something like this (paraphrasing): "The goblin is an evil creature. Even if it was a child, I could not let it grow up to do wicked things." "And who's to say it couldn't be good if it was raised differently?" "It's different for you, your human blood redeems you of your orcish wickedness." "And you think only human blood can make me good?" I also felt the territory disputes between human villagers and lizardling tribes was rather well-handled NWN2. We start out as a villagers who have to fight every lizardling we encounter in the swamp and even settle territory desputes between one village and one tribe, but we get a few opportunities to hear the conflict from the lizardling's point of view. From the lizardlings' perspectives, humans are encroaching on their ancestral territory and they're simply defending their home and their way of life. From the humans' perspective, they need the land to run their settlements and the lizardlings are just savage beasts, so they need to git. Depending on how you play your character, you can choose to see the lizardlings as evil monsters that deserve to get driven out, or you can try to negotiate a peace agreement that both sides can live with. (Doesn't work, but then humans are just as antagonistic and mistrusting of lizardlings as lizardlings are of humans. The conflict is perpetuated on both sides, not just one.) Need I mention the githyanki? Brutal, vicious, xenophobic zealots that attack your home village and spend the entire first act tracking and attacking you to try to steal back some magical shards... so they can use them to reforge the only weapon that can defeat an ancient evil megalomaniac that will destroy most of your entire realm. Which you only learn after you've killed them all and the task of gathering the shards, reforging the sword and fighting the ancient evil is now completely on you. Oops. Turns out they aren't evil per se, they just have a very coarse bedside manner. They want to save your realm, they just go about doing it by impatiently ransacking villages and adventurers for shards and killing people who try to resist. Good intentioned, not big on negotiations. My point is I can understand a conflict of interest and some races having beliefs or desires that clash with others, but not "this one is evil."

The only thing I can think of is purely evil races like drow and orcs. I know it's been a staple fantasy trope since Tolkien and I know audiences tend to need enemies that are genetically pre-disposed to be evil so good-aligned characters don't have to feel bad for killing them, but I think we've come far enough as a society to recognize that there is no pure good, pure evil, or that some people are inherently less moral than others. It's just people with different moral, cultural, religious, etc. beliefs clashing with differing ones. I can buy two countries going to war because one nation is an imperialist power that wants to convert its neighbors to their religion because of some misguided belief that they're doing the right thing (and they probably also want the country's resources), while the other nation is full of such extreme isolationists they border on hostile (the war between the human nation of Orlais and the elven nation of the Dales in Dragon Age). I don't buy one nation trying to invade and slaughter the other because the entire race of one is Muahahaha evil (the drow invasion of Waterdeep in NWN: HotU). That's all.

I feel odd for saying I don't mind not having a mythical or exotic familiar. A simple pet like a cat or a rabbit would do. I will say though that I hope we get to interact with our familiars, just like how I hope rangers/druids will be able to interact with animal companions, like we could in NWN1 but not NWN2. =(

But isn't the challenge part of the fun? Just because your character doesn't have skills suited to a class doesn't mean you can't build a character you like and role-play. Heck, you could probably incorporate your frustrations of said weaknesses into the character. For example, the said Sand Elf wanted to break the norm for whatever reason and is frustrated by the challenges of being naturally weaker than most humanoid adversaries, and has to work extra hard to make up for the lower strength. As you the player find ways to work around the strength penalty (like maybe take a more finesse route), you can imagine your character's journey in overcoming the obstacles too. In DA:O, elves only had bonuses to mana and magic while both humans and dwarves had higher strength, dexterity, cunning for humans and magic resistance for dwarves. Most people only played elves as mages since it was their only racial benefit, but did I care? No Sir, says the elf lover, I'll take skill bonuses that my scrawny little stick figure has no use for and just dump as many physical stats (strength and con for warriors, cunning and dexterity for rogues) as possible to make up the difference. Also, to be fair, I'm pretty sure there's a significant size and muscle difference to half-giants and sand elves. A difference in strength is to be expected. With that said, I'm not a huge fan of most "racial bonuses" that amount to class-specific abilities. That's pretty much saying that certain races are genetically pre-disposed to being a certain way or having certain talents before even being able to learn them. For example, am I really supposed to believe that NWN2 Drow are born knowing how to cast spells like darkness and invisibility despite not being raised among other drow or having any magical training in their lives? To say nothing of knowing how to speak to spiders despite never getting a chance to learn the language? How about Deep Gnomes being naturally good against reptilians and goblinoids even if they've never seen one, or being naturally more gifted with alchemy or being born knowing more spells than most level 2 wizards and sorcerers. I can go on. The so-called racial "favored class" of the NWN games never impressed me either. Am I supposed to believe that humans are the only race diverse enough to be good at all classes, but every other race is genetically designed to master one specific class but unable to be skilled enough to multiclass with others? Are all elves genetically pre-disposed to being meticulous, magic-studying wizards before they're born? Are gnomes all born with bardic music in their souls? Are halflings all sneaky, thieving little rogues? I don't know, it rubs me the wrong way. I guess what I'm saying is I both agree and disagree with the OP. I personally am mostly all right with different stats since different body types do allow for different abilities. For example, dwarves are thicker and stockier than thin, scrawny elves, so of course I'll believe they can take more hits (higher con). Half orcs are built like mountain trolls while halflings are the size of human children, so of course the former is going to have more strength than the latter. I'm personally not overly fond of racial bonuses for certain classes though. I also think that racial abilities should be able to benefit different classes when possible, as the OP said. It's hard to know where to draw the line because some skills naturally benefit some classes more than others. (Again, higher strength = better warrior.) However, I would also want to focus more on providing abilities that can benefit the race no matter the class (for example, partially going the DA:O route and give an elf a bonus to mana/stamina, so if they happen to be a spellcaster they get more mana, while non-mages can still have extra energy to fight, but either way having something useful) rather than just thinking, "This race is best as this class, so we'll give them skills that would only benefit them if they select this class." Again, are we really supposed to believe that elves are genetically pre-disposed to better handle wizard stuff like wands, staves and tomes, as the OP said? I really doubt it. Wow, that was a long post. Sorry for the length. Anyway, that's my take on it. Everyone and anyone is free to disagree. ^^;

I like characters that subvert stereotypes. Stock characters and classic archetypes might be functional for RPG settings, and even practical for some or most minor NPC's that won't be around for long, but major characters that go against expected behavior are more noticeable, memorable, feel more well-rounded and feel the most like believable people.

I am looking forward to more information about the boreal dwarves and Orlans, not going to lie. Though it can also extend to all the races and their respective civilizations, cultures, beliefs, lifestyles, and how they all interact with each other. Most of us are pretty familiar with how races are handled in Tolkien's middle-earth, the Forgotten Realms, and so on, so I'm interested in how they will be handled here. ^_^

I absolutely hate this suggestion. There's nothing that irks me more then the game trying to make out that my PC is the greatest, most powerful, most handsome, most sexually competent (wo)man in the world. Others may play these games with a hyper idealized, self-insert PC for the sole purpose of gratifying their clearly fragile ego; I on the other hand like to craft a variety of characters with varying degrees of skills, weaknesses and human faults who ultimately are nothing more than reasonably 'normal' people in exceptional circumstances. The moment the cast of characters starts trying to beat me off by saying how wonderfully amazing my big-eared little orlan is at everything is the moment I snap the disc. lol I wouldn't put it so forcefully, but I actually agree. When I play an RPG, I want to see the world from the perception of a denizen of said world, not a super-powered war god among puny mayfly mortals. When putting together a party and talking with companions, I want to feel like the character is part of the team, not some super demigod they blindly praise, agree with, and follow because their entire lives started revolving around my character from the first moment s/he walked by them. After being treated like the Most Talented Academy Graduate and Neverwinter's Only Hope in NWN1, being able to just talk and joke with other apprentices in the opening of NWN: SotU felt so incredible. (Granted, my character was the star pupil and became The Only One later, but it was still nice while it lasted.) After being treated like the most Super-Special-Awesome-Talented-Amazing person in the entire Sword Coast in NWN2 (both by my home town and companions), it was so nice to be treated like just another person with problems, weaknesses, and shortcomings in MotB. Ultimately, when role-playing, it's nice to see the world from the perception of someone who's part of the world, not above and apart from it.

Actually, right now I'm picturing something like what little we know of ciphers, only instead of drawing from and manipulating psychic energy, they draw from and manipulate nature energy. I'm also kind of picturing the warlock class from WOW, only instead of summoning demons, drawing power from demonic magic and manipulating life energy, they summon animals, draw power from the world around them, and manipulate elemental and natural energy. Just as powerful and formidable, just with their own branch of cool. I just hope Obsidian doesn't single out druids for ridicule the way they did for Elanee and her Circle of the Mere in NWN2. =( For that matter, I hope they don't feel like they need to make a druid who's "cool" or "likable" because they're nothing like other druids. I think a better approach would be to make druids cool or likable from the start, or at least as much as any other class, not go in thinking, "They're close to nature, so they must be tree-hugging hippy activist types." We'll see how it turns out, though. I think that would be neat. I don't know for sure, so please don't quote me on this, but it seems so far, spellcasters are: wizards that rely on tomes, priests that rely on faith, ciphers that rely on psychic energy, and druids that rely on nature. I'm sure they'll all have specializations and abilities that differentiate them from each other, but a common theme seems to be magic drawn from different sources. However, we don't know for sure how any of them function. I could be wrong, but I hear tell the priest is going to be a little different from how we've seen clerics in the past, so what that means for druids is anyone's guess.