Iucounu

Yeah, you can't summon skeleton warriors as a 10th level caster. A different approach that works for a 10th level wizard would be to polymorph into a mustard jelly (100% magic resistance). Perhaps also add Spell Immunity:Abjuration, so that the Lich can't simply dispell your jelly form. Still that method requires metagame knowledge, just like using a Skeleton Warrior against casters does.. As for the discussion, I don't think BG 2 was a particularly challenging game, neither was it particularly unchallenging. I believe the main appeal of the game was to discover spells and abilities (especially for people new to DnD) play with them, combine them, and see what is possible. Bg2 was a paradise for people who loved to break games, and it was even more so when difficulty mods like tactics were introduced, where you had to use all your accumulated tricks in order to succeed. PoE will certainly be a very different game in that regard, considering Obsidians emphasis on balance. Perhaps this emphasis will lead to more tactical combat (mostly), I don't know. Still, I don't need hard tactical combat puzzles all the time in order to enjoy a game. A game can challenge in different ways. If I take IWD, you couldn't really powergame and break it like you could bg2, but the challenge was also mostly about finding optimal builds, optimal "buff-chains" et cetera in order to beat or dominate the game, and to manage heart of fury mode. Once that was done, the combat itself wasn't all that tactical, you could just breeze through everything, relax, all the while clapping yourself on your shoulders, adjust something here and there, and perhaps come up with ideas how to further improve your methods. At least that's how I've experienced it, and it was certainly not a boring experience

Is the flanked status actually commutative? Does it make a difference if you are flanked by 2 opponents or by 4? If so, I'd imagine Barbarians could be far better tanks than fighters when they're facing hordes of trash mobs. Brute Force abitlity sounds cool, it's often too easy in rpgs to make a uniform good tank by just piling up one defense like deflection. Barbarians would just represent a different fighting style to counter this. One Stands alone: I find that hard to bite too, but from a gamist point of view it's perhaps fun. Carnage: the attack on multiple enemies thing is good and all, still, I think it would be better to have the option to turn it off, in order to get other bonuses, or to use other abilities. The way I see it, barbarians are already distinct enough from the fighter class, even without carnage.

I wonder how the technology that animancy uses will look like, or if it is even revealed in the game. As far as I understand it, there will be machines that can catch souls, change the properties of a soul, and other things. Perhaps these machines rely on soulmagic, like mages use it? If not, I'm curious after which principle they work. Only thing that seems sure is that at least the whole soulconnection thing requires Cypher abilities. Perhaps Cyphers can use certain devices to enhance or extend their abilities, which were developed by animancers.

If you define "lawful good" as an alignment where a person follows a certain set of rules or principles to determine what is morally wrong and right, you get a wide set of different views. For one, there could be the pure utilitaristic consequentialist, who in order to save two children from being tortured, would torture a random uninvolved child. Then on the other hand there could be someone who follows some sort of deontological ethics, who'd refuse to kill an uninvolved person even if it would save 10 children from being tortured to death, which most people would perhaps see as "lawful stupid". Still, in both cases the above definition of lawful good holds true, which is why when it gets complicated, I think you're better off just doing without such labels from the start. Just let the player think for himself, and the fictional characters in the game probably have different opinions about the actions of the playercharacter depending on their individual views. Of course, in the IE games most decisions you had to make weren't that morally complicated, so it was easy to assign the player's behavior to categories like good or evil, and then have a game system that with absolute authority deems the playercharacter as a good or a bad person, so that you could for example let the evil persons be affected by the spell holy smite, and the good persons by unholy blight. But what to make of a radical utilitaristic consequentialist? Is he affected by unholy blight or holy smite? Or perhaps create an extra spell for them, like deontological smite, or whatever?

If possible. BTW, that would be kind of cool on the highest difficulty. The possibility to get stuck in a dungeon, where you can't rest and you can't simply leave the dungeon either, because you're lost or you can't get past the monsters guarding the entrances. The latter would simply require additional encounters at the right places on higher difficulty, so nothing that they haven't planned anyway.

I just hope that doesn't mean you require consumables on Hard, and that they're very hard to come by, perhaps even have a durability? As long as it isn't in DA, where you can and have to quaff 10 healing potions in every fight on higher difficulty. Also, if you can use consumables, your opponents should be allowed to use them too, otherwise it almost feels like cheating.

Actually I think it could very well exist in a few decades, with the advancement of brain research. After all the soul is perceived as nothing more than the source of conciousness, and perhaps to an extent as the source of intelligence, personality, memories etc., just like we perceive the brain in our own world, the only difference being that souls probably can't be destroyed, created from nothing or cloned, and appear to be something eternal, but still. If in our modern democratic society such a field of research would arise, that might have cruel applications (like creating zombies, for whatever reason), I don't think it would be prohibited, as you can't stop the inevitable anyway. The government would just make sure that research on this field is controlled so that nothing unethical is done, in public at least. If further research yields crucial benefits, like for example in war, the more cruel research could be done by secret organizations that work for the government.

Yeah, at the mid-end of SOA and in TOB, class combos are probably stronger (at least if it's a multi-class, dual-classes had less High Level abilties if I recall correctly). Although single class kits like Bounty Hunter can be pretty cool too. Anyway, I just wanted to point out that single-class thieves can be quite decent and not useless like some people claim. Although compared to a fully developed class-combo, yeah, I guess you could say they're weak.

I think thieves are perceived as weak because most players were basically playing them like a fighter who does the occasional lockpicking, but that's not the game's fault. A thief who relies on backstabbing or traps has his uses and can be quite effective. This guide is pretty good. For me the thief's ability to detect illusion alone was golden, something most players have probably never used. I haven't really played druids excessively, but I do think that they have a spell selection that adds something to any party, the insect spells and some rather useful summons come to mind.

@ Lephys P:E does indeed have more suited lore in that respect. However, a warrior in the end is still mostly a stick fighter, even if his stick fighting is powered by some supernatural soul, the whole thing is still rather mundane. You can't do much with a sword other than thrusting and slashing, it's not something abstract and elusive like magic. Just taking the old model of a warrior from d&d and other systems and add some supernatural speed and strength is probably not enough.

I read a lot about mages being overpowered in BG2, or that they're unbalanced compared to other classes. Basically, I agree with that, and I'm all for classes being equally powerful or interesting. However, if this is achieved by dumbing down magic and it's tactical possiblities, as it is in every game I know of in which classes are more or less equal, I think that's a rather suboptimal solution. Is there actually a reference, a party-based rpg that came close to achieve absolute balance, and still had exciting, I mean really exciting combat? It would certainly bore me to tears if P:E (or rather P:E 2) would end up as a second BG2 and it's kind of mage-centric approach, because I had enough BG2 in a lifetime. But still, in my youth, for me there wasn't a game that was even remotely as interesting combatwise I guess many people have a different view there, but tbh, I'm not sure if most of them even know what they're talking about. They play the game like 2-3 times in a decade, and I can't imagine that this gives them an in-debth understanding of all the tactical possiblities and maneuvers that were possible in BG2.

My favorite combo was summoning a dozen chickens via Limited Wish, and then with a lucky Wish cast Horrid Wilting on every creature in the area :D It's fun when you can use and combine abilities in such a creative and not too obvious way. Something for the harder difficulties.

I have to say I find this mostly true for the IE games. Opponents that were so weak that death spells were relieable against them, you could easily chop to pieces without using any spells at all. Against tough opponents I can say that I've never rided my luck and used a finger of death against a strong opponent without first debuffing him. In most cases you're better of casting crowd control spells and damage spells anyway, although there certainly are situations where death spells can be very useful. In any case, yeah, if I cast greater malision, multiple dooms on an opponent, and then use three deathspells against him to bring him down without success, I'd probably feel justified to reload and try the same thing again (same if I casted another save-or-else spell like spook on him by the way, that is critical for winning the fight). The interesting question that arises for me now is, at what point am I starting to rely on dumb luck for my tactics to work? If I have 10% chance of failure? Perhaps 5% or 1%?

BG2 was the only game with magic I really enjoyed. The magic there was better than in all other DND cRPGs, and much better than in all the games were a mage is not much more than another kind of long-distance fighter. Dark Souls, Gothic and Dark Messiah are the only Action-RPGs with a decent combat system. Each and every 3d party-based cRPG would be much, much better as an Action-RPG, does't matter that it would be harder to control the party that way. An Epic Level rpg where standard stick-fighters are on a par with spellcasters can only suck.

Great approach, one you don't even come up with after playing too many crpgs. Another way to deal with powerful enemies is to simply fight them with allies, or other neutral partys. In both cases you have to think about how to combine your abilities with the other party to be effective, just like you have to adapt your tactics to exploit three way battles.

I like to think that most if not all situations people describe here as inherently tedious or frustrating are so because it wasn't made compelling enough for them. Of course if a game bores me to tears (like Dungeons Siege recently), my tolerance to backtrack for a questitem or sucking in combat is greatly reduced. However, you have to wonder why it is that I for example forgot a questitem? Maybe I was so bored of the whole quest that I simply wasn't paying enough attention from the start. And maybe I'm a poor sport then because the game generally doesn't offer interesting or funny consequences for my failings, if there are any consequences other than failing at the quest at all.

In one interview, I think Josh Sayer talked about wanting to create some sort of yearning in the player, by emphasising that the world is bigger, much much bigger than the player characters own story and agenda. Similiar to the spawn of Baal in the Forgotten Realms Multiverse. I think if you can pull this of, to make a story that is awesome, but doesn't "posess" the world because the world is even much more full of awesome, you're getting a great adventerous atmosphere and are up for a great series.

I think BG made a good job with Vampires and Lichs. Imagine encountering a Vampire in BG 1 at a low level - the party would be slaughtered like sheep, as it should be. And even in BG2 vampires could be deadly for an unprepared mid-level party with their level drain, domination, weapon immunity, regeneration and speed.

Was a bit confused at first, since there is no attribute that contributes to deflection, and I love making defensive builds. However, I figure it probably makes sense the way it is. Just hope there are enough possibilities to modify your deflection through passive abilities or skills. Also, I hope things like reflexes will be used as a defense against certain combat maneuvers, not only against e.g spells and traps. Same with fortitude or even willpower.

god, how I hate my slow Internet

That kind of tediousness comes from failed encounter design. Encounter is not well planed if it don't give player any challenge but exist only to make game longer. RTwP games aren't immune to this kind of encounter designs which PS:T works as fine example. Even so, Planescape with turn based system would have been even more tedious. And I wouldn't say that fighting several critters that only provide a minor challenge is generally failed design. What's certain is that these kind of fights are far more enjoyable and "flowish" to play (and to watch) in RTwP games than in turn based games.

What I hate about turn-based systems is that it's often tedious. Extreme example in Fallout, when you have to fight 10 rats. You can kill each rat with one shot, but the fight takes forever. If they need to make a turn based game, I'd at least have the option run them at maximum speed (no animations). And the combat system better be worth the time.

I guess in summary that means being able to defeat every opponent that you encounter is boring as hell, and I fully agree with that. Almost feels like a computer game.. Anyway, I think the best game I've seen in that respect was gothic. I remember one area where you killed some minor opponents, mostly animals around a cave, and in the cave itself, and then suddenly you encountered an orc warrior who could cut you down with one hit. Problem was, he could even outrun you, so you had to climb somewhere on a rock and climb better then the orc (fighting from a higher ground was also easier) , jump in the water if there was any lake or river around, or run away in a hick-hack course to avoid being hit. Good times

well, what a coincidence then.. FR imo is a big playing field, that sticks all popular western mythology and fantasy tropes together to provide an adventurous athmosphere for the player. And in that, I think it does a pretty good job. Or at least did a pretty good job.

That gotta be my dream game. A game without any direction, cause and intent, or underlying meaning, flamboyant characters, exceptional situations, and a greater whole that somehow fits together, a story told by a storyteller. Just real life. And then, through some 0850 plot still brooding somewhere in the background, the apocalypse comes. Wayne?