jamoecw

in the real world picking the right ammunition for your target is important, if the caliber is too big then you punch a hole right through your target which doesn't cause as much damage and disruption as if it stopped in the middle of the target. range affects the caliber used as well, plus there are different types of ammo as well as calibers which has a significant impact on performance. that being said soldiers don't carry around 50 different types of ammo, heck they might at most carry around 3 types for one gun, and usually that is not for different targets, but for different effects (tracer, HE, etc.). the only military weapon that was regularly used with different calibers that i know of are slings, small lightweight ones for range, medium ones for most uses, and heavy ones for sieges/armoured targets. having a sling are maybe a gun that uses a couple of different types of ammo would be nice, but that should be its benefit over other weapons, is that it can adapt on the fly. having every weapon be like that (witcher style sword wielding for example) is a bit on the annoying side, and doesn't really fit into the world in a logical fashion.

well normal intractable stuff was highlightable wit the tab key, which is a huge boon to bg2 over bg1. path of exile lets you 'auto highlight' things, or you can set it to hitting a key, either toggle or held down (highlights while pressed). building this in so that non highlightable objects are needed for things like levers and such would be the road i would take.

battlemage was just the obvious OP build for a mage, ultimately DA:O had the same problem most other games have in that magic is the end all option. if you choose to not go the mages route some fights are much harder, but if you do go mage heavy fights are cake. clear an entire map with a few castings of a combo spell, or inta-killing low level opponents: http://dragon-age.alteredgamer.com/dragon-age-origins/80841-doa-tactics-magic/ the team that did DA:O spent a lot of time relative to other classes to make mages more interesting with special spell combos and such, and their special abilities outshone the skills and abilities of other classes, their spells for the most part worked to some degree against bosses and such while other classes were less consistent. mages were more reliable damage dealers, they had the best defenses the strongest offense, and the most AoE, there was nothing another party member could do better, except maybe spot traps, and traps weren't as big of a threat as enemies, nor as common. as avoiding traps isn't ever necessary, and killing enemies is, then that which kills enemies the best is the most useful class. if a class sacrifices killing potential for trap avoidance, then it has to be weighted heavily in favor of killing in order to make the class not useless. as you are allowed to choose the class, then you must assume the best class at killing as the base line for killing, and work from there. in other words a mages killing power in every situation outstripped a rogue's by enough to render them useless, and warriors lacked any real utility beyond killing potential, which mages were much better at.

well i voted for ME, because i interpreted the poll as the average quality of companion (as the poll was plural, otherwise ME would fall flat on its face, if it was more than one companion but not average i'd say PS:T and if we are talking just one i'd say DA:O or maybe NWN) across the entire series. minus those i haven't played of course.

i don't get this bickering at all, sure there are only going to be 8 non adventurer's hall characters to join your party, but my last update in this thread referenced the update that talked about 16 characters being written with banters and such, 8 of which have their own 'companion' quest. @ kjaamor if you have never heard of someone not liking bg's characters then you haven't read my posts, or the many critics that have since talked about how companions have come a long way since the whole baldur's gate series stuff. for its time it had great companions, but has since been overshadowed by pretty much every rpg with companions, mainly due to the fact that most companions were just token characters. nordom is a failing character in most faqs about PS:T, and the armour guy is often cited as coming into the game too late to really be considered a full fledged companion. considering that adventurer's hall is going to have at least bg2 level characters, complete with banters, that pretty means that the key difference from the bg series of companions and the adventurer's hall companions is that you won't have one trying to get you to ditch one of the companions that you have played half the game with in favor of a complete stranger. maybe i am wrong and there's an issue with adventurer's hall characters that i haven't heard about.

the most recent email update seemed to hint at the adventurer's hall characters having some banter/narrative, though they have capped the amount of adventurer's hall characters you can have (, cool stuff.

well in IE line of effect wasn't really implemented, hiding behind a globe of invulnerability wasn't an option, having squishy targets hide behind hard targets is a common tactic in pnp RPGs cover is used, concealment, etc. as a wizard one spell i liked was the tiny hut one, it was meant as a camping spell, but in combat it could be used to give the party full concealment for far longer than the combat would last, as long as the front line kept the enemy outside of the sphere (attacking from concealment made it easy) our rogue gained backstab on all of her ranged attacks. everyone inside became immune to direct target spells (nothing to target). fly meant that outside a mage was immune to melee attacks. the thing is, is that even with all that unconventional power a mage was still second string to a fighter/paladin/barbarian for consistant damage output. in pnp you can't rest every 5 feet, so your spells have to last, and flight and tiny hut aren't good enough at amplifying your frontline's power, with tiny hut the enemies learn not to try and rush the sphere and take cover, with flight the issue is that most power is in melee weapons, so removing them doesn't help the stronger side. in cRPGs you can rest every 5 feet, so dropping your entire spell list in one battle becomes possible, so instead of a magic missile and a fireball in a battle, to kill 1 and injure 2 more, you will drop 2 fireballs and kill 3, then throw out 5 magic missiles and kill a couple more, with more magic to spare for that 5 feet until you rest. while a fighter would normally hack up 3 enemies, now he is just in the way. if you face a troll, just kite him with fireballs, he should die before you run out of spells, after all you stopped before you met him and loaded up on fire spells having foreknowledge. the problem is that magic is a sort of catchall, you need to come up with a combat system that works with tactical options without magic, then come up with magic that can do things within the bounds of the system, not use it for tactical options. so instead of having magic scattered around the battlefield have terrain that gives tactical advantages, doorways, hills, trees, etc. that matters (trees and hills didn't help in the IE games), then if you do use magic you can mimic these things, weather effects (fog, lightning storms, etc.), or some sort of narrow effect used in different ways (force, used in magic missile, shield, mage armour, resilient sphere, etc.). as long as the magic always follows the same set of logic for what it is (fireball is different than fire wall, so they aren't that good of a spell type) it should allow smart and predictable interactions, allowing for tactical thinking, instead of just lemme cast X. the reason why you don't want this is is because you need to balance power with frequency of use. so a fireball can be used in pretty much any situation, so it needs to be toned down or requirements toned up, which means that it isn't as useful for its collateral effects. likewise firewall can be used as a direct target spell, and as long as you immobilized your target the full effect occurs, so if you use it as a wall (like it is supposed to be used as), it is not very effective in most situations, because it is used like a fireball (which has more useful situations). the two are too dissimilar for them to try and use the same mechanics to govern both, the mechanic is for damage, which is balanced by being a one shot amount. having something do the same damage as a deterrent for area denial means that either the damage for the one shot is too high, the amount is too low to deter movement, or the area denied is too small. resilient sphere should effectively be a wall as well as a cage, as it is already used as a wall via shield spell, preventing magic missile (force effect), ranged attacks, movement, fireball, etc. from getting to those using it as full cover, and gaining cover bonuses when using it as just cover (but still immune to magic missile like the shield spell). tiny hut uses different mechanics and shouldn't be part of the same family. wanting magic to do something beyond the set effects that have been set out leads to unbalancing, which leads to nerfs, which leads to spells no longer being useful for what they were intended for.

I dunno. Even then, even if it's ULTRA minor, I'd rather there be some greater (relative... not necessarily "great") significance. I mean, if he gets to make rat-tail soup, I want to at least have some different ending interaction with him than if I didn't give him the rat-tails. Or maybe he decides to give me the rat-tail soup recipe. If he's just going to say "Dude, I realllllly want to make rat-tail soup, so please give me 10 rat tails," and I do so, only to have him go "Yay! I got my 10 rat-tails and get to make rat-tail soup! Here's 10 gold and some XP!", then he might as well have said "Give me 10 rat tails, and I'll give you 10 gold." Then, you give him his 10 rat tails, and he just says "Thanks, *gives you gold*." Because the only purpose for that quest is to supply you with a task to perform, then a reward for performing that task. Maybe he hates rat-tail soup and gets sick. Maybe he loves rat-tail soup and decides to cook interesting dishes from now on. Who knows. But, he's a person who exists beyond the procurement of those 10 rat tails, so why is that the only potential interaction/affectivity/significance he gets? His making soup doesn't need to impact the main narrative in some way, but if he doesn't even feel like a person, then why is he mildly pretending to be one? why would the guy pay you for rat tail soup? it strikes me as a pretty poor meal (heck for 1 gold you get some food and a place to stay). you could have him not pay you, and you could either get mad that you did something for a bum or just chalk it up to charity. if you got mad you could get a couple of dialog options, one that simply wants him to die for wasting your time, and another where you want him to pay you back somehow. later on you might encounter another bum asking for a gold piece, and you might kill him, or decide to start a bum mafia by having the bums report on the goings on of things on the street, so that you can profit from it in different ways, or maybe you start a work program to try and find work for the bums (who don't want to work, but also don't want to be seen as lazy so they find excuses and issues to get in the way of doing honest work). of course this way quests aren't spoon fed to you so their might be some randomness to experience gain which can be a bad thing.

he doesnt have to... he may get a skill that allows him to use magic to buff up his physical attacks, adding thus a part of his power to the weapon damage, but not all of his power like a fighter would so if you want a sword wielding mage, then you'd have to take a feat that helps him impart his power to (fueled by his soul) his sword, like a fighter does (as fighters use some sort of monk-like fighter soul magic). and it doesn't have to be a single fea that imparts all of the sword ability, it could be a series of feats (like D&D dual wielding feats). the discussion you had really helped me see the 'not-so-bad' side of it, so thank you.

Is the choice between Adventurer's Hall characters having mild depth and a small number of major NPC companions being designed exactly like they were in BG really a mutually exclusive choice? I'd find both a decent amount of general personality/reactivity from Adventurer's Hall peeps AND significantly-improved-compared-to-the-way-BG-did-it main companions to be quite preferable to just one or the other. Personally. well considering that i said that there should be a small core of NPCs that could join you in addition of adventurer's hall banter, so that it felt like that you had huge options, instead of having 25 characters who will join with you so long as you only have 5 or less people with you, and willing to walk into the jaws of death itself with you. but only so long as you don't have some guy help you with your baggage during a dungeon crawl. it was a mistake, in P:T the had 7 NPCs which were more fleshed out, and being so few meant that you only had to reject 2, which is less silly. do it like that and throw in some banters if you feel your party needs something (adventurer's hall) that the NPCs don't bring to the table and you're good to go.

depends on how long you are talking about. small steps when looked at from a distance looks like a diagonal line, and when people are just learning things progress faster than later on, so a cure over someone's lifetime seems reasonable. the problem is timescale. each level is a step, in the D&D 3.0 dungeon master's guide it stated that 1 level should be about 1 year's worth of adventuring, so you wouldn't see any progress in many cRPGs as they take less than a year usually. each level is a step, so the way RPGs are designed is that they are supposed to be a staircase, not a gradual line. now if you have taught people, then you know that they will learn something, then refine their skills along what they have learned before their next epiphone, when things shift to accommodate this new knowledge. this new knowledge doesn't undo the refinement that they had undergone, so if take some time to reach their epiphone they may end up performing better once they get it than someone who reaches the epiphane quickly (at least relative to when they first learn their epiphone). also when you are constantly adjusting to new methods via rapid epiphanes then your refinement suffers, which hopefully you make up once the epiphanes stop or slow down. this refinement process is something that isn't modeled in almost all RPG systems. if it did it would provide a contrast to leveling and make it so that people only see the levels as progression, which prods developers of cRPGs to increase the rate of leveling so that a character is not stagnant throughout a game. now keep in mind that some instructors will hold back students so that they go through some refinement before they reach their next epiphane. generally this is done in a group teaching environment so that you don't have one student doing one thing and others doing something else. when this happens students that have yet to reach an epiphany that another has reached they get discouraged, and they try to force an epiphany instead of refining what they know which harms their own progression. most refinement you notice when you have spent many years learning stuff, then turning around and teaching others. guiding them to an epiphany is easier than remembering all the tiny details you picked up over the years that refined your skill, and then as you teach more, and communicate to others that have taken the same journey to know what is specific to you, and what isn't.

you actually start in ostagar (the tutorial), the stuff prior is a complex and convoluted cut scene, like the ones in ME3 where you walk around at a snail's pace until the game continues. they just have different ones based on background choices that also have a dialog line or two thrown in through the game. you seem to have experience with human customs, even though sometimes you are asked about your dwarf isolation from human stuff and then express that you know nothing due to being isolated and need to be told about it. had they scrapped the background cutscenes they may have been able to polish this stuff up better, heck maybe even thrown in a couple more lines of dialog or an option in some quest that reflected your background. not the worst background stuff in a game, but probably the biggest waste of resources (both the player playing and the developer).

Romances in games where waaay before first mass efect and other biowereian games (i hope you don't see BG2 as biowere game). BG2 had romances way before ME, but there where many games before that had romances but they where "plot" related not optional, for example Final Fantasy series. But there where many game before that had romances but they where more plot related and not focust on them even in all FF series from 1 to 7 romance was not so imortant to main plot but more for personal character development. Final Fantasy 8 break it and made plot that romance was almost at first place (but plot was still good and more mature). Wy can't you play diablo 2 or 3 hack and slash with no character development and childish story ? Cant you leave people that actualy want good story and character development alone and troll on biowere sites or daiting sim sites if yo want to feel importat ? Beside im 100% for romance and even having children AFTER the story line, i also cant see pregnant elf running inside the dungeons and fighting romances. Off cource we can assume that they don't have protection and this was simply an accident (like in life) but even then she shoud go from party and rest at the time of pregnancy. Seeing preg belly elf taking hits from dragon is to much form me and i don't want to see it in PE. This is also not from mechanical side but also from good taste ... i think that this can be done better. I'm saying for every literary fantasy where romance doesn't make sense there's one that its rather important to. Which is really the key here, you can do a story with or without romance. Both stories can be crackling good. That's why I keep trying to stress that really, ultimately, if romances are in or out and if they're in what kind of romances they are really has to be dictated by story and character. There's not a "one size fits all" solution here. I agree annd i also think a Dragon Age Orgins or Mass Effect are good examples of "how not to make romances in games" and here are my conclusions : 1. Romancing ech character shoud be difrent, romancing 1 girl is difrent then romancing secound. 2. Romances shoud develop thru whole game not like 2-3 conversations and you are 1000% in love, romance shoud progress slowly. 3. Romances shoud be more focused on character inner motivations, problems and emotions rether then thei ugre of getting laid like in mass effect. 4. Romances shoud be more based on writhing rether then special effects and sex scenes. 5. There whoud by always and option to not have romances with somebody becouse as i sad forceing someone to have romance is as bad as forceing someone to not have it. 6. Romances shod always be relewant to main story and character development not optional bonus that doesn't change anything like in DAO. and have main inpact on a ending/endings. 7. Romances shoud more risemble Jaheira/ Viconia romances or Final Fantasy romances (if characters are younger) rether then typical biowereian. 8. Characters that are romance ably shoud be intresting even without romances, becouse romaning badly desined character like Elanee or Leliana is pain in the ass. 9. Romances shoud not focus on "ego-stroking" player and insted on "you are so good i can't stand my self" like lelianna romance they shoud more focus on creating a romance that shows all spectrum of emotions, anger, sadness, happynes and other. 10. every character must be living character, makeing some character romance able doesnt meat she/he must become mindless ego-stroking doll, characters that are romance able shoud have their problems, motivations and react like living characters, thet shoud argu if they don't like something. 11. And last one, if they input any "influence system" that affect romances i hope they don't do it like "i agre +1" "i don't agre-1". Becouse in reality people interactions are much more complexed, people sometime want someone simply to lisen to them rether then talk, people somethimes want to know what they do wrong insted of hearing "yo do everything good" and sometimes people act strage, and they don't even know why ... first off you're right that bioware romances are not done well. second is that while jaheira's romance developed better, it was still a bit odd given the characters' backstories and differing moral views. third i agree that afterwards real relationship should flower (marriage, kids, etc.) and not during. fourth it would seem you don't know much about battlefield romances (romances that occur while deployed in fighting in a war), in fact that is a pretty common theme amongst romances in games. they will be stuck in real danger and talking about whether or not they are faithful, or how pretty the other one is (in a serious romantic way, not a platonic chidding way). when in real danger your mind focuses on the threat, romantic things tend to distract, therefore romance is foolish in such situations and those that are foolish enough to do so are too foolish enough to make it work in the long run (and probably survive, but that is beside the point). i am not saying that romance shouldn't happen, but it shouldn't be a dramatic one with current drama issues. if there is drama it is about dealing with past issues, which would be something that should happen even without romance. so the only real difference given the time scale and lack of peacetime (not downtime mind you, but crisis is over sort of peacetime) would be sex, and perhaps an epilogue saying how either they went their separate ways, or they lived happily ever after. and i am not saying that romance = sex, i am saying that until the epilogue there wouldn't be anything going on that resembles any sort of romance, aside from a few establishing dialog lines, which are only a slight variation of a deep friendship.

So what is the problem with that method aside from association with Asian MMORPGs? The most obvious being that is removes most planning from chargen, makes it impossible to make/customize a character specialized in specific weapons. I mean why should a character who has say a high Agility score be able to wield a Long Sword or a Spear with equal proficiency. wrong example, perhaps a crossbow would be better. why would more strength increase the damage of a crossbow? higher dexterity boosts accuracy with weapons, thus increasing the chance to hit (this was even a feat with D&D). but more damage? that would be strength, unless you have a nonphysical weapon (turn undead) or a weapon that uses mechanical operation for its strength (like a crossbow).

which is why i said in human terms. though now that i think about it, jaheira is your adopted mom, and khalid was your adopted dad (being godparents and your other parents are dead). so in a month or less after your dad dies you bang your mom, hmmm, BG2 really was doing things differently.

this thread is getting rather long fast. o rly? The thing that comes closest to this is soldiers in the field, so it would be interesting to know what their behaviour tends to be like in this regard nowadays, where men and women often serve together. Do they foster romances? Do they even tend to have sexual relations with each other? Do they tend to drift off into deeply emotional discussion? Unless these questions are answered and someone can tell me why this is also how it should be in RPGs, I'll continue to view CRPG romance as highschool fantasy roleplaying. well i am in the military and we have training about stuff like this constantly, not so much due to the healthy relationships (which are so rare they are almost nonexistent), but due to the unhealthy ones. when in field you develop bonds with people due to the fact that you are cut off from normal social outlets, therefore when you are on watch for 2 hours at night you talk with the person you are on watch with, and thus get to know them. if they are of the opposite sex they become friends, which means that normal romantic relationship is out of the question (not to mention regulations and constant dangers). both guys and girls get horny, which leads to sex. sometimes both parties decide to continue the relationship further, and thus romance is born. once out of the field the stresses relax and personalities flex back to normal, which usually causes romance to fail (this flex period causes a high divorce rate even among non infield relationships). as groups rotate new connections are made and isolation from the old occurs, this leads to non steady relationships. so in order of common occurrence: deep friendship sex temporary relationship permanent relationship you can further divide each point further to get a more comprehensive list, permanent relationships are always on the bottom (which are the ones always depicted in games). I think neither Marco Polo's expedition or the crew of a navy ship are valid comparisons, numbers being one thing. The dynamics are simply different in a small group of 6 people max. While it may be more intimate in a way, OTOH no one can really let their guard down while you're a) in hostile territory or b) navigating the seedy underbelly of a medieval city/ prancing about on the slippery ground of feudal politics, and RPG companies tend to be always at a or b. I think where my example falls short is that, with adventuring companies, they make their own rules, i.e. no one tells you that you can't have sex or hold hour long discussions of your traumatic past. They could do that. I think time is a critical factor; most RPGs don't have a timed main quest. You can take all your sweet ass time. I guess that when you are whiling away the time resting in a grove for days, some romance may start to blossom. But this is usually at odds with the story; you're supposed to get somewhere or someone, or else. Drastic consequences etc. That's why I find it so irritating when all of a sudden, someone's petty private life takes center stage. with few people in a group you still get relationships forming, the issue is how fast do they form? which has everything due to compatibility of the personalities at the time (which is different when they retire). most games don't last long enough for any real relationships to form, so ya they are a sort of high school relationship, which rarely lasts. i feel that if romances are done they should cover the spectrum, which means gay/straight/bisexual/monogamist/polygamist/serial monogamy/rape/casual sex/etc. focusing on the least likely to occur just because it is the most socially acceptable seems a bit off for a genre that is about freedom of choice. BG2 had a socially acceptable pedophilia in the aerie romance, she had just recently 'flowered' which mean she was in human terms 14-16, and she acted like it too. a bit hidden but that was understandable (avoid controversy), but it was different which is a big plus, modders have added in gay romance and deep friendships, and even incestual (imoen), so a modded BG2 is pretty diverse, though no studio has yet to touch such breadth of romantic choices. it may be too much trouble though so i won't be broken up if romance isn't in.

that's why i think the most efficient use of any sort of backstory stuff from a developer resources standpoint is banter for adventurer's hall characters. having a few choices to select a grouping of generic banters for player made characters would make them seem less band compared to the other NPC's, this all assumes that there is banter in P:E. let's say you make a male dwarf, you select female voice, raised by elves, likes indoors, and dislikes dungeons. you end up with some sort of effeminate dwarf that likes staying at inns, has a lot in common with your elf party members, and tries to get you to not take dungeon delving quests. even if it doesn't alter dialog options, the backgrounds can improve the game via banters, though you are right. if they devote resources toward origins having a serious impact on gameplay then you will have a significant amount of permutations, or you could go the BG route and have 3 options that don't mean anything (results in the same choice).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3ZXqeUO3kU shins work for martial arts, but ya, not so good with bladed weapons. the reason has to do with the angle the protect from, which is from below you, and they aren't as easy to articulate to odd angles as arms, so generally they are only good at blocking sweeping kicks. kicks are powerful and have better range than punches, but swords trump both.

Trolls gonna troll. Either that, or it's just a poor analogy. Anyways: If the (two?) paths of obtaining "Mithril Chain" are competing with each other depends very much on the requirements of both paths. Is obtaining the mail much easier pursuing said quest? Then that speaks in favor of completing the quest. Are the two about equal? Then both actually have a place in the game, and I never said anything else! It's a poor analogy because obviously, in this case, you did not implement a different mechanic into the game, not even a different item, therefore we can't say that any ressources went to waste. Now if there was one set of Mithril Chain lying around in the wilderness, and one set obtainable through a quest, and you definitely will never need more than one set, then that might raise some questions as to the appropriateness of the mail as a quest reward. A merchant offering the best prices will always be the better choice than any other merchant. Unless, like you suggested, we just add fluctuating prices, so you have to travel to every single merchant to check their prices. Except there's no fun to be had and no planning involved there. I don't know why you blatantly keep repeating that a player with more gold will have no advantage over other players, only a "different rhythm" to his playthrough. I've already adressed this. I won't repeat myself 1000 times, but maybe 999: Managing your party better resulting in an easier playthrough is broadly accepted. There's nothing wrong with it. Having an easier time because you faithfully trudge towards that out-of-the-way merchant who will pay a king's ransom for your rusty swords, not so much. It's just a test of patience. BTW you economy geeks have ignored what I said about better prices only applying to purchases made by the player, not sales. How about that? the point about resources might be due to the distance you have to travel to get the chain in the wilderness, think o it being were you would consider it being the merchant in question. does that change the relevancy of the quest reward? to some yes, others no. point about gold making parties stronger, that wasn't disputed in the statement you quoted, only the need, which you have stated would make regional pricing lost on the player, which the quote was offering a reason as to why it would make a difference. you are right, if there is no reason to go to a place other than some super merchant then it is just a test in patience and is a bad design. as far as backtracking, depends on the game, in BG there was plenty of revisiting an area due to some development or another, also the lack of need would just alter tempo as there wouldn't be the need to return as gold was plentiful enough to not need to backtrack. as for the selling being all the same price, while buying being different, it was hinted at prior to the argument from me stating that merchants should never buy or sell at a loss. though it isn't the only method of ensuring that doesn't happen, but it is one method, and is perfectly reasonable.

Flase. Arms and legs are parts of the body that move the fastest and are hardest to hit. Fighting techniques focus on gettinga hit, thus targeting parts of the body that you are most likely to hit. Torso and head and the center focus of swordplay. unless you using your hands to use tools to defend yourself, then you are using their speed to put them in harm's way. for leg injuries, the legs are farther from your defense tools, and the stay under your body most of the time, so a sweep connects with them instead of the easier to defend body more frequently given an even distribution. you are right that torso and head are typical targets, yet most excavations yield results of the forward arm as the most injured section of the body. most likely it is due to putting it in harms way, and the lack of the desire to trade a limb wound for a body wound given the choice (like moving your arms out of the way without moving the whole body out of the way in the process).

We all know that in AD&D mages are low-level whimps but high-level overpowered. Definitely imbalanced. So why do people still have a ranger in their group instead of a second mage? eh, i prefer a fighter/mage/cleric in IWD, since i have that option. the fact that a mage is OP at higher levels means that i can blend him and still have a not so OP mage at higher levels, and have him perform other critical back line party functions. the fighter aspect means he isn't useless when things go sideways, as sometimes happens (random encounter while out of spells, enemy gets in close, etc.). thieves are lackluster in my opinion in low and high levels, at low levels they lack the skills to be really good in combat, and high levels they are outshined due to their one hit maybe wonder backstabs that are capped so that fighter classes always out perform them. so i multiclass them with fighters, and when i want to go sneaky i throw on a light armor and get **** done. even with armour they have good damage sometimes via backstab which makes up for the lower fighter levels. IWD is my favorite series due to options it has by having roll out your own party (sure baldur's gate can be played this way, but it doesn't feel right with all those people asking to help you out, or you them. though you still get that if don't roll out a party of your own). i've played with just magic classes, and no magic classes. the need for early gold for the magic classes means that most gold efficient strategies don't work, but due to their power in late game they more than make up for it. non magic classes need more gold in the late game and much less in the early game, so gold efficient strategies are more useful. though ultimately the low power in late game means more thought for the fights that were meant to be epic, and the magic classes require careful planning to deal with the unepic goblins early on, from a story/RP perspective it is pretty funny (sort of like an eccentric talking about an epic fight against some weak rats, while glossing over killing dragons like the rats are a much more interesting tale). a lot of people prefer BG due to banter and scripting, but the freedom of IWD is far more dead than the highlights from BG (at least from between the IE games), mass effect had some great character interaction and story (minus the 3rd obviously), as well as kotor and some other RPGs since BG. so regional pricing that is mainly flavor (mainly, not completely) i think would help regain some of that sense of freedom, though i guess if you find IWD lackluster it may not seem like much. that is the point of well done regional pricing, freedom to play in weird ways that don't require cheating or messing with difficulty options, just some more thought for those that are trying new things.

well if you get rid of magic = bad idea for merchants then the merchants would have to have a market for magic armour for them to pay you more than non magical, and even if they did it wouldn't be as narrow of margins as non magical as it would take longer to sell. so you could just make it so that you get worse deals while selling magical items, ranging from non magical price for non magical merchants to maybe double that at best (so a +1 that costs 1000 would be bought back at 280, so a margin of ~3.5x as opposed to ~1.5x). that way loot doesn't become worthless if you are still challenging yourself later in the game, at least without genociding whole goblin villages.

taking a breather is a form of rest, so is sleeping. the previous IE games didn't have a take a breather button, and they called the sleeping one by the generic 'rest' term, so the barbarian might rest the same number of times, just in shorter duration, or maybe more times, but still in shorter duration. the only ting that is certain is that he will need less healing and more relaxation.

Interesting. I didn't even know the IE games had regional pricing. I've played all of them on core difficulty without reloads and never had a need for more money, which proves my point I think. that is my point of high highs, you didn't even know that you could game the system for even more money, and because you don't have to put up with someone doing such and forcing you to do such you probably don't even care now that you do. that is the difference between MP and SP games, sure they could have made some super item (or a full set for your party) that requires you to do such things to get, then it might be an issue. so there is a right way of doing high highs in SP and a wrong way of doing high highs. supply and demand in BG2: http://strategywiki.org/wiki/Baldur's_Gate_II:_Shadows_of_Amn/Shop_Details an even smaller fluctuation that BG2 would have been better. if he has a demand he will probably be getting some from his supplier soon anyway, if not he won't turn away more of a hard to get item by stiffing you on the price (30% to 20% is a 33% drop in price which is far too big to be realistic from just one factor).

includes BG 'regional' pricing guide: http://www.forgottenwars.com/bg1/miscellany.htm discussion on BG2 'regional' pricing: http://www.sorcerers.net/forums/showthread.php?t=44971 discussion on IWD 'regional' pricing: http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/256221-icewind-dale/63966399 so there is a good chance it will be in P:E (it is supposed to be based on the IE games anyway), so far most arguments have been for regional pricing that is more flavorful and realistic (less exploitable).