SymbolicFrank

Let's see... Ok, we know that all stats (attributes) are equally important, and there are no dump stats. Let's generate some valid (non-gimped) chars: So, while your generic AD&D fighter would look something like (dice throws): STR 18/00 DEX 16 CON 17 INT 8 WIS 7 CHR 3 with D&D 3 you got something like (point buy): STR 16 DEX 12 CON 12 INT 10 WIS 10 CHR 10 and with PE you might get something like: STR 14 DEX 12 CON 12 INT 12 WIS 12 CHR 12 ??? For the other classes you could change the max stat around, but there is probably no real need. What was the saying again: "Jack of all trades, Master of none"?

Balanced characters and abilities are for when you play with or against other players: everyone should be just as good at anything as everyone else. When I'm the only human in the game, I want as much diversity as possible. I don't want the ultimate best pwn build on all my party members. Because it's not a competition. I want to be amused.

Although I agree with Lephys, there is a very good recent, real life example about the futility of declaring actions Good or Evil: Bush Jr. and the second Iraqi war. In short: while all of the actions taken seemed to serve a noble goal, to make life better for the people involved, the reality of it is much different. First, it seems that there was a serious gap between the stated motivations (WMD's) and the actual ones (POWER). And, as we have a new and at least as brutal a dictator in Iraq now, just as we had ten years ago, the net result seems to be: hundreds of thousands of civilians killed, and around a million mutilated. And, of course, a lot of destruction and reshuffling of property. So, while the intentions might have seemed to be Good, for most people involved, the result is definitely Very Bad. Then again, as the saying goes: "Kill one and you're a murderer, kill ten and you're a psychopath, kill a million and you're a hero." Don't forget that history is, implicitly, written by the winners. So, in a nutshell: the winner is the Good Guy, the loser was the Evil Guy.

I'll take underpowered mages over overpowered mages any day, but then you know that already. Besides, after all the years of overpowered casters, it's only fair that the melee types get to be useful for a change. I'll take a single, very powerful and very fragile mage any day, especially if I need all my other party members to protect and support him/her. Much more interesting on a tactical and strategic level.

Good point, and I agree. However, in how far can you create all six of your party members as you see fit? While being able to create them all to specs, that would also be much more boring than having to choose between a limited set of NPC's who can join. While it might increase the replayability options, in that you have more choice in the matter, with recruitable NPC's you also get all the downsides that come with them. Which is a good thing! Because, left to their own devices, people tend to gravitate to the same play style every time, unless there are some obstacles that make them choose between multiple, different choices. Or, in other words: if you take all the level-up points and choices together from multiple playthroughs (except perhaps the first), they might be spend on different characters, but they're very likely spend on the same skills and abilities. Unless the designers limit that according to the personalities of the available joinable NPC's.

I think the same standards that apply to everything about an RPG apply to combat too; #1, is it challenging and #2, is it fun. Kiting isn't challenging and it's only fun for retards special people. Again, the fact that you choose to use proper tanking and tactical spellcasting because you don't want to cheese is your personal preference, not good design. Generally, in serious combat, the first one to hit wins. Because, if it wasn't immediately lethal, it shocks you and makes you much worse at fighting. You die. As that's not much fun, hitpoints were invented. And, when you have a party, a single survivor can resurrect all the dead party members. Let's think about that for a second: would you be happy with a career where you die about once a week, because your co-workers will certainly resurrect you! Right? Right? Guys, please! Not that you are aware of all that, each time it can be the final one. But, after a good nights sleep, you're completely healthy and ready to die again. Kiting is the only good way to fight if you want to survive. It might be very "heroic" to wade in and die. But very stupid as well. And tactics and strategy are THE fun things for the players to do, instead of just selecting all and ordering them to attack.

Well, the only way you can be the Good Guy/Girl when you kill people for a living, is under the banner of Some Great Good, like being in an army that protects civilians against military invasion (instead of being the aggressor and killing many), or through religion. Which is where the good/evil description comes from in the first place, and it tends to boil down to: if you do something else than we tell you to, you're evil. Culture did the rest. So, it's extremely subjective when someone is behaving good or evil, and the breakdown you know is certified Christian. Being an annoying or irritating person can be an asset in may cultures.

I loved Aerie in BG2 for her abilities when I got her. And I had saved her, so all was well. But I dumped her when I got seriously fed up with her whining. Which left a glaring hole in the abilities I wanted covered by my party. Which wasn't all that easy to fill. And the same went for Jaheira, after I discovered the Harpers. And that's fine! I like it that way! It's just like real life, if you ever managed a big project. Which is totally cool. With D&D 3.5/4, you simply pick a random party member to improve the thing you want. It would be like, a non-whining Aerie, who could also pick locks. It doesn't matter, you have your list of party members with level-up points and list of things you want to be able to do. Who cares about the personality? With Pen and Paper, you have a Dungeon Master, who decides what can be done. You don't have that in a computer game. You either allow all of it, or make a list of what is allowed when. That's what we have to work with when playing the game. And that's decides by the designers. Another point would be things like the monk. While I totally agree that it would be best for every party member to wear full-plate for survivability, why are you going to introduce a martial arts specialist, who certainly benefits from wearing full plate and (as I understand it) melee weapons. And that's not all: while wounds are a Bad Thing for everyone else, for a monk, they're a resource! Well, it's more complex than that, because monks have both wounds and Wounds. The first is Bad, the second is Good, if you make the countdown. So, what is the difference? Is it something we, the players can understand at a glance? Well, I haven't understood how it should work exactly, except that a lot of stuff determines in how far something becomes a wound or a Wound. Or, in other words: you just have to try and see if you like it. And last: most games we liked and remember best were all quite flawed, somewhat broken and certainly unbalanced. Then again, they did something new and unique.

Which is, in a sense, exactly what they are doing when they allow all of your party members to do anything available. Sure, some of them will do it a bit less efficient than another one. But that doesn't matter, because they can all do it anyway. What do you mean by this? Do you see it as good design if every type of character can do anything? I don't. Using the tetris analogy, it would be like the game letting you alter the shape of each falling piece in order for it to fit as you wish it to. It defeats the purpose of having different classes, and different builds. It also renders pointless the notion of a party, beyond the mindless: "well 5 people doing x is better than just 1x doing it!" We agree. The next point would be: if there is a trap which only a pure rogue can disarm, can it be allowed to be lethal? If playing with a group: sure, why not. But if that is the only way to continue, it would stop any solo character that isn't (mostly) a thief. Unless there's another way... And the same goes for diplomacy.

Great managers and generals score high on the psychopath index. So, being evil, or at least having little or no empathy should be mandatory for winning a game where you command a group of adventurers and destroy all opposition. For the character you play, of course. It's a Role-playing game, after all.

Which is, in a sense, exactly what they are doing when they allow all of your party members to do anything available. Sure, some of them will do it a bit less efficient than another one. But that doesn't matter, because they can all do it anyway.

Exactly. ;-) Then again, it would be nice if we could understand where everyone wants to go, and find out what the main points are. Which shouldn't be all that hard. The trick is in the explanation. "Yes" or "No" have no real value, unless you understand why it is said. And the devs should do the explaining, so we, the players, can do the understanding and give coherent feedback. That way, we all win.

That's what all the Big Companies, like EA do. The end result is a game that is indistinguishable from any other game in the genre. Just pick the three most successful ones, throw them in a blender, add some nice, shiny graphics and you're done. Then again, if you want to make such a game, you don't need to Kickstarter it. ;-)

How about some background? First, do we really want a Baldur's Gate clone with a new story and better graphics? I'm pretty sure everyone has their list of things they would like to see improved. So, it's about the direction it is going. Let's look at that. Baldur's Gate followed the AD&D 2.5 rule set as close as possible. Which was often a compromise. And it has been superseded with 3 and 4. P:E seems to go for a custom subset of 4, with extensions. As that is (probably) the most known one for the developers. But, let's go a step back and look at (A)D&D x first. D&D has been developed as a rule set for Pen & Paper adventuring. And the target has been to sell as many books as possible, selling more and more rules, or extensions. Each and every thing should have it's own stats, rules and abilities. Which has the added benefit, that as a player, you can be and do whomever and whatever you want, as long as you have a book that specifies the option. And your GM allows it and doesn't throw you out, of course ;-) Version 3 was mostly about consolidating, and 4 about speed and balance. Or, in other words: by now every player can pull his/her weight at all times, can do everything about as well as every other player and is equally important. Balance has been achieved. Which is fine for individual players sitting around a table, but might not work as well when you're commanding a whole group by yourself. When you command a whole group, you want the members to shine at certain things, and be bad at others. Because, otherwise your direction isn't required: select all -> "Attack!". And that would be it. Not very fun at all. You want to position them just right, order the stealthy ones to scout ahead and circle the enemy, order your mages to seriously incapacitate them, march your fighters to the front to protect the weak ones, order the ranged ones to unload and keep the healers where they can protect and serve. That's what makes playing these games fun. Like chess: would a board filled with only Queens be as fun to play? It would offer little strategy or tactics, and be all about attrition. If we analyze this a bit more, we see that D&D started with classes to make it easier for players: "What do you want to do?" "I want to fling fireballs at the enemy!", while they ended up with a basically classless system. Clerics are still overpowered, because before 4, not many people wanted to play them, while they were needed. That's why we have paladins and druids as well. Etc. But the difference has become smaller all the time. With 4, you just use something that's named different, but has the same effect. So, I think the main problem is this: do we want a customized, state-of-the-art and "balanced" P&P system, or do we want unique characters and equipment, even excessively so if possible? And to add to that: we don't want to buy and read all of the books, so the system used should be simple and cohesive. But the uniqueness should go for enemies and equipment as well as your party members. Simple shouldn't equal bland. Just understandable. No "+1". But don't make a whole set of unique rules for any new thing. Rules should work for everyone and everything, so we, the players, can understand them. And the more variation, the better.

This is my main concern with summoning. Tossing an additional ally onto the battlefield, even if all it's doing is soaking up attacks, is immensely valuable. If it was a competitive multi-player game, I would agree. But otherwise it mostly depends on the AI. In your generic MMOG, you have a hidden aggression stat, which is highest for tanks and the AI is conditioned to only go after the enemies with the highest aggression. Which might be understandable for animals and undead, but is completely stupid for anyone with some intelligence. If I were an evil overlord and facing a group of heroes, I would first try and immobilize all enemies, then take out the healers and summoners ASAP, while sending out my mobile units to destroy the wizards and ranged attackers. I would ignore the fighters as much as possible while doing so and mop them up afterward. Which is about what I tend to do when I'm controlling those heroes as well. If you make the AI do that, those summons won't soak up attacks and become damage dealers. Undead can be slow, animals might only retaliate. Etc. And you can have the summoner spend their action controlling one of them directly. Or have very powerful summons just attack indiscriminately, like the "gate" spell. That mostly gives a summoner an edge against mindless enemies, and more options. But it won't make them super powerful. This might also be an interesting way to balance your generic Druid. EDIT: by getting rid of most of the non-summon or buff spells and making it impossible to control summons while shape-shifted.

How about an example: We have a central shopping hub, with a central quest giver that gives out the quests for the first half of the game. Like IWD. 1. I try and kill that quest giver immediately when I meet him for the first time. What happens? a) The quest giver is on the list of people you cannot attack. b) The quest giver is invulnerable and immortal. c) The quest giver is very strong and wipes out your party. d) You kill the quest giver after a decent fight. A is just stupid. B as well. C is interesting, I come back when I can kill him. D is problematic: how am I going to continue to the next area? If "burning earth" is a viable strategy, I could still continue to the next area by exploring, but I would get less (or no) quest XP. That's cool. And even if killing that quest giver has negative consequences and he doesn't give XP or loot, I might still do it just to experience a very tough and hard fight, and perhaps to f*** up the storyline. Which would be it's own reward. Make them tough, and give hard enemies nice loot. But only give XP for quest completion. That allows either great stats, or great gear (for the extreme playing styles). And why only quest givers that are good? That dark and evil wizard might give you a nice reward for that powerful item, or killing that irritating good-doer. But in that case, we would need multiple story lines.

Btw, while I'm of the "less is more" school of thinking, I really dislike just giving everything some pluses or minuses. A Vorpal Sword is much more interesting than a "sword +5". Lots of unique stuff, with strange and interesting properties is far nicer. But on the other hand, it has to be understandable. I don't want to keep a spreadsheet open to see what the "Reaper of Sublime Darkness" actually does, and if it's an improvement over my "Draxx staff". So the effects should be kept as straightforward as possible. Like "Blinds target, which reduces deflection by 50%" or "Increases elemental damage done by 50%".

Another take on weapon speed could be, that a fast weapon (like a dagger) allows you to target weak spots without giving your opponent time to move out of the way. Less damage, but a much better chance to hit. While a heavy and slow weapon like a maul would be much easier to dodge, but would do massive damage if it connects. A well-made suit of full plate mail weights less than the backpack of a modern soldier, and is distributed all over your body. And ring mail is about as heavy and doesn't stretch, so it should be loosely strapped around you. But I agree that armor is hot, helmets reduce visibility and gauntlets reduce dexterity. The stat requirement would be mostly for balance reasons and to make the other armor viable, as otherwise everyone would simply wear plate mail. A specialized wizard or stealth user might wear something light and/or dark, but the sheer survivability and the minor penalties at higher levels would make full plate very attractive for everyone. I totally agree that positioning and/or dodging makes a big difference. But that goes for everyone. So, we should first make a distinction between dodging out of the way, deflecting with your weapon, or with your shield/armor. And from what I've seen and read about it, dodging in full plate would be easier in RL than in ring mail or leather armor. And deflecting as well, as the surface is smooth and hard. And I think that a strong fighter wearing full plate should have far more experience with dodging attacks than someone who tries to hide and sneak, or a weak, bookish wizard. So it probably makes the most sense to simply use a generic "deflection". And then weapon speed can simply reduce and/or increase that deflection. If you don't want everyone playing something like a fighter/mage/thief or fighter/mage/cleric while wearing full plate, you either have to make it hard for them to be "good enough" in everything, and/or give advantages to wearing no/light armor. Strength seems a good stat, but that depends on the number of stats available, and how much points you can spend on them. If you allow arcane casting in full armor, the only stats that matter to a wizard are those that allow casting and those that allow wearing that armor. I would totally put all my points in INT and STR and use that full plate. To prevent that, D&D 3.x came up with feats for wearing that armor and to be able to cast spells while using it, and severely limited the amount of feats for wizards. You could also make it desirable for wizards and stealthy characters to wear no or light armor, by offering them advantages. Like, being able to enchant those robes and spell casting or stealth bonuses (+INT, +DEX etc.). As the devs said that they want everyone to be able to wear everything and at least dabble in all skills, the main question becomes: are they going to use the carrot or the stick to prevent everyone gravitating to full-plate wearing fighter/mage/xxx-es?

Yes, I agree. But I think it's even worse when each weapon is equally effective as every other weapon, as long as it has the same pluses. Or classes or races, for that matter. Like, any 4E PC can do anything another one can, it's just using skills with different names. Not that I like classes that much, but that's another discussion It shouldn't be completely rock-paper-scissors, that would be the other extreme, but I like it when some weapons are better or worse in certain circumstances. Never useless, but perhaps with negative consequences, like edged weapons splitting slimes. That's cool. That's also why I would like it for wizards (or at least light armor users) to be able to have great protection against certain kinds of damage, but little or none against others. That balances it out, if you fight against a group. Bosses can be badass and only vulnerable against a limited amount of things. And if they want heavy armor, they can! Just invest in strength and constitution. And be a weaker wizard. And I would be fine with that being the same as a fighter investing in some magic.

If I understand this correctly, this is yet another one of those issues of 'Realism vs Gameplay'. It is, to paraphrase what you say, a ridiculous situation that killing boars should make you a better locksmith. Yet as a gameplay mechanic I infinitely prefer the 'Allocating Exp as you choose' system over the 'Using this makes you better at it' system. I understand that it is rather illogical (save that the chances are you will be improving skills you use the most), but it just tends to make for more interesting and satisfying levelling experiences and rewards than the Morrowind model where I used to spend hours jumping up and down hills to boost my acrobatics, and going away and making a cup of tea while a rat attacked me to improve my armour. There's no question that it's the less realistic model, but it just seems to be the more rewarding and is certainly one of the key elements of the IE games that P:E seeks to imitate. Yes, but that and what Lephys said make it so, that the prudent cause of action is simply to kill and loot everyone as soon as their quests are completed. More loot and XP! I know that that's more or less what "adventuring" means, but it makes me feel like being stupid when playing the good guy. Chaotic evil gets the best rewards, if they wait until the usefullness of the NPC's becomes low. Which is probably what they would do, if they have any intelligence. The only way for the devs to counter that is to make all the NPC's telepathic, which is what they tend to do...

That it does, . As always, your breakdowns are very nicely done. Thanks

If it should be somewhat realistic, looting anything except small and light valuables should be hard. Running around with multiple armors and swords might be doable, as long as you don't have to fight while carrying them. I liked how Deus Ex handled it: you only got experience from completing quests, and loot was very hard to carry around. The XP allowed you to unlock your potential. That also makes it easy for the developers to design content, and it becomes more like training up and specializing. Then again, if you want XP to mean: getting more experience in a skill, you might want to consider only counting high rolls. "OOH! I just made a critical attack!" But that might imply that the XP gained can only be used to improve the skill used to gain it. Getting better in, for example, magic, after squashing 10 rats with your quarterstaff seems silly to me.

After thinking it over, I think I would prefer a multi-headed flail (spiked balls and chains) on a pole for the reach weapon, and a morningstar for the primary weapon. But I agree with your reasoning

Hormalakh, do you think your party should get some sleep while resting? Even if it's only one hour? Do you want guards? How and when are you going to rotate them? Do you keep track of their fatigue? What difference are they going to make when the alarm is sounded? They could get the initiative, and/or make the difference between only facing a few scouts, and being completely surrounded with enemies. And why do spells only refresh after a good nights rest? Why wouldn't a level 20 wizard be able to cast the magic missile spell just about any time? He/she probably casted it about a thousand times, so it's just as much a reflex as the fighter swinging his sword. Now, your cleric might not be so lucky, as his/her God might refuse to honor the request. But that's probably not what players want. Then again, I could understand "healing while resting" if the wound is properly bandaged, and the right medicines (herbs?) applied. So, you would have a "heal" skill, that only works if you rested afterwards. Slowly. EDIT: Considering that things like swords and fireballs are the main offensive weapons, do you want to keep track of the limbs still attached and not burned to a crisp?

Most games use accelerated time: walk around for 15 minutes and a whole day has passed and you're fatigued. That requires sleeping often. Then, if you have a very limited amount of spells that only replenish after 8 hours of sleep, you are more or less required to sleep at least every 15 minutes. But resting isn't the same as sleeping. Just sitting down for a while replenishes your stamina. And even if you sit around a fire, you can still keep watch while resting. So, if your spells require stamina instead of sleeping and there is much less time compression, there is no need to sleep every 15 minutes. BG2 had an interesting mechanic on sleeping: it automatically cast all healing spells you still had, in a smart way. And if spells require stamina, you can automatically have that spell cast again when you have recovered enough. So, you just rest (no sleeping), without cheesy "healing while sleeping". You just sit down until you have recovered your stamina and the amount required to cast the healing spells. And you get fatigued, so your maximum stamina decreases slowly over time until you can sleep in a bed. Sleeping at a campsite or such can be done in that it increases your maximum stamina, but not all the way.