Sarex

I do the same, but as I said I very rarely find a character which I like, so I usually go with the stats.

And then you get to making equipment, especially in ToB, and all that money evaporates.

Yeah I call bull**** on that whole quality>quantity thing. It simply doesn't hold water. It's in the numbers, the more characters you have, the bigger the chance that the player is going to find the one he loves to play with. Those 9 characters can be so in depth that you could write a book about them, if the player doesn't like them all that work is for nothing, on the other hand if you have 15-20 characters the chances of the player finding characters he loves increase dramatically. All that said I don't mind there being 9 characters, because I very rarely pick my characters for their personality.

This, why over complicate things when they will add nothing of value to the game.

There is no such thing as too much loot.

I think you just described intelligence. Knowledge is something you gain, ie. not something you are born with. So if you are going for fixed stats then I don't see it working, But if you are going for attributes with level-up increase, then I don't know it could work, though it would still be dead weight in my opinion

Not really. Just apply common sense. You can "learn" to be a Carpenter by reading about it. However you can only become a good Carpenter by actually doing the job and gaining hands on well ..... experience. To put it in different terms when you are going for a technical job the application asks if you have a degree, but it also probably asks how many years of on the job training you have had. There is a reason they are separate on your job app, there is a reason they should be considered separate in game mechanics. Ok, but how the hell is knowledge going to be an attribute then? Even if you could somehow make it explainable as an attribute, I don't see it working in game(except maybe if you gain attribute points at level up). You are essentially adding dead weight to the system just to make it bigger.

Knowledge is that stuff you get through reading books and watching TV. You get experience if you were there and took part directly or indirectly. Knowledge is also gained through doing something, in most games you gain xp if you read a book. I feel that you guys are unnecessarily complicating the system, just for the sake of it being complex, witch is a very bad way to approach something.

Can you give an example of punishing combat? I have watched the whole video and it clearly says if the rules are consistent, then the game is not punishing. The IE games had consistent rules, and they always gave you the tools to beat any challenge.

But doesn't knowledge=experience?

Are you talking about the BG2 fix pack? Idk, I kind of felt dirty using those options. XD No, it was a built in feature, it was in the game since the release. You just needed to move the game difficulty cursor one step left form its default position (which was named "core rules"). The encounters were just as difficult as with the "core rules" setting, but you had those facilitations i listed above. Hmm, never read what normal did always went with the core rules.

Are you talking about the BG2 fix pack? Idk, I kind of felt dirty using those options. XD

MAN, the feeling when you successfully learn 5 lvl 9 spells in a row, with only one save.

Yeah... That is your opinion, for me IWD2 is the best game in the IE series. While it was linear, it had the best gameplay, the music was awesome, and the atmosphere was beatuifull. I did that too, but mostly because your companion dying would sometimes cause bugs in the dialogue (stopping them altogether), so I didn't want to risk it.

OK, OK, I give, uncle.

What I meant when I said that they had the weakest kit was, simply they had a weak kit. Everything that a paladin could do a cleric could do better. The only good thing the paladin had was lay on hands. The biggest weakness for me was their inability to dual class

1. I already explained, that you could get much better damage with dual wield. Also the silver sword was a great weapon too. Though if you really wanted to play with it you could always go fighter/thief, get "use any item" ability, and use THA to it's full potential. Also many, if not all, classes have items restricted to them. 2.So you are saying BG was a bad game? Where did I mention what is the best in the game?

Could be, I never had a vanilla mage in my party.

It could always be: strength-base damage/carry weight dexterity-doge/crit chance and then, chance to hit/hits per round is increased by weapon proficiency

Until your Wizard runs completely out of spells, and there's only one remaining, badly-wounded foe, and you're allowed to attack it with your piddly, unarmed Wizard, but heaven forbid he be holding a 3-lb piece of metal when he tries to swing his arm at the enemy... Then it just makes you make the Jackie Chan Meme Face. I'd rather have a -10 to all my rolls with a sword and still be capable of holding and swinging it, as a Wizard (for example), than to have some divine force prevent my hand from grasping a sword hilt. Wait, wizards could hold quarterstaff, slings, light crossbows, short bows. My wizards killed dragons with +5 bullets/arrows.

First of THA, wasn't the best sword in either BG2 or ID2, in baldur's gate 2 because it was 2-handed (so you couldn't dual wield) and it was restricted to paladin class, in which you can only put 2 points (out of 5) in to great-sword proficiency, for ID2 the stats where not as impressive. Second the paladin class has the weakest kit in the BG series, so THA kind of offset that by giving them an awesome item.

Nail/head. TrashMans idea is briliant.

What, where? Link?

But THA was never tied to a deity, its creed was "Only the pure of heart can wield me", and in d&d that meant paladins. I don't know I guess I'm biased, because I love paladins and THA. I guess we should wait and see what kind of world this is going to be, and then go from there.Paladins in PE are going to be more like warlords than paladins. They'll each have a cause, but being pure of heart or following a paladin code doesn't appear to be on the cards. Likewise, clerics seem to be different from the usual paradigm, being crusaders instead of priests, and a sword that is called HOLY avenger definitely has divine implications, the line about pure of heart sounds like it could easily refer to someone who is pure on the eyes of god. As paladins in D&D are tied to the gods even when they don't follow one specific god (and in Forgotten Realms I think they did need to be tied to a specific god to get their powers) this is the conclusion I came to. Yeah, I'm not saying you are wrong, just saying what I read about THAs in their description. It's never tied to a god, it's always a tool for the good against evil.

But THA was never tied to a deity, its creed was "Only the pure of heart can wield me", and in d&d that meant paladins. I don't know I guess I'm biased, because I love paladins and THA. I guess we should wait and see what kind of world this is going to be, and then go from there.