Hamenaglar

Couldn't disagree more. Aragorn is Lawful good, but he is also a good tracker, excellent survivalist in the wild, he is definately a ranger. Yes, D&D forces rangers to two weapon-combat/archery, but neither IE games or Patfhinder does that. So you can absolutely build an Aragorn style ranger. Mechanically the are very gishy, I'd agree. But their fluff tends to be a lot towards mental manipulation. I can't know that until I try it. I just have to believe your word for it, the problem is what might suit you and be cool with you, might not work for me (and vice-versa). My point is, NWN2 and NWN1 games, although flawed in some ways, had huge options for building characters and making all sort of character concepts viable. Particularly with prestige class packs (that were based on actual prestige classes from D&D).

I'll go on a tangent here... From Josh's response I read that it wouldn't be possible to buff before combat and that there are no long-term magical buffs (such as magic armor). So playing a character that relies on self buffs would mean, standing in place casting all the defense buff spells, while rest of the party is doing fun stuff, such as killing enemies. By the time you are ready, the fight is practically over (for better or for worse). That doesn't sound like fun to me. I might read it wrong though.

Yeah, but as pointed out, these templates don't cover everything. If I want to play a ranged character, obviously the most optimal choice is ranger. But I don't want an animal companion, nor do I care about it. Maybe I would like to play a more Aragorn style ranger (melee), but apparently rangers are shoehorned for ranged combat. D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder had that much better designed IMO. Maybe I would like to play a gish, but in a sense of a swordmaster with spells, rather than a spellslinger with swords. You could do that in Pathfinder with Bards or Magi. Or just multiclassing. Ciphers might be something like that according to mechanics, but I don't like the fluff of psionics... I haven't tried out beta, but from reading info about classes on the wiki, the character development system seems a lot more restricting than D&D 3.5 or Pathfinder.

Sorry guys for parachuting. Personally, I'm tired of Star wars-like evil. In fact I'm tired of good and evil. I'm interested in choices. An example, you and your sister (or girlfriend) are running away from wolves, she trips and falls. Do you stay and help her and risk your life or do you run away to safety and leave her to the wolves. Your son/little brother/childhood friend has been brainwashed and wants to kill innocent people. Do you help him or kill him? I want options to do terrible stuff, but I want there to be some motivation for doing it. Something more than "because I can". All the rpgs lead you to a conflict with a villain. In a way you are always a hero, you always defeat that villain. I never thought acting like a psychopath murderer make sense. However acting like a self-centered, egotistic anti-hero. That's what I'd like to see. I'm very intrigued how new planescape is handling alignments. That seems much more interesting than a good and evil, black-grey-white scale. The world is not shades of grey, the world is full of colors. Colors, man

Personally, I'd rename stamina to defense points. You are not actually being hit, you are blocking and parrying all the blows, or they are not penetrating your armor. But you are getting more tired or the opponents are finding weakness in your defense etc. So defense would be then a measure of Dexterity and Endurance (replacing Constitution), maybe even resolve. Then we can move health to Endurance. Strength would then modify carry weight and damage (for melee weapons). Intelligence could modify bonus damage for crit chance (or crit multiplier?). However, what I'd like to see is mental stats not providing direct offensive combat benefits for non-magical characters (unless it makes sense - perception for ranged weapons for example). What I'd like to see is provide different options. Intelligent fighter would learn more feats or have more skills. Or some really cool feats might require intelligence (in pathfinder it's expertise, disarm, trip etc.). Maybe he could study enemies and get some benefits (limited buffs and debuffs). For casters intelligence might have different benefits. If this is a really complex spell and I'm not smart enough, then it'll take up two slots instead of one. If this is physically taxing spell and I'm weak then my casting time will be increased etc. The system Josh is proposing seems so gamey and unimaginative. It's apparently about making all builds viable, but I think it misses the very purpose of why people want these different builds. They do not want to play an intelligent fighter because it's viable. They want to play it because it should play in a very different way. And just as a note. One of the biggest complaints about fighters in pathfinder is that they suck out of combat. Yet all those complainers dump their intelligence and charisma. The problem is that benefits of having very high strength clearly outweigh the benefits of intelligence for fighters (combat maneuvers tend to suck at higher levels and it all becomes about dps), not that INT isn't useful. In Fallout 2, doctor was very useful skill for combat oriented characters, because with a good doctor skill you could learn about implants and have them wired to yourself. That was cool. Sorry about ranting.

Q1: The more the merrier. I would be disappointed with less than six, but would be comfortable with up to 12 attributes. Q2: Somewhat, yes. But playing unkillable characters that can't kill anything is not fine. What I'm more concerned is that there should be two equally viable forms of defense. Avoidance of damage (dexterity and light armor) and absorption (constitution and high armor). Middle ground as well should be viable. Q3: Depends on other choices. All attributes should have value, if the only value of constitution is stamina (that can be regenerated) then that attribute might not have much value. On the other hand, I like the idea of a small guy that is frail but has a lot of endurance (long distance runners?). Q4: I think it should both be attribute and skill (weapon proficiency?) dependent. Attributes governing deflection should be dexterity and maybe perception or intelligence. For instance having helmet (or simply poor vision) negatively impacts your field of vision and you can't see all the blows coming. Q5: Normally I'd say yes. But if dexterity would be the main attribute then it might be overpowered (to hit chance, action speed and defense). I'm not sure we should have action speed as such. Might be a lot of problem for balancing. So this answer really depends on a lot of other things. Q6: Yes. Carry weight should be governed by strength and constitution/endurance. However number of slots might be influenced by intelligence (better organizing your backpack?).

I think currently, attributes don't make sense. Josh says he wants all the builds be viable but I think he is going the wrong way about it. If I wanted to play a smart fighter, I wouldn't want to bash things with my hammer. I would act differently. I would learn about enemies and prepare my self (out-of combat benefits). If I'm smart and agile I would look to tire my opponent by dodging his attacks and when he exposes him self launch counter strikes (rope-a-dope kind of thing, a mode that increases defense and damage/crit chance but decreases hit chance/attack speed). If I'm smart and perceptive I would look for his weakness and exploit it (increasing crit chance and/or to hit chance and/or decreasing base damage - kinda like finesse in fallout). Or if I'm smart and charismatic I would try to taunt my opponent and provoke him into opening (debuffing?). Maybe I'm more of a commander type of guy so I will instruct my teammates into good positions (giving bonuses to companions). If I'm a brute wizard. I'm not maybe as smart, but I learned to use my physical strength to channel more energy and do more damage. Intellect is still important though so that I can learn many spells. On the other hand maybe I want to be a smart but frail wizard that can cast insanely powerful spell with his mind only. Strength is representation of physical power. As such strength should modify damage with melee weapons and maybe bows. As well it would allow characters to wield larger guns and crossbows. Perhaps also increase crossbow reload speed. So in an indirect way it increases damage of ranged characters as well. It would partially increase spell damage (and partially it would be increased by intellect). I'm all for making all attributes useful and all builds viable. But intellect should provide different bonuses to melee characters (more abilities perhaps, more skill perhaps, more versatile build perhaps?). It should not provide damage bonus to make it useful. Right now it seems to me that a fighter should prioritize intellect more than strength.

If we are talking about pathfinder Spell Combat and Spell Strike, I think they could be implemented quite easily as a combat mode. When you are in spell combat mode, your character makes strange arcing attacks. If you decide to cast a spell, those arcing attacks will attack the enemy, but at the same time provide somatic component. Or alternatively spell combat could be used as a metamagic modifier (much like quicken) where you can apply to any spell at the time of casting and that spell gets instantly cast, but you can't use spell combat for x seconds afterwards. Spell strike could also be used as a metamagic modifier for touch spells. When you cast a touch spell, you can at will apply spellstrike modifier at it. In that case that spell will get discharged through weapon (the advantage of doing that in pathfinder is increased threat range and a bit of extra damage from physical attack, disadvantage is worse chance to hit).

You are right, ofcourse. We obviously loved different aspects of the IE games. I think Obsidian shouldn't have mentioned IE games at all in their campaign, or should have made it more clear what kind of changes they intend to make. For instance I have no issues with the new Torment. From the start it was clear what they wanted to accomplish, that they would change the setting, where they would follow the spirit of the original torment. Obsidian didn't make it as clear and that's why I think there are some disappointed people. Maybe, that's just it. From the changes they've announced so far, I don't see them as being fun to ME. Perhaps, I would be more happy if the changes they were announcing were something I like (I probably would). Does that make me hypocritical? Maybe. Probably. From what they've announced so far it seems like it would be similar to Dragon age: Origins, which was also a supposed modernization (and a spiritual successor) of Baldur's gate. But that game just wasn't that much fun to me. It's hard to judge on the limited information that we have. For a long time, I was hoping of getting an oldschool game in a modern wrapping (wasteland 2 might be it, shadowrun returns was also cool). What I'm concerned is that I'm getting a modern game in an oldschool wrapping. Again it's hard to judge without actually playing. But after being (more or less) burned with Fallout 3, DA:O, Witcher 2, I became very sceptical.

No. I'm talking about duskblades, baldesingers, magi (pathfinder). As Micame put it well, the idea isn't to stand there and do basically nothing except buffing yourself. From my experience playing Pathfinder, if you spend 3 rounds buffing yourself in combat, by that time somebody is going to be dead. Either the bad guy, or one of your friends. The idea is that your melee abilities work together with arcane abilities. Not as two separate entities but rather as a team. Unlike a gish, cleric is focused a lot on buffing. Gish should be able to buff himself and cast good damage dealing spells as well as fight in melee. Ofcourse, he should lose some of the versatilty of the wizard. In essence, I'd say cleric is defensive, while gish is offensive. Micame also explained well other variants of gishes. Really? A wizard in our Pathfinder campaign always complains about nerfing of haste and that it no longer provides an extra standard action. In the campaign I'm playing, the only really benefit of the haste spell is that extra attack. We have a spell dancer, monk, wizard teleporting at will, so that extra movement isn't that important. Heroism beats haste in terms of bonuses, although heroism is one person, while haste is party buff. While I can see how haste can still be very useful spell even without extra attack, I think it also depends on the party composition.

I honestly cannot understand your position. In my opinion, the things you are describing as good things are the things that make it excruciatingly hard for me to go back and re-play these games. The things you are describing about mages and fighters are the worst things about the IE games. Having more active fighters is one of my number one wishes from PE. Them being fire and forget is something I absolutely abhor. I do however agree with enjoying the math being accessible to me, without it being hidden behind the scenes. You know, I honestly cannot understand your position either. I loved everything about IE games. To each his own I guess. But I could understand if Obsidian wanted to improve the combat mechanics. That is build on AD&D (much like DnD 3rd edition did). Now I understand there are problem with licences (although much of 3rd eidtion is under OGL). What I want to say, it seems to me that Obsidian doesn't want to tweak and improve the system. It just seems they are going out with the old and in with the new. Cooldowns, per-will abilties and stuff. Why are they taking out the old attributes system. that worked so well in a number of RPGs? Why are all classes proficient with all weapons. Why are they inventing new mechanics when there are already old existing mechanics that work well (the new engagement system vs. attacks of opportunity). A change here or there is fine. But this is full on rebuilding mode. It's just that it seems to me that Mr. Sawyer didn't really enjoy playing IE games (or at least wouldn't enjoy playing them now). It also seems to me, like a lot of people here wouldn't enjoy playing them now. That's fine, but then they should have made it more clear during the kickstarter. I feel (please note the word feel which, instead of think, meaning that I'm acting emotionally rather than rationally), I feel I've been promised an IE game and what I'm getting is a game in an IE wrapping, but a different thing underneath.

Doing voiceovers is not easy. I could never do it, for several reasons: 1. I have a terrible voice 2. I have no equipment to do it properly, which results in even worse quality. 3. My intonation and diction is imperfect 4. As I am not a natural english speaker, my accent is also imperfect. I doubt there would be more than 10,20 backers able to provide any decent VO work, longer than a single line. There is a reason gaming companies pay a lot of money for voice actors. Because of quality. Anyway after I just finished playing shadowrun returns, I have to say I didn't really miss VO. If the writing is good then you don't need voice overs.

I would love to see some gish-specific options. For example a special mode, that allows casting and attacking with melee weapon at the same time. Or an ability to turn memorized spells into raw magic and then delivering it through sword as an extra bonus damage. Perhaps sacrificing spell slots in exchange for bonust to hit and damage. In d&d there are lots of cool options for a gish. Unfortunately in CRPGS I haven't seen many. Eldritch knight was in NWN 2, but that is just a wizard with a full BAB. In DA:O there was arcane warrior, but that was just a mage in heavy armor. I'm just hoping we can come to some cool ideas for gish options.

It's funny because I find myself liking Baldur's Gate. And Baldur's Gate 2. And IWD. Even IWD 2. P:T not so much and I believe AD&D wasn't a good choice for that game. I hope that PE will be a great game. I've backed it and I can't wait to play it. But it is not an IE game so far (at least not for me), not even close. Obsidian started their kickstarter by praising IE games. By playing on nostalgia. Like all good marketers they haven't actually promised anything. Can't blame them for covering all their bases. However their turn towards the end of the kickstarter and after it, when they started slagging off most IE (AD&D) combat mechanics as not fun.... well, they were fun to me. Anyway, Obsidian has lost a lot of my respect after this and they will have a hard time getting it back. Not sure any of them care, not sure if they should. Not sure I would care, if I were in their shoes.

Hi, My name is Hamenaglar. If you can't see my pointy ears, then you should know I'm an elf. But I'm no ordinary elf. I'm the true elf, the proper elf, blending magic and swordplay into one. Yes, I'm a gish (completely ignoring that the word gish comes from githyanki... *dramatic pause* or is it githzerai). Now for those of you that don't know what a gish is, I'll just say we are the cool version of wizards. While wizards and mages study in their libraries and are losing their eyesight buried under tomes, we (the gish) are out there doing the cool stuff and having fun. Some cool examples of a gish are Duskblade and Bladesinger in DnD and Magus in Pathfinder. Eldritch knight is just a wizard wannabe and isn't that cool. Arcane warrior in DA:O is another bad Gish. Now, just like a wizard a gish is also using magic, but in a different way. Gish will usually wear armor and fight in melee using his magic to buff himself or to kill his enemies. But to do that in a cool way a Gish should use spells designed for that. For example channeling spell through his sword, casting spell with his left hand while striking with sword in the right. Basically spell and sword should work as a team. Now, I'm aware that mages in PE can wear armor. That's cool. I'm also aware that there is a bard class, which sometimes may be a bit gishy. There might also be options for multiclassing. What I would like to ask from Mr. Josh Sawyer is to design spells and feats (or combat abilities) to allow that union between spell and sword (or axe if you are a dwarf). Cheers Hamenaglar, the Elf Gish? P.s. Dear moderator that will be approving my post. I'm not sure what the guidelines for approving posts, but if you decide not to approve it because there are topics where it belongs more, can you please notify me of this, so that I can post in a more appropriate location. Thanks.

That, yes. Definitely. It may make balancing easier but it prevents so much fun you have tinkering and evaluating the system. And sadly no one will ever play a PE pen-and-paper session. The rest of your post was for my taste too much tainted by nostalgia. I would find it highly boring if I could just use the same tactics I used years ago. If I'm not mistaken I think Josh explicitly said in an interview with Cybergamer that he definitely wanted to have a combat log to aid people "in understanding the mechanics in detail." Bit of an older piece but I don't think we need worry that Josh has changed his mind on this one. http://www.cybergamer.com.au/article/3083/page-2/Interview-with-Josh-Sawyer-of-Obsidian-Entertainment/. On the other hand, I've read many posts saying that Josh said that a lot of the math will be complex and done behind the scene. Not in the mood for looking for those quotes. Anyway, I would prefer a simple system like DnD. I'm not saying if it happens that it is a dealbreaker. After all DA:O was still playable despite having a complex, unclear math doing all sorts of weird stuff behind the scenes. Cheers Hamenaglar, The Simple Math Elf

I'm crashing late to the party, I know. But I just can't ignore this topic anymore. My personal answer to the OPs question is no. Obisidian promised a game, a spiritual successor to the infinite engine games. 2d isometric graphic is cool and so far seems very true in spirit to IE games. Game will also be party-based and story driven. However actual game (more precisely combat) mechanics are worrying me. So far from what I've seen they are so far away from IE games. Spamming abilities (passive or active) is not what IE games were about. Nerfing rest, because it was supposedly abused. Giving mages per will and per encounter spell so they don't have to rest all the time. All the classes seem to be so front loaded. Oh, and there is no dodging (or at least very minimal). But the worst thing to me is, complex system behind the scenes. I hate it. I want to see the math and understand it, I don't want to see it hidden from me. And just because a system is complex doesn't mean it's good. KISS baby. So why I don't like any of this, because it doesn't suit with my playstyle. I imposed self-restrictions on my self regarding resting. I would rarely rest unless the party was pretty damaged. I would just keep on going and going and going. Proper adventurers do not rest after every little skirmish, they keep on going untill the dungeon is clear. But I also like the option of having the ability to set up camp and rest anywhere if I wanted to. I liked the fact that my fighers were fire and forget rockets. I would tell my party what to do at the start of the battle and watch them execute it. I would tweak it if necessary. Mages were usually at the back doing nothing, unless the situation was dire. When you have limited spells you try not to use them, because you don't know what's behind the doors. The goal of every fight was to spend as little resources as possible. There were choices to make. Do I cast a magic missile or do I hope my fighter can hit that gnoll one more time and finish him. YES! YES! Bloody Khalid did it. Finally something useful out of him. I also liked to be unhittable, storming into the group of enemies and they can't hit me. I simply dodge and weave between their blows, while Boo turns them to goo with his berserking friend. I liked the fact that my fighters were simple, my mages were complex babies that constantly demanded your attention (or they were useless, that's okay too). I also like the fact that sometimes my fighters were useless without the mages first doing their stuff (breaching spells, dispelling, blablabla, all that boring stuff). I liked that I knew how every item I wore, every point spent, I knew how it would increase my chances of winning. In summary: To me, so far, Project eternity seems that it is reinventing the wheel. It also seems that combat (an important part no doubt) would be more similar to Dragon age origins, than Baldur's gate. And finally it seems to me that Sawyer and many folks here were not that great fans of IE games, considering how often it is mentioned here that mechanics were not fun. Dammit, I want an IE game (I don't care about AD&D system). I want my fighters simple and stupid. My mages complex and whiny and most of the time useless. And I want to rest, whenever and however I want (though I wouldn't mind to see the consequences for excessive resting). Now, I do believe that Project eternity has the potential to be a good and fun game. I certainly hope so. But for me, with the news so far, it is simply not a successor to IE games in terms of gameplay. Not everybody has to agree with me, but I do agree with myself and that's all that matters to me. Cheers Hamenaglar, The Unhittable Elf p.s. There were no firearms in IE as well, but I can live with that. Maybe :D