Silent Winter

(emphasis mine) - I think this is in there by default - rogues are the 'heavy hitters' when they get their sneak attack damage - this is easiest done by having a fighter engage a target then having the rogue get in behind them (flanking) for a sneak attack (or having 2 other party members doing the flanking and then the rogue stabs at will (poor Will )). Rogues also get their high(er) damage sneak attacks by attacking opponents who are 'prone' or 'hobbled' or some other such status effect that the rogue can inflict (so it's about fighting dirty rather than having massive arms to swing a club).

ROLE: Kite KEY ITEM - Boots of speed APPEARANCE - Wears outrageously bright red, green and blue clothes and waves a red cape around. FEEL - Hilarious to watch them running around the battlefield getting the attention of the enemies and leading them on a merry chase while my archers kill them. ... ... the novelty quickly wears off and I dump them in favour of Sagani.

Edit: Double-Post

Whilst I'm not in favour of the chainmail bikini, and also feel that the female characters should have just as much coverage from Full-Plate as the males, I also think that some feminine-designed clothes would be a good idea. Some nice dragon-hide (poor dragons ) armour that follows the form a little more or some clingy 'wizard-robes of heat-resistance +3' perhaps.

Well, technically, your evil choice was "I don't care about Imoen - I want to get Irenicus and unlock this power he talked about / get revenge" (then not let Imoen join up) - but yeah, you were still railroaded into the same end result. This is a big point (and the subject of mods like 'Alternatives' to give an alternate choice - also for those who don't care about Imoen or Irenicus ... same result though). I think the point of the devs was that 'smiting evil' wasn't always an option - you needed their help, like it or not. Should've resulted in a Fallen Paladin though. I agree - though main-campaign quests will be mandatory, there should be alternate ways to go about it. (and not just like NWN2 where you get a brief path-choice and then the rest of the campaign glosses over it and you get to be Knight-Captain anyway.)

but surely we could reprogram it as 'PoE-Run', an infinite runner game? Or 'Angry-Orlans', fire those guys from a catapult at a castle of Aumaua? No? Ok then

You could make that argument I suppose. It certainly wouldn't be the most substantive religion around. But in any case, why then is there only one? Technically there are 2 (the Black Ajah worships the other guy) I'd say in WOT there is faith (in the Creator) but no religion to framework it. (though there are pseudo-religious customs - marking the dragon's fang on the door of one who is supposedly cursed, some prescripted prayers to the Creator). The dual salvation and destruction prophecies of the Dragon are bound into that. I don't think the books missed anything by not tackling religion as well. Though I agree that religion is a big part of human history and society, I think that dealing with 'beliefs' is not necessarily tied to dealing with religion. It could be argued that some people would always try to gather that belief into a framework. But the books were long enough as it is There were different societies with different ways of dealing with their beliefs (though the main continent tended to have just the one - largely due to the Aes Sedai). The Aiel, the Sharans, the Ogier, they had others. I think RJ successfully made different societies and cultures without including religious organisations, but then, I'm not a religion major so I might not be looking for what's not there in that regard. Had there been no faith at all, I might have considered it flat.

That would be disappointing, after they said they were willing to work with the modding community to make it as mod-friendly as possible. (making file-formats open was mentioned before).

That would be difficult to pull off - you'd basically have to program a new story including the actions of the bhaalspawn to which the world reacts (like opening baldur's gate / flooding the mine) and your own actions. You could reuse the generic NPC talk lines ("nice weather we're having") but you'd have to disable the special NPCs ("I heard what you done at the mines") - not to mention repopulate and redialogue the areas that had bosses (you can't go killing Mulahey and looting his chest if the Bhaalspawn needs to do it). If you chose to follow the Bhaalspawn then it'd be not really different from playing the game with Minsc in your party anyway. Creating a whole new adventure using the same areas would be easier - but still very time consuming - it's been done with the BG2 engine, but took a team of modders a long time. If you're going for 200 years before, then you'd need to redo a lot of the area art assets (villages and towns would need to shrink, new NPCs created. I guess the very old ruins could remain the same (though you should lock the doors on your way out ) So 'possible'? yes, 'difficult and time-consuming'? yes.

I doubt there will be invisibility spells (and even if I'm wrong, they'll probably be rogue talents), but every class can pump Stealth and be effective at it. Oh yeah, good point. Though if the quests were based on stealth then why take a class that has no advantage in it? So we'd need to make the quests involve stealth but have other requirements too (like setting fire to the map-room or persuading Mr X. to join your cause, through charm or intmidation) - that way, all the classes come back into it. --- grrr, forum swallowed my post - had to retype it

No killing or no combat? If we could accept the surrender of an enemy, but still need to beat them in combat first, then it wouldn't change my party makeup. If we're replacing combat entirely then is combat not even a danger? In which case I don't need to sneak anywhere either. Or could we make it a stealth-game with 'game-over' if caught? Personally, I'm happy with a combat-centric game that has other possible resolutions for many quests. But if we had to replace it with something, then I'd take the stealth approach and thus compose a party of thieves (or rogues/rangers in PoE). This would, of course, have a knock-on effect for quests - they would need to be designed with stealth in mind, so it becomes less an open-rpg and more a stealth-rpg - only one or 2 viable classes. Mage would become viable if there were invisibility spells, I guess. For a non-fantasy genre, fictitious character add-in, I'd say Solid-Snake (he's stealthy ) but give him a PoE-world outfit and weapons.

Games for those who like achievements: http://www.kongregate.com/games/ArmorGames/achievement-unlocked "Found the sponsor's logo" , "Moved to the left" and other such worthwhile commendations. http://www.kongregate.com/games/PegasGames/ragdoll-achievement-2 (the 2nd one can actually be a fun time-killer for like 5 minutes). (^tongue in cheek response, not to be taken seriously as a criticism of those who want sensible achievement records for PE)(Unless they want them in the GOG version too, in which case take it as a criticism )

It was mentioned by motorizer in the "quickfire thoughts" thread but I'll repeat it here: If people could name their class as they like, then perhaps some of the arguments of "that's not a rogue/ranger/etc" would fall away. The game would still track my class as 'Rogue' for the purpose of levelling and combat, but my character could refer to himself in-game as "Hi, I'm <CHARNAME>, a <PCCLASS> from out of town." or something. I'm not sure if there are any class-specific quests/content in PoE so I don't know if this would cause in-game confusion (e.g. I call my rogue a 'ranger' but then get told they'll only give the quest to a ranger so I can't help). This could, of course, be used to comic effect. If someone wants to do that with their game, then so be it.

Reading through Josh's posts and ideas from others, I'm now very happy about both these classes (I was just 'happy' before ) There will be 'cross-class skills' (so to speak) so rogues can take 'survival' and fighters can take 'stealth' (even though one class gets a starting bonus, if you focus on a skill, then you'll be good at it). So the aforementioned dual-wielding, petless ranger is a 'Rogue' with points in survival and stealth. I think it's worth looking at - the synergy of animal companion and ranger should work for melee as well as ranged. For example, if the Ranger is flanking an enemy in melee combat (you've already got the ranged flanking covered) WITH their animal companion, then perhaps they get a bonus to hit (or something) due to the 'we work as one' bond. (Same (added) bonus is not available by flanking with another team mate). To balance this - they're both on the front line now so Ranger is taking double threat to their health/stamina-pool. I'm not saying 'Rangers should be as good at melee (by which I mean damage/tanking) as Rogues/Fighters' - just that it should be a viable option. Having said that - I'll probably have a ranged Ranger. Sagani looks cool with that bow

Well, obviously the front-line should be last, the leaders should follow behind and the mob should be singled-out. So Druids and Wizards it is *casts entangle on poll*

It's not a floating rock - it's 2 rocks that, due to their colouring, equal size and positioning in perfect alignment with the ruins and the shadows, give the impression of being a floating rock ... yeah, that's it. The lower rock is just flatter and so has no obvious shadow ... and ...ok... it sure looks floaty from this angle.

Well 'Stealth Ranger' is in there by default (Rangers, like Rogues, get a bonus to stealth). I agree that it should be possible to take an animal-less ranger in return for a different bonus. And being able to use melee weapons well enough. Not sure I'd consider a Ranger to be a tank - more like a 'dance around the battlefield' melee type - perhaps a bonus (or a feat) to disengaging (though I guess the Rogue's got the 'swap places' role). Josh has said that there'll be scope to play variations on the classes so hopefully, even if not the most optimal build, there'll be room to make the characters we want. I'll wait and see what we get in the final game (but give the devs a friendly reminder in the meantime to keep a thought to class-build-variety) Edit: Though some of this seems to be down to semantics - if I want to play a tank then why not a fighter? How would a ranger-tank vary (other than in name)? (honest question). Or is it wanting to combine the elements of 'animal-companion' plus 'tank' or 'dual-wielding fighter' with 'wilderness tracking'? Edér is the renamed Edair

(emphasis added by me) So I'm guessing the free sneak attack at the start is a once per-encounter deal, since it's in the first 2 seconds. So probably that'll be your starting move if you can initiate the combat - kinda like a backstab in AD&D. The other uses require setting the target up (using the rogue's abilities or pairing with the ranger or a fighter (for flanking)). Sounds awesome.

Have you tried just logging in with your forum account name and password? (I had the same message that my address was already in use and it turned out I already automatically had a backer-site account from having a forum account (even though I wasn't a backer at the time ) ) If that's a different e-mail from the one you used for the kickstarter, it's ok - you can associate your other e-mail with the current account from within the backer site.

Well, other than being initially disturbed by the repainting of the Sagani portrait I have to say that I love this update. It's great to get some info on the classes (and Rangers and Rogues are 2 of my faves ) Sounds like Rangers and Rogues could compliment each other too - Rangers causing some status effects that Rogues can take advantage of (Hobbled, Flanked, etc) I'd like to hear more about Druids next

First up - great thread [puts on lawyer hat] small point but you can't copyright a name - you can trademark one though. Nonetheless "Pillars of Eternity" has been used by more than one person so it's pretty much open to be used in a specific industry - computer game is ok. [takes off lawyer hat] IANAL but I studied it

First up, I'm on the side of applauding Stun for using the timestop+lowerMR+harm+hit combination and agree that that is a skillful use of the spells available. Doesn't mean I like all-or-nothing spells or overpowered spells, just that in that case, it was well played according to the rules. [side-note: I tend not to choose any spells for my spellbook that have 'save for no effect' - I find the only creatures I want to use them on (powerful ones) make their saves anyway. Maybe that's why I prefer the design goal of having more spells with a crit/hit/graze application] Adding numbers to these quotes and trimming for ease of replying: 1) But who said that non-lethal results are the only ones that give you xp? I think this discussion could easily be resolved by a few examples from devs about how to get xp. I think that, if there's an encounter that rewards xp, there'll be multiple ways to get that xp (including combat) - that's the design goal, not to remove combat as a viable path. (I'm pretty sure Josh likes combat). Some encounters may have no xp to them - perhaps of the random wolf variety (but then, the combat resolution is 'select all, attack, wait' and no resources (perhaps arrows) are wasted - only 'fun' is had). 2) I agree and...Wait, this is the same reply as 1). (But again, getting XP as a result of a combat resolution to an objective does not mean per-kill xp. 4) ...What happens if the game doesn't reward you for racking up your body count by 3 for killing those trolls? Will you be OK with that? Will you be ok with spending your time, energy, limited use spells and possibly some valuable limited consumables killing those trolls and then NOT getting Experience points for it? 3) your use of the word 'DUH' is unfounded. Your desire to keep kill-xp makes you think that the solution of removing infinite respawning is the 'DUH' obvious solution. Look at it from the other side: If the grinding problem is due to per-kill xp - remove per-kill XP 'DUH'. If they redesign the game by removing challenges, it's not the best solution (for me). If they redesign it by changing the xp-system, it's better (IMO). Infinite respawns can make an area dangerous to linger in or make a boss-battle tougher, as boss keeps summoning more minions until you defeat him (and said minions interfere with your ability to do so if the encounter is well designed). 4) There's a lot of "what ifs" in this thread but let me say that 'yes' I would be perfectly happy if I didn't get xp for killing those trolls provided that the system I was playing in wasn't a per-kill xp one. If killing the trolls or not was just a challenge, I'd decide for myself based on my party and my character's philosophy. Of course, you don't know beforehand if you're going to get xp or not - leaving you free to choose the most fun/roleplaying-appropriate route through the game, not the one that nets you necessary xp. (and thus further enhancing a 2nd/3rd/ playthrough

so a 'sneak attack' / 'backstab' ability? If you're close enough (or your circles are close enough but not touching) you can use it to auto-sneak-attack a guard? Or just, as you say, be immune to detection so you could get close enough to attack. Could work - Perhaps if you have the ability then by simply clicking 'attack' when close enough (and melee weapon equipped) you'd dash in to perform the sneak attack...of course, if you're not quite close enough, then you'd just blunder in and set off detection...could be frustrating (of the people reloading variety) or then again it could be a player skill thing to judge the distance (like throwing fireballs in BG). Hmmm...my brain's tired so I'm not thinking of mechanics well. But I like the idea.

First up - only quoting part of this for time but I'll reply to the Q about all wilderness encounters needing a "warning, story, quest-giver, etc" Nope - I should hope they don't all need one. ... not sure what that's got to do with it though - you can easily resolve situations that aren't quests and be given XP for resolving the situation by the game. (e.g. Found a campsite: Exploration XP 600) (even though to get to the campsite you needed to somehow deal with a bunch of wild wolves, by combat or other method). The fact that you don't get xp for the combat isn't inherently bad - You can do something via combat and get xp for it, or you can do it another way and get xp for it. If you choose to always take the 'easy' way, then sometimes you'll be dealing with combat and sometimes with stealth (depending on your party makeup). If you choose to always do things the combat way, then more combat. If you choose to always try things the dialogue way then you'll sometimes avoid fights and sometimes have them anyway. The aforementioned wolves might not be chatty and might have large detection circles for stealth, making combat the easier choice. (or not) - either way, your playstyle is rewarded. But from your examples, the party's not getting XP for killing the ogres, the party is getting XP for employing a variety of of non-combat skills. That's right - they're not directly getting xp for killing the ogres - they're getting xp for playing the game and killing the ogres is only one essential part of doing that (in the above example). They're employing a variety of non-combat and combat skills. He wasn't arguing (I think) that you will get xp for killing, just that the xp you're getting includes killing. Also agree that the bandit / bounty-hunter / etc groups you encounter are indeed a fun part of BG1. I would consider overcoming one such group to be an 'objective' and thusly rewarded with xp (even though it's not a 'quest'). Doesn't mean you need xp for felling each individual and levelling up mid-battle. I too would like clarification from the devs as to what 'objective xp' means - is it only 'given quests' or (as I assume) 'doing stuff' including overcoming obstacles/solving puzzles/etc. Now, in PE you may well come across wandering monsters while exploring, kill them, and receive no xp. BUT, if you don't kill them, they kill you -> benefit to killing them Not going near them means you can't explore that area and miss out on finding useful stuff and/or other xp from finding other things (like a campsite/cave/caravan of merchants being attacked) -> detriment to not fighting. 'Stealth' for your entire party may or may not be possible in this situation depending on monster type, party makeup and skill-allocation. If you focus your party on stealth, you may get more benefit from using it, if you focus your party on combat feats, you'll get better at the combat approach. Combat will still be essential at times though (I'm guessing the final boss won't be persuaded to just give up - Fallout did this to good effect though, you could play a combat game or a stealth game or a talky game there).

1) That's why I think it's not really possible for Josh&Co to completely remove them - there are always going to be those who think in ways the designers never did (I have a nasty habit of finding bugs in games (design bugs, not just random code bugs) by trying things I shouldnt ) 2) Ok, I've never really played D&D tabletop so I didn't know about that - sounds OP to me too.