Silent Winter

Voted Orlan Druid, just because it'll be one I play at some point - I don't have a 'main' though as I'll likely play several times with various class/race combos. Human rogue, Aumaua Monk, Elf Cipher, Dwarf Ranger ... they all sound good

Only if it were for every fight - otherwise I'd be quite happy to do this (your portrait-icons + health-bars will tell you if a character is suddenly in deep trouble). The point is more that each character has a special contribution to the engagements, that doesn't overlap with what everyone else can do (by a different name - e.g. stealth v. invisibility-spell). I'd certainly like to see this kind of game design - various locations would need to be designed with multiple options for resolution. Not sure how much of this could be included in PE but it's certainly worth considering.

I'm pretty sure the 'pending' part is for fullfilment - which won't be done until the game is out. Unless I'm much mistaken/misinterpreting the meaning. Edit to confirm: Mine still says pending too.

Haven't read through the whole thread so apologies if a similar idea's been given: "The Trap" think 'venus fly trap' but it lies, mouth open, on the dungeon floor, looking like the background (either chameleon style or just because it looks like the other dead plant-life). When a party member walks over it, it snaps shut - continually draining the stamina/health of the, now immobilized, party member until either defeated or the food-source dies. As an added bonus - the stamina it drains is added to its own stamina (maybe at a 1/4 rate or whatever's balanced). Could be tricky for a solo-run - maybe the trapped party member could get a saving throw each round based on strength *shrug*

January - For £3 you can now have the short shorts vanity item. Make all your amour look like short shorts. For £6 you can have the new pet baby red panda. For £12 it can talk. February - £3 green glow. all your npcs equipment has a green glow. £9 Full party gets green glow (main character not included) £12 random lets player voice pack for your npc. (note some dialogues not included due to time restraints) March - £9 war pig mount. £75 armour for war pig. (green glow dlc not applicable to war pig set) April - £6 Bunny Pet - £20 Mute option for bunny available. (Bunny voice added for all even if bunny dlc not bought) May - You get the point by now Well, I was initially against the idea but you've managed to change my mind ...Now I'm finally against the idea

He was sent back in time from the year 2025 to save the rpg genre from being wiped out by an evil time-travelling corporation... ...he had the foresight to bring back a few scripts with him.

Josh has said (sorry, can't remember where - was in one of the recent update interviews) that you set your points at character creation and they don't go up [much] from there. It's the [much] part that I wasn't sure on - perhaps there's an additional point or 2 to spend at level-5 or maybe there'll be 'tomes of smartness/agility' like in the first Baldur's Gate.

There isn't they do

I believe they have stated that there are no class restrictions for arms and armour (though a fighter may well be better with a sword than a mage)

*penny drops* ah, I'm clear now on what you're saying (sorry for not catching it before - caffeine deprived here). Ok, I agree to the extent that balancing the attributes for combat is important (I also replied to your other thread that focusses on that) but I disagree that it's the only important thing to consider. So yes, to you it doesn't matter - but to most of us it does. I bolded the bit that you're glossing over. I agree that it's important to get the combat mechanics balanced with the attributes and from that POV it doesn't matter what they're called...BUT, the creation of a character (as PrimaJunta is saying) and the relationship with the attribute checks in dialogues and other scripted interactions, is very important to most of us. Hence the discussion.

Suspension of disbelief comes from internal consistency - you like soft-magic systems rather than hard-magic systems? fair enough, I've liked both in their places. I don't consider it pointless discussion though - if they said bananas do more damage than swords in the PE world, you could accept that, those are pretty fearsome bananas, but most people would find it jarring. You don't give suspension of disbelief by calling it 'might' rather than 'intellect' - both of those are equally valid from that point of view. They just throw up alternate questions. If you don't want to have a discussion of 'how things work' in the PE world then don't. (When you said "Might doesn't have to mean 'physical might'. Could even give a soul-based description." I thought you were referring to having a description that made internal sense - ie, you were justifying it in the context. My bad if I misunderstood)

Might doesn't have to mean 'physical might'. Could even give a soul-based description. That one, and resolve are the two best attributes at the moment. The others all need work. Sure (and 'magical-might' makes easy sense with the word), and that could work to - do you then forsee that gunpowder is merely an ingredient of the gun's power - your soul would accelerate the ball?(and bow's power doesn't just come from the bending of the limbs). Or do you mean that your soul's might would give you better aim? [i just ask as I think the logic behind 'intellect' is that you know / have skill to hit where it hurts]

Then you've come to the right place, because a dungeon hasn't been done this badly since Durlag's twin brother ordered 50 animate dead scrolls, mispelled so that adventurers were attacked by their fathers. [sorry, couldn't resist - been watching Blackadder Goes Forth: Bob: I want to see how a war is fought... so badly Edmund: Well, you’ve come to the right place, Bob. A war hasn't been fought this badly since Olaf the Hairy, High Chief of all the Vikings, accidentally ordered 80,000 battle helmets with the horns on the inside.] --- On topic - looking forward to the dungeon. Don't like level-scaling, but do like the idea that the lower levels are harder than you can just level-up by doing the previous levels. Will be an interesting challenge to see how far you can get each time before having to back out. Also it appeals to my sense of non-serendipity that a dungeon's levels aren't just there to prepare you for the next levels.

I hate to say it but these design goals seem to point to characters who are not very distinctive, hopefully one can still make characters with definite strengths and weaknesses. This easily can lead to characters who are distinctive. It will be possible(using Josh's system from back in this thread) to dump resolve in favor of Intellect to create a high-damage character. The hypothetical character will be very good at dishing out lasting status effects, but will be able to damage targets much more, an thus have an advantage in such situations. I much prefer these design goals to the attribute systems of computerized D&D, as in the BG series, a Fighter could dump Wisdom and Charisma with no real penalties(as someone else could be used as the party spokesman and Fighters suck at identifying items) making a high Wisdom or Charisma Fighter blatantly inferior than the High Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution Fighter to the point of practically useless. I have no problems with certain classes being better suited to certain builds, but classes should have more builds be be viable than the small handful that were in BG. I agree. To quote Josh from the pcworld interview (bolded emphasis mine): http://www.pcworld.com/article/2071423/deep-dive-with-pillars-of-eternity-project-lead-josh-sawyer-the-full-interview.html So I like the design goals - sounds like we can have a good mix of characters and not just have to stick with doing things the obvious way.

I agree that this would be better - and it was one of the questions posed by Josh before: If Strength were renamed to 'might' would you expect it to govern damage? Most people said 'yes'. [Edit: I see you also mentioned this on the last page]. But then the further question: would you expect it to cover all damage, even from bows and guns - to this I answered 'no'. I don't mind having all damage under one attribute, but naming it 'strength' or even 'might' wouldn't mesh with certain weapons (though 'might' is still better than 'strength' for this as magical might is included). I get why the devs have gone for Intellect, it makes enough sense to me. I just think renaming would have it make sense for more people. But I'm repeating myself a lot now so I guess I've nothing constructive to add here.

Sorry, just not true - though some of the discussion has been to that end, there have also been suggestions re: renaming attributes to be more intuitive. Not based on simulationism but based on player expectation and assumption. Most of us in this thread will realise what 'Intellect' and 'Strength' do now - but PE will also be sold to others who aren't here, and we want them to enjoy it so it's successful Suggestions to move strenght and intellect to 'skills' are also based on being able to use in-combat mechanics and out-of-combat mechanics intuitively without forcing one attribute onto another. Let me ask you this: If damage was governed by the Resolve attribute (or to take an extreme and artificial example, the 'height' attribute) - wouldn't you suggest renaming it?

You can become a backer right now - just go to the backer site, log-in and pledge money http://eternity.obsidian.net/

I don't think this is just nostalgia - 6 is a good number for allowing variety without being unwieldy to manage. Certainly 9 would be too many (and 10 is right out!). Similarly, 4 shall not be the number, save for going on to 5. (ok, I'll stop). I wouldn't mind 5 or 7 if there were a good reason - but certainly no fewer than 5. One of the design goals is that it allows for a wide variety of characters within the available classes. If reduced to 4 (and then the things governed by those 4), it would severly limit the variety of characters. Having said that - I think the current 6 attributes, as stated, will work fine for a balanced game. (As per the other thread, I think a couple could be renamed to make it more intuitive - 'Strength' to 'Vitality'/'Endurance'/'Body' and 'Intellect' to 'Spirit'/'Mind') Maybe - it really depends on currently unknown factors such as how the system works as a whole, how much sacrifice we'd have to make in one to make the other significantly better (available points v. cost), etc. It could make for interesting char-gen choices, one could be a decoy-tank type or a damage-dealer or a sniper who can't afford to mix it up close. More info needed on how the system plays. It sounds ok to have them under 2 different attributes because they have different effects. You might be able to stay in an individual fight longer but need to rest more often v. individual fights being tougher but being able to go through more consecutive fights. In a team game like PE, you'll have to manage those relative strengths/weaknesses of the characters, so some party members will take the 'lead' (attract the damage) in earlier fights while others take the 'lead' in later fights due to current health-states. It all depends on how it works in practice. Deflection based on equipment seems fine to me (though my instinct suggests some kind of dexterity should allow you to increase deflection chance - it won't spoil my game if it's not though). I basically agree with what Sensuki said here - if it could be balanced such that a fast character wasn't necessarily hard-hitting but could pull off more moves or variety of moves in the same time. In IE games, it was down to total weight rather than inventory size. Any character could carry any given item if it didn't weigh too much but the total number of items was fixed. AFAIK, in PE, each item takes up the same size slot but the number of slots for a character depends on 'Strength' (again, I'd rename this - but for this purpose, it's fine). I may have misunderstood that part though. I can't imagine there isn't also an item-weight factor. So yes, inventory capacity based on weight v. 'Strength' is fine. (The 'stash' or whatever the long-term storage is called, is limitless so not part of this equation - I'd have preferred not to have this but it's not a big deal for me). I liked the IE system, from what I've seen of PE's system, I like that too.

But we are discussing combat stats - the other stuff (assuming you mean our comments on dialogue and cut-scene interactions) isn't 'fluff', it's part of the game. Combat is a big part, sure, but why not have a system that accounts for everything? If strength isn't doing the strength job that most people are accustomed to, then rename it - same for intellect. My problem isn't that combat-stats don't work like they should, just that it might be counter-intuitive for some people to use and so diminish some people's enjoyment of the game. Personally, I'd enjoy it as is.

Actually, I think he gets put in a sleeper hold ("Hitting a man in the head with a rock is not very sportsmanlike") Edit: I think it's Inigo who gets knocked out

You learn something every day - thanks Makes more sense that way. (Though I think, at least in BG, it is also used as the beauty/charming stat - you could interpret it as 'presence' but it still precludes 'slovenly', 'smelly', etc (certain NPCs comment on your looks if CHA=15+ or something, or maybe that's just some mods who took the same misinterpretation *shrug*) - it's not just used as a measure of your divine power/gift - which I think was my point, one attribute but more than one effect)

Aesthetically, I prefer your previous effort (quoted earlier - with the gap in the middle) - but I think that's down to the colours - this one seems too colourful in the centre (reds and blues and pinks) - maybe it's the portraits' colours as well. I prefer slightly subdued colours for the UI as it's less distracting. Function wise - seems ok. Personally, I prefer to have portraits on one side and the dialogue bar in the middle but maybe that's just what I'm used to.

Quote function not working - quoting Adhin: Sure - though that's one definition of wizard - another might have learned spells by rote from a master and be only capable of casting a few. Nonetheless he could be very powerful with those (D&D kinda has this for lower INT wizards - fewer spells per level - but a minimum INT and limited spell level) Brutes work by hitting hard but with little finesse (and are usually aggressive with no regard for social boundaries) - in a real-world example, that requires high strength, as in D&D. It's certainly how a brute is imagined. So I agree that it would be strange to have a low-strength, high-perception, 'brute'. I always thought 'Charisma' was a poor thing to base a sorcerer's power on. For me, a 'sorcerer' suggests the power comes from inside like his/her soul or perhaps vitality. (I know charisma can come from inside but it's more how you speak and present yourself, as well as how you look) It's like they wanted to make it different from a wizard and a cleric (neither requiring study (INT) nor experience/insight (WIS) but were stuck with limited options for the attributes. So I can't make an slovenly/charmless sorcerer. That's how it works in D&D. Though PE is not D&D, it may have similar flaws. I agree that RPing a brute should be possible in PE. I guess we'll see what the devs reckon when they're back after new year. It's probably too late to make major changes, but renaming attributes and introducing new skills should be possible.

It needn't be a 'skill' in reality (though its application is) to be taken as a "skill" in PE - it just means that I have mid->high->very high strength without the precise numbers of 3-18 (and available strength can vary depending on your current mood/lunch/concentration in its effectiveness so tight precision isn't necessary IMO). You could even make it a skill you can only take at L1 (since the game probably won't be long enough in time for you to get *that* much stronger) The suggestion for moving it to a 'skill' is born out of the attribute 'Strength' not doing what we are accustomed to from previous RPGs, and so would be better off being renamed. 'Strength' (the skill) could then be checked in out-of-combat situations (along with 'Intelligence' as a skill) instead of the attribute. Not perfect...but what is? I think not having 'strength' as the primary damage attribute is actually a good idea - for reasons previously mentioned, it's not brute strength that's more important. The problem is that strength does contribute to damage (melee anyway)(2 equally skilled warriors could be differentiated by raw strength) so when it's available as an attribute, we expect it to do that as well as increase carrying capacity.

Part of the problem, as has been suggested, is that in-combat attributes also affect out-of-combat attributes. So you can't just ignore high-intellect as being the 'damage' stat when it's also assuming your character has high IQ for dialogue/cut-scenes. (Which is why I advocate renaming those stats and having strength otherwise represented as above) I don't know yet how this is handled - will high intellect give you only the clever options to say (and low giving only stupid, a la Arcanum "me want beer") or will it be like PST where you'll get an extra option? If the latter then the person role-playing the dumb-brute would simply not allow themselves to pick a 'clever' reply. (Kinda like how I won't let my Paladin be rude and aggressive to the 'helpless villager in need' in BG or how, in a table-top game, you might roll a low INT fighter and then not use your own smarts to give him an edge - you'll roleplay being dumb and act accordingly). Until we play the system, it's hard to say how well it works. Does Intellect mean IQ or is it more abstract, representing certain mental-physical skills? I do like the sound of the system though, just not all the names and tie-ins.