Yonjuro

That's cool. (It might even be a little too cool. If they were more accurate than weapons that shot bigger ammo, that sounds like they may have had rifled barrels (or something), no? As we know, size matters; the bigger the ammo the more accurate the smooth bore gun. If they were more accurate than heavier weapons, it sounds like there is more going on here.) In any case, I definitely want one (as a supplement to "the blunderbuss of 'accuracy'" mentioned earlier).

I really liked being able to play through BG 1&2 with the same PC. I hope to see several sequels, some featuring the same PC and (because you can only attain so many levels before you can no longer relate to your character) then, some with a new PC connected somehow to the original. I'm thinking of something like the Dune books, except that they should stop before they run out of ideas.

This a is a good idea. In BG2, the only weapon I can think of that mentioned the PC in its lore was the Sword of Chaos, which became obsolete soon after leaving the dungeon. Given the epic story of BG2, presumably the items that the PC and party members used for the difficult encounters would end up with lore attached to them. It would probably need to be limited to things like: This is <name> the <item> of <character name> which has <some property that it has been imbued with [after encounter 1] [<some property that it has been imbued with [after encounter 2]].... Where "[]" signify optional lore bits depending on where it was used - a limited number for major events - and it may also be imbued with some property just due to long use. Such descriptions may be ironic, intentionally or unintentionally. Such as, "this the sword of brave Sir Robin used to kill Jon Irenicus on the tree of life in Suldanessallar" might really mean: "this the sword that Sir Robin the coward carried as he cowered in fear as the skeletons summoned by his party cleric killed Jon Irenicus on the tree of life in Suldanessallar" Perhaps such things need a check that an actual hit was scored by the weapon. Then again, mythologies have a life their own.

Yup. I mostly liked the barrel shapes, one canon shaped and one hugely flared. In game, it would probably need a wheel lock or match lock or whatever tech is available. (Hmmm, The Blunderbuss of Accuracy - minus one to hit; plus one damage; plus ten splash damage. How's that ?)

Well played sir.

I think this thread may need more blunderbusses:

Hmmm - a blunderbuss is an aoe weapon, sort of like a shotgun, and it can be loaded with whatever junk you have on hand. So, for example, If you loaded it with rock salt, or maybe some noxious herbs, the burning sensation over time might be able to disrupt a party of mages for a several spell casting attempts. Farmer Giles of Ham would approve. BTW, do you think there will be bayonets? I think they originated in the 1600s or 1700s (?) so it might be tech that the PoE world wouldn't have, but it would make your all gun party viable. edit: wikipedia says the word was used in the 1500s for a large dagger but possibly not attached to a rifle until the 1600s

I didn't say that everything is an independent cause. Line 1 in the derivation in your post was: There is an efficient cause for everything; nothing can be the efficient cause of itself. I pointed out that the argument leads to an absurdity. You then said that one particular something isn't included in the 'everything' in line 1. That is the only illogical thing anyone has said here and it points to the leap of faith being made in Aquinas' argument. There is an unstated 'something' that is being assumed. The argument then becomes 'X (which is assumed without proof) therefore X' , a bogus argument. Appealing to quantum mechanics, evolution and thermodynamics to shore up a logical fallacy is ridiculous. Yeah, it does. That's a necessary conclusion of line 2. You will see that immediately if/when you learn formal logic. I'm done with this discussion. I would be happy to talk about a Farmer Giles style blunderbus and how it could be used to interupt a wizard in PoE.

Exactly, that's the leap of faith I mentioned and it's why the Aquinas argument is bogus. In a logical argument, when you have a universal quantifier, it really means everything. If it doesn't, it ain't logic. In line one, 'everything' doesn't mean everything, it means 'everything except for this one thing that we are tacitly assuming exists and has special properties'. Like all of Aquinas' attempts to prove god it says : god exists therefore god exists. He was given an impossible task by the pope (prove that god is knowable by reason unaided by faith) so he did the best he could. Nobody should buy any of his attempts as logical arguments from first principles, because they aren't.

Err, I don't see how we got here in a discussion about guns, but anyway - Thomas Aquinas' proofs of God all have a leap of faith. Here's one of the problems with this one: 6. Therefore something exists that doesn't have an efficient cause. 7. Therefore, it is not the case that everything has an efficient cause. 8. Everything has an efficient cause (repeated first clause of line one). 9. Line 7 contradicts line 8 - done. now, about those guns...

Q1: The current hypothesis is that PE must have SIX (6) attributes because the IE games (and D&D) had six attributes. Does nostalgia require that this be so ? Would you be upset if it was 5 or 7 ? I'm not too concerned about the number. Having multiple attributes, for me, is mainly about being able to build a variety of characters that will need to be played differently to be effective. Q2: Do you think that defenses should be weighed against other prominent combat stats such as Accuracy and Damage ? (as in, should you have to choose between putting points into damage or accuracy instead of into deflection or willpower) I think this was handled reasonably well by having two attributes for each defense. The desired trade offs can be made without gimping a character's defenses (or both defense stats for a single defense could be dumped if someone wanted a weak character for RP reasons). This is assuming that all of the (non-deflection) defenses are about equally important. If nobody attack defense X then both of its stats can be dumped without as much of a penalty. Q3: Should Health and Stamina be spread across two attributes or would you prefer that they be married in advancement under one attribute ? I'm ok with two. Putting both under one stat might make that stat too important but, of course, that depends on the system as a whole. I am guessing that it needs to be two with the current system. Q4: What do you think about Deflection be attribute independent ? It sounds like it needs to be independent because it is more frequently attacked than the others. An attribute governing Deflection would be too important otherwise. Q5: Should Action Speed be influenced by attributes? I wouldn't object to some kind of attribute based speed bonus/penalty if it was implemented well. Q6: Should inventory size be handled by attributes like it was in the IE games. If so, how do you see this being handled ? I'm ok with inventory size being handled by attributes. I think that getting a good inventory system is more complicated than one would first think and whether it is affected by attributes is the least of our worries.

Mage, Sorceror, or Thief with UAI and a bunch of scrolls -> Cast Timestop, Improved Alacrity (skip this for thief; not really required), Improved Haste, Shapechange (to Mindflayer), and Tensor's Transformation (in that order) then attack. You'll drain his INT to zero in less than five hits (and he dies). Legal stats are sufficient; no console, save game editor or export/import shenanigans required. No items required other than the scrolls for the thief. You're welcome.

Careful. If a party member does this: "Wait for moving object to clear path, recheck in 1 sec for clear" then the next party member in line will do this check: if (blocked object is moving) and it will fail causing: reroute path() (or maybe push through, but) That was probably the exact pathing failure in BG.

This is a tangential discussion to compare the (non-simulationist) attributes to real life, but your perception of how things work in real life is mistaken. Strength is largely a skill. Weight training can increase cross sectional area of muscles which increases strength, but has many purely skill learning aspects and it is possible for a strength athlete to dramatically increase strength, for years or even decades, without increasing muscle mass at all. Athletes who compete in sports with weight classes, including Olympic weightlifters who sometimes compete in 3 or 4 Olympic games at the same weight class, train strength almost purely as a skill (after gaining increased striation that allows individual fibers to contract more strongly, without gaining size - after that skill is all that's left). That said, you share your misconceptions with (probably) the vast majority of people and one could argue that there is value in giving people what they expect (you know, instead of the truth).

I would find that a little sad (though, as you said, to each his own). I never finished either IWD because 'Go over there, anonymous adventurer, and grind up whoever you find; Repeat ad nauseum' isn't enough story for me. (I got a lot further in IWD when I installed the NPC mod, but after a I while still I ran out of steam (I think due to the less than stellar voice acting of an otherwise very well done mod)). What I would really like to see is an interesting reason (or reasons) why the character that I'm playing in game would want to go to the dungeon at the times when it (metagame) makes sense to go there. For example, Durlag's Tower (a dungeon that I liked) didn't really have much a of an in-game reason to go there before dealing with Sarevok; there were some good metagame reasons to go, but why would your character go there unless you are roleplaying someone with attention deficit disorder? The sword coast is on the brink of war and only I can save it (plus this guy keeps trying to kill me), but look over there, loot! I think with the dungeon being included in the original game, rather than an expansion, it should be possible to have a story that makes sense, is somehow connected to the main story (maybe only tangentially connected) in a way that would draw your character into it. That wouldn't detract from all of the dungeon-y goodness to keep the IWD fans happy and would also make me very happy (well, I'd also like a lot of flexibility in how to explore/solve the dungeon rather than 15 levels of basically running a (tactically complex) meat grinder down one corridor, but I think we'll get that in any case).

I'll just leave this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmer_Giles_of_Ham

Yes, with a name like trotter one would expect pig latin.

Oh, I see. I was thinking of high perception due to his "seemingly innate grasp of combat". I'm not sure if your build is supported, but maybe a Barbarian with high Strength, Constitution and Resolve (for extra AoE damage) would be close. Ok, I see what you're looking for (I wasn't familiar with Raistlin, but WikiPedia to the rescue). It sounds like a high Intellect and Resolve, low Strength and Constitution Wizard using spells and, maybe, wands?

This should be doable, though I think part of the reason for hitting like sledgehammer will be due to his critical damage bonus rather than raw damage bonus. Hmm, maybe a Cipher in PoE?

This might also work as a barbarian for extra AoE damage (one interpretation of 'smashing things around'). I'm not sure how the lower deflection (but lower health damage per stamina damage) will play out, but it might work for this build. I think this one will work as a high INT character. Wizards get a bonus to hit with wands but wands don't do a lot of damage. I don't think Wizards do as much damage with weapons (or perhaps they don't hit as often) as other classes (Rogues and Rangers in particular, but I would assume Fighters too) even with high intellect(, but we don't really have enough information about that - and, there may be spells like Tensor's Transformation for short term damage dealing goodness). It's Xmas, and I hope Josh is far and away from this forum at the moment. Yup, I agree with both of these comments.

These are great examples. For people who don't like the attribute system, good feedback for the developers will include a character that you want to play that you can't build with the current attributes. That would be a good bug report,. Developers like good bug reports. If you do that exercise, one of two things will happen: 1. you will find that you can, in fact, build the character you want or something similar enough that you're ok with it 2. you find that you can't and so you write a post in big flashing red letters for Mr. Sawyer pointing out how his system doesn't work for you (he can then tell you how to build the character you want with the current system, make a change to the system, or tell you tough luck but look at these 57 other characters that you can build as the consolation prize (or he might ignore you - he's probably pretty busy )) Really. Try it out. It might work better than you think. If it does what you want but takes an eternity (see what I did there?) to figure it out, that is also good feedback for the developers. e: for typo

Yup, I agree. One advantage of a bard is that level scaled spells like Magic Missle are cast at a higher level for a given amount of XP, but in BG1 having, say, 4 or 5 blips in long bow is a big deal.

Bards are underpowered in every game they're in. Ever tried playing a bard in BG1? They're worthless. I know what you mean and they're not my favorite character either, but they can use mage wands. That's very (even brokenly) powerful in BG1. E.g., a bard with a fully loaded wand of monster summoning and a ranged weapon should be able to take down Sarevok without a lot of trouble.

Force = Mass x Acceleration Holding dexterity as a constant, the stronger you are the more acceleration you can impart to the swing of that hammer, thus the more force (potential damage and loss of stamina) you can inflict upon your opponent. Color me less than happy with the nerfing of strength. Not exactly. If we were trying to make the attributes simulationist (which, remember was not a goal), the equation to use is impulse. Apologies in advance if you know this already and were just trying to avoid writing out what I have below. (Major physics and bio-mechanics digression follows for those not convinced that we aren't trying for simulationist attributes. Even if that were the goal, intellect v. strength is more nuanced than several people have said.) You can easily convince yourself that F = MA doesn't compute what you want. A train leaves Chicago at 5 o'clock and soon accelerates to a constant 100 miles an hour. Acceleration is change in velocity with respect to time. Since it is traveling a steady 100 miles per hour, it has acceleration of zero. Therefore, force is zero? Nope, and don't jump in front of it to prove that it is because that won't end well. The equation you want is 'impulse'('impact' might be a more descriptive word than impulse, but, hey, those crazy physicists..) So, for those of you who are still awake, we'll use lower case 'd' instead of the Greek letter delta (which is used to mean change) and rewrite F = MA as F = M dV/dT Multiply both sides by dT to get FdT = MdV. The quantity on the left is called impulse. The F is how hard the hit is and the dT is how long it takes the (say) war hammer to decelerate on impact (so, e.g. a rubber mallet, being soft, decelerates more slowly and doesn't produce as much force as a steel hammer all else being equal). The right side has Mass and Velocity. That's why you don't want to do the train experiment - it has a lot of mass and a lot of velocity. Note that velocity is a vector quantity - that is, direction matters. Good, say, hammer technique, would be to step towards the target, rotate the body forward and down (towards the hit) and counter rotate the arm outwards from the body to offset the inward rotation. The hammer now strikes from a moving platform and the component velocities add together, as all vectors do, to produce more force (just as if you threw a rock from on board our Chicago train at a target next to the tracks - it hits much harder than if you threw it standing still) . That's why technique is more important than strength - strength just needs to be enough to do the technically good movement and ***can only be applied to the extent that muscle fibers can be recruited to contract in the short window of time available*** (that is, from the forward step to the final hit can't take more than a few hundred milliseconds, not long enough to recruit most of the available fibers, because you would miss if you did it more slowly). If you view technique as codifying something that people have figured out, intellect is not a bad stat to capture that if you want the attributes to simulate RL (which, again, was never the goal). Anyone who has read this far should feel free to put an impulse equation badge in your sig line. (But, please, something tasteful ).

That said, as time goes by and I think on it and read people's arguments for and against the original system, I'm growing to like it more and more. It definitely has flaws, but it also has an elegance that any fix seems to diminish. And to me Might and Power have similar connotations as Strength, so renaming that stat but keeping the same function wouldn't really do anything except maybe signal the break from D&D tradition more clearly. For the record, I agree about the original system. If it were up to me, I might rename 'Intellect' to something like 'Dedication' (i.e. a character that practices their damage dealing craft, whatever it is, is able to do more damage than one who practices less) and also rename 'Strength' to, well, anything but 'Strength' for the reason Gumbercules pointed out. It seems like a lot of thought went into the attribute system, and I think I can infer a few things about the mechanics of the game from how they are laid out (meaning that mucking around with them too much apart from naming probably isn't a great idea).