Cubiq

This is sort of a dumb question because i have no idea about programming, but since you're a programmer and answering questions... About 2 years ago i read on a different forum that C# might replace C++ in popularity soon for working on more processor heavy software. Coincidentally I read recently that Unity uses C#, so i'm wondering do you think that that might be the case as well, and if it is what do you think is the reason for it?

I have never played actual p&p d&d so i have a question. Do the spells in the rule book also have these nerfed limitations, or is this something that's just in the game?

She's a paladin class isn't she? Does anyone know, do paladins require to be good like in D&D games?

I'm wondering if you can tell us how the armor of the caster wearing it will affect the forms? Will it stack with it, or will the form have it's own deflection/stat progression?

Except that there's no such thing as "for EVERYONE". It doesn't exist, period. Those +5 conversations to "flesh out the the character" can be equally bad. Just because it's a non-romance conversation doesn't automatically make it good or even tolerable. Those 5 extra conversation could be of the character whining about how sad his story is, or making it stretch out for too long. You don't like romances, but someone else might not like whiny characters that those extra conversations "fleshed" them in to. I don't even care that much for romances but this seems to be the main argument that i see people in this thread keep falling back on, like it's the holy grail of logic, and it doesn't even make sense. It's subjective.

Ohhhh i wish. "If Zangief not bad guy, then who crush man's skull between tights?" Evil Minsc 2.0

A lot of people seem to not like romance because it's 'poorly' implemented, like in bg2 and that if it would be like that, then they shoudn't bother. I find it exactly the opposite. If they made romance in the game i would want them to be light, exactly like in bg2. Reason i like it is because it gave me replayability. I'm fine with throwing coins in to the dialoge tree for the story to progress to see different endings. I don't want some kind of dating simulator. Also if it's implemented in to the story like PST then you have no choice but go through it every single time. Now THAT's tedious.

Good question, if they are does that mean they will be immune to blinding effects if they exist in the game?

Ohhhh! i forgot to ask, i hope the developers still see this. I was expecting the option to upgrade your pledge be released with the new Kickstarter goals, but since that won't happen, i am wondering if there is still a plan to implement this in the future, or will we only ever be able to get a higher tier if we pay the full price again?

No more stretchgoals what a shame... So whats the differencw between godlike and death godlike? If i compare the cat form concept and 3d model i think the tail in the 3d model is a bit lacking.

You could only use stoneskin on melee if you were using the mage/fighter multiclass which was clearly overpowered compared to the rest of the classes and you wouldn't know about it on your first playthrough. In IWD2 you didn't need to resort to such a cheese build because your mage could buff your whole party with stoneskin and mage armor since it was normally castable on others. Also Mage armor could stack with your normal body armor and if i remember correctly Haste gave you another +4 to armor class, while in bg2 that wasn't the case. Also spells like Bless and Payer had a duration increased with level so they lasted a lot longer than in bg2, plus you had stat increasing buffs that you didn't have in bg2 like Bull's strength, Cat's grace and Bear's endurance. I forget what other buffs i used but the buff system worked a lot better in your favor than it did in bg2.

Back on the thread's tracks guys.

I just wish they would tell if they plan to do the new stretchgoal kickstarter, since i'm saving my money for that before upgrading my pledge.

I don't think there is any information about this out there OP.

Thank God, that game was a nightmare. This is very strange I found BG2 a lot more difficult than than IWD2, on core rules. In fact i found IWD2 to be the easiest of all IE games because of the buff stacking that 3rd rule set introduced. Once my melee were fully buffed by a mage and a cleric they were virtually unstoppable. Not only that, a lot of the buffs lasted for a long time so you usually only needed to rebuff after a rest. The stoneskin and mage armor spell made them barely take damage + spells like bull's str, Bear's endurance etc. combined with spells like bless and prayer cast in the battle made them killing war machines. I even killed the last antagonists on first try.

Yes, in one of the interviews they said it is currently free game to kill every character in game. But they also said that they are still discussing whether or not you are allowed to kill the few people related to the main quest.

I might have been overly prejudice with my last post, so i'll just clarify. If they manage create a cool mechanic like the suggested mouse scroll AoE size, and if they manage to balance the numbers right where Barbarians won't be near the top list of classes that use INT as a main stat, and wizards not the top of MIGHT using classes, then it could be a pretty cool idea. But it seems like a headache you could avoid by just changing the stat bonuses.

I doubt they will change it this far in development, but i think the INT +aoe is just a bad mechanic. It's clearly going to cause problems and the developers are even considering forced clunky mechanics, like semi friendly blasts to balance it up. Not to mention i have a feeling we will see Barbarians have the most INT in the game because it is the most aoe oriented class, unless they add in another strange mechanic to balance it back. I know people are looking for something fresh and different but this one is really pushing it.

If you can't create a scale system i would prefer if it just hit everything. I think it would get pretty confusing on finding where the boundary of the safe zone will be, especially if you have wider blast animations with every new point to Int. Also not fan of the idea that the reason you don't get hurt outside of 4m zone is "just because".

So might is for wizards spell damage and dex is for his hit chance, what does int do for him? And how can int help a fighter?

You know that's not true. Mass Effect did transfer the choices you made in the previous games (so did witcher). It may not be everything you did but it was for some of the things at least. It's really a matter of whether the developers try to do it or not. It's not an automatic NO. And like i said, the lack of transfer choices doesn't really bother me, what bother's me is that you start as a nobody every time. And they need to quickly rush the progression again so that the nobody can reach epic level story telling at the end of it again. I don't think that's the reason you should discard sequels. By your logic there shouldn't ever be any game with a sequel, just because you can't transfer all the choices. I can easily argue that Planescape didn't have a complete story with the way it ended, so i don't think it really depends on how great a game will be based on it ending with a sequel in mind. When you create a new character in every new game you are pretty much forced in to not changing the world completely, because it doesn't follow only one protagonist, it needs to stay consistent or risk affecting or even constraining other protagonists. This is exactly how D&D constriction came to be in the first place. It's a universe which has multiple protagonist and thus must not allow one story to change the world too much. If the story follows only 1 protagonist it can take the story in whatever direction they want. However with multiple protagonists you just have an MMO effect. And you're completely being bias, Planescape didn't deliver everything it promised. The fact that your interactions with your companions had zero to do with how the story ended has nothing to do with D&D constraints. The 3 things that affected it, out of ALL the choices you made in the game, were Blade of the Immortal, Bronze sphere, and your stats (which don't even have anything to do with the story). The game had a lot of story which was optional but wasn't as interactive as you claim it was (since you are comparing it to ME). Not in the end at least. As for during the gameplay, that's really just sacrificing combat for storytelling. That would be like me comparing Icewind dale with Baldur's gate. One is a stand alone game the other is a sequel and guess which one was more interactive. Your comment doesn't make sense because like i said Planescape was written where you can easily continue the story. It even had only 1 true end, from which it could continue. I know you're hoping for another Planescape like game, but it's already been confirmed that the game will be a lot more combat driven than Planescape was, which means it won't be able to tell such a complete story on such a small budget no matter how you look at it. Yeahhhh..... you're clearly over-emotional to do any rational thinking. I'm just gonna have to ignore you from now on. Oh and Neverwinter nights 2 says hi.

your opinion

I had a really really long post replying to 3 people and then i lost it because of a copy paste error. So i'm just going to make a quick reply, as i really really don't have the willpower to write all that again. Firstly Planescape is a one of a kind, it sacrificed combat for more story telling, which is why they were able to fit so much in, so it's not really a good comparison. It's nearly like comparing a book to a film. Second of all as Sabotin mentioned the game already put you in the story like being in a sequel of one of the previous characters, which i believe also helped in it's epicness and reinforces my point. Thirdly, i don't think you can fit such a huge story in to a single game with the budget they are working with, or without sacrificing most of the combat. Forth, I remind you that you can easily make a sequel of Planescape with the way it ended (you can even promise your companions you will see them again at the end), yet people didn't have an issue with that. So whether or not the first game succeeds doesn't have an effect on how they chose to end it.

Oh wow, did they really promise April 2014? I didn't even know that. Yes Adam said in an interview, that they would simply increase the team size to accommodate for the bigger stretch goals. But I really don't expect the game to be ready anywhere near that time. I just thought it would come out somewhere at the end of this year. http://www.sorcerers.net/forums/showthread.php?t=58248 I don't really have problems with waiting, even if it's next year as long as they get it right. Others probably won't be that lax sadly.

I just disagree. I would rather have a continuing sequel where the character grows in power and continues to explore the depths of the realm. The lack of transferred choices really doesn't bother me as much as starting a new character from beginning every single time. The way you feel about lack of transferred choice is the way i feel about starting a new character: "what was the point of me playing the prequel?" Asking for the transfer of every single choice you make in the previous games is simply asking too much. It's impossible. It can't be done unless you have an unlimited budget and make a game twice as long as any of the IE series. However at least in the sequels you have "some" transferable options. In stand alone games you already have none. People who criticize ME ending and praise Planescape Torment really contradict themselves. (Talking about Wolfenbarg here, who agreed to your post.) If you look at Planescape objectively you can see that it really has only 1 ending: You getting thrown in to the abyss. The only difference is how you came to terms with that. It doesn't matter if you played the hero or the villain through the game, the ending was the same no matter what choices you made. So whether or not it's a sequel or a stand alone game doesn't have much to do with it, it's really all just how the story is told.