curryinahurry

Then create your own thread about why you don't like firearms and stop whining on this thread. On Topic: I would prefer guns themselves to be non-enchanted, but I would like ammo to be crafted that is specific to certain types of foes: Salt rounds against ghosts Holy Rounds against undead Silver rounds against lycanthropes Cursed rounds against divine champions Iron rounds against fey or witches etc. To be interesting, they should not be loot or purchased, only crafted through recipies, and not instakills...but provide a weakening effect. Also, I'm no expert on wheel-lock weapons, but I wonder what the rate of catastrophic failure is with these weapons and how that will be implemeted in-game

Personally, I'm not a fan of ability scores determining non-combat options when we will have non combat skills specifically designed to deal with such situations. Abilities might add +'s or -'s to the chance for success, but shouldn't be a mechanism in and of themselves...defeats the purpose of the system. Also, I have been thinking about the implications of the dual skill system and in light of this and I think that, as others like Eskarion above have implied, the tags would likely be part of the entire non-combat world interaction process. So while people seem to be getting hung up on conversational intent, there is another factor of insight that may be the product of skill based knowledge. In a system like this it seems like a bit of an odd disconnect to know what your skills and feats are doing precisely in combat while not knowing in non-combat. It also seems strange that in a converstaion, tags would show up for certain conversation types (lore, smithing, etc.) but not others (intimidate, lie, etc.). I guess I just want to be certain that the intent behind my PC's actions as described by the designers matches the intent I have; both in combat and out of combat.

It should work the same way for enemies. If there is an in-combat revival system, that should work for enemies as well, but it should be a highly risky proposition leaving the one doing the reviving exposed to more than one attack of opportunity. Once there is a full encounter wipe the game would likely assume that the PC's party would finish off the enemies. Although, this could lead to interesting encounter design where in certain combats, the player could be given the option to leave an enemy alive for questioning or to return to deliver a message to whomever sent the attackers if it is a faction based encounter.

The concept behind this system is to make health a tactical consideration while avoiding rest-spamming. Obsidian could design the game so that the only way to heal lost health is to rest in an inn or some dedicated facility in a town, not just via camping (or possibly only partial health regen from camping). Therefore a low hitpoint system wouldn't make a great deal of sense. Of course a lot of this will be based on how often we will be able to rest. They could make hitpoints accrue at a slower rate than stamina; that might make a bit more sense; training can make you more fit and efficient, but there is only so much blood you can lose; even if adding some muscle makes you a bit more durable. In a system like this, a player could start with 30 stamina and 30 health, but at the end of the game, he/she might have 120 stamina and 60 health.

DA:O had decent AI, and as noted by others, hopefully Obsidian won't do anything as cheap as making players purchase slots. I tended to use AI about 50% percent of the time, mostly to set the party at the beginning of encounters and auto- healing. It served basically as a point of departure from which I could micromanage actions as necessary. One thing I hope they can do with PE being an isometric game with formations is to have a set of combat formation pre-sets or customizable combat formations so that we cant set initial spacing based on encounter type. Actually, it would be great if there was a "ghost grid" of sorts when dealing with this.

To the OP, I would encourage you to go play Darklands and then come back to the forums and tell us if a stamina + health system is too easy. That was the system being referenced by Josh Sawyer as others have stated on this thread, not the DA series, Its available for $5.99 on GOG (Windows XP & 7). I suspect people complaining about how the game will be too easy will be whistling a very different tune about combat mechanics once PE is actually released....

It was probably the only really good aspect of storm of zehir. It was actually a lot of fun, and if there had been more variety and a bit nicer presentation graphically, it would have been the sort of exploration that could of stood on its own as a sandbox rpg. I think the major reason for this was that SOZ had a tiny team and budget if I remember the development correctly. Either way, a system that allows for replay-ability vs one and done is always going to be superior, regardless of what the nostalgics on this forum seem to believe.

Betrayal for the sake of having an interesting plot point isn't a particularly good reason. The idea that the PC is a black box that stuff just keeps happening to, is something I would hope Obsidian would try to avoid. If its handled the way the Bishop betrayal was in NWN2, a character many players would rather not even have hanging around (imagine a selfish evil guy betraying me, who would thunk it?) if it was an option; well that would be awful. Also a character betraying the PC because you consistently offend their sensibilities wouldn't make much sense either; because I would fully expect said character & the PC to come to a boiling point long before that is a possibility. Also, if you think about it, would you really ever want a character you didn't get on with to be in any position to damage you? If the betrayal is a la Mephistiopheles at the end of HOTU or with Neeshka & Sand/Qara in NWN2, then it could work, but would have to be much more convincing then what we got in those games; a speech and an influence check, blech. If a character joins the party with the intent of betraying the PC, well that could be very interesting; but then we should also have the ability to uncover the subterfuge, and have options for how to deal with it.

I haven't read all the posts on this thread, so I don't know if anyone else mentioned SOZ, but I would much prefer overland travel along those lines. I'm not particularly enamored of either BG1 or BG2 map styles. BG1, for the issues stated by others, and BG2 because map areas, with one or two exceptions) were all related to quests (as far as I remember) and had too much of a "set piece" quality to feel like I was doing any real exploration. A modified version of the SOZ travel map (with a touch of earlier games like Darklands or Fallout) and would solve the problem of the low density, exhausting BG1 trudging while still providing for a feeling of exploration (and the potential danger of travelling). Encounters could easily be divided into a few categories; wandering monsters, plot or quest related, bandits, & exploration. Exploration would largely be skill based; different skills could yield different encounters or locations on the travel map. To keep from exploiting the system, the threshold numbers for unlocking encounters could be based on a party aggregate. To make it feel more like exploration, a fairly simple pop-up screen could be employed, e.g. " Forestry: Your party notices a small path leading towards an old wooden bridge fording a stream deeper in the woods. You.... a) Explore path b) Continue on your travels." From here, a fairly small encounter tile would pop up and you would do your exploration and have your encounter; be it a mad witch, uncovering a crypt leading to another map, etc. The best thing about a system like this, is that with 15-20 fairly small base tiles describing different styles of locales, the devs can create a fairly diverse set of encounter maps and save a lot of time and resources having to populate maps, create encounter triggers and solve path-finding issues. It also makes the world more dynamic by allowing different skills to unlock different encounters (or even using skills to avoid encounters like in SOZ) along the same travel routes over the course of the game.

To the OP: Don't bother yourself with learning any versions of D&D. CRPG implementations of the DnD rulesets in IE & later 3.0 & 3.5 version games were streamlined to fit within the framework of the games, so knowing rules in advance was no great bonus, and sometimes a detriment as people often complained about some pet skill or feat being omitted. Also, if the devs do their design jobs correctly, there should be fairly clear explanations of ruleset components in the game manual and within the actual game itself.

It is much more fun to run through a flashback as a mini-game adventure, say as Forton. Instead of just sitting back and watching it on video. The one difference is that flashback adventurers are more railroad-y because the outcome is predetermined in many ways. Now if you could change the past with a flashback mini-game that would be beyond cool when the Official companion turns out to be different because of decisions you made in the flashback adventure. As I recall, Suikoden also makes use of a short section where the main character is not in the party and his friends are adventuring to rescue him. One way to account for railroad-y-ness of these quests could be to put them in a general pool as opposed to making them character specific, so that there are maybe 10 of these scattered throughout the game and connected to either the house or stronghold. This way, even though the quest result could be somewhat similar (e.g. defeat the lich in the crypt) the way each companion gets to the quest, and then solves it could be quite different based on their class and skills. This would also enhance replayability. Also, a way to keep them interesting and relevant would be for solutions to unlock locations or quests in the expansion.

I like the first idea. I was actually thinking that if you set them about missions while your were gone; even routine ones, it would really great if when you came back you could get a report from them and it could play out like a mini-quest where you run that character. For example, say you have Sagani patrol the grounds while you are off in the world; upon return she would relay her story which would be told as a playable quest where you run Sagani (and possibly a few of your henchmen). Maybe, during a routine patrol, she finds a path that leads to a cave and a mini dungeon or lost crypt. Might be a bit much to take on for the devs, but it could be a lot of fun (depending on play style I guess).

ha! beat me to the punch, cheers.

Personally, I would prefer if non-adventuring companions didn't just wait around my stronghold for my return. One easy way to fix this would be to give each companion an actual occupation. from what we've heard, it doesn't sound like any of the companions were just random adventurers before they meet the PC; so why not let them go back to doing whatever it was they were doing before they met you (isn't this how BG2 worked?)? You could just have a meeting place set for each of them at wherever they tell you they will go. When you go to meet them again, maybe they have gained some experience, but not at the same rate the active party members have (1/4 - 1/2?) done. A way to make this interesting would be for them to come back with new quests based on whatever they were doing; the Orlan detective might have a new puzzling murder or Cadegund may have been asked to embark on a mission by her superiors, etc.

Racial aspects are but one factor that should be considered in character creation. This has been touched on in other threads, but considering that the devs have already mentioned (using the example of Boreal Dwarves) that cultural and regional differences also play a factor in how races develop and interact, we should see that also reflected in character creation. Characters could potentially get bonuses (and minuses) to various skills and abilities based on choices made regarding the race, region, culture, class and even trade during the creation process. This way a, as an example, dwarven character from a coastal urban area could be markedly different from one coming from a rural, mountainous one.

To steer this back to the OP's post; I think that one of the biggest problems in the D&D treatment of deities was the simple fact that they served as little more than sources of magic. There were really no negatives to worshiping a particular deity, no perils. If the gods are truly "meddlesome" in the PE game world, there should be more perils in following a particular faith if you are a priest. This might manifest in having agents of other gods work actively against you (all part of the faction system). Also, I would like for there to be an American Gods type of worshippers + locale = power in the game. If you are the priest of a particular god, wouldn't it make more sense to have greater power where your god is favored and less power where a rival god is favored? This can manifest in reduced spell power or heightened power; bonus spells, etc. Finally, I would like to see gods be more part of the everyday life of people, shrines in places of work ( a blacksmith might have a major shrine to the god of fire, with minor shrines to gods of earth and commerce as an example) where the PC can throw a few coppers, or interact in some other way. There should be greeting specific to people and tradesmen based on their gods as a way of currying favor (kill check?). It doesn't have to be only quest related is what I'm getting at, but more a living aspect of social interaction.

There might be a much greater pool of souls than there are people at any one time. Also, we don't know how souls are created, evolve, devolve, splinter, re-combine, etc. And personally, I would prefer if they kept these things a bit vague. To Darth Trethon; I hope so as well, but I'm also drawing these conclusions from characters CA has written before, and some themes that are pretty common in the Obsidian oeuvre. the latest incarnation of such a character was Anjali in DS3. Her story was actually the most interesting aspect of the game, and I wish it had been expanded upon.

The Caste system ion the Indian Subcontinent evolved from the concept of Varna or color (which in turn cane from the concept of Jati which were related to occupation or tribal affiliation) which served as a way for the Aryan invading peoples into the sub-continent to keep separated from the darker Dravidian indigenous peoples. The castes were also more flexible in the origination and became more rigid over time. Much of this change, again had more to do with population segregation than any religious doctrine. With regards to the OP's post; You seem to be caught up in the language CA used to describe the soul mechanism; which I admit is a bit awkward. that said, I think it has more to do with the PC interior monologue as a writer (CA) might imagine it to be in a world where one not only knows of the existence of one's soul but also of its general typology, and can even draw power from it. It is a bit of an existential quandary who is the actor in any given moment? Not that the soul & the individual it inhabits are 2 separate entities, but that there is a manifest (me) and a latent (it). The latent doesn't get hungry, sleepy, need to take a sh*t, does it? So the Manifest part of the PC can often see a bifurcation where one doesn't really exist. BTW, these are pretty common tenets of most reincarnation philosophies. Nothing really new here.

Spell casting times are a must in my book, especially coupled with simple ( 1 spell) contingencies that make playing a mage quite tactical as others have said. I also like the idea of lower levels spells casting more quickly with levelling, but this might be a skill related issue. Also, it would be interesting to have upper level spell slots that allowed for casting combinations of lower level spells at the same time. What I didn't like about the old IE mage battles were the spell sequencer and chain contingency type spells which just came off as cheesy to me.

That's easy enough to work-around by simply forcing a save-game just before the 'point of no return' - I seem to recall FO:NV did exactly that --- then if you decide you want to continue after 'finishing', you can reload from that point and keep playing. I tend to agree with some of the other comments about how continuing after the main plot could put a lot of constraints on the main plot and how it ends... Yes, and that might be fine, but to do a decent end game, we might be talking about 4-5 hours of game time + an additional player level or some nice equipment. It could take the wind out of one's sails to finish the Endless Paths if that were the case. If they do a character export right before the boss fight and allow you to drop that PC Party into a pre-determined load point near where you last exited the Endless Paths, that could be fine. BTW, I'm not really for or against, I just want the game design to allow for different playstyles however Obsidian decides to handle this situation. Also, I wouldn't mind a playable epilogue that served as a link to the expansion, no more than an hour or so. I think something like that, that could set a bunch of variables for the expansion to pick up would provide a nice level of immersion.

As Hassat said, with a 15 level dungeon a lot of people might want to go back to it after a break. I could certainly see a situation where one might finish 8 levels, go on to finish the main quest and then put the game down for a while. A few weeks later that person might think, "what the heck, let me finish off the Endless Paths." That person's last relevant save game before the inevitable end game scenario might leave them several levels lower and without their favorite equipment to head back to the dungeon. That would be poor design and make finishing the Endless Paths feel more like a chore. As a solution, the game could easily revert back to the player stronghold where there could be a limited number of activities like finishing up a few unresolved stronghold related quests or going back to the Endless Paths, but not allowing general overland exploration. Also, as Hassat mentioned, this method could unlock some new content in the dungeon as a link or teaser to the expansion.

Umberlin, your points are certainly valid, and I don't want to preclude the possibility of NPCs leaving the party, however I think a lot of this will depend on how the Devs write morality and player (and thus NPC) motivation in the game world. D&D was heavily dependent on morality as a measuring stick for behavior, that will not be the case in PE. Also we have to consider that a lot of how we as 21st century individuals view wrong and right. The game world could have much different takes on these, however the developers will have to sell them in a convincing manner. Also, how the NPCs a personally motivated and how the player can exploit that motivation (or not) should to also be present in dialogue choices within the game. Of course there is always a tipping point within these exchanges, but with so few NPCs available, we need to have clear cues of impending breaks. I think we can all agree that what we don't want (along with the whole working blindly towards a common end) is the NWN2 type of influence mini-game where the PC had to basically agree and/or constantly stroke the various NPC's egos without any option for other approaches.

The BG series had several instances where party members were removed as a result of the plot. It may hinder the story not to allow for that possibility. The BG series also had a lot more NPCs. You bring up another interesting possibility that could be in the game, and that is NPC companions that are only available for specific quests or under specific conditions. That leads us to a different topic however. And if the one decent rogue in the game is going to betray my PC, hopefully it will be at the end of the game and not half way through ( I'm looking at you Yoshimo).

As others have posted; in concept it is fine, and in the BG series, where we had 20+ NPCs, this sort of mechanic was fun, but not when there are only 8. Conflict between NPCs on the other hand should be expected, and not just squabbles, but even long running feuds. A lot of this will depend on the PCs actions and how he/she acts as a leader. If conflict arises between companions, then we should have the opportunity to resolve it, let it fester, or even manipulate the situation. Hopefully the PE game world will avoid moral absolutism and stick closer to a view of characters being practical about getting the right results, even if the methods to obtain them aren't particularly palateable, efficient, what have you. That said, NPCs leaving the party should be a possiblity, but there should be plenty of forewarning.

This. And considering we have a 15 level dungeon that will mostly be non-critical path we are talking about situations where some players might finish the main quest + little additional content in 30 hours while others will be completionist (like me) and spend 80+ hours turning over every rock in the Dyrwood for loose copper pieces. Almost every game I've ever played with a level cap I've topped out long before the end-game. It makes the last bit of combat and encounters a bit of a drag at times. Hopefully there will be a mechanism, whether exponential cap, or just reducing xp rewards after the end game balance level, that will avoid this annoying scenario.