Matt516

Great suggestions. I think there's definitely some need for the attributes to be reworked, and I'm a fan of a lot of your suggestions.

So.. I fully understand the concept of melee engagement, and I like it a lot. What I'm not quite clear on is why it has been implemented NOT with the traditional "attack-of-opportunity" implementation, but instead a "cannot leave without special abilities" implementation. Is there some reason for this? I sort of understand the mechanical reason for it (allowing frontliners to CC enemies) but I'm not clear on the rationale... if you're fighting with someone, nothing's stopping you from running away except the fact that you'll be turning your back on them (hence the traditional "attack-of-opportunity").

Hello all. I love the reputation system. It's fantastic. Obsidian's decision to have dialogue options in most conversations that have different ways of saying (essentially) the same thing isn't new. The IE games had that kind of thing all the time for flavor. What I absolutely love is Obsidian's decision to attach role-playing mechanics to these previously-just-for-flavor dialogue choices. Now if you go around acting like an aggressive ass all the time, people will remember you as one. It's great. What I don't love is the fact that the dialogue options not only tell you which type of reputation each option will increase (a must-have for player clarity in my opinion), but how severe the reputation increase is. So you'll see something like [Aggressive - Minor] next to a dialogue choice. This is a bit too much information, in my opinion. It changes what was previously a brilliant marriage of role-playing choices and mechanics into a mechanically-driven decision. Now obviously the presence of this severity indicator doesn't ACTUALLY keep someone from role-playing with their choices - but in my opinion it breaks the immersion. Instead of being like "oh, I can be aggressive here, or I could try to be clever" the player goes "hmm, do I want a minor aggression reputation increase, or a minor cleverness reputation increase?". I'd love it if this severity indicator was removed or (even better) a toggleable option in the options menu. That way people could choose if they wanted to see it or not. That's my $0.02. Thanks for reading!

That said - completely divorcing health and stamina seems like a bad idea IMO. The reason being that I honestly cannot conceive of a character who would have high health and low stamina from a roleplaying perspective. I can, however, conceive of a character who has high stamina and low health - what if stamina was tied both to CON and RES? Make stamina a certain percentage of health, and let that percentage go up with RES. That way you could have characters who are just beefy in general, but also have characters who are physically weak but have the resolve to fight on.

Fantastic breakdown. The stats are definitely going to be tweaked tons of times before release - I hope OE takes some of these suggestions under advisement.

All the UI Windows could stand to be bigger. Inventory, weapon descriptions, etc. I'm not doing anything in the game window when I'm in a menu anyway - I don't need to see it and you can use the space for something else.

I will say that although I'm still a bit iffy of the general power of individual stat points, I do really like what they're trying to do in terms of making all stats useful to all classes (or at least more so than on IE). I want to be sure that comes across. I think the general philosophy they're taking with stat design is stellar, and kind of revolutionary to be honest. I'm only so critical because I want them to get it right.

Fair point.. I should have said every 2 stat points. The eccentricity of D&D 2nd edition in that respect was always rather strange. With that concession though, my point still stands. Going from 12 to 14 to 16 to 18 in most stats provided significant benefits, much more than the marginal percentage increases in the current stats system. I'm not saying it's bad, I am honestly still undecided. It will depend on how combat works and feels after they get the major bugs and balance issues worked out.

Sensuki, I'll be surprised if Obsidian doesn't just hire you as a consultant/backer feedback manager before all this is done.

Yep. The audio balance is really wonky right now - voices and (especially) spell/ability effect noises are waaay too loud.

I have to somewhat agree. I'm also not sure if I'm sold on the whole "all stats add percentage of something and that's it" system. Seems awfully Torchlight-esque... and Torchlight was a great game, but an IE game successor should have meaningful, important stats. Not tiny marginal increases. In the IE games, one stat point was very important. In these.. hardly.

I have had this happen as well. For me, it was after editing formations. I created a custom formation, and now all my characters move in slo-mo. Am at the beginning of the demo (haven't done anything but peruse inventory and char sheets yet).

The description for the Fighter skill "Armored Grace" has +3 DT listed in the short list of effects, and +5 DT listed in the verbose list of effects.

To reproduce: start a new game, go into the inventory, click on BB Mage, then click on another character. The Mage's cape should stick where it was.

Just a small thing - the variety of portraits is far too small for the number of races that are available. Something akin to Shadowrun Returns' system (race and gender-specific portraits, 3 or so base for each race/gender combo, and lots of variations on the base portraits) would fit very well for this game IMO.