khalil

Here's my opinion. Low level + nothing arrows might as well be free or unlimited or whatever. From a realism perspective, they're sticks with bits of dead bird glued on, not that hard to get. From a balance perspective, making the base arrows actual items just means that archers have to carry a backpack full of arrows and the player has to go play inventory roulette every time he wants his archer to pick up something. While making special save or die arrows limited use is understandable, there's no fundamental difference between infinite mundane arrows and limited mundane arrows other than the second one results in a large amount of inventory clutter. It's the same thing with durability. If maces have a chance to break in the middle of combat, it does not result in interesting and tense moments. It results in the party fighter having a backpack full of spare maces. tl;dr If an item is cheap enough that the only thing limiting how many the player can have is how many inventory slots the interface has, just give him an infinite amount. It's the same thing, but with less time wasted on trying to get one of your 50 potions of minor healing from the party fighter to the party mage.

Yes, but who doesn't like whining about how WoW/VTM/COD/KOTOR2/D3 ruined fun forever.

Yes, but memorizing it is quicker than paying someone. Also, components don't add to the game. Expensive components do, but most components are .1cp bat dung or whatever, and no-one wants to keep track of all that rubbish.

The god of trickery's stuff shouldn't be practical. It should be like the rod of wonder, but with over 1000 things on the table.

It's related in that the article talks about how magic should be more like it's folklore roots, and what I brought up is the roots of magic. Here's some responses to the article's specific points. 1.Magic was generally an ordered thing, because most religions had various rituals. Complaining that magic isn't mysterious is like complaining that saying amen before a meal isn't mysterious enough. 2.Magic was considered to be separate or unnatural because it was the ways of disliked religions. Look at what has been said by various fundimentalists throughout history about religions they didn't like. It's allways unnatural this and satan worship that. 3.Of course rituals are used with magic. Magic was just a word for people praying to a god you didn't like. People pray via rituals, be it holding a crucifix or sacrificing a goat. 4.This is just game balance stuff. If magic is just like fighting, it becomes boring. If it is better than fighting but not limited, it is overpowered. 5.This is done so you can have evil wizards in the tradition of what magic was once thought of, but you can also have good guys use magic. Also, if you read Norse myths, you will notice that magic is a thing used by both good and evil people. Given that our idea of a pointy hatted wizard comes from Odin's guise as the wanderer, you'd think that'd be fairly relevant. Failing that, look at Arthurian legends. Both Morgane of the faries and Merlin use magic, and they are on opposite ends of the alignment spectrum.

Flair is important. If you need a wizard, are you going to hire the dirty guy in mud brown burlap, or the guy in red robes floating a foot above the ground? Yes, being obviously a wizard does draw gunfire. On the other hand, even without pointy hats the wizard is usualy going to be the one without much weaponry or armor, so you can just shoot at that guy.

Frak not doing that. I like it when NPCs don't work like PCs. If the NPC does what I do, than there's two ways that works out: If the NPC isn't as good as me, they're a third wheel and get dumped (Example: wizards other than Edwin) If the NPC is better than me, I feel like a third wheel and my PC becomes pointless (Example: Edwin) If NPCs are like Dakkon or Fall from Grace and do something that you flat out CANT, than you don't have to compete with them.

What I'd like for animal companions: Cuttlefish (Flying air breathing version) Tarsier Kakapo Naked Mole Rat Colony(roughly 40 of them, including a queen) Naked Mole Cranium Rat Colony (Roughly one of them that happens to have a body made out of 40 separate creatures) Hunting Ferret Hunting Poodle (Poodles used to be hunting animals before dog breeders got their hands on them) Pug Purebred Bulldog (dies of heatstroke on exposure to sunlight) Kangaroo Rat Spinx Cat Dire Elk Duckbunny

That's another problem I have. In NWN2, my wizard had this bitching pimp hat and a glowing purple robe. But then I found this spiked helmet made entirely out of clipping errors that gave me +lots to concentrate, so I could cast defensively all the time. I went with that and looked like an idiot. Obsidian, just give us cosmetic items to determine appearance. In fact, all rpgs should work like that.

I have but one question about PoE, about an issue very dear to me. Do wizards get to wear pointy hats? I wanted to do that in the IE games, but there weren't any. Obsidian, please fix this glaring omission.

Bull. Magic comes from Magus, a slur term used by the greeks to describe Zoroastrians. "Magic", as the greeks called it, was simply the various rites the Zoroastrians performed. If we're going to start talking about how magic should be true to it's roots, than wizards should just be clerics with pointy hats.

Other question. Can we get firearm/melee weapons? The obvious implementation of this is bayonets, but several Renaissance gunsmiths thought nailing guns onto maces or whatever would be cool, and thus created things that neither worked as guns nor as maces.

Okay, so now the wizard with high might does everything via telekinesis. What happens when I want to built a muscle wizard who shouts RARGH and headbutts his way through a door? Play as a barbarian? I like you. However, I'm fairly certain barbarians can't cast magic missile. I see no reason why I shouldn't be able to go for a musclebound melee wizard. Didn't the devs say that there's no such thing as a bad build? I thought that was part of the reason behind attaching magic damage and strength damage to the same stat.

Okay, so now the wizard with high might does everything via telekinesis. What happens when I want to built a muscle wizard who shouts RARGH and headbutts his way through a door?

Here's a few tries: Here lies The Chosen One. No-one knows who chose him, or what they chose for. Now here he lies forevermore. Here lies Adahn. Try coming back from this. *On further inspection, the soil around this grave appears disturbed, as though something had been recently unearthed, or somehow managed to unearth itself.* Here lies Gygax(Or possibly Zagyg, if that's too obvious). Rolling in his grave. (Replace xx with whatever's appropriate within the setting's dating system, ex 1921-1948) Here lied Vlad Dracul xx21-xx48, xx58-xx74, xx95-xx96, x(x+1)00-x(x+1)05, x(x+1)10- (Universal studios Dracula, Hammer Horror Dracula, Mel Brooks Dracula, no-one cares Dracula, and Hammer Horror is back and needs to do another Dracula respectively.)

Well, they don't have a good-evil alignment system so technically no. I also read they (devs) see Paladins (in PoE) as 'zealots' so they (paladins) probably consider themselves to be 'good' but not everyone might agree. That's how I treat pallies in my D&D games. They're based off historical religious warriors, so rivers of innocent blood are considered to be a good thing.

I actually hated that, because if I got up to do something else, when I came back I could never remember what I was doing. Also, it wastes my time. I have to go and type something in for every damn quest like that, and it's no more immersive than it just being automaticly added to the log.

And yay for that. But apparently *some* people read into that as 'the game will be diablo, they don't care about story.' Read the above... they care. They care a lot. I have no doubt they cared when they made NWN2 as well. Rocks fall, everyone dies. It was better than Bioware's rubbish, but that's because bioware is rubbish all around. I think the reason people like romance so much is because a lot of the time it's the closest thing you get to meaningful interaction with a companion. Remove romance from bg2, and all you have left is Jan Janson talking about that time he ascended to godhood. That'd actually make a good litmus test for well written companions: if you remove the ability to romance your party members, do you still get to talk with them, and do they still get their own little character arcs? If the answer is no, bioware gives you a job.

I mean, look at this BS. Diablo comparison? ORLY? Because it doesn't have romances? And what is 'Wizard Highlander?' I think I'd like it. Close the thread. Please. and the other one. They get annoying and creepy and add nothing to the forum. It's not romance in and of itself, as much as the fact that in BG2 (which this game seems to lean closer to than it does to torment) the romance subplots were the closest thing you ever got to meaningful interaction with party members. Removing that, all you have left is Minsc saying things about his pet spelljammer crossover and Jan talking about his uncle Barfo Bungus and that time he lost the golem eating contest. (Not that there's anything wrong with Jan, he was my favorite companion, but I'd trade him out for Morte in a heartbeat.) And yes, I did compare Icewind Dale to Diablo. They were both combat heavy games with terribly written plots. The difference is IE combat was terrible, leaving Icewind Dale with no redeeming value whatsoever. Wizard Highlander was a joke about how the Baldur's Gate series is about a bunch of supernaturally powerful pricks who gain power by killing each other. Give the Kurgan a bunch of spikes and he'd be a dead ringer for Sarevok. (His fur cape goes on to become the Candlekeep Wolf, scourge of first level magic-users and enemy of all that is good in this world.)

A: Why is this thread still here? B: Bruce VC, as someone who isn't being financially supportive of this, it's because all signs point closer to Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale than Planescape Torment. Only game on the IE that wasn't a complete piece of ****, so naturally it's the one that got brushed over so everyone could get all nostalgic about wizard highlander and diablo: **** edition.

"Optimal killing potential" and "a wizard who kills things with magic" aren't the same thing. We also don't know enough about how the system will actually work to say that optimal killing potential will be the result of high dex and high might. Could be that he's great in mano-a-mano combat, and absolutely stinks if he's got to take on more than one enemy, or that he's rubbish against bosses because he hasn't got interrupt or penetration or what have you. Putting nitpicking aside for a moment will probably let you grasp the meaning of what people say. He clearly meant a wizard who's good at killing things. We have enough information about what attributes do. Might increases damage directly, dexterity increases accuracy . These are the two attributes that you'd want to raise if you wish to deal more damage with a specific character and consequently kill things faster. I don't think I'm nitpicking at all. Intellect makes effects last longer and increases AoE size. That, to me, would seem to increase damage. It doesn't increase damage, it just does damage to more things.

I've never met a femnazi, but I have met large amounts of people who whine about them. It's kind of funny how majorities like to think of themselves as persecuted minorities. Also, I suggest you go to the hospital, as having your head inside your ass isn't very good for your health.

The eternity engine was terrible at everything other than plot, which is why it is sad most of the games made on it didn't have any. Real time combat is terrible. Icewind dale was terrible. Baldur's Gate was highlander in a wizard hat. BG2 mage duels were terrible.

Because making a wizard good at one makes him automatically good at the other. It's not that a muscle wizard is stupid, it's the fact that if I want a wizard who kills things with magic he has to be a muscle wizard. I'm not saying that I don't want to be all FACE THE POWER OF MY MAGIC MISSILE HOAK HOGAN! SKRONK!, just that I find it stupid that if I want to do damage via magic that's my only option.

I'm just going to say this: while it is ok to not support all character ideas, one should consider what people will want to do. Mage who dumped str and still can use spells effectively is going to be fairly standard, and people will be unhappy if they can't do that. Now, I'm stuck using a goofy muscle wizard, so when my wizard is chained up and his spellbook is taken away, he gets to rip the chains as though they were paper and punch his captors into submission. Funny, but also stupid.