Amentep

So...couldn't you technically have a "paladin" by having a fighter who (assuming backgrounds are in) was raised/trained/joined an Order of Paladins in the society? This would give you a "paladin" without being a new class and one that they could build some reactivity to the character (quests, faction ratings based on how the order is perceived, etc.). i've wanted to see Bards who were like wizards but their instrument was their focus and thus the instrument dictated the things they could and couldn't do with magical energy in combat. Then make them good talkers and information gatherers outside of combat.

My hope is that the AI is more robust than that and that if characters can pull the attention of an opponent, its not a simple "I've been lured now I must attack without regard to anything else ever again". Also the word "aggro" is annoying, and I don't know why.

Distract lowers some combat skill, I like that. Maybe only pulls characters who'd it'd make sense a distraction would pull its total attention (Mothman says: "Must...resist...Rogue...striking...match... (fails and flitters forward). Maybe add in the idea that really BIG distracts could actually penalize your own party too? ("If you set off fireworks in the middle of the fight again, I'm gonna...!!!")

The thing about camping - to me - that can make it interesting is trying to find "good" places to camp, setting up the camp and watch to be defend-able. That chance that something might happen in the night and you're scrambling to prepare (or unprepared if your guards miss something sneaking into camp). I'm not convinced camping is interesting solely because that's when your mages get their groove back (Vancian system) but that doesn't mean camping in itself couldn't be interesting. Now the thing about expelling waste products (whichever, your choice) is that they create mini-situations where you're character could be incredibly vulnerable. But the question should be "what is fun?" in dealing with any game mechanics. I can't imagine dealing with six character and having to manage their bathroom schedules and their rest schedules and they can only pick new magic when they're visiting the outhouse reading their spellbook (or something like that) is going to end up being fun. Unless the game is about Sims style character control and not fantasy roleplaying with a storyline. I've tried to ponder an style of magics and pretty much everything either comes to some form of Vancian (replinish by rest, replinish by spell components, X spells per day), Mana pool (can't cast if tired) or cooldowns (Fireballs online in 10...9...8...). Not much help I'm afraid.

I think distract sounds more utilitarian and can encompass a wider range of actions. Also if Lizardmen were coldblooded (like lizards) I'd expect they'd be easily distracted by mages using cold spells (out of necessity) more than anything else since that would really screw around with them.

I like friendly fire, for the most part. Sometimes its implementation doesn't always work for me, but frankly if there is going to be area effect spells or chance of moving through line of fire, it makes sense to have to worry about that.

Make it turn based in combat and all characters follow the leader out of combat would be the only way I can think to handle BG on a console. I may lack imagination in this area though.

Maybe "taunt" is code for "throws small rocks at to annoy"?

Its a fun concept...for Dragon's Dogma. Where the lore of reality was that there were many alternate universes and your personal Pawn could traverse them while you rested because traveling worlds was what Pawns did. I don't think I've seen anything in PE that makes me think an equivalent system would work. Also since they're really focusing on SP play, I can't help but think anything that would require work to implement for connecting characters would be a drain on their resources.

My first character in D&D had a natural psionic talent. I think it was Psionic Blast. Lot of fun. There after I always enjoyed Psionics even if often it came down to Psionics = magic, but a little different.

To me most of the "monk" suggestions really just seem like alternate priests. I think the only idea of a monk that fits the idea of the "Asian Monk" stereotype while being European (at least for me) is the suggestion to go back to European wrestling / unarmed fighting styles. Pankration has been mentioned it was a cross between pygmachia (fist fighting) and pale (wrestling) and I think this would be a reasonable approach. The problem is that you'd almost for certain have to include grappling in the game to do so. And I doubt that's going to happen. That said you can still have the idea of the person who through training is designed to avoid blows, get in close and strike but have a European based flavor. The "monk" in this case would most likely have been a trained sport fighter whose branched out into adventuring. One thing about the picture though - the monk appears to be clearly older than the other characters - is an age penalty to characters who are monks (to signify the additional years of training maybe?) possible? Or just an older NPC but not a sign of game design?

The more the merrier, I say, but at some point they have to make a cut off point. That said I can see some way to carve a unique niche for Bards (but then I'd make them something other than kinda rogue-mages like D&D seems to). I think Paladins have a harder time because there seems to be so much overlap with Fighters and priests and if the priests aren't going to be limited in fighting, its hard to find that niche role for them. That said if someone can find that distinctive flavor - why not?

I'm not really beholden to this, but... If damage around the back is to be more damagey (or realistically, more likely to hit?), then anyone who is attacking the back should get that bonus. If rogues have mobility, then they're more likely to be able to exploit it, but its not an ingrained rogue ability and if the fighter gets behind an opponent they can get the bonus as well. If a rogue is hiding in shadows (a mechanic I'm not 100% fond of), I could see the argument that their initial attack role coming out of shadows should treat the opponent as "flat footed" (ie chance to succeed is based only on armor and not ability to defend of the opponent). This would only be applicable to other classes if they can mimic the "hiding in shadows" (say invisibility spell cast on the fighter). I'd make taunts available to all classes, but maybe rogues are just "better" at taunting so have a greater chance of succes than other classes?

The game should be fun to play and balanced to play. elements of previous games which created unbalance should be seen as cautionary tales. That said I think its impossible for a game to be made that can't be exploited by the player in some way, so to my mind the focus for the game maker can't be in trying to solve the problem of how the user is going to abuse the system once it gets in their hands, but work on solid design that doesn't actively encourage players seeking ways to abuse the game design.

I dunno, for me I'd have no problem with the shield and spear combo.

Wild, probably wrong guess, she's seeking a blessing for her gun (holding it aloft and holding a religious icon maybe?)

Yeah you could dual-wield two handed weapons - I had a character dual-wielding halberds.

I see the dungeon as more fun (since its based, not on money but on backers) than anything else. I'm pretty sure the initial stuff that I saw on PE made it clear you would make one character (possibly it was forum/kickstarter posts) so the Adventurer's hall idea was floated here on the forums (as was Psionics). I'm also pretty sure somewhere in the early days we had an idea of the general number of races and classes (haven't paid much attention to the map, so don't know about areas).

yeah, I fixed it, but first I needed to assign blame.

I've heard after some people said it was a feature, it turned out to be a bug. But I got that second hand, don't know for sure. BSN is kinda hard for me to get onto without a relatively modern computer so I don't hang there like I did.

I've always like psionics in D&D; so I hope we hit the stretch goal to have Ciphers.

I'm a huge fan of PST (hey I dedicated a couple of years to moderating BIS forums just to help other PST fans) but if someone says to me "I'm making a game like Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale and Planescape: Torment" I can't really think that it'll be *exactly* like one of those games in how the story is structured - or even how the parties are built. It gives a ballpark for the idea, not the exact seat number. Can't say I ever expected this game to be PLANESCAPE: TORMENT 2: BUT WITHOUT THE TRADEMARKED ELEMENTS

It's true that crits can be cheesy sometimes, but I think they add a necessary variety and exciting unpredictability to standard melee. I wouldn't want to see them removed. I'm not beholden to the idea of crits, but that's what I always thought they were for - that lucky/unlucky things would happen in real battle, like a blade sliding of a chestpiece managing to get into a joint and causing injury. That said I'm not really into adding an additional penalty to it (and some things, like being disarmed, should be handled by a disarming technique, IMO if caused by an attacker and not a critical fumble on the defender's part)

I just screwed up my size settings on my browser because I began playing with the zoom feature while reading this thread. Now I can't remember what size I'd had it on and they all look slightly wrong. Thanks a lot!

My thinking the way to go - if they wanted to go console ever - would be to develop a game in the setting that is its own console game that plays to the strengths of that platform and not a remake, reworking or direct sequel to PE which is its own franchise. This seemed to happen more back in the day (Might and Magic IIRC having a couple of different play mechanics, or Sega's Shining series, or the Atlus' MegaTen series) than it does now though.