Amentep

You know what I really hated about BG2 - the fatigue mechanic when traveling. Okay so I choose to go somewhere on the map that'll take me 18 hours to travel and I've already been up for 10. So I arrive and I'm immediately fatigued. Is my party too stupid to sleep while traveling and instead they have to sleep when they're 10 feet from the shadow temple of evil? So I'd say the sleep mechanics in IE wasn't exactly my favorite. And maybe that's why they're looking at sleep spamming and since sleep is part of the D&D method of magic recouperation, that's why they're having to try to create a new magic system to mimic (but not exactly) the old system? Dunno.

Wizard is not close-combat specialist. He does't need to compete with fighters. Monk, on the other hand, is and does. It's the same as archers in Dragon Age 2, if you catch my drift - when archers can shoot twenty arrows in AoE like ability, the whole combat style thing becomes obsolete and indistinguishable. Suddenly, if someone calls himself a pretty name and says he meditated for ten years, he can do as well as somebody who relies heavely on equipment, training and technique - because "soul". That's why monks are lame. And, actually, that's why sorcerers in D&D are a bit lame too (like Order of the Stick making fun of them by Vaarsuvius simply counter-spelling every spell a pompous sorceress throws at him). If (big if, because I don't know how this is going to work) a fighter with a sword is able to channel his energy into his sword strike or damage, then I don't see any problem with a monk being able to do the same with their hands or feet. There would be a number of ways that this could then be used to make the classes different, focused and viable next to one another. The way I'm thinking is that the difference is that the fighter doesn't need to channel his soul energy as much as the monk; therefore the fighter over the course of a fight will use less of his soul power than a monk who is having to constantly use it for attacks and defense. This could then balance out to monks having to spend more time building spirit related traits; in turn the fighter can look at strengthening normal attacks - this in turn could lead to a monks and fighters both being warrior classes, a monk may choose to be a warrior of equal par to the fighter at a huge cost to defense or the monk may choose to be defensive on par with a fighter at a cost to offense. The fighter could do generally more even damage over time while the Monk may be up and down the charts, most useful in delivering a great blow at the most opportune time. or something.

Couldn't and elf be a human? Couldn't a human be a dwarf? Yes, yes and yes. Have you never role played an elf who is actually a human (race reassignment surgery) but thinks that he is dwarf? I haven't but my brother played a gnome illusionist with multiple personalities so the character occasionally thought he was either an Orc Barbarian or an Elven Princess. Of course I also remember early D&D where "Dwarf" and "Elf" were classes you took, too.

Would it still be okay to show that a choice is a skill limit choice but only if you meet the threshold. Something like [intellect] - I'm smart, so I can say this But if you're not smart you just don't get the choice?

Paladin would belong to an order, so having to maintain a high (very high) faction rating?

Here's my complaint about binary reputation systems - realistically an evil character should be able to have a good reputation because they've never been caught and have always managed to turn any situation into their favor. And a good character might have a bad reputation because they killed an evil man - who just happened to be liked by everyone. Problem is, I don't really have a good solution for how to better do reputations without being incredibly complex (and probably having multiple systems going at once).

I'd like for the "someone hires you to free a manor from an usurper" scenario to be resolvable in the following manner as well. You pursuade/extort the quest giver to a high fee upfront and to sign a contract that they will pay you an additional fee when the usurper no longer has control of the manor. You then go and do a quest for a government official as well as a quest for the local captain of the guard. You pay a forger to frame some evidence on the usurper which you give to the local captain of the guard. The captain of the guard then uses the city guard to remove the usurper from the manor. You also use your influence with the government official to back your legal claim to the property because squatter rights in the city had given the usurper legal claim to the manor however the claim was forfeited due to the criminal charges back to the government. As the good citizen who brought to light the evil deeds of the usuper, his property (formerly the quest givers) is turned over to you giving you legal ownership of the manor. The quest giver in anger refuses to pay the additional fee when you've rid the manor of the usurper so you go and legally file charges against the quest giver for not honoring your contract since the usurper no longer had control of the manor and the contract was fulfilled. Because he still doesn't have the manor and the original fee to take the quest was all the money the quest giver had, s/he's taken to prison for not being able to pay their debts." And I'd like for the same quest to be able to be resolved by a player who goes and finds one of the usurpers thugs and after doing a series of quests for him manages to get him on the PC's side; he gives the PC the password to get into the house. The PC gets through to the boss who along with the help from the flunky convinces the usurper that there may be a better way to resolve the usurper's problems. The PC goes through a few quests that find the usurper their own land and money to build a manor of their own. The PC also convinces through deeds, word and dedication the usurper and the quest giver both to dedicate their manor's chapels to the PC's diety. And I'd like for you to be able to just plow through the manor, kill the boss and get paid for it which also opens up other quests from the manor inhabitants and the original quest giver. Probably a bit too complicated for a game, but ultimately there needs to be some quests (not all quests) that allow for evil options that aren't just "whack a mole for evil" and good options that aren't just "do good for goodness sake" but really reflect the nature of the setting and what the PCs goals would be. Certainly not all quests, "go kill the giant ant eating my cow" is probably not going to lead to much complexity, but there should be some signature quests that allow a lot different ways to approach and resolve.

I think part of it is that its harder to think about the benefits of evil or different degrees of "evilness". I think it actually *is* a problem with both good and evil, to be honest though. Its the reason D&D Paladins are referred to as "Lawful Stupid". But most evil PCs in cRPGs (not pen and paper) end up being "Chaotic Sociopaths" randomly cutting their way through people in town. Because murder is the only really "evil" choice. So hopefully PE will take a more interesting approach to good and evil and those who want to take the harder paths in good and evil can still be rewarded for their gameplay with an interesting storypath that fits their character.

Now I want to play a Bard who says something like "Beware evil doers, or I shall SHAKE MY MARACAS AT YOU!"...

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?)