Search the Community

Not sure if this was mentioned in the past and cautious to post anything regarding the skill system considering the rage it tends to generate lately. What about simplifying the skill talent merger to talent skill tiers. What I mean by this is remove skills linked to talents and simply have different tiered talents that give you access to the skills you want. Such as basic athletics > intermediate athletics > advanced athletics > master athletics. This would allow you to make balanced combat/skill characters, combat focused (no skills) characters, or even a more passive skills based character (with little to no combat talents). I think it would be simple to implement and allow for varied and flexible builds. Any thoughts?

It's a considerable design change, but I like it because: It's more strategic. It's now harder to mindlessly max out a specific skill. You actually have to sacrifice a talent if you want to be maxed Mechanics, maxed Lore, etc. You can have more/deeper talents, focus on more/deeper skills, or find a balance. This is more interesting to me than deciding which guy is going to max Mechanics, which one Lore, etc. It's more logical. Linking talents and skills makes flavor sense--Hold the Line tying into Athletics, for instance. Having skills exist in their own vacuum, completely independent of talent selection, seems odd now. It's more fun. I don't miss the dull process of pumping more points into whatever skill I want to max in order to reach gated content or unlock chests. Let's see what you guys think. If you don't like it, how would you redesign it?

Quote from J.E.Sawyer (full post), emphasis added: That part in italics seems misguided, for a very simple reason: Disarming traps and picking locks is a Mechanics skill check. Therefore, reaping all XP rewards will require a Mechanics-focused character in your party. None of the other sources of XP require specific skill focus. Between bestiary, exploration, and quest/objective rewards, together with carefully-designed levels, progression should be plenty frequent without forcing players (or at least "power players") to max Mechanics. That skill's plenty desirable without binding it to an XP pool. What do you guys think? Sign the poll and speak your mind. (I realize there is another thread that touches in this issue, but its survey is broader and its discussion has mostly devolved into yet another combat XP debate. So please, focus discussion on Trap and Lockpick XP, and whether it's good for the game. Thanks!) Edit: To clarify (thank you, wanderon) the problem isn't so much that Trap/XP is bound to Mechanics, it's that the other skills are NOT bound to XP pools. Even Bestiary unlocks are not strictly Lore-gated; low-Lore parties can unlock entries, they just need to fight more of a given beast. Even if each skill had an associated "XP activity", though, we'd have to make the usual-suspects group of rogue, wizard, fighter, etc., or else lose out. You may as well pick a skill for your character on creation and have it auto-level. Why provide multiple skill points per level if you're going to max one?

First I'm not a backer, but I have this game on my focus. (Buying it at release if I think it's worth it.) So my only experience is from reading the wiki and footage from the beta. At first the concept of godlikes has appealed to me, but now I think the effects are to low for "godlike". Now there are only marginal effects. Pro: - few people will love you - small attribute bonus - one unique passive ability Con: - most people will hate you - no helmet How about giving it more impact? The people thing can stay, but instead of small boni it should be big boni balanced out with big mali. So it will add choice especially in combination with the classes. (And thus diversity.) So you can choose a godlike to further increase the strength of some classes (in return to increase their weakness) or balance out weaknesses of others (in return to decrease their strenghts). Easy to add: There could be added a skill bonus/malus, like nature godlike with bonus to "survival" and mauls to "mechanical". Or the fire godlike with bonus to "athletics" and malus to "stealth". Harder to add: There could be some boni to related abilities and mali to nonrelated, like death godlike with a bonus to any debuff ability and a malus to any buff ability. Or the fire godlike with a bonus to any "fire" and "combat" ability, but a malus to any "nature" and "heal" ability that is not fire or combat. This would add to some interessting choices between godlike/nongodlike and classes. For example you can choose to be a fire godlike as druid and therfore greatly improve your capabilities with your spirtform (combat) and the few fire related abilities in extend of weakening most of your other abilities (nature). Maybe the nature godlike is the exact opposite and if you choose to be nongodlike you stay balanced in all your abilities. Maybe add some weak related abilities which the godlike gets regardless of class. So if you chose the fire godlike and mage you improve your "fire" magic but you will learn it's fire abilities anyways or you chose fire godlike and barbarian and miss the boni to "fire" magic, but that may be your only way to gain some fire magic with that class at all. (Ok, it would be OP with the boni to "combat" and the mali to "nature" and "heal" which the barbarian most likely doesn't have anyway, but that is only a suggestion to show what I mean.) TL;DR: Give the godlike more impact (positive and negative) to make it a true choice. Note: I understand why a godlike may not be able to wear "any" helmet, but since you can craft armor yourself why not adding a few non-lootable helmets specifically for crafting and godlikes? If you are allready able to craft a helmet you will have no problem making some holes in it for horns or something individual that fits your own head regardless how "special" it may be formed.

Ok, so I have a very interesting idea on how we can revamp and revitalize the 6 Attribute System. As we all know, Intellect and Resolve are "dump" stats. Might, Dexterity, and Constitution are REALLY good stats for all classes. So how can we make EACH attribute interesting for EVERY class? Well, read on and find out! First, I will thoroughly list what each of the 6 Attributes currently do: 1. Might (MIG): +X% Damage & Healing (+2%/point spent) During interactions, used for: intimidating displays and acts of brute force... Bonus to Fortitude Defense 2. Constitution (CON): +X% Stamina & Health (+2%/point spent) "...sometimes checked to withstand pain or endure a physically taxing ordeal..." Bonus to Fortitude Defense 3. Dexterity (DEX): +X Accuracy (+1/point spent) Represents a character's hand-eye coordination, balance, and grace. It is used for sleight-of-hand and fast reactions in Interactions. Bonus to Reflex Defense 4. Perception (PER): +X% Interrupt (+3%/point spent) "...represents a character's senses as well as their instinctive ability to pick up on details..." In Interactions, it can be used to catch a liar, make an observant comment about someone, or to notice things off in the background. Bonus to Reflex Defense 5. Intellect (INT): +X% Duration & Area of Effect (+5%/point spent) Represents the logic and reasoning capabilities of the character. In Interactions, it is used for "...deduction, sudden realizations, and problem-solving..." Bonus to Will Defense 6. Resolve (RES): +X% Concentration (+3%/point spent) Key Words: Internal drive, determination, and emotional intensity a character projects to others... During Interactions, used for: Mental intimidation, leadership, & convincing performances... Bonus to Will defense. __________________________________________________________________________________ Ok, now that I have explained what each attribute does, I can finally get into explaining what is currently wrong with the above system. First and foremost, the primary goal of PoE's class/attribute system is to make any character VIABLE. Thus, when going into character-creation, everyone should have 2 questions they need to ask themselves. 1. What do I want to role-play as? 2. Is my type of character equally viable both in combat and out of combat? The currently implementation of the attribute system when creating a character doesn't really satisfy these 2 central questions. For instance, let's say i want to make a Sherlock-Holmes type of character that happens to be a Monk. This character needs to be good at what a Monk does which is to take a beating...build up wounds, and then transform that suffering into damage in combat. Also, he needs to be a good problem-solver and have great deductive abilities. With the current system in place, I would want pretty much everything because I need damage from MIG, health from CON, DEX for accuracy, and INT for its use in interactions. However, I really don't need PER and RES, screw those stats! Ideally, I really should be investing in CON and PER. CON symbolizes the character's ability to withstand pain. Something a Monk would like right? Also, PER is perfect for rounding out his ability to fully become a Sherlock Holmes type of character. Now we need to ask ourselves, how can we change these attributes to create this Monk/Sherlock-Holmes type of character? It's quite simple actually. Each of the 6 Attributes need to do MULTIPLE things, whether superfluous or unique to any other attribute. At the moment, each of the 6 attributes are way to focused on 1 specific goal. For example, Might gives every class straight up damage and healing. But everyone wants that! But that goes against the 2 fundamental pillars of creating a character, primarily in role-playing a specific type of character. What we need to do is have every attribute do multiple things so that we can really flesh out any type of character we want and have it be viable both in combat and out of combat. I'm going to propose a VERY basic example of this and by no means have I really thought about the "balance" of it. I'm merely trying to clarify what I mean. __________________________________________________________________________________ Below is a VERY ROUGH example of the revamped 6 Attribute System. 1. Might (MIG): +Damage +Bonus Damage to Large one-handed & two-handed weapons +Healing +Stamina +Health +Bigger Inventory +Movement Speed Bonus to Fortitude Defense 2. Constitution (CON): +Bonus damage to using fists/legs only +Healing +Stamina +Health Less easily Fatigued Bonus to Fortitude Defense 3. Dexterity (DEX): +Damage +Accuracy +Bonus Damage to Fast one-handed weapons +Bonus Damage to Projectile Weapons +Crit Chance +Movement Speed +Crit Damage Bonus to Reflex Defense 4. Perception (PER): +Damage +Increases the intrinsic bonus of every weapon type (e.g. Extends the already extended reach of Quarterstaves) +Interrupt +Accuracy +Crit Chance Bonus to Reflex Defense 5. Intellect (INT): +Damage +Accuracy +Bonus Damage to Wands, Rods, Sceptres +Duration & Area of Effect Bonus to Will Defense 6. Resolve (RES): +Crit Chance +Crit Damage +Accuracy +Interrupt +Concentration +Less easily Fatigued +Duration of positive status effects from food, potions, scrolls, etc. Big Bonus to Will Defense P.S. I didn't list what each attribute does for interactions because they remain the same as what I listed above. So let's test this new revamped system out. I would need CON, PER, INT as my 3 major stats for my Sherlock Homes/Monk character. Throw in a bit of Might, Dex, and quite a few into RES. So...what do you think? If we allow each attribute to contribute to damage in some way while adding in unique perks, will that make a more robust and balanced system that allows us to make any type of build viable both in and out of combat? Let me know... (Sorry if there are grammatical errors or if this entire post made no sense ).

Skills vs Abilities vs Talents what the difference? So far I gathered that Abilities are class specific things that we can do, gained with level. Talents are the same only not necessarily class specific and gained every three levels. While Skills are the same only can be gained by everyone and have levels?

A simple thread to suggest new skills for future games set in the Eternity sphere or elsewhere, to provide alternative routes, non combat solutions and more ways of resolving situations. Sapper/Demolitionist: As the engineer builds and provides mechanical answers to problems, so the demolitionist destroys or works around those answers. A mechanic may pick the lock on a chest, set a trap or fix a malfunctioning ancient device, the demolitionist will simply take a hammer and chisel and pop the hinges from a treasure box, take apart the trap and store the pieces, or render an ancient device incapable of operating for the opposition. The key to this trade lies in the tools, and the Sapper must carry many and be ready to replace them when they become worn or broken. The axe or hammer he uses to break down doors may need a new shaft and sharpening or heat treatment, the vial of acid he pours over delicate mechanical working must be refilled by an alchemist, the chisels he uses must be ground and re-hardened, the files constantly replaced as their knurling becomes too worn. With his tool kit in hand, his mind sharp and his patience undisturbed the cunning Sapper can remove almost any obstacle. Traditionally his greatest tool is the shovel and he will constantly carry this entrenching tool with him, especially when venturing underground. As an expert in demolition he is also invaluable when judging whether a structure is safe or near collapse, and can maybe strengthen or weaken them as appropriate. Strangely enough many Sapper's will carry songbirds underground with them, though they do not reveal why this is done, and it may be just tradition.

The recent discussions about Combat Challenge =/= Obfuscation and the inclusion of a stat popup and Bestiary logs raises an important question to me regarding a particular feature of the Infinity Engine games (and Dungeons and Dragons) that I rather enjoyed. In all of the D&D campaigns that I played, the target values of skill checks and Armor class were never revealed by any Dungeon Master, you had to do the math yourself. You might be able to figure out what the AC of a monster was if you knew the value from the book and the DM was using it or you could approximate it by the armor they were wearing, or you rolled a miss on a 17 and then someone else hit the same monster on an 18 in a later round. In Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale and Planescape Torment - Armor classes were never shown in the combat log, only the attack roll was displayed: For example Sensuki attacks Josh Sawyer: 15 + 6 = 21: Miss However in later titles (the trend started with Neverwinter Nights 1 or 2 I believe) the target DCs for skill checks and AC values for enemies were shown upon rolls in a manner similar to this (using a D&D example here). Sensuki attacks Josh Sawyer: 15 + 6 = 21 (vs AC 24): Miss Eternity will be supporting transparency by default as Josh wants players to engage in the mechanics, and it makes it easier for people unfamiliar to RPGs of this kind. That's fine with me because we will also be able to disable the popups that fill in the enemy defense scores. However I am a bit worried that the combat log will still show target values. I have asked multiple times but have not got an answer yet - perhaps the question wasn't noticed or they haven't decided yet, so I thought I'd post a poll. Please keep in mind this is for EXPERT MODE only. Personally I do not want to see target values in the combat log, I would rather work them out myself, yes it means I have to do some 'unnecessary' arithmetic which some people may find bothersome, but these people are hopefully not Expert mode players. I am not too phased about whether values are shown in the Bestiary as I probably won't use it, but I wouldn't be against having stats disabled in the Bestiary as well on Expert Mode. I don't want to know anything, let me figure it out please. Personally I felt Baldur's Gate 1 gave the best feel, it didn't give you any feedback about the states of enemy health either. I'm not too phased about that I'm more concerned with not being able to see their defense scores and skill check targets than anything else. Hopefully there's some more Expert Mode players out there that feel the same.

I am hoping that I can boil down a discussion that has been going on outside the forum for over year into a few lines. RPGs in general have skill progression in a linear curve*. Your character spends or gains experience as a gradual progression. +1 to +2; 30% to 32% and so forth. However, the thrust of thinking at chez Walsingham has been that progression in real people doesn't go this way. it is less of a curve and more of a staircase. For whatever reason (and there has been a LOT of debate on this) the effective capability of people/trainees etc. tends to move in bursts. They achieve a certain level, sweat and fume, and make mistakes for a while, then suddenly change a lot of what they are doing all at once, and improve. Hopefully, those of you who are trainers or coaches or teachers are already pretty familiar with this point and will back me up. My point is that the affective experience of improvement is periods of frustration interspersed with massive elation and improvement. The current system is just a gradual and unimpressive slide into getting better. Therefore, would it not be more dramatically exciting, and more realistic to implement character progression that worked in the staircase fashion? *straight line or not, it's technically a curve.

For Wasteland 2, the community had significant impact on what attribute system was ultimately accepted. Is there an attribute system would you like to use? Do you have any suggestions for improving traditional concepts and systems? I for one, would like to see Strength and Constitution to be merged into one (physical) Fitness stat, and Intelligence and Wisdom to be refined into a Reasoning stat. Furthermore, I would like to see Charisma evolved beyond just the ability to interpersonally influence others, but also as reflection of a character's identity, sense of self, and fidelity to it. Perhaps renaming it, Persona. Finally, I've always been fond of Perception stats. I'd like to see Perception apply not merely to detection radius of foes & traps, but of NPC motives, bluffs, and even of magical/metaphysical phenomena. I would also like to see some Deadlands influence. I loved how stats started out average, but that for every character flaw (hinderence) a player chose, they were allowed to enhance another attribute. These went beyond mere numbers, and were both expected and encouraged to be roleplayed. What are your views, suggestions, and hopes for character attributes in Project: Eternity?

This post is brought to you by armchair dev forum poster #209158 Dear Project Eternity developers, This is my attempt to create a well-constructed argument against the inclusion of Item Durability for the sole purpose of giving people a reason to take Crafting as a skill and some notes on your skill design and a proposed solution. Some of the stuff I talk about is ‘best-guess’. I apologize if I have misinterpreted any information I got from your forum posts at various places, but here goes… Grouping Item Durability in with Crafting achieves the design goal of making Crafting a skill that multiple characters (but perhaps not all characters) will want to take; gives Crafting a combat related per-character sliding benefit to match the efficacy of the Stealth skill and is a money-sink for the player. It is even quasi-realistic. It is not a bad design decision, but it is not the best one. Firstly, if Crafting does not affect everything that characters use to make a repeatable standard attack in Project Eternity (i.e. implements for Wizards, if they are used to make a standard attack) then it is not going to have too much use for the Wizard class if they are playing as a ranged spell flinging wizard, but only melee wizards who wear armor and wade into combat wielding spell-enhanced weapons. The wizard was previously the go-to ‘Crafter’ class in previous editions of D&D, so if that is the case it changes that archetype (which may or may not be a good or a bad thing). The issue with tacking Item Durability into the Crafting skill is that Crafting no longer becomes the focus of the skill, the focus shifts to Item Durability because of its relevance to combat and economy. It does not matter which character in the party can craft items as long as someone can do it, but it does matter which characters take the Crafting skill because characters that are going to be getting hit often and attacking often are going to run the risk of having one of their primary weapons broken while adventuring and also draining the party’s gold if they do not take the skill. It may not matter who can craft, because the action of crafting need only be performed by one character in the party to benefit the party, but it does matter who has the Crafting Skill because it is an efficiency and resource drain on the party and thus it is going to be a no-brainer to take Crafting on the primary melee combatants of the party. This does fully depend on how mild the implementation is – how long it takes for weapons to degrade and how much it costs to repair them. If it is too mild it is an insignificant mechanic, probably not worth taking on more than one character and overall busywork, but if it is at least moderate it will have certain pidgeonholing effects on character builds. This may be balanced out by the fact that characters will only be able to have two high skills in the party, and there may be other skills in the skill list that need to be taken by these melee characters in order to cover all of the needs of the party, but it seems like it is going to be important for melee characters to at least dump a couple of points into the Crafting skill just to reduce the efficiency and economic tax on the party. This mechanic creates a Skill tax on these members of the party. Excluding the affect on Item Durability, Crafting in Project Eternity [essentially Crafting, Enchantment and Alchemy] is a one-person-per-party skill. The party member with the highest Crafting skill will always be doing the crafting as crafting is an action that interrupts adventuring, can only be conducted by one character at a time and has no reason for multiple characters to be undertaking it at once. If any other characters in the party take the Crafting skill, they are merely buying “Combat Equipment Maintenance” for its combat and economic benefits. These characters will likely never craft an item in the game. Why is it important that crafting [the action] be a skill that is taken by one character? I cannot think of one, unless the Crafting disciplines were split into groups rather than streamlined so that multiple characters had to take them or Crafting was a party skill [more on that later]. The design mandate of Skills in Project Eternity seem to be highly influenced by the combat efficacy of the Stealth skill because it allows every character to use Stealth get closer to an encounter before being noticed (e.g. one point of Stealth may allow a melee character to reach melee combat with an enemy, taking one projectile hit from a ranged combatant while avoiding the extra projectile hit he would have taken had he been noticed earlier). Based on the current available information it leads me to believe that every other skill is being designed with a similar benefit in mind, even if the benefits are somewhat abstract to the actual skill itself. “Combat Equipment Maintenance” is not abstract from Crafting, it makes sense, but it makes more sense that characters proficient or excellent with a weapon would also know how to maintain their weapons to make them last a longer period of time before repair. The ‘gamism’ of the design is inferior to the obvious simulation. An easy way (but maybe not the best way) to solve this problem and to keep the design intentions intact is to remove Crafting from the skill list completely and make it an abstract action that any character can perform (like Baldur’s Gate 2 and Knights of the Old Republic 2). The restrictions can be present within the item recipes themselves and still achieve the same effect without having Crafting as a character skill since it seems to be at odds with the design principles of the current skill system on its own. I do not believe there is anyone that would complain about that. For the sole sake of keeping the money-sink and strategical maintenance part in the game, you could keep the “Combat Equipment Maintenance” as a skill. But now without Crafting, it is solely a skill tax on equipment based characters. The comments Josh Sawyer made regarding the money-sink part of the skill led me to believe that this was partially intended to affect the party wealth of players that do not invest in the Stronghold, but it is clear that it affects everyone, not just them. You could also remove that from the skill list and make it an abstract system like Diablo 2, but Item Durability as its own entity would probably be more annoying to a larger portion of the fanbase than it is as part of a skill (conjecture, I couldn’t be certain) and it wasn’t present in the Infinity Engine games either – perhaps it makes sense in the context of the world, like Baldur’s Gate or Fallout New Vegas, only you could say. Changing Item Durability to an inverse “Sharpness” mechanic where you sharpen an item and it has more damage and degrades over time does not fix the issue, it retains exactly the same issues and has even more plausibility (which may not be an issue for you). Removing Crafting from the skill list and removing item durability/any sister mechanics from the game solves the problems with trying to make a skill out of a one-character-per-party action which was an abstract action in other games and feat(s) in some editions of D&D. It may not solve the money-sink issue for players that do not invest in the Stronghold, but I do not believe that was a good solution to that problem anyway if that was its intention. But in my opinion the problem is rooted deeper in the skill design, and it is likely similar issues will be present in a lot of other skills. Making skills something that every character wants to take is a hard job because most of them will likely be carbon copies of D&D skills that were only meant to be taken by one person in a party in a system where it was fine that both one-person skills and universal skills were allowed to exist and other skills that are useful for multiple characters do not have the same effect in a CRPG as they do in P&P. It seems that the way you guys are tackling this is giving skills like Herbalism or Mechanics a gamist combat effective bonus to match the efficacy that Stealth and Perception have, which is my problem specifically with the examples of skill design I have seen so far (Survival in F:NV, Crafting in P:E). The problem with this design is the exact same thing is going to happen with other skills as to what is going to happen with Crafting; people in their right mind are not going to take skills on characters for the ‘skill’ action, but for the combat related bonus. Mechanics seems like it is partially a one-person-per-party skill. Sure maybe you can open two locks at once if you have it on two people but the character with the highest mechanics skill will be doing most of the mechanics skill actions. So if you gave it a per-character sliding effect combat bonus (I’m not sure what that would be, but for the sake of argument let’s say it reduces the reload time of ranged weapons) anyone else who takes it will be taking it solely for that, with the exception of possibly being able to do a couple of Mechanics actions at once where the game world permitted. Using reload time as an example, now you’re most likely not going to take mechanics on any melee characters. Your rogue might take it because he gets a natural bonus and it is useful in conjunction with Stealth but a melee fighter will probably not take Mechanics because he might not use a ranged weapon very often, but you’d be a fool not to take it on the Ranger because the Ranger will be (most likely) using a ranged weapon 90% of the time. It falls into the same pit trap as Crafting where melee characters will be a fool not to take it. If there was a skill called Herbalism and it acted like Survival in New Vegas then the same issue would be present. The character with the highest skill points in Herbalism will do the herb gathering and identifying. No other characters will be necessary to perform this action, the only reason players would put points into it is based on the increase in duration consumable consumption. It worked for New Vegas because there was only one character. Survival was taken for Survival, not just for the bonus durations of consumables. I don’t believe adding abstract per-character combat bonuses this fixes one man skills. Sure it gives you a reason to give it to more than one character but it does not make the skill-action useful for every character, it adds a subset system whereby players are choosing options based on abstract combat bonuses. The skill action of Crafting, or Mechanics or “Herbalism” remains a one-person per party action most of the time. Taking points in Crafting on two characters does absolutely nothing to the action of Crafting Items. Isn’t crafting items the purpose of the skill? Wouldn’t it be better to reward taking Crafting on multiple characters by affecting the action of crafting itself, rather than some abstract bonus? If taking Crafting on multiple characters had a direct benefit to the crafting of items for the party, then maybe people would take Crafting on multiple characters if they wanted to make a Crafting-build party. The benefits of taking Stealth on every character are solely within the skill. Taking Stealth in multiple characters allows the party to better avoid combat or get closer to combat. You could take the group benefit of multiple characters with Stealth and apply that to other skills as well. Multiple characters with Crafting could help the crafting action of the party. Crafting already allows skills, talents and abilities from other party members to help facilitate the creation of items, so why couldn’t points in Crafting from multiple characters be beneficial for the party since the action of Crafting effectively stops adventuring anyway. In fact this mechanic was present in D&D 3E, on page 62 of the Player’s Handbook under “Combining skill attempts”. Obviously you wouldn’t use these exact mechanics, since checks aren’t rolled for skills anyway, but you could say that multiple characters with a skill in the party could assist the skill check of the character vs the static target. In relation to crafting you could add a per-character sliding benefit for every character with the skill to the character with the best crafting score’s number for determining certain things about what they can Craft. The same could probably go for other skills that have this problem. That way they don’t have to have some tacked on combat-abstraction that doesn’t feel quite right.

I am. A new element to branch out of would be a great way to add replay value and something new to the genre. Fire, water, ice, earth, lightning have seen its fair share of use since the ancient greeks first go the idea they made up the cosmos. Well, now that its 2013, how about we draw some information from more current sources understanding? Biology, particle physics, quantum mechanics, there's a great deal of awesome fields of knowledge to draw inspiration for! Why isnt anyone trying something new like this? The setting doesn't necessarily demand it, theres no rule saying a fantasy rpg has to stay with old tropes, neither does it preclude the use of modern science-inspired elements, you can always rephrase them in a way that aligns them with the rest of the arcane world. Yes, i realize some of the "elements" might best be suited as individual skills, but you get my point.

Hi I was thinking about persuation in PE. I must say that original type of class based persuation for NWN was for me iritating. I personaly like the system input in Alpha-Protocol or DA-Orings (but i prefer Alpha-Protocol) And what about you ?

So, how are skills assigned in Project Eternity? Besides being "skills". Which brings up classes as well, what defines a "class" in PE? So far as I know, neither has been decided yet, besides "classes need to be flexible." "A wizard should be able to pick up a sword and be a melee fighter" paraphrased. What then defines a class? Well, let's take one, a barbarian. What defines a barbarian? A barbarian charges into the fray, heedless of safety to slaughter his enemies. So if that's what a barbarian is, that means that's what other classes aren't. Meaning, say, a unique set of skills only the barbarian has access to. Something like a temporary damage reduction buff that stacks based on the damage your barbarian is doing. The more damage he does in a short period of time, the less damage he takes in that time. Other skills could follow based on that, a unique skill tree that encourages you to fling the barbarian into the midst of combat, knowing they'll do the best that way. But not locking the barbarian into being ranged or melee, or heavy or light armor or etc. Which brings up the prospect of skill trees, and why not? They work well, and give interesting choices. Each class could have a unique skill tree and access to several others based on what they are, and one skill tree could even be your choice. Rangers might, besides their unique (animal companion?) skill tree, skill trees for bows, nature magic, stealth, and (choice), not any unique tree obviously. A wizard, on the other hand, might get (unique), nature magic, heal/buff magic, elemental magic, (choice). The main point, I think I can make here, is that som way needs to be decided for how you choose skills, and that classes need to be defined in some manner. A unique set of skills for each class, accessible only to them, and potentially very important seems the least that can be done to make classes unique without limiting them.

SO we're very early in development, but we've already heard a bit about skills in P:E so I'd like to ask everyone about their preferences. Going by what Josh Sawyer and Tim Cain have said so far they'll try to balance skills very well. They'll try to make them equal in terms of both power and opportunity. That's fine. In fact, from a professional designer's standpont that's probably what comes to mind first as an ideal. After all, you're literally selling your mechanics to the customer. If you give the player options, better make them balanced. Recently Josh made an example by giving two choices of skills (Read Ancient Poetry and Lockpicking). His point was that, if you offer the player this choice, Read Ancient Poetry should be a real viable alternative to Lockpicking. Personally, my preferences are a little different. Let's assume for this example that we're in a bit of a realistic Late Dark Ages/ Early Middle Ages setting, where locks are rather rare, and the players aren't swimming in gold. When there is a lock though, a container should usually hold something valuable. Due to this, Lockpicking should be one of the most powerful skills in the game. To balance this, different skill point costs should be attached to Lockpicking (i.e. it costs 3 points per rank), while Read Ancient Poetry should be a cheap skill to raise (costing 1 point). That way, you make it clear from the beginning that Read Ancient Poetry isn't going to pay off as much as Lockpicking. I'm not talking about totally gimping the player; practically, there MUST be instances where Ancient Poetry is useful in the game, otherwise it's bad design. However, I don't see the need to make both skills equally useful. It wouldn't make you a bad gamist if you put some points into Ancient Poetry instead of Lockpicking; it would simply make for a different and, possibly, more difficult playthrough. If you decide to spend all of your points on Ancient Poetry, this might make you a bad gamist, but a good roleplayer. Simply make the game play out realistically with this decision (in a single player game, this character might not be able to finish the game). That's not a bad thing at all. You tried a character build and it failed. It's not the designer's responsibility to make the game failproof IMO, and thereby make choices meaningless. Several skills come to mind that could be potentially very powerful but also expensive: - Alchemy - Lockpicking - Trap Disarming - Medical All of these potentially pay high dividends. Lockpicking can make you rich. Trap disarming can save your life. Alchemy produces spell-like or unique effects. Even if I don't get the chance to use them all the time, they could be v. powerful. Specializing in them (mastering them) should take serious dedication and limit your character building options accordingly. Some skills might be potentially powerful, but with some greater limitations (these cost 2 points per rank): - Sneaking - Pickpocketing - Smithing (Repair) While sneaking is useful for scouting and therefore potentially very powerful, it's not as great as it could be in a game with bottlenecks where you have to fight in the end anyway. Pickpocketing is usually only very powerful if you meta-game it (knowing which NPCs carry good items and reloading on failure). Consequences of failure are usually stark. Repair is v. useful if gold is rare or weapons get damaged in the middle of a dungeon, but potentially not as powerful if it can be done via NPCs. OTOH, cheap skills should not be as powerful, even though they might be more frequently used: - Herbalism - Heraldry - Read Ancient Poetry Herbalism could be used frequently throughout your travels, but be not very powerful on its own (it takes Alchemy to brew potions and herbs can also be bought). With their low cost these skills offer room for character diversity (even though you can also specialize in them). You will have 6 characters who can spend their non-combat skill points freely without losing combat effectiveness. So let's say there should be 6-8 skills in each of these categories to allow for some good character diversity. You get 2 or 3 skill points per level to spend on these. What I'd like to achieve that way is the following: - Party diversity. You probably won't have a specialist in all of the most powerful skills (and if you do, you'll have to completely neglect the other two categories). - Make some skills as epic as they deserve to be, not a grey mass where every skill is somewhat good and somewhat 'meh'. - Avoid certain pitfalls that come with trying to make all skills equal. (Limiting Alchemy to mimicking spell effects. Finding contrived reasons why Read Ancient Poetry is just as powerful as Lockpicking in your game.) If we look at Darklands as an example, you could choose certain professions that favored certain skills while neglecting others. Therefore, you could build a master alchemist who was brittle and bad at combat. This was offset by the fact that Alchemy was probably the most powerful skill in the game. It was also ok because it's a party based game and there one-dimensional specialist characters aren't a problem; they're only weak/ annoying in single character games or MMO's. Now in P:E, the problem of being entirely one-dimensional won't even exist because every character will be combat-able. But it would still be very nice to be able to say 'not every party will have or need a master alchemist. If you have one, that can be very helpful at certain stages in the game, but you'll have one less diverse party member'. Also, no matter how goofily you spend your non-combat skill points, it probably won't ruin your party entirely because they can still be good at combat. I'm coming exclusively from playing/ contemplating CRPGs. If you have played with systems like this or something similar, or if there's a consensus on wether it's good or bad, feel free to comment, or post your own preferences.

Okay, I can tell I'm going to make a fool of myself and my limited knowledge of the DnD system used by the games that have inspired Project Eternity, but oh well. Traits and statistics. The qualities and numbers, respectively, that define our characters. What would we like to see in Project Eternity? It might be intuitive to think that Project Eternity will mirror the classic cRPGs in this regard, but there is always room for innovation. ============================================================================= Statistics broadly fall into two categories: basic and derived. Basic statistics tend to be ones that you the player can directly change during character creation or leveling, whereas derived statistics are things like Hit Points, Fatigue, Mana/Magicka, saving throws, and combat statistics like attack/to hit and armor class/defense scores. I'll admit, I'm not an expert on the latter in the DnD system (though I generally find the trifecta of Hit Points, Fatigue, and Mana to be sufficient), and this post is primarily concerned with the former. Among the most commonly used statistics in video games are those concerning fundamental attributes/ability scores; Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma in the familiar DnD system. This scheme is tried and true, but there is no reason I see why it cannot be deviated from. It's not as simple as coming up with words that sound nice, though; if one attribute is less utilized than the rest, it will inevitably become a worthless dump stat. The current system works because each ability score is equally integral, and I like to think they can be further broken down to reveal their true essence. Evidently one could probably decompose "attributes" endlessly in this manner ("what is running speed but the combination of leg muscle and reflexes?", etc.), but at some point we must draw a line and ultimately ask whether the groupings are logical. Here is a likely incomplete list of what these actually measure in my opinion, or rather things that an ideal system could possibly measure: Physical: Raw physique (which influences melee damage, ability to perform physically demanding tasks, and maximum encumbrance), endurance (the attrition rate of fatigue), balance, speed (in the form of acceleration and agility), "dexterity" (as I describe manual skill and/or hand-eye coordination), reflexes (reaction speed, dodging), "constitution" (innate resistance versus poison and disease), sensory acuity, and physical attractiveness. Mental: Willpower (volition), concentration (focusing of attention, and I suppose discipline is also related), creativity (use of the imagination), memory (though this is typically not included in video games), reasoning (including all high-level cognitive function), wisdom (for the sage archetype just as reasoning is for the tinkerer), awareness (by which I mean perceptual awareness of surroundings), intuition (which I suppose is social awareness), charisma (persuasive ability), and I suppose something that represents degree of attunement to magic or whatever. Obviously I have just included magic as a mere afterthought, so the system isn't perfect, but I think that touches on quite a few things the DnD system leaves out, or perhaps includes in the form of traits instead of statistics. Is there some way we can better group these characteristics, that will give us more precise control over our character, or open up new possibilities? Do we really need separate derived statistics like saving throws, or can ability scores be rearranged to render them obsolete? Historically, some aspects such as memory and creativity have gone completely ignored, in theory left up to the player I suppose; is that how it should be? Is character movement too neglected, and we should actually add agility separate from manual dexterity (which would still be useful for ranged attack and trade skills). Or perhaps add an Awareness attribute (I can hear the hardcore DnD crowd wincing)? Are balance and concentration best left as passive skills, and sensory acuity best left as trait modifiers? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The other predominant form of statistic is the "skill", which can denote combat skills, trade skills, survival skills, social skills, among others. This is one part of the DnD system that I find particularly deficient, with little distinction made between the very different types of skills. Typically, at any rate, these skills contain some kind of ability check (reflecting the above attributes) and are leveled up through experience. So far I believe we know that Project Eternity will contain trade skills unlike some of the other cRPGs we know, but we don't know much else. I'm not going to go into detail regarding which skills I'd like to see as that deserves its own thread and this one is long enough, but there is one thing I wish to harp on with regard to skills. Skills in real life are the result of knowledge and experience. Disappointingly, however, I have yet to see a game really get this right. Many games just forgo knowledge altogether, and ultimately become a game of how quickly you can collect X experience orbs to level your character, or at least their skills. While I can see this for overall leveling, for individual skills it just makes little sense to me; I think leveling all manners of skills should have a knowledge component and experience component. To this end, there should be teachers/trainers throughout the world along with a wealth of books or another medium by which knowledge is transferred, which is just as important to character advancement as grinding. That's something I'd really like to see with Project Eternity. Also with regard to skills, in particular practical skills, I'd like to see some kind of profession/occupation field on the character sheet if the trade skill system is as good as I'm envisioning (which for one thing would be better than vanilla Skyrim's). Most tradeskills should involve multiple steps of transforming raw materials into finished goods, but each of these steps doesn't necessarily need its own skill for leveling. In fact, some steps of the process could have no skill check (yet still give experience), but complexity is immersive. Just as a brief overview, I could see various DnD-esque skills but a wider variety. Individual combat maneuvers (parry, disarm, shield bash), mercantile skills (appraise, haggle, bribe), stealth skills (pickpocket, sneak), various persuasive tactics (bluff, intimidate, charm, deceive, etc.), leadership skills (rally and other things to make up for lack of bards), survival skills, along with trade skills. Perhaps movement skills like swimming, climbing, and jumping, or perhaps those would be best left as derived statistics. ================================================================================== Whereas a statistic is quantitative, a trait is qualitative (though it often has a numerical impact on a relevant statistic). However, traits can range from racial bonuses and penalties to feats, and also conceivably include physical and personality traits. Notably, keenness of the senses has usually been relegated to trait status, which I suppose makes some sense since they can't be readily improved. On a side note, why limit it to race? Perhaps we should choose our characters age, height, and weight during character creation, and those should confer certain physical and mental bonuses and penalties. More importantly, I'd personally like to see the use of traits widened substantially in Project Eternity. I know this would be quite difficult to implement and nigh impossible to perfect, but perhaps have us select from a list of traits in character creation that merely influence what kinds of dialogue options are open to our character? Things like attractiveness (if that doesn't become an attribute), sense of humor, body language, etc. ================================================================================= Even with all the traits and statistics in the world, there are some aspects of characters that can't be captured in numbers or single words (here I maybe reveal that I sort of come from a roleplaying angle), and it would be cool if there were various ways to define one's character and some aspects of their past outside of "We choose your character's story, and you put a name and a face on them". Perhaps things like socioeconomic status, level of education, religious beliefs, etc. or am I asking too much? What character creation/progression system would you like to see in Project Eternity? Does the classic DnD system cut it for you? Should attributes be rearranged? Should skills be grouped in any way, or should they all draw on the same allocation pool? Should skills in Project Eternity reflect both knowledge and experience, or should they stick to experience? Do you wish for more freedom in defining your character's various non-quantifiable traits? Did you actually read this whole post, or did I waste my time writing it?

This is a minor suggestion to embellish and give a deeper dimension to characters and companions and also making players get more art related to the game. Since we will be playing this game for lots of hours and my characters will probably face months or even years in "game hour", i would like the possibility to make them register their journeys and i could get those registrations. This could be a very funny way and a great excuse to players to get fine desktop wallpaper, epic poems, cool songs, all made by the great artists that will be part of the making of Project Eternity. We could get JPGs with sketches of monsters, NPCs, simplified 1 minute versions of the soundtrack, poems and epics written in text... Instead of making us go to Obsidian forum to get these pieces of art from PE staff (whenever available), we could get those inside the game: "In the village in Storm Mountain Peak, after reaching the temple belvedere, you character can get an amazing painting from INSERT ARTIST NAME" These could be done with paintings, sketches, poems, chanting, songs... What exactly I am talking about: Example 1: After a major victory in a hard battle, my companion could say "This battle inspired me, i'll write a song about it this night", and your character could enforce or reject that artistic inspiration. Example 2: As reaching a completely remote place or a never seen before dragon, the talented priest wants to paint or draw the scenario to show to his church. Again, a dialog comes and you can enforce or reject that "We have no time for that now". Example 3: After 3 months of journeys together, the bard could make a poem about your travels "The Ballad of My Character". Example 4: The druid, inspired by the greatest forest he has ever been, plays a new tune in his flute to express that happiness. Example 5: The "exotic" barbarian that recently joined the group, excited about being part of our part, grabs his awesome tabla and makes fine rhythms with it. ****

I would like to see a more explicit effect of skills in dialog making during the game, better than in Planescape for example. When i have to choose dialogue options i would like to see more options according to my intelligence, wisdom, charisma and even strength (intimidation), or even, to make many role playing skills very useful such (examples from D&D and AD&D): 1. Knowledge, Local History (Ancient History) 2. Knowledge, Occult/Arcana 3. Wilderness Lore 4. Intimitade 5. Diplomacy And in help of those that english is a secondary language, a parenthesis indicating the nature of your answer would be awesome, example: 1. (Rude) 2. (Polite) 3. (Sarcastic) 4. (Moronic) 5. (Lie) 6. (Sad) 7. (Happy) *** What do you think?

We're not sure what exactly non-combat skills are to be yet - we've got some confirmation on lockpicking, and some interesting talk about the new mechanics. Likewise, we have indication of non-combat skills being usable to avoid combat, and some information of non-combat and combat skills not relying on the same resource. I've always been a big fan of skill checks for unusual things, be it in dialog, mini-text adventures, or in obvious ways. Obsidian, from all of their games I've seen, has always been pretty innovative in this - whether it be the usefullness of appraise and survival in Storm of Zehir, or the various dialog checks in Fallout: New Vegas, not to mention some of the stuff in their infinity engine work. That said, I figured it would be interesting to find out which non-combat or more-than-combat skills everyone prefers. Clearly, D&D's skill selection lends itself to this sort of listing, but Dragon Age:Origins even had lockpicking/pickpocket and such. Clearly, these are things we'd probably also like to see in Project Eternity, but I think we can all agree they should be the ultimate judge of what skills and what uses thereof to include - despite a fondness for basketweaving. So generally: Intimidate - I like to talk people into things, and myself out of them sometimes, but prefer the "mind your own business or else, that's why" reasoning. Aside from that, the general "thieving" skills, though I admit a bias to pickpocket, and I lament how many games implement it as a fairly useless skill. The last really decent use for pickpocket was skyrim, and before that was New Vegas. (I imagine the gamebryo engine is a bit more suited for pickpocket/stealth systems). Taking into consideration PnP games, I'd have to say Use Rope is pretty high up, as well as climbing.

I know that I am odd in this regard, which is why I make no claims that my view is in any way representative of the population present on these forums or elsewhere. This is a personal rant, and I say rant because it comes entirely from an emotional need I posses for which I have no logical explanation. I'm posting it here because if I don't, and this game fails to reach the admittedly high bar I set on this topic, I'll have only myself to blame for never having tried to make a difference. This way when it doesn't meet my requirements I can simply resume grumbling to myself, and I'm only out my donation money instead of potential years of self-loathing and regret. Here's what I'm looking for in a RPG (or any game, really): A very large part of why I play RPG's is for their character customization - it's not the only consideration, but it is almost always the deciding factor in buying a new game (of late, the only "new" game I've purchased is Skyrim - with which I was disappointed in the character customization options, but it was better than average). Story matters, but I find the stories in most games weak in comparison to most books, so that's a secondary concern. What I have apparently become addicted to is creating unique and interesting characters. This falls into two roughly equal segments: visual and mechanical. Visual encompasses both the physical appearance of the character, as well as specifics to what sorts of items and spells that character is "allowed" to use (ex: if I make a character who's theme is "fire mage", I voluntarily do not use any spells that do not fit that theme - ice or water being the classic examples, but it can be more, less, or differently limited depending on the complete character concept). Visual also encompases most of personality with regards to character creation (things like voice selection can be involved as well, as can weapon preferences, skill selection, and even feats/abilities on occasion) - this means that my characters face (or portrait, or general physical appearance) must fit the concept I have of them in my head. I cannot explain why personality is so important to me, but it is absolutely crucial - If I cannot fit a character's appearance to their personality that character doesn't get made and I go back to the drawing board (for this reason, it drives me crazy that it's basically impossible to find or make a smiling face/portrait/etc in any game... Would it kill developers to have a "Default Facial Expression" option/slider? Why must my character frown/stare blankly at everything? I know the models are capable of smiling). It may sound like I'm requiring a high degree of graphical fidelity here - nothing could be further from the truth. I require only as much graphics/artwork as is necessary for me to "see" (as in visualize/imagine/personify/etc) my character in whatever format the game presents him/her - often, high fidelity graphics get in the way of this, as they add details that are not present in my mental image, whereas lower quality graphics leave those details open to the imagination. The other side of the coin, mechanical design & customization, encompases everything you probably think it does: Classes, Racial Bonuses (though not looks), Attacks/Abilities/Spells, Stats, Skills, etc. My design goal with any given character usually follows this pattern: Think of an interesting combination of mechanics, then design a character (visually) to match those mechanics. This leads to characters that have looks, personality, and abilities all revolving around a core theme - they (usually) have one or two "signature" abilities upon which their entire character concept was created. I'll create them with this in mind, then play it out to the final extreme or until the concept proves flawed in some way I didn't originally notice (if it's viable but I've misplaced a point somewhere I'll either re-create them or use console commands to correct the error, depending on what's available). In some cases it works the other way around, wherein I'll create a personality or visual style that inspires a slightly different mechanical perspective that I deem worth exploring. Characters created based on mechanical innovations become more and more interesting as the game progresses and they gain access to the full scope of their potential ("growing into their destined role," if you want to dramatize it... which of course we do, this being an RPG forum), but characters based on a visual style or personality are the most fun to work with in character creation and during plot defining moments (these tend to be the ones I don't actually play, just design). With regards to the actual mechanics of the game, and how classes/abilities/skills/etc interact with each other, it should be obvious that I prefer a highly flexible system. My ideal would actually be a classless system, but a decently done classed based system can be almost as good (restrictions are necessary to make character customization interesting - it's the working around and manipulation of those restrictions that makes mechanical customization fun). That said, multiclassing is basically required. It can be left out if the primary emphasis is on abilities/spells/feats and not class mechanics (to employ a simile: The classes are like differently shaped container for legos, where a roughly equal number of uniform legos, or feats/skills/abilities, can fit into any given container). If the emphasis is on the parts that make up the character (the feats/skills/abilities), rather than it's shell (the class), and these parts can be interchanged fairly freely between classes (with some exceptions) then multiclassing isn't required, but is still beneficial. It's my opinion that this "focus on the parts" view is simply good game design - it detracts nothing from those who don't care about character customization, but will keep people like me (assuming there are others like me...) buying as many expansion packs as you care to produce. When you do make expansions, adding classes is a pretty common theme - however, if these classes are insular (not subscribing to the "focus on parts" view), then you're only really adding one or two play styles... if you've done it the way I'm suggesting you've potentially exponentially increased the number of available character customization options (and therefore play styles) while achieving all the same benefits that adding a class normally accomplishes. Now, by the fact that I've taken the time to both think and type all this out in great detail, you can probably infer how big a deal it is to me, but just in case let me underline the point: I still play NWN2. Not only do I still play it, It's practically the only game I play. My computer uses video card drivers specifically selected for their compatibility with it. I have over a hundred characters created (since the last time I had to do a reinstall... a bit over a year). I've essentially memorized the dialog for the entire game (not so much on the expansions, as I prefer to start at level 1-3 and don't really care for SoZ [side note: MotB is a work of art, give Mr. Zeits my warmest and sincerest regards for that please.]). I've also modded the game with Kerendin's PrC Pack, which adds 49 classes (and is still in active development), and Races of Faerun which adds something like a dozen races, as well as complete overhauls like the "OC Makeover SoZ Edition" and Wulverheim (these last to add some variety to the game while I play through yet another character concept). Neverwinter Nights 2 (with mods) is the closest thing I've ever found to satisfying my craving for deep character customization, and even it is horribly flawed (by my standards). I'm not asking you to fulfill my every wish with Project Eternity, what I'm really asking for (more like begging for) is a replacement for NWN2. I am so damn tired of that game in every regard except character customization (and I think mathematically I may be approaching the point where I've done all feasible combinations of mechanics). I'm desperate for something with enough character customization to allow me to put away NWN2 for good, something with a fresh plot and new as-of-yet unmemorized dialog, new character interactions that give me more fine tuned options for defining and expressing my character's personality (the city watch / thieves guild segment of NWN2 kills off 90% of my character concepts unless I just grit my teeth and act completely out of character - it's destroys immersion and could be the subject of a completely separate rant all by itself). If I were a rich man I'd throw buckets of money at you just for that little consolation, but I'm not and so all I can do is give what I can afford in a desperate gamble, hoping that the people who gave me NWN2 can give me something to replace it. It feels good to get all that off my chest, as it's been stewing in and ever-expanding pool of frustration for some time now. If I had the time and skill I'd make my own game, if I had the money I'd pay someone to do it for me, alas I have neither. The only good that's come out of this is that I've discovered my skill addiction obsession can be put to productive use by churning out NPCs for my DM to put into our far-too-infrequent D&D games. That's not quite as satisfying, but it's kept me away from NWN2 for about a month running... Though after writing this I can already tell that streak isn't going to last the week (if it weren't 4am it wouldn't last the night). As I said when I started - I needed to say this for my own reasons, and even if it doesn't have an effect on this game it's still acted as a pressure release for me (and maybe it will influence something else down the line - who knows). That said, thank you for taking the time to read it and I do hope it leaves an impression (other than one of mild insanity - I know I got that one across but I hope some of the subtler points made it as well).

I was watching Adam playing IWD2, remembered old times, and suddenly remembered concept "teachers of skills" that got some nice realization with related quests early in PST and more so in Arcanum. Which made this aspect of games so much cooler than simple "4to5 skillpoint droping on longsword skill" immediately inside leveluping mechanics in BG or IWD series. So the question is - will there be Teachers of skills in PE? With old infinity game like mechanics it may look like some mastery aspect unlocking (like Arcanum) or impossibility of end skill point distribution without teacher, or something else. Or spell levels unlocking for mage-characters, etc. Personally i would love this to happen, because it will open so many possibilities of quest and story related stuff. Always loved stuff like - when i need to go find some "hermit grandmaster of meditation", and "master of meditation" points me where to look, in M&M games. I still remember conflict quest lines with Armor and Sword Masters in Arcanum, and magic book assembling quest from Marta in PST. Also i remember how i was realy stunned in PST when first time discovered that i am able to teach some thiefing skills to Anna, or to unlock things from that disc that even Dak'kon still cant comprehand and explain them to him. So it would also be cool to have companions teaching element or something like that. So what do other people think about this aspect?

Should there be funny (but useful) perks and traits available when creating and leveling your character? And should abnormally low stats/skills (e.g., intelligence) affect dialogue and gameplay in a humorous and not-necessarily-game-breaking way? Finally, should there be items/consumables/wearables that affect gameplay in a humorous way as well? For example, in the Fallout games, there were perks and traits that would give you bonuses (e.g., to defense and bullet resistances) while lowering your charisma (essentially a terminator-like perk) -- or ones that would cause you to leave a bloody mess wherever you went, or ones that gave you bad luck, etc. A couple ideas that would be silly but might still fit within a Project Eternity world might be: A Tarzan-like Attack/Defense bonus for barbarians that fight naked or in their undies (pixelated); can significantly affect dialog options and wandering around a city may cause swift fines and a difficult time talking to anyone, including party members. Depending on charisma and gender, may result in different reception from other characters -- e.g., you may be thrown in jail for indecent exposure. (Idea from here) A cursed trait that affects everyone else around you, but not so much yourself. Similar to 'Jinxed' from Fallout, but essentially affecting others a little more than yourself. This also makes it much harder to recruit and keep companions (either willingly with you, or alive). Can also affect dialog and plot/story options, for example a seer or tribal elder might chase you out of a village or city on account of you bringing bad luck wherever you go. Maybe even a lot of bad luck, depending on how long you stay in a place -- or maybe this could even be rolled into the overarching plot. As for stats/skills, in Fallout if your intelligence was too low, your sentences would be slurred and speech would take a significant hit. Should something like this be present in Project Eternity? Should abnormally low stats/skills affect gameplay, but not necessarily in a game-breaking manner? For example, if you had really low intelligence, perhaps your other party members (the few you were somehow able to convince to join you) would speak more often instead of you for dialog with other NPCs.. or maybe they'd be more likely to scheme against you or otherwise be more likely to try and use your quest to their own advantage? Similarly, perhaps having low-intelligence might make otherwise dangerous encounters somewhat less dangerous -- perhaps NPCs would believe your character too stupid to understand what they are doing, and less likely to try and kill your character or throw them in a dungeon? Finally, should there be items or wearables or consumables that affect gameplay in a humorous (but potentially useful) way? For example, maybe there's a particular type of food made in the Swamplands of Whatever, which, when consumed, causes the character to smell so badly that their entire party will be forced to follow at a significant distance. Walking into a city square will cause residents to flee, and any attackers with working sinuses will likely hesitate before attacking you, and will always prefer to stay far away rather than be overwhelmed with your 'odor'. Dogs, wolves, and most other normal animals will also opt to run away from you, potentially making it a useful tool when trying to access otherwise inaccessible (or very dangerous) areas. This item might even be part of a quest (rather than something you can purchase in a store).

So yeah- it mostly derives from the idea, that our group of heroes shouldn't be "godlike" and able to cut down enemy armies in a single sweep. In order to survive I believe we should concentrate on wide range of trickery and talking our way out of the though situations (pacifist playthrough included). It's easier to implement in populated areas like towns, but what about dungeons and wilderness? Well, let's say that we have an option to avoid (and gain exp as well) enemy pack, by blocking the road for example (so they can't reach us and are trapped) and setting the floor on fire- in order to do this, we would need for example a very strong team member to block the road and a mage with w fireball spell. It's all contextual action- if we don't have a teammate with high enough strenght and the second one with the fire spell- we can't carry out the mentioned idea and need to resolve to standard fight or other trickery. Or healing the wounded traveler (heal spell necessary) and convincing to go in some direction (high speach or lie) and thus making a bait for a pack of enemies, so we can slip unnoticed out of the tough situation. Not only it would "spicy up" the dungeons exploration, but gave the reason to invest points in some skills, that be unused (or used less) if concentrating on the fighting ones only. What do you think?