1. But it was the best weapon of it's type, which was two-handed sword.

2. Then then the classes should have been balanced better, which I have no doubt PE will accomplish. Furthermore, I disagree, Inquisitor was the best warrior kit in the game IMO.

 

 

1. I already explained, that you could get much better damage with dual wield. Also the silver sword was a great weapon too. Though if you really wanted to play with it you could always go fighter/thief, get "use any item" ability, and use THA to it's full potential. Also many, if not all, classes have items restricted to them.

 

2.So you are saying BG was a bad game? Where did I mention what is the best in the game?

1. The fact that another style or another weapon type is more effective is irrelevant. The point is that the best 2-handed sword in the game is restricted to one class(two of you count the fighter/theif work around) and is completely unaccessable to any other characters who might specialize in 2-handed weapons, which I don't think is good design. While other classes did have exclusive items, none were of the caliber of The Holy Avenger.

 

2. I do believe the mechanics of BG were bad, but that has more to do with D&D mechanics which do not work very well outside of tabletop. Perhaps I was confused by what you meant when you said "paladin class has the weakest kit", could you clarify about that?

 

Now if you want to make "soul powah!" weapons that don't fully function, or have different effects depending on the soul (class) of who uses them?  That's okay.  But there should be no weapons at all that require X class to use.

I think that would be a very cool way to do legendary weapons in PE. Sort of like the Silver Sword of Gith in NWN2, but a but less specific.

Weapon restrictions are stupid.  Period.  I don't care how much of a lilly livered sissy finger wiggler you are, you will be able to understand the concept of pick up sword, put pointy end in other guy.

 

Now if you want to make "soul powah!" weapons that don't fully function, or have different effects depending on the soul (class) of who uses them?  That's okay.  But there should be no weapons at all that require X class to use.

While I agree with you in general, I'm not going to rule out the rare possibility of a weapon with metaphysical features that not only don't function for a person of the wrong soul-resonance persuasion, but also function negatively for that person.

 

Think Sword In The Stone. Nothing stopped anyone from "using" that sword, but it sure as hell wasn't coming out of that rock for just anyone. So, a weapon could feel your grip, sense that you dedicate your life to a deity, and just say "Nope," multiplying its own weight by 50 until you let go of the hilt. I honestly think that'd be pretty interesting.

 

Also, to the "there is no good/evil in P:E" comments further up, that isn't precisely true. There is no absolute, universal, primal scale for good and evil in the world of P:E, but that doesn't mean people won't still have concepts of what they believe to be good, and what they believe to be evil. So, if some Paladin from the days of yore went around smiting a group of individuals who opposed him and everything he stood for (which he and others happened to consider "good"), and he happened to label what they did as "evil," and a sword can be imbued by the strength of his own soul (or even by a deity who happens to also value the same things he values), then that sword could only function for those who pass a check to make sure something measurable about them is acceptable (with class-restriction, in P:E, it'd probably be something about how their soul functions, to make them a Paladin, etc., or it could simply be that that deity watches that sword and only "activates" it when someone it deems worthy comes upon it, *shrug*).

 

In other words, you can design a switch that only activates at 100 degrees Fahrenheit, regardless of whether or not you would apply the term "hot" to that temperature. Someone who made that switch could say "This switch only works when you get it hot." Hot remains subjective, and yet it still describes the function of the switch, as set forth by the person who made it so.

1. The fact that another style or another weapon type is more effective is irrelevant. The point is that the best 2-handed sword in the game is restricted to one class(two of you count the fighter/theif work around) and is completely unaccessable to any other characters who might specialize in 2-handed weapons, which I don't think is good design. While other classes did have exclusive items, none were of the caliber of The Holy Avenger.

 

2. I do believe the mechanics of BG were bad, but that has more to do with D&D mechanics which do not work very well outside of tabletop. Perhaps I was confused by what you meant when you said "paladin class has the weakest kit", could you clarify about that?

 

What I meant when I said that they had the weakest kit was, simply they had a weak kit. Everything that a paladin could do a cleric could do better. The only good thing the paladin had was lay on hands. The biggest weakness for me was their inability to dual class

I would like a few of the most powerful items to be restricted to certain classes, yes. Especially otherwise boring classes like the Paladin. It might feel meta-game'ish, but it adds incentives for replaying the game too.

 

1. The fact that another style or another weapon type is more effective is irrelevant. The point is that the best 2-handed sword in the game is restricted to one class(two of you count the fighter/theif work around) and is completely unaccessable to any other characters who might specialize in 2-handed weapons, which I don't think is good design. While other classes did have exclusive items, none were of the caliber of The Holy Avenger.

2. I do believe the mechanics of BG were bad, but that has more to do with D&D mechanics which do not work very well outside of tabletop. Perhaps I was confused by what you meant when you said "paladin class has the weakest kit", could you clarify about that?

 

 

What I meant when I said that they had the weakest kit was, simply they had a weak kit. Everything that a paladin could do a cleric could do better. The only good thing the paladin had was lay on hands. The biggest weakness for me was their inability to dual class

I dunno, Inquisitor was excellent with the "super-dispell" and true sight. YMMV.

I think the Holy Avenger concept doesn't fit in PE "as is" due to the lack of an alignment system in the traditional sense. I'd like to see a new take on Holy Avenger tailored specifically for PE's world. I would also leave the class restriction active for this particular weapon.

While I agree with you in general, I'm not going to rule out the rare possibility of a weapon with metaphysical features that not only don't function for a person of the wrong soul-resonance persuasion, but also function negatively for that person.

Think Sword In The Stone. Nothing stopped anyone from "using" that sword, but it sure as hell wasn't coming out of that rock for just anyone. So, a weapon could feel your grip, sense that you dedicate your life to a deity, and just say "Nope," multiplying its own weight by 50 until you let go of the hilt. I honestly think that'd be pretty interesting.

Don't get me wrong.  I am not saying I have an issue with weapons being in game that just plain suck for specific classes.  Like a bladed fist weapon with "soul powah" that had limited sentience and just doesn't feel like anyone without the soul (class) of a monk is worthy of using it's power.   So a fighter finds it, equips it, and etc.  That doesn't mean he isn't getting penalized because it wants to be used by a monk.  It only means the fighter "could" use it if they want to.

 

See what I am saying?

 

Also as far as the sword in the stone goes (AKA: Excalibur), it wouldn't let anyone other than Arthur draw it from the earth, true.  But once it was "out of the earth" it wasn't quite so picky.  Case in point Merlin is the one who put it in the stone in the first place after stealing it from Uther, Arthur's father.  Reason being is he felt Uther was abusing Excalibur's power.

Edited June 19, 201312 yr by Karkarov

Don't get me wrong.  I am not saying I have an issue with weapons being in game that just plain suck for specific classes.  Like a bladed fist weapon with "soul powah" that had limited sentience and just doesn't feel like anyone without the soul (class) of a monk is worthy of using it's power.   So a fighter finds it, equips it, and etc.  That doesn't mean he isn't getting penalized because it wants to be used by a monk.  It only means the fighter "could" use it if they want to.

 

See what I am saying?

 

Also as far as the sword in the stone goes (AKA: Excalibur), it wouldn't let anyone other than Arthur draw it from the earth, true.  But once it was "out of the earth" it wasn't quite so picky.  Case in point Merlin is the one who put it in the stone in the first place after stealing it from Uther, Arthur's father.  Reason being is he felt Uther was abusing Excalibur's power.

Yeah... I realize I could've been more specific in separating my two thoughts:

 

1) I definitely agree that almost any weapon should, at worst, be simply lacking in some effect for anyone but persons of a given class (overly simplistic example time!: A "Spellblade" that is a pretty nice sword, but also grants you a per-encounter unique spell if it detects its wielder bears Wizardy soul essence/focus/substance/nougat), but still be wieldable in all its physical-property goodness by any class.

 

2) That being said, I do think the possibility of some weapons simply preventing anyone not of a certain class (or really any other grouping: reputation, race, chocolate-lover... okay maybe not that last one, ) from "wielding" it. And by that, I mean, you might could hold the sword for 2 seconds before it burned itself out of your hand, or, as per my earlier example, made itself 50 times heavier until you let go, etc. But, you couldn't actually use that weapon in a constantly-equipped, practical manner.

 

I think that latter case should probably be much more rare than the former.

 

Slightly off-topic: I've always been told that it's a common misconception that the sword in the stone was, itself, Excalibur, since Excalibur was actually given to Arthur later by the Lady of the Lake. However, I'm not actually anywhere CLOSE to an expert on the legend/historical basis of King Arthur, so I really have no idea, for certain. Maybe the sword in the stone made its way to the Lady of the Lake for safe-keeping while Arthur was still just a lad? (Why let the Level 1 Princeling carry around the best sword "in the game" when he's got Novice-level Swordsmanship and no weapon proficiency feats? ) I'm just curious about that.

 

But, yeah, just for what it's worth, the focus of my sword-in-the-stone example was simply the effect keeping the sword in the stone until a given person grabbed it. While it was in the stone, it could've even still been all awesome and magical (if it was, itself a magical sword, and not just a sword magically held in a stone, externally), but if it's stuck in a stone, then it's not useable.

 

It's like medieval fantasy biometrics, 8D! "Fingerprint scan, complete. Arthur, Prince... Confirmed. Deactivataing Stasis Module..."

I'd rather see class enablements than restrictions. That is, have an item more favorably complement the ability set of a particular class, but still be useable by others. For example, a paladin's sword could allow an additional use of Reviving Exhortation by the character. If you're not a Paladin, then that ability provides no benefit.

Evryone can swing a sword, but few know to really use it. Instead of not be able to use item, complete restriction one cant use special abilities that come with it maybe.

2) That being said, I do think the possibility of some weapons simply preventing anyone not of a certain class (or really any other grouping: reputation, race, chocolate-lover... okay maybe not that last one, ) from "wielding" it. And by that, I mean, you might could hold the sword for 2 seconds before it burned itself out of your hand, or, as per my earlier example, made itself 50 times heavier until you let go, etc. But, you couldn't actually use that weapon in a constantly-equipped, practical manner.

You really have three ways of limiting who uses a weapon.

 

1: Taking away or changing bonuses if Class X uses it.  Maybe the bonuses are good but they are only really optimal for Class X.

2: Giving a debuff to anyone who uses it that isn't Class X, you will never give it to anyone other than Class X due to the debuff... but you could if you had to.

3: Putting in a gameplay limitation and saying only Class X can use it.

 

In options 1 and 2 I ultimately give the weapon to Class X or don't use it at all/that much.  Because, simply put, only Class X can really get the full benefit of the weapon.  Ultimately I the player am making the choice who to give the weapon to and if anyone else should use it.  In option 3 though all player agency has been removed, I have no choice, the game devs have told me only Class X gets to use it.

 

I prefer leaving the choice with the player, even if the choice is a no brainer.  Hence I think out right restricting a class from certain weapons is a bad idea and I think a weak design.

Edited June 20, 201312 yr by Karkarov

It might be interesting to have a weapon's properties vary depending on your status with a particular faction...

You really have three ways of limiting who uses a weapon.

 

1: Taking away or changing bonuses if Class X uses it.  Maybe the bonuses are good but they are only really optimal for Class X.

2: Giving a debuff to anyone who uses it that isn't Class X, you will never give it to anyone other than Class X due to the debuff... but you could if you had to.

3: Putting in a gameplay limitation and saying only Class X can use it.

True. Although, technically, 1 and 2 are relative versions of the same thing.

 

Example: Does this sword inherently provide a -10 to hit, and Barbarians gain a +10 to hit with it, or does it inherently provide a 0 to hit, and non-Barbarians gain a -10 detriment to hit when they wield it? It's really just a matter of whether you're assuming the Barbarian's stats are the default, or the non-Barbarian's stats. 8P

 

Just FWIW. You're very much correct in that there are a variety of ways in which to implement a difference for a specific class/class group like that.

I figured I ought to necro this thread. Has there been any word on Holy Avengers(or any class-restricted items for that matter)?

I figured I ought to necro this thread. Has there been any word on Holy Avengers(or any class-restricted items for that matter)?

 

There are no class restricted weapons of any kind.

Pale Justice was the better of them I think and had the coolest story.

If we can at any point and in any way select the deity our character worships, if any, it might be cool to have a 'holy' weapon which changes its properties depending on your patron deity.

 

But a 'Holy Avenger' sword, +5 vs. evil, only usable by paladins and all the rest? Nah.

I'm all for weapons with lore and histories attached to them and even purpose made weapons, but the "Holy Avenger" only belongs in a D&D game, with its very specific mechanics and its place in the D&D cosmology that puts so much emphasis on the conflict between forces of evil and good.

 

Where does a "Holy Avenger" fit in a world without a strict line between good and evil?

I once played a rather inquisitorial Paladin (William DeBaskerville, order of the Roses Name) whom firmly believed that he bore a Holy Avenger, in point of fact it was a +1 sword with the usual light enchantment bound to it, and despite the GM informing me repeatedly that it was not, my character kept on believing in its potency. Thanks to various short term enchantments bestowed by our Wizard and the Paladin himself it served admirably and became in time a relic of William's chapel, having smote and slain innumerable banes of diabolical origins.

 

William valued that blade to an enormous degree, praying upon it, binding holy prayer scriptures around its hilt, having his name carved across the quillons, and cleaning it with hideously expensive holy oil and scraps of cloth supposedly torn from the Martyr's robe. Hopefully Poe will allow such customisation for weapons we feel attached to.

William valued that blade to an enormous degree, praying upon it, binding holy prayer scriptures around its hilt, having his name carved across the quillons, and cleaning it with hideously expensive holy oil and scraps of cloth supposedly torn from the Martyr's robe. Hopefully Poe will allow such customisation for weapons we feel attached to.

Too bad he eventually ran into that Balor Pit Fiend whose hide it bounced off of and he got ripped in two from stem to stern!

Holy Avengers are for super high fantasy childish settings. Don't like 'em

Yeah, it came to me that there might be some special customizations for each class in the crafting mechanic since it would not force class restrictions on the players while allowing them to customize their items further based on the classes of their characters (This would allow "Holy Avenger" to exist without privileging just the paladin class).  For, with the soul setting of PoE, this kind of crafting wouldn't be monopolized by magic user classes.  A possible downside would be that it may not play well with the respecing option, though.

Holy Avengers are for super high fantasy childish settings. Don't like 'em

 

As opposed to the grime and gritty grown up low fantasy settings? LoL...

 

 

Holy Avengers are for super high fantasy childish settings. Don't like 'em

As opposed to the grime and gritty grown up low fantasy settings? LoL...

I'll take my "childish" Holy Avenger and Paladin over "mature" gang rape, venereal disease, and hyper-nihilism.

I think the Holy Avenger concept doesn't fit in PE "as is" due to the lack of an alignment system in the traditional sense. I'd like to see a new take on Holy Avenger tailored specifically for PE's world. I would also leave the class restriction active for this particular weapon.

Just for the record, there is a disposition system, which tracks the personality of the PC in more varied ways.  This could be tied to bonuses and penalties.  In fact, Holy Radiance, a priest's ability of healing allies and damaging "undead" can be adjusted by the dispositions favored by the deity which the players chose at the character making process.  Likewise, there may be items which are blessed by a certain deity which may as well give bonuses/penalties based on the disposition of the characters.

 

That said, judging from the implementation of Holy Radiance, I've gotten an impression that, while there seems to be a function like "alignment", the devs seem to avoid putting any heavy restriction on how the players play the game just like other design decisions in the game.