That's more or less where I'm at as well. I never really had any doubts that the finalised game would be good, but at the same time I fully expect my playthrough to be full of game mechanic induced headaches and various events that leave me thinking 'this could have been so much better if they had done X instead'
Friendly reminder that Solasta, a game that's more of a 5e combat simulator than a narrative focused RPG, manages to solve this by having the entire party participate in dialogue.
Of course it's infinitely easier to implement in a game where the dialogue and RP isn't a major focus, but considering the budget and amount of employees Larian has at their disposal I really don't think it's too much to ask. I doubt they'll surprise us with something similar to the attached picture but a man can dream. It only really reinforces the sentiment towards the game I expressed a couple of pages ago:
That's more or less where I'm at as well. I never really had any doubts that the finalised game would be good, but at the same time I fully expect my playthrough to be full of game mechanic induced headaches and various events that leave me thinking 'this could have been so much better if they had done X instead'
- Yes, WOTC required so.
BarbarianPost Race, Class, Weapon, Alignment, Party, Romance and Character Customization
Paladin .BarbarianPost Race, Class, Weapon, Alignment, Party, Romance and Character Customization
of cromPaladin .BarbarianPost Race, Class, Weapon, Alignment, Party, Romance and Character Customization
Also a good choicePaladin .BarbarianPost Race, Class, Weapon, Alignment, Party, Romance and Character Customization
Eh, I get the idea behind it. The problem is that in a cRPG it's difficult to make it work and going into ethics in tabletop can needlessly complicate things. That said, having a character in your party who is against doing certain things can be interesting, because it means he needs to be provided with some sort of plausible deniability or the party has to run an operation to keep that particular party member in the dark.Have to add that the alignment system was a dumbfuck relic of older DnD editions and I am not sure why it still exists in RPG. Morality should be more complicated than just being reduced to bins. Watching dialogue options with the (good) and (evil) prompts shows what a stupid system it is. It is good that 5th ed tried to move away from the alignment system, and hopefully it no longer exists for the 6th ed when it comes out.
not worth it. just kick him.That said, having a character in your party who is against doing certain things can be interesting, because it means he needs to be provided with some sort of plausible deniability or the party has to run an operation to keep that particular party member in the dark.
Post Race, Class, Weapon, Alignment, Party, Romance and Character Customization.
Human Lawful Good Paladin with a great-sword. Stuck with it for more than 20 years, will do so for at least another 20.Post Race, Class, Weapon, Alignment, Party, Romance and Character Customization.
= "I want to always win all the checks." You're a real choice & consequence guy. "I choose to win."while a more extensive system allowing multiple party members to intervene in the conversation is the ideal solution to most problems.
In the originals there was almost zero stats checks throughout the entire game. I know, I looked. BG1 has literally one meaningful check for dexterity in the entire game. And IE games had no "intimidate", "persuade" etc. It didn't matter who spoke.In the originals it would happen too
12 to bard don't make sense to me.
yeah since you get +2 attributes 4/8 then if u start with 16 charisma you are capped at level 8 and getting extra 2 points for either con/dex don't seem too important to meBut considering you can't go above 20 anyway, it might be not too much of a loss.
I got that you must be borderline mentally challenged (and still SOMEHOW under the massive delusion of being a sophisticad connoisseur of the genre), but I made a post few replies ago where I argued the exact opposite. And you were SPAZZING OUT over that too, incidentally.= "I want to always win all the checks." You're a real choice & consequence guy. "I choose to win."while a more extensive system allowing multiple party members to intervene in the conversation is the ideal solution to most problems.