I found the comment about our "professionalism" (or lack thereof) to be quite strange for people who supposedly still read the co'x and are only kept from commenting here by not wanting to
(Offhand as the comment was.)
The forums themselves might be very ...passionate. (Though even that changed. We used to be far more vitriolic. But at least we were honest about it. Now there's far more passive-aggressive shit going on.) But, IMO the codex editorial stuff is pretty solid.
OT: What I liked especially about Div:OS was not so much the environmental stuff (which I thought was a little over-used and which I would have tweaked in some aspects) but how it handled Action Points. Initial AP, AP regen, AP stacking...all really cool ideas that were implemented well. /OT
Re. Sawyer on Might and its universal effect:
There's is a subjective response: I have been playing these types of games for decades. I prefer them to make sense and be at least semi-realistic. The "A noob might get blind-sided and have to restart his char after 30 minutes into the game because he didn't realize str wouldn't affect crossbows." Simply doesn't fly with me. I also think that the vast majority of PE players will also not be playing their first RPG. So this seems like a large concession to a small minority who wouldn't be severely discomfited in the first place.
The more neutral response: RTFM. "
Strength Might increases melee dmg (and magic dmg, or whatever)" Problem solved.
In effect I think Sawyer just wanted a consistent system for consistency's sake. Pure gamism autism and realism be damned (ism ism ism). I just wish he'd admit as much instead of going "Think of the analphabetical noobs", which is an awful argument. *shrug*
Re. Sawyer on different builds:
Well, different builds are possible in D&D. Especially when we're talking 3.5rd ed. with multi-classing and feats. That said, I really hope this turns out good and makes up for the sacrifice of realism.
I think that if you want to build a sub-par character that’s ok but I think it’s about a certain gulf like… for example, if you build an 18 Charisma fighter in Baldur’s Gate you just built a shitty fighter. That’s just a bad fighter…
Chris: Especially in the first five minutes of the game and you find that 18 Charisma ring and you go…
I know what they're trying to say, but I still feel the need to point out that this is a really bad example:
1. You could have 18 in cha in BG... and 18/00 in str, 18 in dex and 18 in con. Your 18 cha fighter could still be a demi god. No point buy system...
2. If memory serves, the cha ring was BG2, not BG. Wearing it means you are sacrificing an item slot that could hold a different ring.
3. Cha is actually quite useful in BG2. It gives better store prices, which gives earlier access to better equipment. It also keeps dissatisfied companions from leaving you, which makes you freeer in party composition and behavior. For a fighter certainly not a primary stat, but a nice to have nonetheless.
4. When we're talking D&D for PE we're talking OGL. And a charismatic fighter type would be... a paladin. Perfectly viable high cha fighter. Get rid of the alignment restrictions if they bother you and you're set. While we're at it, you also have viable high dex, high int and high wis fighter types. They're in NWN2. I guess Sawyer is in part responsible for their inclusion. I never played them
And in general multi-classing and prestige-classes open up all sorts of possibilities in making stuff viable. You just need to RTFM.
Yeah, if you build an 18 Resolve fighter in PoE that’s a very defensively oriented character that won’t get interrupted very much. Is that the same as an 18 Might character? No, but it’s not about perfect balance, it’s about relative balance and finding a way to play to that character's strengths. So it’s never been about absolute perfect balance.
Again several issues:
1. Either the communication of the balance issue was very bad for a long time or he's flip-flopping mightily. Balance sure seemed his nr. 1 priority. Either way, I don't give much of a fuck. Moving on.
2. So in D&D the game will outright tell you: "If you max cha on your fighter and dump all your physical stats, you'll be bad. Choose a different class or build your char differently.". And Sawyer substitutes this with: "Sure, go ahead and max resolve. Everything is balanced and viable. You'll be noticably weaker than if you'd maxed might, but it's viable.". And this is supposed to be better?
3. I'm getting sick of the "play your char to his strengths" line. In a class system I prefer to choose and develop my class to the strengths I want my char to have. Then I play a char to its class's strengths.
Everytime I see this stuff I think to myself that Sawyer actually wants to develop a classless system.
3.a. Class system: You play a class, in RL terms it'd be a role or job. Eg Boxer like Mike Tyson or Physicist like Steven Hawking. As a boxer you'll need str, dex and con. Other stats will surely not be bad, but they're not required. Tyson definately did not need to release Papers on Hawking's level to be a successful boxer. And if he'd had huge cha instead of physical stats, he'd become an actor or singer or something. On the other hand Hawking might not mind if he had a healthy body, but it's not required for him being a successful physicist. When you choose a class you also determine your role. To a certain degree your stats should fit that role.
3.b. In a classless system the player would choose his strengths and his role would derive from them. For some Reason Sawyer feels the need to apply this to a class system. I believe that is the wrong way around.
The worst role-playing game - PnP one - I’ve ever been in was when I actually made a character that I really wanted to role-play and the GM just goes, “I’m sorry but your character is just not going to survive. It’s just not going to work in our group.” But I just wanted to role-play and I think Josh has been very cognizant about that for which I greatly appreciate that.
Was he eaten by wolves?
Seriously, this seems to be an issue between story-fags and powergamer-fags. Which I hadn't realized until now
Story-fag: "Ok, I want to play this fighter. He is totalliy wise and in tune with the gods. He is also quite intelligent and has a very charismatic personality. Unfortunately he has asthma, muscle atrophy and a crippled leg. He chose to train in the use of weapons and armor at an early age because he wanted to overcome his weaknesses instead choosing a profession more in line with his strengths."
Powergamer-fag "Ok, I want to make a powerful fighter. Fuck, I'm mean a powerful caster. What attributes, feats, spells and multi/prestige classes do I need to make the most of him? I should probably read the manual."
A lot of rambling for the same-old same-old. But that some people might want to play a specific "character" and try to make the system fit that character; instead of wanting to have a certain kind of gameplay and choosing class/attributes accordingly, failed to register with me before. Once again
