Zwiebelchen

It would be really interesting to see this. As how it currently stands there is little to no reason to not disengage from the tanks. I bet the whole community would be shouting shenanigans if that started to happen. I mean everyone and their mother tends to build tanks for survivability, which always leads to less damage that ends up with their disengagement attacks not being any real threat. In fact, the current NPC AI actually hurts from targets doing disengagement (my tanks tend to start following the designated target and if that is the one who disengages the tank will happily take attacks from the rest of the guys he is engaged with). In the end tanks would hold no aggro as its always smarter to just take the hits and run to one-shot the wizards/priests in no armour/cloth. Every fight would be reduced into huddling in the corner covering all paths to your squishies (like many of us do against shadows/phantoms/shades) or just the usual door blocking. The real way to fix these problems would be to give enemies ranged attacks. Currently, only designated ranged attackers use ranged weapons but the game would change completely if the enemy would be able to use the same tactics as you. Having your fighter block the door while the rest of the party attacks with reach weapons or ranged/spells? How would you like it if the enemy at the second row would switch to using a pike or the knight in the back row to his crossbow and return the favour against your squishies? Suddenly you'd be in a hurry to deal with the tank blocking the door to get inside to deal with the actual threat. Its hard to justify a person in a fantasy world that would not carry some sort of ranged weapon with them. When it is about life or death, you'll want to at least have a shot of ending the fight before it even starts. Many enemies even have bows, but they never switch to them. I 110% abso-friggin'-lutely agree with the ranged weapons thing. Give enemies a ranged weapon set and done. Obviously, certain enemies shouldn't have one, like trolls. But ogres, kith, xaurips, etc. ... they are all perfectly suited for some ranged weapons. About enemies disengaging: I think it would be terrible game design if enemies disengage your tank without an apparent reason. It would basicly render the disengagement mechanic useless and make combat a completely uncontrollable mess with zero amount of tactics. Instead, enemies should disengage under certain conditions, like a higher priority target being very close or when frightened/in panic, etc. ... Not only would that make sense, but it would also make disengagement happen more frequently without being unpredictable and random. However, I still think the disengagement mechanic should be changed towards an actual 5-foot movement rule like in D&D. It makes no sense that I eat a disengagement attack every time I'm moving my character just a pixel. As long as you don't leave a certain area around the mob, characters should definitely not trigger a disengagement attack. Also, why the **** do long-range melee weapons like Pikes not trigger disengagement attacks? That makes absolutely zero sense.

I don't know if anyone ever complained about it, but it certainly led to some strange situations. Player is about to attack a lich. Aerie: Player, you really need to know right now that I'm angsty! I think the new system is (generally) both more realistic and more convenient. There definitely were some weird situations here and there where companions initiated dialogue in the worst possible moment, but at least the dialogues got suppressed inside dungeons, so it wasn't that bad, But I still prefer it over the "you shut your mouth until I tell you to speak" system we have now. Companions just ... feel more human if they initiate dialogue on their own.

You mean, like the mod that lets you bang your sister? http://imoen.blindmonkey.org/ That mod sucks. So umm... what exactly wasn't obvious sarcasm here? The lack of smileys?

Cause they nerfed focus gain across the board just to fix it for one weapon. Also i think cipher will have to use slow and powerful weapons if he wants to get some focus (though it still will be less than with fast weapons currently imo), whereas now in 1.04 all the weapons are perfectly viable. What? No they aren't. Slow weapons are useless for focus generation in 1.04, as you get a flat point bonus per attack, not a percentage bonus based on damage. A very slow arbalest hit for 40 damage generates 2 (4 with talent) focus. A blazing fast dual-wield dagger hit for 5 damage generates the same 2 (4 with talent) focus. In the time you can fire an arbalest once, you can hit the enemy 12 times with your dual-wield daggers (actually, I always used dual-wield daggers over the blunderbuss, it's ridicolous how you can sustain a stunlock on 3 enemies at the same time with zero-recovery dual-wield daggers). If you aren't using dual-wield stilettos or a blunderbuss in 1.04, you are doing it wrong. With the 33% change of 1.05, finally you can use all weapons and generate a comparable amount of focus per second. They didn't nerf focus gain "all across the board". They balanced focus gain so that all weapons are equally viable.

Well, we obviously have different oppinions of this. I'm fine with the idea that a wizard has something to do in every encounter except auto-attacking. And after the rebalancing of FoF and slicken, it's not like level 1 and 2 spells make such a dramatic difference... especially since you need to be very high level to actually unlock those per-encounters. Mind you, arcane assault is also per-encounter. And it actually deals more damage than minolettas missiles and doesn't hit friendlies as FoF does. Again, per-encounter spells don't make battles easier. They just remove some of the tedium. And yes, the grimoire mechanic is a severe limitation. Yes, I can only cast 4 different spells of each rank anyway, but that isn't the point. The point is: I am much much less flexible than, say, a druid. Not only forces the grimoire mechanic meta game knowledge on you ("Hmm... which spells could I need for this battle?"), but it also drastically reduces the reactivity of the wizard class. I can't do mid-combat decisions about my spell choice; as I'm limited to the selection I made before combat. And the 4 spell limit is severe, since there are so many spells with different purposes, different defenses and styles. I often get into battle and then say "damn, I could really use a line-damage spell now", but only memorized a cone-type damage spell of the same rank. Or I get engaged in melee and really wished I had memorized a defensive spell. The druid doesn't have that limitation. He can always react according to the situation and this already makes the class way more powerful. Wizards could definitely need a mechanic that makes them interesting in long-term play. Unlocking spells as Per-encounter seems like a perfect fit here. But whats the point if druids (who are already stronger than wizards) get the same treatment without the limitation of the grimoire?

You mean, like the mod that lets you bang your sister? http://imoen.blindmonkey.org/

... or they could have just fixed it in a balanced way by basing it on a percentage value of damage dealt, instead of a flat +2 points per damage event. You know, just like they did. Finally a cipher can use slow weapons other than blunderbusses and still get a good amount of focus. Why do you even complain?

I'll say that GM is the best written companion of the group. Eder has alot of heart in his character but the quality of writing in GM's dialog and interactions is a whole 'nother level. I hope -when- they put in romances Chris Avellone writes at least one. Considering Chris Avellone's stated opinions on romances I don't think they would turn out the way you would want... "So if I were to implement a romance subplot in Eternity - I wouldn’t. I’d examine interpersonal relationships from another angle and I wouldn’t confine it to love and romance. Maybe I’d explore it after a “loving” relationship crashed and burned, and one or both was killed in the aftermath enough for them to see if it had really been worth it spending the last few years of their physical existence chained to each other in a dance of human misery and/or a plateau of soul-killing compromise. Or maybe I’d explore a veteran’s love affair with his craft of murder and allowing souls to be freed to travel beyond their bleeding shell, or a Cipher’s obsession with plucking the emotions of deep-rooted souls to try and see what makes people attracted to each other beyond their baser instincts and discovers love... specifically, his love of manipulating others. You could build an entire dungeon and quest where he devotes himself to replicating facsimiles of love, reducer a Higher Love to a baser thing and using NPCs he encounters as puppets for his experimentations, turning something supposedly beautiful into something filthy, mechanical, but surrounded by blank-eyed soul-twisted drones echoing all the hollow Disney-like platitudes and fairy tale existence where everyone lives happily ever after." Those sound like pretty cool ideas to me :D And he did the Alpha Protocol romances so he's capable of it if ordered to do so. So there's hope for off the wall stuff and traditional romances from him! source -> http://www.gameranx.com/features/id/10388/article/an-interview-with-chris-avellone-on-project-eternity/ Ooops, missed this! Thanks to Rosveen for their last post where I noticed this. Well, an adventure involving having to escape from a Cipher's Love-Dungeon would be different, though it might wander a bit close to certain sequences in Saint's Row 4. Being chased by Aumaua wielding purple dildoes (is that the right spelling for plural ****?) on carriages being pulled by gagged orlans would change my perspective on the game... and there is the Salty Mast already set up to enable this sort of thing...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armpit_fetishism Game definitely needs more Avellone dungeons...

I don't see a problem with the sudden incremental increase of power on level 9 and 11. After all, most other classes unlock new class abilities at level 7 aswell. Perfectly gradual leveling is boring as hell. And just because level 1 and level 2 spells are per-encounter doesn't really mean that the class is suddenly way more powerful. It's just pure convenience. If you'd rest-spam after every battle, you'd have the same effect. In fact, rest-spamming literally allows you to use all spells as per-encounter. The point is: per-encounter abilities don't make hard battles easier. Because you will most likely safe your spell slots for those battles anyway or rest before such a battle. Per-encounter abilities just make trivial battles more fun. And anything that makes trivial battles funnier is fine in my book. In fact, reaching level 9 made me actually enjoy trash encounters again. Finally I could spam missiles at ogres without regrets. And about druids and priests getting the same treatment: Well, we were talking about wizards, not druids or priests. But just to go sure: I absolutely agree with the sentiment that priests and druids should not get per-encounter spells. Personally, I didn't find the druid rank 1 and rank 2 spells all that powerful (in comparison to the priest spells), so I didn't really care about druids, but I agree that the per-encounter spells should be wizard-only just to compensate for the lack of spell choices due to the grimoire mechanic. Or at least, priests and druids should get their level 1 per-encounters two levels later than wizards.

Aren't you overreacting here? All that was changed about ciphers is their starting focus and the focus gain through certain weapons. They are still just as powerful and cheesy as ever. It's just that you can't immediately mind-control and stun-lock three mobs at the beginning of every battle anymore. And seriously, using the blunderbuss pellets to exploit the focus gain was hilariously broken to begin with and I'm glad this is fixed now.

Given the low duration of most buffs and debuffs, this isn't as much of an issue as you guys make it look. Also, the debuff groups aren't terribly big either. Most groups only have 2-3 discrete debuffs in them, so most debuffs already stack by default. And most of the debuffs in debuff groups actually have a priority that makes a lot of sense from a logical perspective. Just like a mob can not be confused and dominated at the same time. Frightened and panicking are also practically the same thing, just that the latter is stronger than the first. It makes sense that the stronger one overwrites the weaker one. Literally, the only debuff group that does not really make sense is that a paralyzed NPC can not be knocked prone. Obviously, you should be able to knock someone off their feet if he can't move... but that's more of a balance decision and I can understand the decision behind these debuffs not stacking (as they both greatly reduce deflection).

Multiplayer in the IE games was just terrible. It didn't work.... or at least: it didn't play out well. However, D:OS had a pretty decent co-op due to the rock, paper, scissoirs mechanic. I could imagine something similar in PoE ... but I highly doubt they will delegate production resources towards scripting such a system. Multiplayer could possibly work with a persistent world design similar to NWN, with only 1 character to control at the same time. In that case, auto-pause wouldn't matter that much. But good luck finding 5 more sane people to play with you that won't constantly mess up your game...

My guts tell me that two chants of the same type would not stack, simply because no two buffs of the same type stack in PoE. However, different chants will definitely stack.

Would be too convoluted. The spells are already balanced by their recovery times. There is no reason whatsoever for an additional limitation. Rank 1 spells becoming per encounter is no big deal by the time you actually get to level 9. In fact, this more or less only brings wizards in line with all the other spellcasting classes. Wizards have the highest restrictions on their spells due to the grimoire mechanic and having to learn spells manually via grimoires. The per-encounter spells at level 9 is perfectly reasonable within all those extra restrictions. And it's the first thing that makes you go "now finally this class is starting to feel epic". The wizard class definitely lacks this compared to D&D mages. ... Am I the only one that is missing a wizard familiar in PoE?

I'll say that GM is the best written companion of the group. Eder has alot of heart in his character but the quality of writing in GM's dialog and interactions is a whole 'nother level. I hope -when- they put in romances Chris Avellone writes at least one. ... come to think of it; I am actually pretty happy about the fact that the NPCs in PoE are all written by different people. It makes the NPCs more believable. If every single character were weirdos like Durance, GM or Aloth, the game would definitely lose a lot of it's credibility. A group of NPCs should, ideally, provide a good representation of how the world you live in looks like. Granted, there are weirdos in this world, but they shouldn't make up your entire team. The reason why I think Edér and Sagani are great, despite not having much to talk about, is, that they basicly complete your party with a refreshing amount of sanity and stability. Think about it this way: If everyone is special, nobody is. Edér is exactly that kind of guy you would trust your life on. And the guy you would talk to when you think someone is getting dangerously unstable (Durance).

"My mind blah blah blah" "Think of the children!" She never, ever says anything else. These are the two things she will ever talk about. Who cares? Batman hardly speaks over anything else but corruption and fear. And yet everyone loves Batman. Obviously, given her nature, she won't start discussing the weather with you. Now That would be completely out of character. I don't get why everyone expects their companions to expose their whole life instantly to the player. This is what we call dramaturgic reduction. A character has a theme. Not staying true to said theme, convoluting a character with unnecessary side-plots is just plain bad writing. And GM is written very well. If you actually dive deeper into her dialogue choices, you will notice that she is not as one-dimensional as you think. For example, she exposes pretty early that she is a notorious liar, despite having good intentions. And she has some serious flaws in her outlook about the world. In fact, you can actually confront her about it and tell her why she is wrong. Naturally, she won't instantly agree with you just because you are the omnipresent PC. Her character developement is a lot more subtle than that of the other characters. But it's definitely there.

I don't think this is much of an issue. It takes around level 9-10 for classes to actually unleash their true potential. I absolutely wouldn't mind for PoE to expand the game until level 20-22, just like BG2 did. More talents, more choices, more builds. And new spell ranks. There's still a lot of untapped potential in all of the classes. Wizards, for example, still lack stuff like time stop, a talent that expands the grimoire storage, etc. Monks still lack talents that allow them to fight clothed. Rangers could unlock low level druid spell ranks or simply get some per-encounter arrow enchantment skills. Fighters still lack a lot of tactical abilities, like taunt or a temporary immunity to damage or status effects. The good thing about the defense and hit mechanics of PoE is, that all of them are linear, not percentage based and relative damage dealt doesn't actually go up when leveling (except for weapon enchants and attribute bonuses through items... which more or less only compensate for the endurance gain per level). This basicly allows endless encounter scaling without the annoying power creep of epic D&D levels where you just stacked more and more base attributes until you hit a ridicolous 25 strength. This doesn't happen in PoE. If you reach a point where items get too powerful, you can always just strip the characters of their items through story events and basicly start the item hunt anew. You know, just like BG2 did... except that BG2 instantly offered you some +2 and +3 weapons right from the start.

After playing a melee-tank-wizard (up to level 7) so far, all I can say is: Idfc about prebuffing. The PoE system works and tank-wizards work surprisingly well. And that wasn't even with the 1.05 beta patch! It's fun and it works... and that's all I care about. I actually think that some of the 1.05 changes about wizards go too far. Especially Arcane Veil now granting more or less complete immunity against attacks.

See, this is the problem here: instead of actually trying it for real, you just rely on hearsaying.

... what? Fists attack fast like small weapons, but actually deal damage like medium weapons (and, mind you, also deal higher minimum damage). In fact, DR is much less of a problem for monks than it is for many other classes. Stack some accuracy on top of your already high base accuracy and you will hit hard. Plus, torment's reach adds a tasty 50% extra on top for both hits.

For women, I guess Eder makes a lot of sense. He's a hearty down-to-earth guy... I mean, come on, look at his portrait! With his looks, he'd be a god-damn womanizer in real life! From all the female characters, I initially thought that Sagani was the most attractive one. But given her backstory, it just wouldn't fit. Hiravias... would be an option for women that are into furries, I guess? No objection, he's pretty sexist so it makes a lot of sense for him to be a romance option. You gotta have at least one bad-boy for women, right? :> Pallegina... somehow I didn't find her attractive, despite the looks. Also, I don't think a possible romance with her would be very interesting. She doesn't have enough background to support it. Hiravias isn't as interesting either, but he at least provides possible character developement. Pallegina is too static. Also, why is everyone so quick dismissing GM as a potential romance option? Not only does she have one of the most unique backgrounds with lots of stuff to explore, but she is also pretty and has the proper motherly instincts to boot. I wouldn't say it's extremely out-of-character for her... after all, you are pretty much the first person in her life that she actually connects to. it's just that any activity or argument would probably be very ... mental. Gives a whole new meaning to the term mind-****... I really hope GM will be an available companion in the sequel. She's my favorite character of the PoE roster. That's a fantastic artwork ... so damn close to the original art-style that it's almost disturbing that this isn't official!

He provided a picture and wants to roleplay, so the race suggestions are out of the question already, as it's gonna be either a human or elf. And even elf is a stretch. @TO: You can't really screw up a monk DPS build (as there's not many "crucial" talents for a monk). At the beginning of the game, you should probably go for a single one-handed weapon (for the extra accuracy); later, when fists catch up in both damage and accuracy, you can switch to dual-wield fists. The good part: dual-wield fists are always available in combat, no matter what you have in your weapon slots, so a monk basicly gets the dual-wield fist weapon set for free. That means you can also carry a ranged and a melee weapon with you without the need of an additional weapon slot. Playing a DPS monk is a little bit less straightforward than the other classes, as you rely on taking damage to deal damage. The idea is to have some survivability so that you can take a few hits from a single mob, then back out and burn all your wounds as pure DPS. A typical approach would be to let your DPS monk rush in alongside the tank and let her offtank a single mob to generate some wounds. Then you can use one of your stunning blows or knockback ability to disengage the mob safely (you also gain wounds by forcing a disengagement attack, but it's not recommended as disengagement attacks tend to hit hard). A DPS monk is actually one of those classes where leather armor works quite good: you don't want to stack too much DR, but you don't want to go naked either. As others have stated: torment's reach is your main DPS source. It works great with dual-wield fists, as it will actually hit the main target twice. The dual wield talent works on fists. Get it! Weapon focus: peasant also grants you additional much-needed accuracy (again ... torment's reach). Don't get the talent that decreases the wound treshold. It's only useful for pure tank monks that take very little damage. There is also a talent that grants you a fire lash procc on your attacks depending on the number of wounds you have stacked. It's useless for this build, so don't waste a point on it (as torment's reach will consume your wounds). If you have some spare talent points, it's a good idea to invest the situational modals ... just to be prepared. Your monk will get attacked from time to time, and it's good to have the modal to pop that increases your deflection if things go downhill. Also, some food for thought: there's a passive that increases your deflection on disengagement attacks. Think about taking it; not only can it be a lifesaver, but it also basicly bypasses the accuracy bonus of disengagement attacks, which means you have reliable way of forcing wounds on your monk by just disengaging a weak-hitting mob. A word about skills: Lore might be worth an investment, as it allows you to use scrolls. When you're out of wounds, it's always nice to have something to do other than auto-attacking. Also, you're a frontline fighter, so it's always good to have a Fan of Flames scroll ready.

Maybe that's how Iselmyr looks like...

Holy tank wizards batman! Now they got even stronger... lol.