Zwiebelchen

Give them a break, seriously. 1.04, fixing the most game-breaking bugs was released only 1 week after the game went gold. I've seen much much worse than this, even from AAA titles. I think this game should have been "earl grey access", as some people here really need to relax to a cup of tea.

... to be honest, I don't think that Dangerous Implement monk builds work. If you're a tank, you won't have any trouble building up wounds anyway and if you're DPS, you are wasting precious DPS time on building up wounds via implements. Dual wield fists are just too damn good compared to pretty much anything else, unless you need a certain weapon proc. It's just way easier to just offtank a single enemy as a DPS monk to build up wounds and then just use knockback or graceful retreat to get away once you reach a stack of 10. And monks have the health pool to support such tactics. A DI build is just gimping yourself... unless you look for a low maintenance character. In this case it's probably great, because it stacks a lot of damage modifiers by just auto-attacking.

Until the interrupting blows talent is fixed, interrupt is pretty much pointless. But I haven't seen it on the 1.06 list. So yeah, warbow all the way for rangers. Am I the only one that thinks that there are too many weapon focus talents? I mean, they give 6 accuracy, which is great, but on the other hand not that great considering how much you limit yourself in weapon choice. Imho, the weapon focus talents should be slimmed down by one. Noble would be my vote here. Take the noble weapons and add them to the other categories. Nobody picks noble anyway. I think it's a matter of taste. I don't like Peasant on tanks because I find hatchets don't provide enough deflection to make up for their terrible damage. Especially for Eder who scores a pretty good Might, I prefer something more offensive, like Sabres, Rapiers or Flails/Maces. Chanter is actually the only "free for all" class. As 95% of the time chanters have good base deflection and probably wear heavier armor (because not much spells to cast, so why care for recovery time?), you can use whatever you want here. It's the only class imho where 2H axes and 2H maces actually make sense, as, contrary to the cipher, they have the deflection and hitpoints to take a hit or two. For ciphers, now that focus cheese has been fixed, pikes/quarterstaves are the best option for the extended range. Unfortunately, there's only few good quarterstaves in the game, so you probably want to use a pike. Wizards are a tough pick. Basicly, you want to select your focus depending on which summoned weapon you want to use... or just go without a focus. With the +15 accuracy first level spell, I actually never really felt the need to select a weapon focus for mages. You're probably better off taking blast and improved blast instead, as it synergizes well with several of the summoned weapons. This is even worse for tank wizards. There's so much you want for this build that you can't waste a talent point on 6 extra accuracy. Priest: I agree 100% here that it depends on deity choice. Priests have low base accuracy and the deity talent + weapon focus combined score a whopping +16 passive accuracy on top of your buffs for only 2 talent points (priests don't have a lot of useful talents anyway). Magran, Waen, Skael, in that order. Skael seems cool on paper, but you will mostly end up not using sneak attacks much. You're a priest, after all. Magran for the Arbequs, Waen for the free debuff. Druid: Better stuff to pick? What? I found druids to have the least worthwhile talents of all classes. Extra spell slots are not worth the talent point and the +20% elemental damage is too situational to pick. You don't need any tank talents either. I ended up picking weak support talents like combat lazaret on high levels because there was nothing else worth picking. Definitely get a weapon focus on druids. Doesn't matter much which. I liked Warbows because it fit's the druid theme. For druids. I usually take the focus that favores a ranged weapon I did not use on other characters, for example, hunting bows (there's a great one on Od Nua level 5, and combined with the DR reduction modal it actually deals decent damage at fast speed).

Somehow, I never saw ranger pets as a meat shield, but a neat utility to apply a flanking bonus to every enemy. For that, it serves it's purpose just fine. I like rangers is a low-maintenance class (similar to chanters). Could they use a buff? Certainly. But I don't think the buffs should be about their pure combat ability. I'd rather go the D&D route and have rangers learn druid spells instead. Obviously, they should be much more limited than druids in their selection. How about we apply a spell learning mechanic (similar to ciphers) to druid spells for the ranger class? So, at level 1, you can select 2 first level druid abilities (2 uses per rest). Each level will give you one additional pick. Every 3 levels, you unlock a new spell rank to pick from. So basicly, by level 12, you have: 3 first level spells 3 second level spells 3 third level spells 1 fourth level spell Each spell level at 2 uses per rest.

Isn't the fact that you can beat this game with 12 kills or less amazing? I think Obsidian had some unintentional genius here.

However, the engagement limit of your frontline fighters will limit you much harder against the masses of mobs in PotD. Battles become significantly harder if you can not engage every enemy in melee, because then they will run straight for your squishies if you aren't careful. Your fighter can engage up to 5 enemies at the same time? Well, duh, in PotD you are often fighting 10+ mobs at the same time. Yes, in theory, AI works the same in hard and PotD. But in reality, it's different because numbers.

I gotta say I always applaude the guys who play this on expert mode. Must be tough; I haven't ticket that box yet... the reason for that is that I found not all reputations perfectly represented in the answers. Often, it's hard to tell, for example, which answer is "honest" or just "rational". "Diplomatic" often didn't feel diplomatic enough for me... more than often I felt that the general response was more diplomatic than the diplomatic choice. Sometimes, "passionate" seems to drift into "aggressive" territory for me. Though the worst reputation, by far, was "clever". I just hated the forced jokes. 90% of them just weren't funny or appropriate. The only "clever" answer in the game that I really liked was when you beat Maerwald and the statue asks you if you beat him, and you tell her that you beat many of him... (because of his split personality) I wouldn't say that this is bad writing, it's just that sometimes the tags are oddly placed, which is why I would never play in expert mode.

... and then everyone had the pox.

Yeah this is actually a clever idea and I'd love to explore this further in expansions. Let's just hope that all the major lore dumps for the gods have been done by now, so we can concentrate on more visual narrative. While the story about the gods and their betrayals was interesting, it absolutely wasn't fun to read through all this. Massive lore dumps everywhere ... Obsidian really has to improve on this in the sequels. The whole act 3 was painful to follow because of that. To go back to the quote above: The interesting thing about the engwithians creating false gods to bring morals to the world is that they actually succeeded in this, even if the gods they created were flawed. In making the gods very close to kith, making them selfish and power-hungry, they made sure that what they cared most for was their "image". Which in turn works as a damage control so that they just can't do whatever they want and stay true to their ideals, in fear that they would lose their followers. So, in a way, flawless gods were never even neccesary to begin with.

Okay, let me rephrase that: On my last completionist playthrough without the second and third set of bounties, I reached level 12 shortly before descending into sun in shadows with a party of six. Thaos is actually decently balanced. On PotD, it took me a while to figure out how to beat him, with the giants doing massive damage, his flame bursts almost insta-gibbing everyone and his ridicolous 160 deflection score at 18 DR. I think after the nineth or tenth try I finally made it; the hardest part was dodging the AoE flame burst attack, I more or less had to cheese the AI with summons and rotate tanks, separating the giants from Thaos with knockdowns so he couldn't heal them anymore. How anyone can think this fight wasn't difficult (on POTD... I'll just ignore the 'hard' scrubs) is beyond me. The amount of RNG-insta-gibbing in this battle was on IE game level.

The XP issue was pretty much fixed with the recent patches. I finished a completionist playthrough yesterday (did everything except out-of-party companion quests and 2nd and 3rd set of bounties) and pretty much reached level 12 right before descending into Sun in Shadows.

My disappointment with the Grieving Mother was caused mostly by the end of her quest. At first, when you meet her, she seems to be a very intriguing character that is probably linked to the main storyline somehow. She keeps talking about how you will cure the Legacy together, how she will guide you if needed, she sort of looks like... I don't know, Kreia to your Exile? Overall, she appears to be someone very improtant, she seems to share a bond with the PC.And then you finish her quest, and you find out that she is just a deluded midwife who happened to possess some mental powers. All her talks about the world's fate, about curing the Hollowborn and such were just dreams of a woman eaten by her own guilt. Don't get me wrong, it's a nice twist character-wise, and I liked that. But after this revelation I see absolutely no need for her to talk so freaking allegorically in absolutely every dialogue(and I mean actual dialogue, not visions, those were all right). She is no prophet, she is no madman, she is just a simple woman with a self-forced amnesia. So... why? To simply make her look mysterious and super important, to trick the player? It also didn't help that I was utterly put off by her actions at the Birthing Bell when the Legacy started. And I don't like that other companions don't react to her being in the party. I mean, I understand why they don't give her any thought, but technically it's minus one person for possible party banter. See? Isn't the fact alone that there's so much you can say about this character proof enough that it's fantastically designed? Obviously, you read her story and memories pretty carefully. I couldn't even think of more than 3 sentences to say about, say, Pallegina. And if you like the twist or not is subjective. You call it disappointing, I call it clever. On a meta-level, she tricks not only the PC but also the player into thinking that she is important for the story, so that you take her along (which, mind you, is crucial for her as the watcher is the only one who can see through her protective web of amnesia). And wether you are put off by her actions or not: the birthing bell plot fits her character perfectly. False altruism induced by her guilt about not being able to save the children. It's the classic "good intentions gone bad" and nothing wrong with that.

So, you complain that the endboss of a game is harder than the rest of the game? /applause

Why not make LoH scaling? And while you're at that, combat lazaret could use the same treatment. It's a nice pick for highlevel casters (for the lack of other useful talents to pick), but it's just so ridicolously underpowered...

PotD can be quite challenging at times. Hard on the other hand is easily doable for anyone who isn't a complete moron.

Also, I think this NPC is only there at night.

Please watch the spoilers, Yeah, edited a spoiler tag in. Sorry.

Depends a lot on what your favorite reputation choices are, as some of those attributes are often paired with reputation choices. Regardless of your choices: Resolve, Perception, Intelligence are the most prominent attribute checks in that order. There are some few Might checks in dialogue, but those are usually tied to aggressive or cruel reputations. Resolve is often paired with the passionate reputation, so if you play a passionate character, you should possibly put some points into resolve. Perception is mostly standalone and allows to bypass some dialogue. I don't remember a lot of choices where it is tied to a reputation. Intelligence checks are actually rarer that you might think. I only came across very few intelligence checks that actually mattered. And most of them required only 14 Intelligence. Very few needed 17. I can only remember one situation where 18 points were needed (and you can always use food or resting bonuses for that). I'd say you should get at least one of those attributes into the 17'ish range (with buffs). There are only very few checks beyond 17. I think only Resolve has a 19/20 check at one point. Is it important to stat for attribute checks? Nope, you can mostly bypass attribute checks with reputation answers. So if you want to play a DPS character, no reason really to stack Resolve or Perception. Intelligence is nice to have for every character anyway, so I'd say put some points into it. Might, Dex and Constitution are pretty much useless in dialogues. Scripted text events mostly allow bypassing those attribute checks with crowbars or grappling hooks or allow you to pick a character to check.

I don't get why Kana, Durance and Hiravias scored so high on the dislike list. Among all the characters, I've found Aloth and Pallegina the most unlikeable ones. Kana is more or less just looking for knowledge and has some funny and interesting dialogue; I don't really know what's not to like about him. Unless people voted for mechanics (granted, chanters are pretty useless outside of PotD mode) here. Also, he seemed reasonable and his dialogue was easy to follow (unlike Durance, who was just very confusing to follow). Kana and Eder are probably those guys you'd want in your adventure group for being good pals. Hiravias is ... a simpleton. Which makes a lot of sense, considering that as a druid he is half-creature half-man. I enjoyed his dialogue and that he wasn't quite as lore-dumpy as some of the other characters. Maybe it's just me but I like people that are easy to follow and understand. Durance... I can understand why people find him annoying... simply because he has an obscene amount of option dialogue... At first, I didn't like him aswell, as he dumps loads of lore at you right at the beginning [sorry, Obsidian, but there are much better ways to deliver narrative than huge walls of text!] and his way of talking is just ... hard to follow at times. But by the time I actually went through his quest, I noticed that he actually has many likable traits. He's definitely one of the most multi-dimensional characters in PoE. Grieving Mother... wow, I don't know why she got so many votes. This character is awesome. Not only does she have the most interesting and relatable backstory, but she is also a warm-hearted, yet misguided person that you just want to cure. Her quest conclusion felt extremely satisfying to me. It was the only companion quest that I really felt good about completing. She just kind of put too much heart into what she did and then ended up making unrational decisions, ignoring the consequences. It's the perfect example of how to write a character that feels altruistic and caring, without the pitfalls of a mary-sue character. Sagani was a very down-to-earth character. But compared to Kana and Eder, she felt a little bit more bland, without much memorable dialogue (also, way too many fantasy nouns in her dialogue). But then again I didn't complete her quest, so maybe things get more interesting here. I'll definitely pick her in my next playthrough just to see what she has to offer. Pallegina was just annoying right from the start. She definitely felt like a pure lore-dump to me without any memorable character traits, quotes or just about anything that makes a character interesting. On top of that, she is most likely the last character you will pick up and as a paladin suffers a lot from the mechanics aswell. Boring, weak and lore-dumpy is never a good combination. So, why did I vote for Aloth and not Pallegina? Let's be fair: I instantly liked the idea behind Aloth when I picked him up the first time. But once I advanced through his questline and through the game, he was a complete disappointment. He was okay mechanics-wise; nothing to complain about, but his dialogues were few, his connections to the leaden key felt like an optional afterthought and the whole split personality thing never really mattered. It was completely weird that all the other characters seemed to constantly pick on him about Iselmyr, when literally the only situation in which Iselmyr actually manifested was in the sanitarium. For a character that shows up very early in the game, he just doesn't have enough meaningful dialogue. He gets my vote for the biggest disappointment.

I think the keypoint that a lot of people seem to be missing about the pantheon in PoE is that: If the gods were created by kith themselves, as just an accumulation of soul energy, they are neither omnipresent, nor impeccable. In fact, a lot of the lategame dialogues center around the idea that the gods are just as flawed as the kith that they created. That's why I feel it is perfectly reasonable that Magran sided against Eothas. Or against anyone for that matter. It's all conspiracy and self-empowerment. It is pretty much clear that they all lust for more power and take whatever means to accomplish that, no matter who has to suffer for it. Even Hylea, who was pretty much displayed as the goddess of birds and life and overall the most "lawful good" deity as her central theme will punish the Dyrwood by force if you betray her at Sun in Shadows. Basicly, if you consider the PoE gods as being equally flawed as humans, all they do and did throughout the storyline seems perfectly reasonable. And makes the point that the gods are just artifically created stockpiles of souls even more devestating for any follower of a god throughout the game.

This one of the most non-linear RPGs I ever played over the last 10 years. You can basicly skip 80% of it's content; you can go basically anywhere right from the start, except for one town, you can do almost all of the content in any order you like. And yet people still complain. In order to have satisfying storytelling, you need to cut down on some of the variables and create bottlenecks. That's the nature of the matter. You just can't create a completely non-linear story within a reasonable game budget. Especially not if you are heavily limited in your budget by crowdfunding. And here it is, a game that is still ridicolously large for it's budget (easily 70+ game hours on PotD difficulty ... that is three times the size of most AAA releases.). Seriously, people these days... PS: But I agree on the riot stuff. I wish there were more options to talk the rioters out. In general, I feel that there should be more options to talk in the game in general. Game is too fight-centric at many critical points. But that's nitpicking.

Regarding the mind dungeons, it would be cool (as in: "really ****ing amazingly cool") if that would involve some inception-type of plot, where you can basicly try to manipulate the soul of someone to do whatever you feel is right, without the person you "invaded" noticing any external manipulation. There's so many possibilities with that idea alone... I really wonder why they discarded this idea and I really, really hope we will see this in the sequel or expansion.

I agree that it doesn't make much sense for Sagani and Pallegina, as they have the least "drive" in their motifs. But for all other characters, it pretty much makes sense: Edér: As a goody-two-shoes and also kind of an airhead, I wouldn't expect him to complain if it's about stopping the bad guy. Durance: Obvious why he would come along. His backstory was all about how his goddess has forsakened him; obviously he would take the leap just to show them his middlefinger. Grieving Mother: GM has the strongest motif of all characters to follow the PC. Fixing waidwen's legacy, getting redeemed and her memory erased. Hiravias: He is all about the hunt and "eye for an eye" ... I think it feels pretty natural that he wants to slay the bad guy. Aloth: Well... protesting against his former master, I guess? He's one of the weaker candidates for the jump, imho, even though he's probably connected to the main story more than anyone else.

I agree that the amount of companion comments and companion-initiated dialogue in the game is somewhat lacking. But so is Aloth's character in general. I found him to be one of the most interesting characters at first, but then I pretty much lost interest as his story and character were just not developed at all. His backstory was a one-trick pony. His second personality rarely ever showed up in the game, so whenever a character made a comment about it, I was like "What the heck? That's a thing?". The limited amount of dialogue made sense for more straightforward characters like Eder and Hiravias. But for a character defined by dialogue, it's obviously a bad thing not to have enough dialogue to showcase his issues. The two most talkative characters were easily Durance and GM. Which is kind of ironical for the latter. Aloth just doesn't have the same depth, imho.