Orillion

You revert to what you originally cropped it to. I prefer to work with square images that contain a little more than everything that'll actually appear in the finished portraits, just so I can afford to be a little sloppy around the edges. If you're working from something that's already a POE-sized portrait, then yeah, you want to revert to the uncropped image any time it comes up.

Turning off telemetry helped a lot, but I'm still getting it in conversations regardless.

It's an attack. You use it on things you want dead (though this may include party members!)

I believe the option of asking Edér who he is is there intentionally even for people who "imported" him, because he's probably like that in some of the premade histories, and new players might want a proper introduction. It's a "result" of choices in PoE because you didn't kill him/get him killed.

I can promise it's not a uniquely Steam issue. I also noticed that the window closes and reopens very quickly when the stuttering happens.

I'm not sure what you're seeing, but the only thing I called "actual art" was pictures that were not screenshots from another game.

I did a tutorial on watercolours via the GIMP: https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/97149-tutorial-watercolor-portraits-in-the-gimp/ It gots pictures and everything! And what turned out not to be a great example picture, but I was almost done with the guide by the time I realized...

There's an awful lot of requests for watercolour versions of portraits in the portraits thread, and I figured that it wouldn't hurt to at least throw an alternative to asking other people out there, whether anyone uses it or not. For this process, you need: The GIMP (https://www.gimp.org) I'm using version 2.8.14, so some things might look different, but hopefully not. A non-circular brush for the GIMP. I think the Acrylic 1 brush that I use comes standard, but I could be wrong A little bit of patience and willingness to experiment It'd probably help to have a portrait handy too A canvas background, provided by Obsidian: What you don't need: Any artistic ability whatsoever Even that steady a hand, really For the tutorial, I wanted to use a portrait more similar to actual artwork than the disparate screenshots I used to make my own portraits. After much deliberation, I settled on this piece, Druid in Green, Druid in Blue, by Isriana: (Original: https://isriana.deviantart.com/art/Druid-in-Green-Druid-in-Blue-558904387) We're going to be portrait-ing the druid in blue, in this case. She's obviously a Pale Elf, it works. The first step, obviously, is to open up the image in the GIMP. If you're working with the original (recommended), crop it to a squareish area that contains definitely every part of the image you want to use. I think the best practise here is to zoom in a little bit more for the regular portrait, then out a bit for the watercolours, so the sides of the head are (ideally) not "hanging off" the sides of the watercolour. Secondly, if you need to, now's a good time to crop the image for your main portraits. Remember, the sizes are 210×330 for the _lg one, and 76×96 for the _sm one. ... Now revert to the original image. Create a duplicate layer (it's the image of the stacked photos on the layer dialogue, or right click and select it). This is what I call the "Blur Layer." In short, we need to blur the original picture a bit; watercolours are not super great on fine details, and we can almost see Ms. Druid's pores here. Also, it helps for the next layer we're going to make. So, go to Filters->Blur->Selective Gaussian Blur and set the settings hereabouts. Specifically, you want a Blur Radius relative to the size of the image (something huge and detailed needs a higher blur radius, whereas you can probably drop it to 8 if the image is already portrait-sized). Also, set the Max Delta high, and slowly reduce it bit by bit until the facial details are good and visible. You don't want them to be sharp, but you should be able to make out the character's eyes in good detail. After setting that up, duplicate the Blur layer as before, twice. The top layer we'll call the Edge layer, for reasons that will become obvious. The middle layer we'll call the Watercolour layer, as that's the one that'll be doing all the "work" once we get to it. You can hide the Background layer, if you want to. We're done with it. First we'll work on the Edge layer, since it gives a good foundation for the next step. go to Filters->Edge-Detect->Edge and mess with the settings a bit. On my other pictures, the Robertson projection looked best. Here, I settled on the Laplace projection. In either case, you want the "Amount" to be about 4. The main thing you're looking for is maximum detail along the natural lines of the picture. Once that's done, invert the picture (Colors->Invert) and set the layer blend mode (located near the top of the Layer window) to Multiply. Set the opacity to somewhere around 85%, whatever looks best. Your lines might also look overly... loud. Go to Colors->Hue-Saturation and adjust the Saturation of the Edge layer to ~-40, or whatever looks best. Okay, so what sorcery was that? Well, We used Edge to get nice, sharp lines, but it made the whole picture look like a still from Take On Me, if Take On Me was a psychedelic rock opera. We set the blend mode to Multiply, which multiplies the pixel values of the layer below by the pixel values of the layer you're on to determine what the result looks like. Because we inverted the image first, most of the pixels were just being multiplied by 100%. The ones that were not were the lines. Because the lines tend to come out as highly saturated colours, we reduced that to make them look more grey. So in the end we were multiplying the pixels we want to be the lines by almost-black (or close to 0% across the board), making all their numbers, well, almost-black. Oh, and messing with the opacity of the layer just makes the effect less extreme. It's... a bit of a mess to explain colours in mathematical terms. Hopefully it's still clear. Multiply by almost zero, get almost zero. Next up we're tackling the Watercolours layer. First, invert it like we did the Edge layer (Colors->Invert). Then, set the blend mode to Dodge. Next, set up your brush: Make sure you're on the Paintbrush tool, completely black colour (#000000), set the brush type to something non-circular (Acrylic 01 is the name of mine, and I'm pretty sure it comes standard with the GIMP) and the brush opacity to something very low, like 7%. Make sure the size is something comfortably high; we're going to be stroking it broadly across the picture, so you don't have to be shy here. (my brush size there is 60, but I wound up going with something like 190) Next up, start brushing and watch the magic happen. The colours should slowly begin to emerge as you brush. Essentially what you're doing here is brushing away the watercolours layer, allowing the Blur layer below to shine through. It gives you those nice, pale colours that resemble watercolours in a pattern that looks more or less brushed by hand. This is after a couple brushes. You kind of have to use your best judgment on when to stop, unfortunately. There's no way to automate this. When you're done brushing the Watercolours layer, you should ultimately end up with something that looks simpler and lighter than the original image. Then comes the rather hellish part. You need to cut the character out of the background. I probably should have mentioned that you can do this part at the start, and it often works more easily then. You have to leave in some background around the character to get the Edge filter to pick up the edges of the character properly, so you still have to partially cut them out of the background after, but it's possible to cut it close enough that you don't have to, yet still get the hard edges. Ultimately, it's largely up to the image itself whether it'll work. Anyway, right-click inside of the layer window and select "New from Visible," then hide all the other layers. Make sure the new layer has an alpha channel (right click it and see if "Add Alpha Channel" is greyed out), and if not add one. Switch to the Eraser tool, and decide whether you're going for the soft, round brush (called "2. Hardness 050" in the GIMP) or the same brush you used for the Watercolour layer. The soft brush is good for giving you a more gradual edge, which can look better on the finished product, but the acrylic brush gives a more naturalistic edge. Again, best judgment. Remove everything but the character themselves, and don't worry about the details on the outer edges of the image (remember, we're only using a small subset of the whole thing, in the end). You'll probably have to adjust your brush size (and opacity, perhaps) more than once before you're done. Once you're done, CTRL+C the image and open up your canvas background as a new image. Paste the image on as a new layer (CTRL+V, then right click "Floating Selection (Pasted Layer)" in the layers background and pick "To New Layer"). Mess with it as needed. I don't really know how the actual images will translate into the game (since I'm not in the beta or anything) but I think you want them to basically fill the middle of the image. Here's where the next bit of Best Judgment™ comes into play. Sometimes the image looks fine when you paste it in. You can just call it a day there. In my case here, the lines were a little bit indistinct around the edges, and the colours are a little too bright (in the base image, too, I think) to really work as-is. Here's what I did: Make two copies of the layer. The middle copy is in Normal blend mode, but really low in opacity (like 25%, tops). The top layer is Multiply, because we need the picture to look nice and clear on the darker background. Set the opacity to something high, like 85%. The bottom layer is the foundation, set to Burn at 100% opacity. At this stage, basically anything goes. Mess with adding more layers, experiment with blend modes, hue/saturation, whatever. Once you're happy with it, resize the whole image (Image->Resize or else it just does the one layer) and set it to 90×141 for the _convo image, and then crop and resize to 76×96 for the _si image. Thankfully, you can avoid a lot of fine-tuning just off of how small the final pictures are. ... It's not as good as drawing them by hand, but doing this by hand is not even close to being an option for me, so finding a solution that requires as little of that as possible was a priority. If anything I did (or the reason for doing it) was unclear, please let me know in the topic and I can either answer there or amend the original post. Hopefully this gets more people doing their own watercolour portraits so there's plenty for the game's release on Tuesday!

Common wisdom suggests the current wizard subclasses are, in no uncertain terms, completely not worth it, since you're giving up two entire schools of magic for an always-underwhelming bonus and one power level (which is just as often increased duration as increased damage/effect/whatever) on your school's spells.

Well, the easy way (for the first game) would be to look at the character's class, too. If they're a Paladin, Fighter, Rogue, Ranger, Barbarian, or Monk, they used physical might. If they're a Chanter, Cipher, Druid, Priest, or Wizard, it was magic of some sort. Easier still is just not acknowledging specifics: With the aid of <CHARNAME>, the metal bars proved no obstacle for the party.

Not if they un**** the Might stat checks in dialogues. Literally all they need to do is fluff it differently, and it works better than the Strength/Resolve split.

Not for those two classes, no. Especially not for BOTH of those two classes. If you want to make a Templar you better want a VERY specific thing, otherwise you're forced to compromise pretty heavily in both roleplaying and mechanical choices. Mind you, a lot of this could be avoided if they would just NOT have things tied to your character's reputation, but alas, keeping archaic notions of enforcing a code of conduct became a design choice at some point.

It's worth mentioning that flavourwise, Chanters really are old-school necromancers. Their powers are derived from more or less speaking to lingering dead and using their ancestral memories of old stories to produce magical effects. Honestly, if "Necromancer" is what you want, pure chanter is going to give you that much more than anything D&D or Diablo throws at you, no need to combine it with stuff.

So I am by and large very particular about my portraits' facial features, but completely lack the manual dexterity to draw, so I tend to pull my portraits from other games which DO have facial character customization, to... mixed results. Honestly, screenshots make poor portraits. But, I'm also pretty good with the GIMP, so I took the time to figure out a method for converting a screenshot into a decent-looking portrait, without really needing to do any of it by hand. I couldn't figure out how to get them to look painted (at the scale I was working with, anyway) but they do look sketched in pencil and coloured similarly. Not perfect, but certainly good enough. Then I did the same thing for the watercolours. **** me that was a lot of work. AND they barely look like the ones in-game because I based them more off of how the NPC portraits were pitched on Fig (or how I remembered them looking, at any rate). So my question is this: Would anyone be interested in a tutorial on how to do this? I would just up and write it, but that's like a four-hour project we're talking about, if I bother to illustrate it (and I would) and I've put that kind of time into WAY too many projects like this lately, that absolutely nobody has cared about, to risk doing it again.

I want a brigantine so I can wear my brigandine on my brigantine and send anyone who disagrees to the brig. Just hope we don't hit a 'burg.

I don't have access to the beta, but I plan to make my first character a Darcozzi/Enchanter. Judging by the wiki, a whole lot of enchantment spells have a very short cast time and no recovery period, so it should work out okay with a character who'll be spending all his time in melee. For flavour, I also mean to give him a large shield, then counteract some of the accuracy penalty by usually equipping a rapier.

Loads of critters are owned and not shared by WotC, such as Illithids (even though they're clearly Cthulhu-derived) and Beholders. On the other hand, most of the monster manuals tend to just be things from mythology, and those obviously can't be trademarked. Generally speaking, though, if you can't find a mythological (or fairy-tale) instance of a particular beast, it's best not to use it.

Wizards always know all their spells now. When you equip a grimoire, you can cast the spells in that grimoire in addition to the ones you already know, but only while you have it equipped, so no learning spells from grimoires anymore. Ah, I see. So I can still choose to never change my grimoire, but doing so provides an actual advantage now. I see. And it seems pretty likely it won't be hot-swappable in the middle of combat now, unless they find a way to justify ALL trinkets being hot-swappable.

IE mod optionally gave NPC/Adventurer Paladins their regular bonuses/penalties based on the main character's reputations (including Pallegina w/ customizable preferred reputations if you didn't agree with the defaults), but they still missed out on the talents for ignoring conflicting reputation penalties, so ultimately it enforced potentially multiple behaviour requirements on your main character, and (as with any class or background that doesn't apply to your main) didn't offer any special dialog options. IE mod's also been updated to properly support 3.05, for what it's worth.

Also, Caed Nua pretty much rewarded you for taking several weeks out of your quest just to sit and let things get built; after all, if you were adventuring, you were probably passing turns, effectively missing out on rewards because you felt a sense of urgency. Mixing a lower overall adventuring income with some form of a better sense of investment would be ideal, I think.

Mine doesn't melt, but a performance patch for PoE would be grand, especially if it also reduces load times.

Most of those talents were "when you use <ability that you might not even take>, a secondary effect happens." They were not by any means class-changing effects. Some, like the Darcozzi Paladini one, were down to being flavour more than function (woo, 5 DR against the least-used element in the game). So, if asking for better distinction between orders/deities is selfish, then so too is it selfish to ask for a fish dinner when everybody else is having steak and they served you hot dogs with THREE(!) choices of condiment.

I'm not sure where the controversy is here. Slow mode is the new default option in the menu, apparently for people who don't fine-tune their options but DO end up complaining about these things. It's like three clicks to change, tops.

Clergy for more regions would be welcome. I never got a sense that Aedyr was somehow special in that regard. Also anything implying law enforcement for one of my adventurers. I always found it odd that the closest thing to a guardsman in backgrounds was mercenary (though mercenary does allow your main to say he was a constable, so I guess the name is just a lot broader than it implies at first).

I'm not sure how "each attack/debuff/otherwise hostile ability comes with a heal/support/otherwise supportive one which shares its uses per encounter" sounds anything like Diablo 3, but whatever. Full casters (save for Wizards, but even then they can have multiple grimoires) get all of their spells each odd level. I fail to see how applying a similar dynamic to a class that can't really decide whether it's a fire-based damage-dealer or a full support tank makes it less tactically interesting. "Do I burn everything or wait to see if I need to heal?" vs. "Yes, I burn everything because there's literally no reason not to."