Jump to content

Blovski

Members
  • Posts

    218
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Blovski

  1. I did feel the characters were a bit of a backwards step so far. Pallegina's anti-religious streak is more interesting than her pro-Vailian streak. The question mark about her character is how you can have a rigid idealist fanatically devoted to a venal scattered culture with no particular moral compass and I just think the game didn't even try to answer that. I never saw more than passing comments that suggested that she thought anything Vailia did was good. I also kind of feel that Vailia is the faction with the fewest real rational arguments for it in the game and really needed the support. Didn't like her much. Eder is a bit of an exception for me; I think he basically continued to work as in the first game and I really enjoyed his storyline. Aloth I didn't hugely like in the first game and I didn't really take him anywhere because of that so not sure how much value he adds. That said, I did like his quest a lot. Xoti... just... what? Just an incredibly silly character in some ways (like, seriously, devotee of the harvest god holding a sickle...). I mean, I think there was something to say for her in places but overall I think the arc was just not substantial enough and with the bug on triggering companion conflicts super quickly her extreme sulking at Pallegina seemed a little overboard. Seemed a bit overdone without the serious lore value that Durance had in the first game. Also the fact she declared her love for me almost randomly was bizarre. Maia - I really liked Maia tbh. Ishi was fun, I felt the romance was reasonable and bittersweet. I think as with Pallegina I wanted a little more justification of why she backs Rauatai but it wasn't nearly as incongruous. Serafen - was fine. I kinda think mind-reading furry pirate is enough of a USP but I also didn't really think his quest told us much. Not sure how much more you get out of him if you go full pirate. Tekehu - nice mixture of spoiled kid and good guy. Fun to take around and I felt that his immaturity lent him a lot of depth in his discussions. Sidekicks - only found two and found it pretty hard to care about either of them.
  2. I have no saves for unfortunately. 1. In my game I sided with Rauatai with Pallegina and Tekehu in my party at the time. Tekehu triggered a discussion and left the party, Pallegina did not even comment, which seems like it absolutely can't be right. She even has a comment when you murder Onekaza to take over the city for Rauatai. Pallegina didn't get turned out by VTC in the save. 2. Maia with an additional weapons slot compulsively unequips it between fights.
  3. I feel TB is really jarring for power-fantasy type games. It made sense for Fallout because it was a brutal post-apocalyptic verisimilitudey world where a bad turn vs. an SMG would kill you outright but I don't understand why Inxile would map that onto a Planescape sequel for any reason other than that they already have the tech...
  4. It sounds like that might be what they did. From that interview Avellone did a while back, he said others at Obsidian had to "rein him in." The real question is why someone in his position, with his level of experience, should have to be reined in at all. He was the creative executive of the company -- shouldn't he be able to know when he's being wordy and adjust? If he can't do that on his own, it makes it less of a shock that he's no longer in that role. Yeah, I felt like the overall approach to companions was a bit at odds with the more avant-gardist leanings of Grieving Mother and Durance and that being voiced really hurts long dialogues. I like Durance and find Grieving Mother intriguing but never seem to get through her dialogue but I feel like you need more of a mix of ways of interacting with them.
  5. Chris does not take credit for those characters as they were largely re-written by the other writers, so I imagine issues such as that (and whatever problems people have with GM) are largely in part due to re-writes and cuts. I thought Durance, GM (despite HORRIBLE VO), Eder and Aloth were good companions but Eder and Aloth needed more content IMO. Kana, Sagani and Pallegina were boring and I didn't use Hiravias much because I got him last. Has there been anything posted about what and how much was rewritten? I saw the interview where he said he had to be reined in. When I read those characters, I can hear that Avellone cadence. It's hard to tell how much was rewrites and how much was cuts, but they both sound consistently like Avellonian didacts. In either case what makes me sad is that I have to go so far back to find a character that he wrote that hooked me. Maybe these didn't come out how he wanted, but you'd think somewhere between KOTOR 2 and New Vegas there'd be something in there that's going to stand the test of time the way Torment has so far. I don't see it. His characters are caricatures now, barely recognizable as human. They are philosophies or idiosyncrasies that talk to you. I see skill in the things he writes these days, but no soul. I feel like Dead Money's companions were wonderful. The actual gameplay experience was a flop because the limitations of the Fallout engine don't lend themselves to the kind of experience it was shooting for.
  6. I don't entirely think it's set in stone. The numbers modelled there don't factor in accuracy or overkill and with Rangers in particular, Stunning Shot is just so much stronger on bows than on any other weapon and obviously trading out penetrating shot for gunner, I think you more or less match up to firearms with more granular and reliable damage in exchange for slightly less overall damage output. The new Stormcaller bow would eliminate a lot of the tough enemies for bow classes (because plate armour and Adra Animats both lack electrical DR) The 'decent' light armour includes Gwisk Glas, which gives you +2 Might and Second Chance, imo one of the best sets in the game.
  7. The spellcaster will be significantly less accurate (10 for wizards/druids/priests, 5 for ciphers - with no talents) and will have to spread their stats thinner to effectively fulfil their other roles and don't get a free pet to peel any opponent that gets past the frontline. With spellbound weapons and scrolls, a ranger can effectively use magic *better* than most spellcasters, because they have a higher accuracy. Of course, that's not the whole story, but there are reasons to take rangers and with the significant improvements to pets it's a better time than ever to play as one.
  8. Good research in that thread - didn't know about the different endurance and attack speeds. I've kind of seen the point of the pet in this build as an extra engage and way of applying flanked and stunning shot (and stalkers link if you take it) (but that's partly due to how buggered the ACs were by fatigue on release). Going to give a 2.0 PotD ranger a go after my current Paladin game. Theorycrafting - With the big buff to resilient companion, Bear is no longer a big improvement with an extra 2-6 DR on the cards for all ACs and apparently his bonus cut from 3 to 2 DR. AC deflection isn't great anyway and has presumably been lowered by the perception change, which means that I feel the extra 7 from Antelope is probably less meaningful. The Boar's much bigger endurance almost certainly makes it the best tanking pet. Wolf/Antelope are, curiously, more effective for damage than the big ones but I'm not sure about how the maths works out compared to the Boar's undefined might bonus. Lion's AoE debuff is still a useful unique help for your frontline and benefits from accuracy increases, as well as making it a little easier to hit with other spells, Lion's tanking is up to scratch with basically all of the pets except Bear and Wolf. One last note is that the Wolf has the highest intelligence, so if you're planning on going for takedown or the like, the Wolf gets more out of it. Really good changes to the pets overall. Think it's a boar for me on the next run.
  9. Cheers, didn't know about this - looking them up quickly, I'd definitely say that bears, wolves and maybe lions stand out a bit more and that the Resilient Companion trait is definitely in the interesting choices list now.
  10. Just updating this quickly for 2.0 and above. Not really all tested in the field yet but the logic should hold out. Systems changes: PER is more valuable for the Ranger now, you can still focus down enemy squishies fast enough that the def. loss shouldn't hurt you and the accuracy gain is a nice addition. Some enemies (I believe Fire Elementals in particular) are now completely immune to piercing damage. You will need an alternative source of damage (scepter, spellbound stuff & Stormcaller stand out) more than was previously the case. This is a nice change. New items: Of the soulbound weapons, Stormcaller is the relevant one and is a significant upgrade even over Lenas Er. As proficiencies transfer to soulbound weapons, this doesn't change the balance of power towards peasant weapon proficiency at all. Sabra Marie is of interest to Warbow users. Higher crit damage is *really* good on Rangers and it generally looks very substantial with potential to confuse on Crit. Worth considering. New talents: Of the cross-class talents, the most interesting one for the Rangerer build is Enigma's Charm, which gives you an early source of single-target crowd control targeting a different defence and, as always, benefits from high accuracy. Prestidigitator's Charm would give you another damage type but I'm not sure it's worth it. Gallant's Focus is a tad more accuracy but it's not a big bonus and I honestly feel you could get something more intriguing instead. The rest aren't terribly relevant, it's a shame the Barbarian one is per rest. Of the new Ranger talents, Play Dead looks fun but I don't think it's competitive with Stunning Shots in terms of utility and uniqueness. Twinned Shots seems like a shoe-in for this build. I don't know whether it's compatible with Vicious Aim. --- Overall, that's a couple of really big new things for this style of Ranger and a few interesting little options. I'll probably report back once I've tried some of this stuff out.
  11. 1. Yes. Also, I think NPCs should offer unique gameplay things that premades don't. Be that an extra trait, a special animal companion, cool gear. Always good to have this stuff. 2. Not convinced. In a RTWP game micromanagement is fine at all levels and parties of less than 6 mean less NPCs, less banter and less tactical options. 3. I feel Pillars of Eternity does this very well compared to the much more rock/paper/scissors clusterfumble of the AD&D system. You don't have different spells to beat the fourth, fifth and seventh level spell protections or stuff like that and they're working with a relatively limited selection of status effects. 4. I feel long boss fights have to have some emergent gameplay, granular challenge or require specific learning and approaches to be satisfying. The whole HERE'S A BOX TO FIGHT A BIG THING IN doesn't make for great gameplay. 5. It's an abstraction. I feel it works OK. 6. I half agree. Ultimately I like the NPCs. I almost feel like they're voiced too much, as long voiceovers kind of encourage skipping.
  12. Riiight. Reason for backline/frontline dichotomy being so absurdly pronounced is abysmal AI, not the stat system. Might/Dex are really not the rulers for all classes, let's be honest, and unlike AD&D it doesn't require dump stats and absurdly high stats to make a character reasonably effective. Let's look at the AD&D ranger, then (aside from the fact you're mashing together AD&D and D&D 3rd edition rules in your critique?): Any self-respecting AD&D ranger will have 18 Str/18 Dex/18 Con/14+ Wiz/3 Int/3 Cha, or they won't be able to use composite bows. They will wear Studded Leather armour if they have to sneak and whatever armour fits with their max dex bonus otherwise. They are balanced against fighters largely by progressing at a slower rate. Their sneak skills will depend entirely on level. AD&D ranger has two free points of dual wield, which is silly and largely the result of Drizzt fanboyism (and, again, pre-defining your character for you) but never mind that. Much of AD&D's balance and class differentiation comes from arbitrary equipment restrictions and there is clearly an optimal build for any single class character. Blending in 'in nature' was never a thing in AD&D games, nor was evasion; rangers did get a smattering of low-level druid spells and a charm animal ability. Also, favoured enemy, but in AD&D that tended to just be a matter of getting a bonus against a few small, difficult sections of the game and pity the poor bugger who wasted their one favoured enemy slot on Gibberlings... The kits from BG 2 were cool, but it's telling that the only real way of balancing them was further arbitrary equipment restrictions. People tend to forget that until the Archer kit came along the only reason for you to take a ranged Ranger was that you wouldn't be wearing good armour if you were stealthing. Now, looking at PoE. The Ranger gets the best ranged perks in the game, a free animal companion of your choice, which is more or less like having a permanent summon you have to be a little more careful with, the amazing binding roots skill (5/day, 30s stuck, with meaningful debuffs), a stunlock ability, driving flight. Your pet should not be dying all the time, even on PotD if you manage them even passably well in 1.05. A ranger in PoE can wear any kind of armour, favours high might, dex, per and resolve but can be spec'd to have more defensive attributes if desired. There are still a few issues, mostly that the animal companion can't really be meaningfully further specialised and its perks don't feed off your initial companion choice, which makes a beastmaster type character somewhat unappealing on harder difficulties. Where the ranger needs to be fixed is to make the Animal Companion perks a second route of specialisation, rather than adding in more melee abilities just because people expect them. Not to knock the AD&D classes, they did make for some interesting stuff, but invariably they were basically pre-built for you until you got Baldur's Gate 2's really amazing selection of loot (which was what all the specialisation in the game was about). Kits arguably made them even more pre-built. PoE's system is a more compelling, customisable one. It's a shame that the lack of AI massively promotes tank and spank builds.
  13. So, I've had a couple of runs on both Hard and POTD with relatively dedicated tank and spank parties and I want to try something a little different. Not least because melee item loot was never terribly important to me, which seems a shame. Considering trying to run the game without ranged weapon specialists for the sake of... science, I guess? My theory is, I want a team of a Cipher and a Rogue built for Deflection, using Escape to target the enemy backline and simultaneously rake the frontline with ectopsychic echo before they get a nerf for that in, which leaves me with four slots. Probably a Priest because I've not used one for ages and because I figure their buffs will be a massive help if I can't rely on anyone being miles away from fire abusing the terrible AI, so that's three spots. I'm tempted by wizards for the 1.05 buffs but then I just played a tank wizard. The idea of not using a druid makes me a little sad when I think about the Hold Beast spell but I've kind of overplayed them, too. Which leaves: Ranger, Chanter, Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin, Monk. I tried a Monk on my second runthrough and it didn't really do it for me. I can't tell if I just built them wrong, though. Chanters are very cool but I'm not sure what they really *add* to a melee party where move speed and reload aren't tremendously important... any ideas for chant selection? Rangers... nopenopenope from a melee perspective. Pet talents just don't let you specialise enough. Fighters are the dog's bollocks but a wall-of-stone fighter just doesn't appeal at the moment, anyone working with squishier damage dealing Fighters? Anywayanyway, anyone got any suggestions? I want to keep the focus mostly to melee as the primary damage output, though I'm painfully aware that a good CCer would make a lot of difference to the group.
  14. This was the AD&D approach. It led to a real supremacy of dump stats, because the difference between an 18 Str and 19 Str fighter was colossal but the difference between a 10 and 13 Str one was negligible.
  15. Oh man, we must have been playing a different game!!! Did you manage to ever get your cipher to level 11? Amplified wave - (maybe shoot blunderbuss if bored) - amplified wave - shoot blunderbuss - amplified wave. Everything in a 12m radius dead and spent the -entire- fight on the ground. I would definitely love to hear how well you can play the druid and wizard to beat that but such a large margin, I really would! As of 1.05 blunderbuss isn't working as well for focus gen unless you use drugs. It is possible to use arbalest/arquebus/pistol/dual sabers to almost the same effect though. You can also open with only 1 AW now. The big problems of AW is that it targets fort, which is quite high for most tough enemies. So while AW spam obliterates trash encounters it doesn't work that well in many boss fights. Priest/Wiz otoh have spells that work very well in most cases. They would never outdamage a level 11+ cipher though, since he racks up damage like crazy on trash encounters. But to me it is weird how people rate the class performance on damage dealt in trash fights, which has nothing to do with your party/class effectiveness. The only thing trash fight performance influences is clear speed. That said, Ciphers have a lot of excellent abilities that target tough enemies' Will defences, a couple of decent anti-reflex ones, and especially abilities which can massively lower enemy will to make other skills work better. Also, targeting Fort is incredible vs. Vithracks, which are one of the toughest opponents in the game right now imo.
  16. Still above the curve a bit. The changes make them make sense, imo. Yes, well-used wizards/druids are great but unlike the Cipher they have a finite limit to resources. The good Cipher spells are incredible (Mental Binding, Ectopsychic Echo, Amplifying Wave, Mind Shield) and they have a reasonable amount of variety.
  17. I agree. Option 1 should have resulted in a vorpal sword and +10 armor. Option 2 should have given +10 armor and a vorpal sword. Option 3 should have given 1 million copper pieces and unlocked a merchant who sells vorpal swords and +10 armor. After 11 years, you'd think that Obsidian would understand what real Choice & Consequenses looks like in a true RPG. It's a problem because the game never clearly shows you what the results are (and, indeed, with the room in Od Nua Level 13, never tells you why you can't access it) and because the stronghold bonuses are completely trivial either way (compared to, say, getting a hireling). Making it really pronounced (say, +10 Security, -8 Prestige and vice versa or the like) would help. Also, adding some sort of tiny perk (be it +1 to a defence, +1 to some sort of niche DR like Corrosion or whatever) would give you both a place to *show* you that the choice matters and some consequence for your character throughout the game, however small.
  18. Paladin is *excellent* for its intended purpose. It is a tank. It can heal, "resurrect", buff the party with auras, and be virtually immortal. It is not a high damage class and expert players are able to make the higher damage classes tough enough, making the class less desirable amongst the more hard core players. Folks that just want to play the darn game once, casually, might love to have such a durable character that can bring the priest or mage back up mid fight. I have had one in several parties and there is not a thing wrong with it. Ranger has a major flaw in that loss of the pet has too big an impact on its performance. If that were fixed the class would be fine. Even with this flaw, it does strong dps from a distance, which has a lot of merits. Its not a bad class, it just has a flaw. Honestly, worst class award for me goes to the wizard. Small subset of spells in each book makes knowing a bunch of spells moot, and having to rest to recover them stinks, it lacks endurance, it lacks accuracy (making many spells easy to resist), and it lacks for punishing damage dealing magic; you are usually better off to just use debuffing spells to enable melee attacks because magic damage is too low. Paladins: I don't see them as "excellent" as is. They may be decent at what they do, but in all honesty, I think that the real flaw with them is the concept of paladin as "DnD Warlord". I'd rather paladins be more of a Holy Warrior class where their abilities focused entirely on making them more capable combatants, not in making allies better. Rangers: Agree. If that death of the AC penalty was removed or severely reduced, it'd be a great improvement. Wizards: Oh, boo-hoo. Wizards have to rest to get their spells back, and they have to be a little more circumspect about using the spells they do have, rather than being able to dump their entire bunch of spells each and every engagement. Boo-frickin'-hoo. Paladins, again, are excellent at staying alive and providing a secondary healing capability. One can argue how much that is needed, but that is what they are very good at doing. I would say it is perfect for the guy that just plays the game thru one time on normal and then moves on. Wizards: its the package deal. Any one of these issues is indeed a lame thing to whine about, but the total package is weak. It has no redeeming qualities compared to the cipher until very late game, and then only on 2 or 3 endgame boss fights where you do indeed drop all the spells (from a tailored set for that boss) in the one fight. If it could use any spell known but only a few per rest, that would make it more of a useful choice vs a cipher. As it stands, though, the cipher is simply more useful -- I can clear 2 maps without a rest with a cipher. The wizard lasts about 1/3 as many fights, assuming that I cast 1-2 spells per fight regardless of which caster is in the group. The resting aggravation could be changed and that would be fine -- instead of having to have these mysterious consumed items (what are they, disposable tents??) make it 1 rest per 24 hour period, but do it anywhere you like as much as you like. Trucking back to town because you used your tent up for the wizard is just a timewasting mechanic of extreme annoyance. Wizards... eh I disagree. Wizard spells are a bit more versatile than cipher spells (Eldritch Aim, Chill Fog, Fan of Flames etc.), tend to target a wider range of defences, are less contingent on having well-positioned allies to stick them on and with the 1.05 change, Ciphers are no longer just going to be able to drop all the bombs at the start of the fight, and if you're rolling on POTD, you're going to have to rest when your frontliners run out of health anyway, at least for the early game, if you're taking challenging fights. I mean, Ciphers are glorious and are going to continue to be so but Wizards are really good. The spell rationing may not sit well with some but I think that's a playstyle thing rather than a problem with the class.
  19. There is a certain amount of circular logic here and the obsession over 'flexibility' as a matter of ranged vs. melee is completely in the way of practically balancing the class as is. Currently, the real choices for rangers are between a personal focus on ranged combat or on having a stronger animal companion or something in between. The ranger has a load of excellent and meaningfully specialising talents and choices on the ranged combat side (Swift Aim vs Vicious Aim, stunning shots or not, guns or bows) but the Animal Companion talents don't really stack up a lot of the time, simply because the AC's survivability doesn't really enable them to and because, put together, they don't add up to a specialised Animal Companion, rather a slightly tougher generic one. In a game where specialists are more important than all-rounders, this is the balance issue that actually needs fixing, not just letting Rangers do the exact same thing they do now but with clubs. I'd love to see the AC feats provide substantial benefits based on what the Animal Companion chosen is, though I accept that might not be easy to do. Lions gaining a better/more frequent roar, Bears getting a bit tougher, Antelope secondary defences shooting up, etc. would all result in a real increase in flexibility in a Ranger build.
  20. A few of the traps are astonishingly powerful when used by the player, most of them have overly low damage. They're not really ever any threat to the party honestly either, though, unless you stumble across one at the start of a fight.
  21. No more so than with any other class. Rangers have the best aim of any class and some cool skills and with the AC fix and marked prey having no recovery time I think they'll be more useable than ever. I find Paladins a bit hard to really enjoy and some of their class skills (especially revive) and the kit abilities are very odd in their design. Also, kinda leans towards Paladins being a PC with the way Faith and Conviction work.
  22. Load times haven't been an issue for me since the last patch. Castle sim is woefully undercooked. Lack of prebuffing is a design choice, which makes sense for the game. Tbh, Baldur 1's Gate's magical weapons were almost invariably just matters of flat bonuses rather than interesting choices. Crafting in PoE is expensive and actually a pretty good money sink. BG didn't really have much for you to spend your money on (Taerom's stuff, High Hedge stuff, loads of stupidly overpowered wands), even if it was better at giving you a notion of scarcity at the very beginning. I stay tight-belted in PoE longer than I would in BG 1, probably because I'm constantly crafting, making scrolls and potions, dumping money on a few stronghold upgrades, buying up Figurines, food and decent magic items. Admittedly that's going to fall apart whatever you do by act 3 if you're fighting a lot of people with expensive armour and guns but that's fine by me. While companions fall down to a matter of taste, I kind of think a lot of the appeal of BG1's companions is that they were drawn so broad and didn't have a lot to do. PoE's aren't really as strong as PS:T's companions, which are probably the best in any game ever, but I think they're a good bunch.
  23. I would love to see better modding options for PoE. To be honest, even having a modding subforum here would be huge for how easy it is to get into modding it, learn what's possible and what isn't etc.
  24. These kind of posts always dazzle me. I've got my butt handed to me on PotD on several different occasions. Be it in a ambush fight at Caed Nua where a group of virthaks (verthaks? the scarecrow-like dudes from the Endless Dungeon) start the fight by paralyzing my whole group before dominating two to three of my characters, or against some of the bounty groups which have so many dudes that they swarm my two tanks and then go straight for my back line throwing around disables and nukes as if they were confetti. Or the fight at the top level of the lighthouse where you just cannot tank the mobs properly and have to rely on buffs/heals/disables to let your squishies survive the onslaught. Maybe it's just me, but on PotD (and even on Hard) the game offers plenty of challenging encounters where I had to think about my formation, setup and some buffs/debuffs/disables to keep the enemies from tearing through my softer party members. Or maybe I just don't remember every fight that I eventually managed to win after five reloads as 'too easy' I agree completely. I've rerolled countless times in PotD mode and it's always an engaging combat experience, requiring forethought and finesse. Enemy AI may not be realistic (especially for sentient opponents), but the battles are always a reasonable challenge. The people who show up to complain about difficulty are just egomaniacs advertising their epeens. They really don't deserve your attention. I would like the game to be hard for the right reasons, tbh. Running The Endless Paths at lowish levels in my current PotD playthrough has been satisfying, partly because a lot of the encounters are designed such as to represent a real, mildly complex challenge to your party. If the AI was even just a little bit smarter, playing a tank/spank party on POTD would involve more tactics and positioning, and playing some other approach would be more gratifying by contrast.
×
×
  • Create New...