Hellraiser789

Simple, put class after attributes. If preserving the symmetry is that important. Culture affects starting gear as well, but that's really not all that important and I'd personally be fine with selecting culture before class and taking starting gear I don't want (since I'll be changing it out ASAP anyway). Makes more thematic sense as well IMO. Figure out where you come from before you figure out what you do. Of course, most of this is subjective so don't take me to be saying my opinions on this are the only ones. I do think it's pretty well agreed on that one way or the other, culture needs to be before attributes somehow. I was thinking that might be an option too, but then you would be picking your stats without knowing your class. Sure you could say "Im going to build a barbarian, so boost my STR, CON, & INT" but if you were brand new to the game and didnt know the class choices, that could be confusing, dont you think?

From what I can discern, its a minor thing on the flow of the character selection screen i.e. knowing where all your attributes are rather than finding out you had a +1 on Resolve already factored in from being from Aedyr and you've just changed that. Very minor. Maybe the current layout is fine as it is, as long as the culture bonus is actually added after selecting your culture. Rumsteak, you said exactly what I was thinking. Then people would be like "O sweet bonus resolve!", rather than "Hey, didnt I use to have 12 resolve instead of 11...?" Then, if you want to go back and change your stats, knowing that you are going to get an extra point of resolve, you can do that. Makes sense to me. But I also love the symmetry and would be sad to see it go... hahahah

Combat XP != Give us a game that we can easily break mechanically through the abuse of the system. It means reward me for doing things that aren't quests. Well them why should you get xp for quests? Why don't they just have you level up at plot relevant points in the game? Since the story and developer railroad is so important, why bother with having xp for anything else? Because RPGs are supposed to reward you for performing actions that are relevant to the game. And this is supposed to be a game that implements heavy combat and tactical fights, why WOULDNT you reward combat? Regardless of all the spiritual successor stuff, they promised tactical and rewarding combat as one of their biggest goals/promises/pillars/whatever you want to call it. If the combat isn't rewarding, then it needs to be improved - I think most people would prefer that over combat xp, but if the combat encounters DONT get better then people would like combat xp to tide them over. And you can make the point "where were you 2 years ago?" Well not everyone even knew about this 2 years ago. I heard WHISPERS of this like MAYBE last year at the earliest and I've been waiting for a game like BG for 10 years. And while I will agree, I'm sure most of the points made were made countless times before, from what I've heard the devs said "just wait til the beta - then you'll see how awesome it is." And now the beta is out and people are still iffy about it. Regardless of whether they implement combat xp or change anything, is it inherently wrong to voice your opinion? I'm sure it'll be a great game regardless, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't give our opinions to improve it. Even if they don't implement combat xp I'll still buy and play the game. And I think at the end of the day, everyone has the same goal - to make PoE the best game it can be. And you know what? After talking about it, I'm not sure quest only xp is a bad way to do it. Why? Because we TALKED about it and it seems to have some potential. Would you prefer I just accept everything and not ask questions because my intelligence is too low? Or maybe I should just not bother and say screw it and take my money elsewhere? Blatant attacks on the devs is one thing, but simple discussion is different. PS: I fully intend to get this game, and most likely will buy it regardless of reviews, videos, recommendations, etc, (and certainly regardless of what xp system they use - that's not even THAT big a deal for me) I am just making the point that not everyone necessarily feels that way PS - I apologize Immortalis for the quote I used. I misread your position and was mistaken in thinking you were pointing out that combat xp EQUALS abuse of the system. My bad.

I've gotta give gromnir that one. I didn't agree with half of what he said but his last paragraph IS a good point. I don't know what else needs to be fixed but if changing everything to combat xp would require so much work (to be fair they said it would not, so....) that another feature would be cut or it detracted from the quality of other areas, then I wouldn't mind not having it. OBJECTIVE xp, if implemented correctly, I might be willing to argue has more weight, but that's just my opinion. PS: Gromnir there IS a difference between quest only xp and objective xp, even if it's just a matter of how it's handled. For example in DA (not that this should be DA in any way) picking up lore objects gave xp. Was that part of a quest? Or finding new areas - gave xp. Also not part of a quest. There IS a difference even if you seem to think the two can be blurred together.

Gind XP is completely different than combat xp. In my experience, a lot of JRPGs require grinding in order to progress, but I dont think any of the IE games required that. Although maybe im just terrible at JRPGs....hahaha

Agree 100% with you Lephys. I think the bestiary thing might be a cool thing, but I would drop it every time if it meant OBJECTIVE XP. Personally, I think objective xp is 1000 times better than combat xp. I just don't know if it's actually a feasible solution. I mean, if combat is fun and it's explained, then I think it'd be great. Even if it's something like "hey watch out for the roads - there's all kinda of dangerous monsters out there, especially those giant beetles!" Not necessary, but SOME explaination is always better than none IMO. Basically OBJECTIVE XP > Quest-Only OR Combat XP Every Time

Yeah, its kind of like, DEV1: "Lets add all these super awesome and complex combat features, and make combat super challenging so it plays a huge role in our game!" DEV2: "But what about stealth players..?" DEV3:"O we will give them this little stealth ability and itll be cool." PLAYERS: "OMG IM GETTING PENALIZED FOR USING STEALTH IN A COMBAT HEAVY GAME!!!!" DEV2: "What did you do?!? You said you added stealth!" DEV3: "I DID! I just didnt think it was a big deal....fine lets make all xp quest xp so no one feels a need to participate in combat" DEV1: ".....but i worked so hard to make combat awesome...." PS: I didnt mean to attack anyone specifically with the above remarks, it just struck me as a pretty funny scenario...

I tend to agree. If every (or most) encounters were tailor made so that everything felt important, thats different. But the worry is that they wont be and youll get stuck killing a ton of trash mobs simply because you didnt invest in stealth, when this is SUPPOSED to be a COMBAT HEAVY game. Should I expect to be able to avoid all of the combat in a combat heavy game? I dont think so (cool feature though). Should I be penalized for going through combat in a COMBAT HEAVY GAME instead of stealthing through stuff? No. Combat heavy games usually reward combat. I think that makes sense. Doesnt mean this system wont work though. Only time will tell. PS: I agree with you, in case that wasnt clear. Going through this forum has actually gotten me really excited for TToN because they are focusing on tailor-made encounters like that. I was iffy about it when I first heard about it, but after debating this stuff for awhile, it actually seems like a great idea, if done right.

Currently. If you read the rest of my post (yeah I know they tend to be long...) I said that it would be better to get better in stealthing by USING stealthing. Sure it would require tweaking the system a bit (how much I wouldnt really know - could be a LOT or a LITTLE), but I think it would be better for it. My personal opinion, yours can vary. This ain't no Elder Scrolls! True enough. Not saying I would want it to be. But you have to agree, it DOES make more sense.... (IMO at least)

In regards to point B - It would make sense that avoiding combat would make you worse at combat...right? It also make you worse in sneaking... Currently. If you read the rest of my post (yeah I know they tend to be long...) I said that it would be better to get better in stealthing by USING stealthing. Sure it would require tweaking the system a bit (how much I wouldnt really know - could be a LOT or a LITTLE), but I think it would be better for it. My personal opinion, yours can vary.

In regards to point B - It would make sense that avoiding combat would make you worse at combat...right? VS Quest only xp gives no reason to do combat AT ALL.... So while I understand you wanting stealth to be viable, I would think that HAVING combat xp would make it a more strategic thing, as you weigh the pros and cons of the situation. "Well this fight is really hard, so why dont I just stealth through it? Well I might not get the xp + loot that they offer....Hmmm what should I do?" Vs currently it IS a no brainer - just stealth past them - you will get rewarded anyway. So whats the point of having combat in the first place....? And actually, IMO skills should be leveled up through use - makes more sense then fighting all the time and suddenly getting an extra skill point to spend on lore or mechanics or stealth. The only thing that would make sense would be survival. VS If you are stealthing all the time, it would make sense to get better at being stealthy.... One of the things I actually loved about skyrim. (sure its exploitable, but EVERY game has exploits, lets be honest...) Not that this should be exactly like skyrim or anything, I just think its a cool system.

Elerond - "Baldur's Gate 2 had much more people working on it and it still failed in that balancing (similarly as all IE games failed), why they want to do things differently this time." Well I dont see how BG was unbalanced personally... Actually, I thought all the IE games were pretty balanced. Then again, I didnt go out of my way to grind and even sprinted past trash mobs a couple times. I think people just kinda feel that quests railroad them into doing exactly what the developers want. Which is ok I guess because the story should be awesome. I guess its a matter of liking the Baldurs Gate Series vs the Icewind Dale Series. Icewind Dale, as a combat-heavy game was railroaded so that in order to find new areas, you had to complete the quests (IIRC, its been a while). Baldurs Gate simply let you wander around (not JUST completing quests), and if you were in a section you werent supposed to be in, the monsters were hard to kill and either you ran from everything, reloaded and didnt go back, or grit your teeth and found new tactics to beat them, earning good loot and a boost in xp as a reward. Elerond -"By metric that Josh uses you get most XP by doing quest first and then kill everybody after wards. And taking combat option brings more experience than sneaking past enemies. Using thief open locks and remove traps brings more experience than using knock spell or strength to open locks and using detect traps spell to find traps so that you can avoid them. " With stealth vs combat, it does seem that stealth has the advantage due to not losing out on important resources. But I dont know the best way to make it fair for all parties (without hardcoding every single action), so Im just going to leave this one to the devs. Also, I dont think its necessarily "We need our pie NOW!! syndrome, I think its more of "What is the point of combat?" You can say "Well you get rewarded for finishing that quest!" and I think "Well, I shouldve invested in stealth - then I wouldnt need to fight." And if you say, "Combat should be its own reward!" I can say "Quests should be their own reward!" and we have an endless loop going. Because that IS a viable argument IMO. How many people would do quests if they didnt get any kind of legitimate reward? O sure, you would do the quest where you slay the dragon and get the Awesome Sword of Amazingness +5, but will you still do that Find the Farmer's Daughter Quest? I dont think so. Its the same thing with the combat - why even bother if there is no real reward. Sure, maybe it is semantics, and MAYBE its a simple thing like enjoying that feeling of "O Sweet that Super Giant Spider Queen was worth 2000xp! Nice!", but right now, it SEEMS (and I stress that word) that there is no difference between fighting a stray goblin and killing a freaking dragon. There is no difference, other than the POSSIBILITY of better loot (I would HOPE a dragon would have better loot...). Unless of course you happened to talk to the NPC who wanted you to kill that goblin for him - then you get XP for killing a goblin! (obviously, Im sure there would be a quest involving the dragon too...right?) If wanting variation and different rewards between harder fights and easy fights means I want my pie now, then you can say thats what it amounts to, but its all about the FEEL. If i feel like Im being jipped, that decreases my enjoyment of the game (which is essentially the argument for stealthing - why pick stealth when i can just fight?). Then again, combat rewards you with loot, so there is THAT. But if the loot is trivial, it IS kinda offputting..... Either way, I dont know what the best answer is. I'll probably love the game regardless of whether it has combat xp or not, but I cant think of ANY games that didnt give XP for kills... Who knows, maybe this will be the best game ever BECAUSE of Quest Only XP?

Which is the epitome of bad design, giving the player a choice where only one option is viable and the others are plain stupid. Especially in a game that prides itself on not being the usual xp/loot farming, kill everything, exploit the hell out of the system kind. It depends, if you find that some encounters are better to avoid than fight, but other players instead found that it is better to engage in those encounters instead of avoiding them, then design does what it should do, which is to offer player ability to play how they want to play. Also it is not on general level bad design to put encounters in the game that are better to avoid than engage and similarly to putting encounters which avoidance would be poorer choice than engaging them. If your reason to avoid combat is that it takes too long or is frustrating because of how it currently flows, I would point out that game is currently in beta and is under balancing meaning that current form will not be final form. But if we take words and say that current way is bad design then making combat the optimal option by giving experience from it where stealth would go with little reward would only transfer places of this options and it would still be bad design. I agree that it should feel equal. And I mean giving players the ability to choose stealth and making it a viable option as a skill. I can understand that, as with combat xp, why would I ever want to stealth past enemies? I can just kill them and get the xp & loot too. If you look at mechanics - now your character has the option to disable traps and open locks with his skill, but it isnt REQUIRED. Lore should do some in-game stuff too (not sure if it does or not). I'm not sure what is best. I think I might just end up leaving this one to the devs and what they think will be the best design for their game. I like actual Objective XP, but thats a ton of work and super time consuming, so I understand they wouldnt be able to do that at this point in the development. I like the discussion, but I do see it kinda going in circles, so Im not sure how long ill stick around for this one. Ive kinda said everything I have to say on the matter. We'll see if I think of anything new to say later.

Well, I also noted that wikipedia isnt a super-reliable source. Literally in the second sentence on my reply to your last comment. So wiki was wrong, no surprise there. My point wasnt that wiki is reliable or even that PoEt is SUPPOSED to be a spiritual successor. My point was that the flow of information and what people are SAYING is that it is, regardless of the accuracy of the statement. Not necessarily anything that can be done about that, just pointing it out. Also, my original comment wasnt demanding that it be a spiritual successor even. Just that if they are trying to capture the feel of the IE games, it will require a LOT of work (IMO, yours may vary). I agree homage is probably a better term, but I DID quote from eternity/obsidian page so.... (perhaps homage is on there; regardless the quote I used it what I personally took away from the kickstarter site, you may have taken away something else entirely)

Well thats good to know. You just made my day! Doesnt mean the system doesnt need work, but I am much happier if its simply a vocal minority. Well, I have faith that Obsidian will get it right, regardless of the system they implement. Cant wait for it to get released lol PS: While I understand just about everything you see on forums should be taken with a grain of salt, its still good to hear positive feedback from testers as well because sometimes the forums tend to get brought down by negativity.. Not necessarily a problem here specifically, just something Ive noticed from a lot of sites (something obvious, I know, but still helps to remind people).

Also, if they do the party check BEFORE you hire a mercenary, they can then scale the price based upon how many people you currently have, discouraging you from getting more than you should have. Dont know if they currently do that though. Then again, then you could drop the companions (2) in your party, buy a mercenary for cheap, then find a friend, then go pick up the two companions, giving you a party of 5 when they only want you to have 3... so idk. Theyll figure something out I guess. I guess they could do a party check and the companions wont join if you have too many people at the specified points, unlocking more companions as you progress? I dont know whats best.

O I agree, it is a VERY vague term. And wikipedia isnt known for being super reliable about everything. My point was that, regardless of what the devs originally intended, their words were taken to mean spiritual successor by many (not everyone). For instance, I didnt find out about PE for a long time, but when i did and looked it up, there were people shouting left and right about how its the spiritual successor to BG and when wikipedia and other sources say that too, it kinda reinforces it. I dont think obsidian deserves half the bashing they get for it, but that doesnt mean they should ignore the expectation either (not saying they do, just pointing it out). Of course, as many have said spiritual successor is very vague and interpreted to mean many different things by many different people, and its impossible to try and please everyone. Im mostly happy with where things are going, so this kind of thing definitely isnt an end of the world for me. in regards to curryinahurry. Im glad to hear that some people overall enjoy combat, and I agree that right now it may seem harder than it actually will be due to the reasons you gave. Personally havent played the beta, as I was unable to back, but I was simply going off of things I read and assumptions from the forums and videos Ive seen. Perhaps I was misplaced in thinking so, and spoke too harshly. Ive not seen a whole lot of people saying they enjoyed the combat, but then again, usually if people like something they dont feel the need to post or talk about it. So good to hear thats its not hopelessly bad or unplayable

I tend to agree. But they did claim they were making a spiritual successor to BG2. THEY NEVER CLAIMED THIS. Christ, it is like I am stuck in a freaking loop of insanity seeing the same exact posts, repeated over and over again, all having no basis in any sort of reality. Honestly, I agree. Thought I elaborated there, but I guess not. Must have been a different post. I want a game LIKE BG2 & the IE games. It doesnt mean that it needs to be the same, and it doesnt mean they need to implement combat xp or anything like that. I WANT them to do their own thing. What I was referring to was that it will take a LOT of work to implement truely Objective XP, and that it should be expected that making a game that lives up to the IE games will take a lot of work. I think theyve done a great job with the game, and I will probably get the game no matter what, so I have faith in the devs. Just voicing my opinion. And maybe they didnt SPECIFICALLY IN THOSE EXACT WORDS say that it would be a spiritual successor, but thats what they implied. These are their exact words, right off the website: "Eternity will take the central hero, memorable companions and the epic exploration of Baldur’s Gate, add in the fun, intense combat and dungeon diving of Icewind Dale, and tie it all together with the emotional writing and mature thematic exploration of Planescape: Torment." THIS is whats on the wikipedia page: "Pillars of Eternity will feature a party-based real-time-with-pause tactical gameplay, fixed isometric user interface for the game-world with two-dimensional pre-rendered backdrops,[1][6] in a similar vein as its spiritual ancestors Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale series and Planescape: Torment (all based on BioWare'sInfinity Engine)." So basically, regardless of EXACTLY what they said or meant, they IMPLIED and it was interpreted as a spiritual successor to the IE games. As I was going through the forums, it bugged me a bit too, and I think we need to have some faith in the Devs, but I was pointing out that people DO have certain expectations (justified or not) and that the devs need to be aware of it and take it into consideration (which im sure they are & do). Does that mean everything must be the way BG IWD or PST did it? No, but that doesnt remove the expectations for an amazing game that exist (which I am sure it will be)

I think its great they want to try something different. Objective XP would have been awesome IMO. But Quest-Only XP... I don't know. We will see how it goes. The bestiary and other features give me hope, but I trust the devs will be able to make it work. I just want a good game. The XP system doesnt matter so much as the gameplay. I think a lot of people currently have a problem with combat itself, rather than the xp system. the xp system using combat xp is kinda meant to be a reward for dealing with the time- and resource-demanding nature of current combat - which would hardly be considered rewarding. (Sure you can argue that I need a reward for combat - but enjoyment is also a form of reward, and if most people cant even get THAT out of combat...then there needs to be something else)

Personally I would hate it if the NPCs arent as strong as people I can create. I mean sure, they can have specific roles and stuff, but they should still be effective. I think if their NPCs arent strong enough to compete with my player created NPCs, then thats a design problem. Cool things like special abilities (with lore reason/explainations) are great and I encourage them. Heck, even stat bonuses are great. These were little perks that made NPCs amazing in BG and BG2. Its not like they have to be OP, but even Edwin with his extra spells didnt make me autopick him (great for evil parties, other than that, I didnt love his personality). Cool abilities are great for expanding on other cool things and character development too. For example, the human Rogue, Eder (I think) has experience as a soldier (skirmisher I think?) so give him a passive feat called Battle Experience which gives him a bit of increased Damage and Health (or something). Reflects his background and add a little something. For balance purposes heres what I suggest because I think that 'friend' dialogue was awesome Say for the first tavern, they only want you to be able to recruit 2 extra companions (for a total of 3/6 party members). So now you hire 2 and lose a bunch of gold. Instead, you can "find 1 friend" and hire 1 mercenary. It does a party check to see if you will go over the expected party limits. Or if you can have 4 party members, make it so you can find 2 friends and hire 1 mercenary. Something like this so you are not completely penalized if you just want to role your own party. Or do something like you can "find a friend" but they start at level 1. If you want someone above level one, you need to "hire a mercenary". So lvl 1 party is free, but a bunch of lvl 4 mercenaries (you are lvl 5) will cost you some cash. I dont know just some ideas. PS: I actually think its cool to hire adventurers and dont think Id mind it too much anyway. I usually just use companions anyway so.... But I can see their side about wanting free adventures like the IE games and not wanting to have to roleplay with a bunch of mercenaries. But to each his/her own.

Every crap trash mob cant be a quest because then you have created the situation that the non-kill XP crowd are whining about. Its degenerative gameplay, now Ill be FORCED to kill everything, me OCD!, immurshun, people will stealth past then go back and kill, etc... I don't see what was fixed by doing this.. Just add Combat XP then adjust quests to counter weight things out so that passive quest rewards give higher bonuses to offset the killing of NPC's, then make the NPC's disappear or worth nothing.. or, you could simply leave things the way they is and you don't need have go through what even indira were admitting is a taxing process o' balancing. have people complete larger objectives or quests or tasks or whatever the hell you want to call it so it don't result in childish bawling, and then give out nice and balanced xp awards that do not discriminate for or against combat... or against any other method o' completion. current method is elegant, balanced and extreme simple. add unnecessary complexity 'cause a handful o' kids need instant gratification from every bug killed or every lock opened is a silly-arsed approach. nevertheless, we see that obsidian is trying to throw folks a bone. give folks something illusory and maybe they will be satisfied. we will observe that such a approach has worked in the past. am guessing it were worth a shot. HA! Good Fun! Why dont we just cut out combat then? cause it interrupts from the constant need to play fetch and complete those quests. Quests are cool, I like them a lot. RPGs are my favorite genre, usually because of the depth of quests and the story. But that doesnt mean combat shouldnt be fun or rewarding (Not to say that XP = Fun, but I think most people agree that the current combat system needs work or else we wouldnt be here) And I think its hardly elegant to say "Heres 1000xp for getting my doll back, but you get nothing for slaying that dragon, cuz I didnt ask you to." Or something like PC kills Ogre, gets no xp, HAPPENS to find an NPC that says "Hey can you kill and Ogre for me, its been eating my sheep?" "Already killed it..." "O thanks, heres 1000xp!" Why wouldnt I just get the xp from killing the Ogre? cuz at the end of the day, I still had to kill it... Personally I think it would be more elegant to tailor each encounter to be well balanced and an awesome experience, giving everything in the game a reason for being there and providing a richer and more interactively intensive game. I understand time restraints and get that it would take a TON of work and stuff, but that hardly makes Quest-Only XP the best possible solution. I guess we will see how it works. PS: dont mean to come off aggressive or anything, Im just voicing my opinion and kinda end up ranting a lot in case none of you have noticed haha. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I dont mean to trample on that, so I apologize if I come off that way.

Personally, I think TRUE Objective XP trumps Combat XP by a million miles. But thats not what PoEt has. It has QUEST XP, which is great, but doesnt seem to be quite enough IMO. Also, I tend to agree, opening a door with a key should grant the same XP (if any) as lockpicking it (personally I dont think it should get ANY XP). Traps, same thing. The point of lockpicking is to be a BONUS, not an XP generator. I mean in Dragon Age, I went with the Rogue a lot because I hate the idea of not being able to unlock a chest or hit a trap (plus the XP bonus was nice, even if it wasnt much) But this is also an example of OBJECTIVE XP (If i understand it correctly, someone correct me if I am wrong). Objective XP grants equal xp for different options so you dont feel like you have to fight your way through a level over stealthing through it. Objective XP would give you XP for opening the lock with the key, unlocking it with your rogue, bashing it with your fighter, melting it with your mage, or grabbing the nearest goblin and using him as a battering ram just because you can. More options are always better. Thing is, how things are currently being implemented may not solve some of those key problems people have. Right now, people who (usually) prefer combat are essentially being penalized for fighting unavoidable trash mobs simply because they dont have a stealth heavy character with them, and getting little reward for it. Does that mean fighting should always be the best and only solution? No, but essentially stealthing seems to be the best choice now as combat currently seems to sucks. To be fair, it is a beta and stuff, but thats all they have to go on, so its reasonable to be apprehensive. Equality between options is best. Stealthing through enemies SHOULD be a viable option. But it shouldnt be the only one that makes sense. Although, heres the funny thing - its all about how people perceive things (at least IMO). Situation A: I stealth through the enemies to get to Area A and receive 1000 xp for getting there Situation B: I fight my way through 3 fights, each fight granting me 300 xp and then get 100 xp for getting to Area A. Both situations grant 1000xp, making each feel viable, but if I dont FEEL like Im getting anything out of combat, then whats the point? Thats kill/encounter/whatever xp though, which is inherently evil, so what do I know? Also, Random loot would help too. If I know Im getting a beetle shell (worthless junk?) everytime I fight a bunch trash mob beetles, it feels like a chore. If I have the CHANCE to get find an awesome amulet that happened to be swallowed by the beetle when he hate that merchant fellow over there, then that gives me a reason to kill stuff. And why do I need a reason? Cuz combat sucks right now.

I tend to agree. But they did claim they were making a spiritual successor to BG2. Thats pretty high standards. I mean, does that mean everything has to be right? No, and I dont necessarily want a carbon copy (BGEE) of the IE games either. Personally I wouldnt mind seeing the game get pushed back if it meant a better game (I thought that flexibility was the point of kickstarting...?) but I also did not back, so thats not a decision that should be up to me. Also, I personally like games that have enemies that scale to your level (and RANDOM loot, LOVE Borderlands), and it would be cool to see the enemies "level up" like that group of bandits that had leather armor - Now theyre decked out in scale mail and have Flaming Arrows (Black Talon bandits in BG1 were awesome). I know that would be a lot of work and time, but personally I think its worth it. I'd be super disappointed if I found out that the game wouldnt be released until next year, but I can wait. Ive been waiting 10 years for a game like BG2. I can wait another if I have to and it means getting the best possible gameplay out of Pillars of Eternity. Waiting for Epic Game > Lesser Game Immediately

So basically the main problem for everyone (or most people) is that combat needs to be fun. This could mean giving it more depth in a roleplaying sense (through quests, bestiary, etc), making it more fun so it doesnt feel like a chore (after all, if you LIKE to kill all the beetles, then it wouldnt matter if theres no combat xp), or basically making the combat more spontaneous or more explained ( = no trash mobs). I dont think its a matter of combat xp just BECAUSE. I think its really a way to solve some of the underlying problems the game currently has. If I have a reason to enjoy combat, I dont need combat xp; combat is fun and rewarding in itself. But that doesnt seem to be the case currently so people need a reason/reward for taking time out of their day (and resources, etc) Lets put it like this: What if there was no quest experience. You enjoy quests right? Would you still do them if you didnt get a reward? no experience and only good loot every once in awhile? But theres TONS of quests - dont worry, youll enjoy them! Would you still do that fetch quest or look for someone if you found out there would be no reward? Go kill some rats. Good - youre done. Thanks, you did a great job! Have a good day. ~ NPC walks away, no reward, no xp... O you found the farmer's daughter! Thank you so much! Heres a....bear claw... I found the other day. Thats cool right? Totally. What, you dont like it? ....Ummm....its TOTALLY a MAGICAL bear claw. No idea what it does though.... Have fun! ~NPC runs away hoping you dont shoot him. (you gained 1 Bear claw, no xp) But you would totally do those quests wouldnt you?

Also, I think they need to add depth to the bestiary - have specific information about the monsters and stuff, as well as like combat relevant information and lore related stuff, detailed descriptions, etc. As much as I hate to say it, I kinda liked the Codex thing from Dragon Age. It wasnt the best, but it was cool to be able to look back and thumb through the lore. Of course, I didnt look through half of it, but itd be cool if it was a better system. Like in baldurs gate, I would open a book and read it just to learn more about the lore and stuff, so I think itd be cool to be able to do that. But when you are done, that information is stored in your Memory (codex type thing) and you can go back and look at it and stuff. Would also be kinda cool to have some effect on gameplay, like some books give +1 Mechanics or something. (I know its not Skyrim, but I thought it was kind of a cool idea, showed how you would learn different things from books). Im excited for the game and I think a lot of people on this forum has great ideas. Itll be cool to see whats actually implemented though.