Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Akos

  1. There is a massively different emotional response to winning a video game vs blowing up an entire culture and watching as people helplessly squirm to death. While your theories on humanity are interesting, thousands upon thousands of case reports on PTSD and the effect killing other people has upon the human psyche would tend to disagree with your ideas on what you consider a casual sociopathic nature of man. You seem to be under the impression that damage > crowd control, but this is definitely not the case within this game. Lobbing a fireball at an enemy without lowering his defenses means he's going to shrug it off. The intelligence wizard is still *very* powerful. I suppose the exact nature of magic is up to the person defining the game; although I'd go back to my argument about the in-game definition of Might and the way that it is treated as my example for why damage is determined by strength and not intelligence. My point still remains that both a Might and Intelligence based caster both have a purpose in this system. Bookworm mage still thrives. Your proposal wishes for only bookworm mage to thrive at the expense of all other role playing options. I'm definitely not in favor of this, and am in fact quite tired of being tied to only a single option for role playing the tired wizard archetype.
  2. Intelligent people like blowing stuff up, as it is usually the most efficient method of dealing with a problem. I mean, intelligent people have been coming up with more powerful ways to blow **** up for all of human history, and we've come up with some pretty powerful stuff. The simple solution is usually the intelligent solution. Only an idiot would begin to waste time doing an elaborate plan if they have the capacity to just blow **** up; cunning is the last resort of an intelligent mind, and the first resort of a dishonest one. Not really true. Intelligent people build their bomb, or tool, or weapon, and then someone with far less intelligence but a significant more amount of might misuses their invention to further their aspirations. The Wright Brothers probably didn't envision the B-52 bomber, Albert Noel thought Dynamite would be a peaceful deterrent, Einstein was under the false impression that the American people were better equipped to morally handle Atomic weapons for the safety of the world. Often times the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and there are many examples throughout recent history of great strides in scientific engineering that are then used by lesser men with a greater capacity for violence. It's a very interesting subject, but definitely not in line with the point I was trying to make. I could try to be more more clear with my argument: A strong character can rely on using strong explosive magic, but lacking the Intelligent for using crowd control spells effectively he likely wouldn't consider their implementation since he lacks the long term strategy of a more Intelligent mind. An Intelligent mage without the physical power to unleash a torrent of fireballs would likely prefer to divide and conquer his adversary by using his magic so that fireball mage can more effectively do his thing; After all there's always that annoying dextrous rogue that just nimbly dodges all of your super powered fireballs. You could certainly have a powerful wizard who is also very intelligent and thus has more options available as well, although the way the game is set up this means you'd need to have to give up something else to make that kind of character. My point is that these characters are available to us with the way Might is in PoE, but muscle mage loses his identity and purpose if wizards have no want of strength. Might as it is now gives us greater role playing options.
  3. Wayfarers penalty was my favorite in terms of being nonsensical. I like that the Paladin recognizes he has an unfair advantage, and he's not necessarily going to STOP attacking you from behind or ask his rogue ally to back off so he can have an honorable duel with his adversary, but he is going to SLIGHTLY pull his punches out of.... guilt or something? The motives felt very unclear.
  4. I've made this argument before so if I sound like I'm repeating myself just understand that its' because I really like the original concept behind might and its' implication on spell casters in that it allows them to break their traditional mold while simultaneously making their traditional mold make a lot more sense. Might is a measure of your physical and spiritual strength. It is stated as such directly in its' explanation within the game. It is not either or, and the game is not confused by acting like your mage character with 18 might is physically strong; he is. The implication is that the stronger you are physically, the more capable you are in exerting your spiritual energy to more powerfully employ the use of magic, or zeal, or mind control, or chi mortification. Something that has always bothered me about the classic intelligence wizard of DnD is that they are supposed to be the smartest character in the room by the way of their meta-game reliance upon intelligence for the basic premise of their class to function, and yet the vast majority of wizards that I've played with or role-played as approach their issues by exploding them with fire, which strikes me as a very simple solution for a character that is supposed to be the most intelligent person most people will ever know. Might being a measure of physical and spiritual strength allows for a physically powerful wizard who utilizes spells in the manner you'd expect of a physically powerful character; preferring brute force to overpower their adversaries with firebolts and lightning. Meanwhile the Intelligent wizard prefers crowd control to tactfully manipulate the battlefield in a manner that I would expect from a character who is supposed to be the highly intelligent. Both methods work, and having both methods available means that you can create wizards who are vastly different in character where as before every wizard I've ever played with was kind of just the same archetype. I liked the way Might and Intelligence functioned as it seemed to be a good marriage of game development and role playing opportunity. While I do agree that Resolve needs to be made more relevant in some way, I don't feel like turning Might into Strength is my preferred method of going about it.
  5. Well, it can now. Latest Dev Stream revealed that they've made it so most Ranger abilities can be used regardless of the equipped weapon. https://www.twitch.tv/videos/209325992
  6. I'm fine that they're trying out new things to fix a gameplay mechanic. Giving Resolve some extra purpose might not be a bad thing at all. From a role playing perspective, I actually really liked the idea of Might (Strength) affecting the damage a spell does while Intelligence affected the duration/range of a spell. It allowed the tired Wizard concept to branch out into a few different tropes it usually doesn't enjoy. See, in classic DnD you can only ever have the Bookworm Wizard who is supposed to be the smartest guy in the room as a result of the meta-game need for the wizard to be intelligent, and yet most of the time he employs the very simple solution of casting a fireball into the room. It always struck a bit of a discord with me that someone so intelligent had such a basic answer for every problem. It made sense to me that a character who was of a stronger build physically would be able to channel his spirit more forcefully into his magical abilities. A higher Might, Low Intelligence wizard suddenly makes sense both in how they are built and in how they are played. I imagine a strong wizard would approach most problems with an explosion of fire and lightning. Meanwhile the classical intelligent wizard is still plenty useful as he prefers to employ debuffs and crowd control spells, which are the kind of spells I would expect from someone who is thinking more strategically to employ. Strong Wizard played like it made sense. Intelligent Wizard played like it made sense. I really enjoyed it, and liked that Pillars was willing to take a step away from DnD's rigid establishment. I'm okay with Resolve being the magic stat instead as I can still wrap my head around it logically. It's the classic Charisma Sorcerer vs Intelligence Wizard argument that I always liked, which is real similar to why I liked Might as the damage stat in the first place. I really *dislike* wands not being affected by Resolve if they're going to be obviously shooting magic, however. That can't make sense if we're making Strength and Magic damage separate. Guns can be explained away as needing enough STR to guide the recoil, bows can be explained away by saying you can get more power in the draw. I don't know how you explain that your magical wand is using your strength when your magical magic is using Resolve.
  7. My only issue with the monk talent is that I inevitably have to ask myself why I'm not just using a monk if I wanted to punch everyone. That said, Mechalibur might be onto something by making a punch-fighter. Gives you some role playing options if nothing else. Fighter's baby-regen simply doesn't do enough healing to be worth burning a talent for. There are a myriad of much better options for damage mitigation available to every class, and talents are too limited to be wasting them on things that aren't going to give you an edge in combat. Gallant's Focus seems like a pretty decent pick on my main character, although it doesn't appear to stack so it loses a bit of its' appeal after more than a single person has it or if you have a reliable method of granting your party a higher accuracy bonus through some other avenue. It's pretty mechanically sound, offering +4 accuracy to everyone nearby and on a Barbarian with an emphasis on Intelligence that tends to work out to being most of my melee characters. Stacked with a weapon focus talent that's +10 accuracy pretty early on which definitely gives an edge in combat. From a role playing perspective I like that it allows my main character, who is supposed to fulfill the "leader" role, an ability that demonstrates the idea that his party feels encouraged by being nearby him. Apprentice Sneak Attack is also pretty decent, especially if you already have a rogue in your party; You'll be setting up flanking opportunities for the rogue anyway so it makes sense that some of your other fighters can also benefit from it. There are generally more important damage increasing abilities to pick first depending on the character, but it's a sound talent to pick up at some point regardless. I haven't really given much attention or tried out any of the others. A lot of them are per-rest while being simultaneously worse than they are on the main-class they come from. Since I play on hard and refuse to trot back to the inn after every boo-boo (I can't imagine the game was meant to be played that way) I don't have a lot of use for per-rest abilities that aren't going to make a dramatic difference in combat.
  8. I just accept that physical strength allows you to do more magical damage. Think of it like being able to increase the intensity of your raw magical damage by having better control over your body and thus the magical energies you conduit. More Last Airbender, less Harry Potter. Honestly, I feel like this system not only allows better role playing opportunities, but makes more sense besides. I've always thought it strange that highly intelligent wizards in D&D always resorted to the most basic methods of combat; Throw a fireball, shoot a lightning bolt, spam magic missile. Is that really the halmark of an 18 intelligent genius? Push comes to shove and their most creative idea is essentially a more magical approach equivalent to "hit it with a sword". I think somebody may have exaggerated their intelligence score. It makes a lot more sense to me that a highly intelligent wizard would excel at tactical crowd control, where as a strength based wizard would prefer the 'burn it with fire' approach.
  9. I hate arbitrary number rating systems. As always there are aspects I enjoy, and some things I think need improvement, but overall I would recommend this game to anyone who is a fan of the early Baldur's Gate series or tactical games in general.
  10. Everyone in my party has good stealth scores for this very reason; inch your crowd controllers up close and have them dominate the battlefield before your enemies get the chance to react. From there keep your guys scattered so that if someone gets charmed it isnt' hitting your entire team. Brute force will save isn't going to ever be reliable enough to go that route, but a stealth blitzkrieg of magic works pretty well.
  11. A game changing the rule-set slightly shouldn't be viewed with malice. The point of D&D is that it helps add structure to what is basically grown adults with successful careers spending a few hours playing make believe with each other. It's meant to act as a guide, not a cage. If a game developer tweaks a couple of the rules associated with D&D to make the game more enjoyable than he hasn't done anything worse than people who make up house rules to help make their gameplay more enjoyable. 5th Edition is pretty good. It's end result is very similar to pathfinder, but much more streamlined and coherent. If I didn't already spend a bunch of money on all the crap for pathfinder I'd probably prefer it.
  12. There was a very large thread not too long ago that researched attack frames and recovery frames, and attack speeds apparent effect on things. Might be worth a read. https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/72272-combat-mechanics-attack-speed-recovery/ Faster weapons are not nearly as weak as the rest of the forum seems to like to believe. Slashing weapons are not nearly as disadvantaged as people like to believe either and will generally work against the majority of enemies you fight. For those enemies who *do* have a very high slashing resistance I recommend switching to a club; enemies with very high slashing resistance are almost always vulnerable to crushing. I have a post about the differences between Sabre and Sword as well that might be worth going over. Sabre is just generally a powerful weapon. https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/75282-sabre-now-stronger-than-sword/?p=1646108
  13. My usual go-to role playing character for D&D was a fighter/ranger with high Dexterity and Wisdom who specialized in twin swords (longswords or scimitars), stealth, and always made sure to fit great cleave into his build. He is meant to be a bit of a reckless fighter who enjoys being in the thick of combat and attacked enemies with relentless fanning slashes meant to overwhelm several opponents at once. Such recklessness demanded a certain amount of fearlessness, which is why his wisdom score would be a priority even though it's not usually considered a min/max stat for front-line fighters. He was absolute hell if he managed to get the drop on enemies backline (stealth) where he could eviscerate mage and healer alike. In Pillars of Eternity the Barbarian class fits this character like a glove with Carnage, Frenzy, and One Stands Alone allowing him to cleave through several opponents at once. I like that barbarian also has several empathic powers based around causing enemies to cower in fear as I can't imagine anyone passively watching this guy eviscerate your friends wouldn't make you question your chances of survival. While he is geared more towards bringing pain, I've built him so he can hold his own in a fight without needing to rely on Eder to tank everything for him. This gives me a bit of a safety net for when things go badly and I need a back up tank, and ensures that my main character can support his reckless combat style. That and I just personally dislike the idea of him breaking apart like a wet paper bag if daddy Eder isn't there to baby-sit him. Not very heroic.
  14. Constitution is the one stat I consider poorly implemented. High HP classes like Fighter and Barbarian don't need extra HP to survive in encounters, and low HP characters don't get enough of a benefit from constitution as a result of them having a very low base HP to work with. Assuming you care about your Fortitude save (and it is quite important for a front-line fighter) just dump all your constitution into might and then build your tank like you normally would; high perception and resolve, decent dex and intelligence.
  15. Double Post because your editing rules are weird. !!!! SPOILER WARNING - ENEMY NAMES - CLICK LINK AT YOUR OWN RISK? !!!! http://tinyurl.com/kwrarce Link to the Spreadsheet; Includes monster data and armor comparisons between Sword and Sabre. -Red characters signify that the weapon is doing 20% of its' initial damage, and is therefor incapable of breaking through the enemies damage reduction. -Darker colours signify which of the two weapons have an advantage against that particular armor or enemy. -Damage is listed as minimum damage range, maximum damage range, and then the average of those two numbers. -Mod 2x is each weapon at 100% of their base damage values. Kicking each weapon up by 100% starts to illustrate what I mentioned in my first post about the base damage of Sabre's being significant in that the higher damage it does can eventually overcome damage reduction obstacles and allow it to preform better than sword even though the enemy has Slash Resistance. That being said, the DR of some enemies is simply too high even with heavy damage modification for Sabre to be a viable weapon. While I *could* just keep increasing the damage modification until Sabre IS the best option, that isn't something you can actually do in the game so it's not really practical information. I might rescind my previous advice to always carry around stiletto for enemies with a lot of Slashing DR; You should instead carry around some kind of crushing weapon regardless of whether you prefer the Sword or Sabre. Luckily each weapon has a crushing option in their specialization groups; Club for Sabre, and Morning Star for Sword. Typically, enemies who are highly resistant to slashing/piercing have poor DR against crushing so it should it's generally safe to assume that if you notice your character doing dramatically lower damage against an enemy its' time to switch to a beatin' stick.
  16. Thank you for that table, PBJam! I shall make another table, but I'm going to give mod values of 2x (essentially 100% more damage) to the weapons; some of the monsters on that list aren't meant to be encountered until late game so it would be silly to just report that sword and sabre do 80% reduced damage to everything. I'm only going to list enemies that have some kind of resistance to slash or piercing, since that's the only really relevant data. Updating when I get finished.
  17. http://tinyurl.com/ojtqmf7 Link to the google doc spreadsheet that goes into more information. Running through the various armor types in game, Sabre should always out-perform Sword against Robes, Padded, Hide, Breastplate, and Brigandine. Leather and Scale armor are almost perfectly even with Sword performing 1 damage better if both weapons hit for their minimum values. It's not enough of a difference for me to give favor to one weapon or another, at any rate. Where Sabre runs into trouble is against Mail and Plate armor, where its' higher base damage can't edge out against the Swords more versatile nature. Against Mail Sabre has a range of 2.6-5 damage, while Sword is a more consistent 2.2-7 (weapons cannot deal less than 20% of their initial damage). Against Plate Sabre is at a major disadvantage as it can only deal 2.6 damage without some serious damage modifiers; Sword is only doing slightly better at a 2.2-4 damage range. Plate armor just kind of sucks for everyone. Since Sabre has a significantly higher base damage than sword it can eventually catch up to its' performance against Plate armor with a large enough damage modifier. At around a 1.5x modifier (or 50% more damage) Sabre is only slightly trailing behind Sword. At precisely a 2.4x modifier (140% more damage) it catches up to sword, and at that point it should be doing better damage than Sword against everything. That is, of course, unless the armor has further enchantments specifically against Slashing. Assuming you've taken Weapon Proficiency: Ruffian, there's little reason not to carry around a pair of Stiletto for dealing with Plate armor, which is probably a more practical solution.
  18. You have it backwards. It's a spiritual attribute that is the source of physical strength. The game describes Might as 'being a measure of one's physical and spiritual strength, brute force as well as the ability to channel powerful magic'. It doesn't state that training one gives power to the other; you are always training both. It makes a certain amount of sense if you think of spiritual energy as "kai" or "chi" or if you want a less esoteric description, simple manipulation of kinetic energy and adrenaline. More Last Airbender, less Harry Potter.
  19. Cipher probably makes the most sense as the PC class given what they are meant to represent during the story. That said, I picked a human Barbarian who dual wields swords. Barbarians are a pretty good off-tank, pretty good damage dealer, and flailing my swords around like some kind of angry rage-beast really appeals to my personality.
  20. Might for casters is a little weird if you're only used to the typical D&D wizard who places an intense focus on study and learning and nothing else, swiftly becoming but one of a thousand other wizards who perfectly fit that exact same description. I actually like the idea that a very typical wizard who places emphasis on the intellectual aspect of magic is going to excel at crowd control effects which cripple his adversaries. It makes more sense to me that a highly intelligent person would want to manipulate the battlefield in an intelligent and tactful manner, and would consider simply blasting everyone with a fire-ball a bit primitive. Meanwhile there exists another kind of wizard who is quite physically strong and this lets him to channel his magic in a way that allows him to take better advantage of spells which do direct damage. Perhaps he lacks the intelligence to be truly creative with spells, and prefers the simple logic of burning enemies alive to tactfully turning the tide of a battle. Maybe he even wears heavy armor and wades into the thick of combat where his destructive magic can be used most effectively. Like a barbarian that breathes fire. The way Might is set up as a physical attribute that allows characters to more capably channel their spiritual energy makes sense to me. More importantly, it allows for different *kinds* of characters beyond the normal (and frankly, over-done) D&D archetypes of book-worm wizard, stupid barbarian, or crafty beguiling rogue. How many times are we going to make these characters before we get bored? Might is fine. The only attribute I think need work is constitution; the way it scales health simply isn't very useful to classes with high health who don't need it, or classes with low health who can't benefit much from it. If it added flat health/endurance per level, and perhaps even gave some natural DR (say +1 DR every 4 points in constitution) I could see it being more than a dump stat. But Might is fine, and I quite like how it is represented.
  21. I'm not really certain that CON is good on anyone. Fighters, Barbarians, Paladins, anyone who has a naturally high health score doesn't really need more Health/Endurance to work as a tank and everyone else has such a tiny amount of Health that a multiplier in one direction or another isn't really making a big impact on their survival. If you're really worried about their health some accessories that just give a flat increase to their endurance is going to be more beneficial than sacrificing other attributes for CON. Any lost Fortitude can be made up through Might, which is possibly even more useful for your front-line fighters as enemies becoming dead more quickly is a great way to get them to stop hitting you. Constitution should probably offer a flat health/endurance bonus rather than a multiplier so that it offers equal benefit to every class, which is how every other attribute currently works. Giving it something offensive would make it more attractive as well; perhaps higher Constitution would lower the attack speed malus of heavier armor, or even offer DR for very high amounts (+1 DR every 4 points in constitution).
  22. It is, it's just doing less than it displays on the character sheet, according to the information being presented. A couple of posts back I set my Dexterity to 999 and let my character loose upon the world for giggles. He was most definitely attacking at speeds that rivaled even the mightiest of super saiyans.
  23. Pillars of Eternity has an engagement system where enemies you who are within melee range of you will get a fairly powerful attack off on you if you try to move out of range of them. I know a mistake I made with Aloth early on is that I'd try to have him run out of melee range to try to position a spell or just get swords out of his face; this often turned out to be a mistake as he'd be quickly skewered when he tried to run. You can tell what enemies are engaged with whom by the red, arched line that travels from their combat circle to your own. Similarly, your characters have a green line that runs from them to the enemy they are engaged with. Eder has an ability called 'Defender' that increases his engagement allowance to three, effectively allowing him to keep three targets occupied and off the rest of your team. Beyond that, it's important to position your team so that Aloth is in the back while your melee fighters are in the front and able to keep enemies attention so that they can't get to your squishy mages. Naturally this becomes easier with more units in your party. Take advantage of your environment as well; walls, doorways, or anything you can use to keep enemies boxed in are good so that enemies can't physically move around your front line. Open fights with crowd control effects that make it difficult for enemies to maneuver. Move Aloth or other squishy characters early and try to intercept enemies running at him with any melee unit who isn't going to suffer a disengagement attack for moving away. I usually Disable Auto-Attack as well, as it's sometimes better to have a Wizard stand ready to launch off a spell than it is to occupy his cast bar with auto-attacks.
  24. A character who tanks to any degree is going to have to give up some offensive talents/abilities to do it. Similarly, any offensive abilities you take will require you skip over something defensive. There is a balance between the two extremes that can be viable, whether or not its' "best" is debatable and only really relevant if such things matter to you. Personally speaking I tend to have more fun if my characters are a balanced mix of offense and defense. I prefer it when my characters are adaptable, rather than highly focused on any specific role. Which is not to say that roles do not exist at all in my party, but rather Aloth has a mix of crowd control and damage spells, Eder can hurt the guy he's fighting with his saber, and Durance likes to bash people with his stick about as often as I have him healing my party. It's harder to build for a balanced character as well, especially with how long it takes to level up in this game. It's easier to give people a role and have them take abilities that augment that role than trying to play at being clairvoyant.
  25. People go out of their way to be offended by things. The fun thing about our incredibly politically correct society is that nobody has to bother with personal maturation; they can just proclaim that people are causing them emotional stress and demand that everyone has to alter what they're doing to compensate for their lack of mental development. Not quite unlike a small child screaming for candy in a market.
  • Create New...