Crucis

First off, I never actually played with only 4 party members, except early on when that might be all you could have. I only mentioned 4 since it's my "core" party, with the 5th slot reserved for the NPC's I'm switching in and out. The 5th slot for me has usually been Pallegina or Maia or someone else. Secondly, my core party usually consists of my PC, Eder (either as a pure fighter or a fighter/rogue), Xoti as a pure cleric, with the 4th depending on what class I've chosen for my PC. Honestly, I'm not big on wizards or druids. I tend to favor physical combatants over magical ones, but I will adjust my party mix if I'm going into a fight that seems like it'd benefit from a wizard. Overall, I've always had a fondness for Rangers and Paladins in the old BG and IWD DnD games, but I'm not overly fond of how they're implemented in PoE. With Rangers, I don't like having to drag around the animal companion and it feels like too many of the class' abilities are tied to the A/C's, leaving very little in the way of options for those who choose to go with the Ghostheart ranger subclass. As for PoE Paladins, they just don't click with me. They feel like too much of a support class than a front line combatant. Oddly though, I love having Pallegina in the party, perhaps because as an NPC, I don't have to worry as much about "alignment" issues (don't remember the proper term for PoE, but you get my drift). So, I've tended towards either pure fighters or fighter/rogues. For what it's worth, I can fully appreciate party comps due to role playing decisions. I prefer playing the game more from a role playing perspective than a hardcore min-max one. Oh, I'll moderately min-max my PC, but overly so.

I guess that it's been my old habit to rotate party members around a bit, though perhaps more in the PoE games than I would in the BG games. I can easily understand that if switching party members in the PS4 version is buggy, that'd be a good reason to want to avoid doing so. I played the PC version, and it wasn't that big a deal for me. I remember a time in PoE1(with the expansions) that for the life of me, I couldn't win a certain battle in the second White March expansion. So I ended up dropping back a save, and returned to my stronghold and reorganized my party and went back. And, lo and behold, I completely dominated the battle with the new party mix. So, I guess for me, party switching is just my habit. For what little it's worth, I tend to stick with a core of 4 party members, and use the 5th slot for switching in and out members. I rarely do total party makeovers as that's a bit confusing in a number of ways, such as having to switch the best gear, etc., etc. With only one character being switched, dealing with gear switching isn't too big a deal. But having to do it for 4 is a different kettle of fish.

Elohinen, it's been a while since I've done a run through of PoE2, but the way I've always handled my parties was that I never committed long term to a single party comp. Oh, I would have a favorite comp, but I would regularly switch in and out other companions and sidekicks to a) earn them more XP and level them up, and b) to try to get used to playing them in my party. I found it useful get play a wide variety of comps so that if I ran across some enemy that seemed to give my "A team" trouble, I would have other options and experience with said options. Also, switching in and out various companions would give you access to their side questions, and hence more XP and so on. And IMO, it also helped to keep the party from getting too boring by running the exact same team all the time. And on a related note, picking up all of the companions and side kicks and getting them properly trained and equipped gave you a huge advantage in boarding actions.

Boeroer, not that I think that it'd ever happen, but it might be easier to produce a game in the Forgotten Realms setting but using the PoE ruleset. This would allow them to avoid having to spend a lot of time recreating all different sorts of game mechanics, just to comply with whatever D&D ruleset they were allowed to use. It would require some small changes, I think. (I don't remember what the current D&D rules are like.) For example, removing firearms and adding in slings. But is such a FR/POE game likely to happen? When hell freezes over would be my best guess.

I foresee issues with this. 1. I'd imagine that they'd have to purchase a license to produce a D&D game set in the Forgotten Realms. 2. I'm not even sure that the owners of D&D would allow them to produce a game using the AD&D 2E ruleset. Remember back to IWD2. While I'm sure that Josh Sawyer would know better, I get the feeling that the D&D owners required Black Isle (IIRC) to make IWD2 using the 3E ruleset rather than just keep using the 2E ruleset, which would have undoubtedly been easier, since BI wouldn't have had to reinvent the wheel, so to speak. So, I'm rather doubting that they'd be allowed to use the 2E ruleset in any future game. And heck, I'm not even sure that they'd be able to even get a license to do any D&D game at this point.

I'm a bit late to this party, seeing as I haven't replayed POE2 in months and haven't visited here much in that time. Regardless, I have some thoughts... 1. Ship combat. While it didn't bother me all that much once I got the hang of it, I really preferred just charging straight in and doing boarding actions, as I was here to play my party, not a ship combat mini-game. However, I think that given the nature of the way that the Deadfire was structured, as an only marginally explored region, I think that it would have been questionable to have a system where you chartered a ship or hopped a ride. I suppose that they could have defaulted to boarding actions without any ship v ship combat, but IMO there would have always been some who would have clamored for ship combat. In the end, I think that the only way to really avoid ship combat in a POE2 might have been to not set it in the Deadfire in the first place, and instead set the story in some land where travel was entirely (or almost entirely) by land, same as in POE1. 2. I think that I agree that it'd be better to avoid reinventing the wheel, if they did do POE3. And it'd be nice if they'd develop a story that didn't require some new game mechanics. 3. Personally, I don't get all that excited about voiceovers. It just seems like an expensive way to make things more difficult for the producers.

I pretty much agree with what you've said here. Writing usually has low production costs, unless perhaps you're doing some sort of work where you need to do some research. For example, let's take Dan Brown of Da Vinci Code fame. His books tend to take place around old churches, museums, and so on. And I strongly suspect that Brown travels to these locations to get a look and feel for them before using them in his novels. That's understandable, I'd think. And it's really not all that expensive (compared to movie costs, at least), though it might be pricey if you were an brand new writer and couldn't afford a research trip to Rome or Paris or Venice, or wherever. But so many other novels don't really need this level of research, if any at all, and can be written entirely from the imagination. And then, of course, about the only costs you have are the cost of owning and operating a PC (or if you're really old school, a typewriter and plenty of paper, etc.). But it obviously costs money to make movies or music, etc. You have to pay everyone behind the cameras, as well as the actors, and then the SFX studios, if there are any. And the orchestra that does the background music. And so on and so on and so on. You also make a very fair point about performing orchestras. They may not have to completely earn their keeps (I assume that most are getting some degree of grant money to help them stay afloat), but they do have to pay their musicians and all the other support personnel on their payroll. And to do that, they have to get fannies in the seats. And you're almost certainly right that they can't do that by performing stuff by unknown composers. They're existing in a very niche marketplace, and their customers are probably much more interested in seeing them perform classic pieces by famous composers, not unknowns. They might … might … be able to slip in one modern piece per performance. But if they had a new stuff only night, it wouldn't shock me if it ended up being their worst attended night of the season. Taking a step back, they can get away with performing certain modern stuff, but it probably has to be exceptionally famous movie related stuff, like from Star Wars, or from famous movie musical composers like John Williams or Hans Zimmer … which in turn comes back to name recognition.

Yep. This is the heart of the problem, and this is why Hollywood, for instance, has been creatively dead for, what, like, twenty years at least? Nothing has been created, in terms of innovation. (And of course now, with the global market, the main audience of mainstream American movies is no longer even in America, it's in China. Way more profitable.) I don't see this as a problem, xzar. Movie studios are in business to make money, not to be creative, innovative, or original for the sake of being creative, innovative, or original. What pays the bills and makes profits is producing movies that the paying customers want to see. Period. If you can produce a movie that both has a compelling story and good characters that people will want to pay to see, and also happens to be creative, innovative, and original, good for you. But that's easier said than done. And Hollywood's investors prefer to invest in things that are much more reliable. Hence the current trend of superhero movies. 10-25 years, it was movies based on old TV shows. Name recognition puts fannies in seats.

Regarding Hollywood, it's not really so much about the producers as it is Hollywood's financiers/investors. They don't hand out hundreds of millions of dollars so that some director can pursue his dread movie. They do it because they want to make money, lots of it. So, they invest in movies that they think have a chance of doing exactly that. Do they always succeed? No, of course not. But that's why you see so many sequels and remakes. Or for that matter, movies that are based on some old TV show or a well known book. It's about name recognition. Investors were probably falling all over themselves a decade ago to fund The Da Vinci Code movie adaptation, given that it was one of the most best selling books of all time, meaning that it was going to have massive name recognition. And it's not just movies when you think about it. How many writers write series' of books? They do it because the characters become popular and readers want to follow those characters through many novels to see what happens. I'm sure that it's hard to come up with a popular character and setting for a series, but once the writer gets it going and it is popular, I can hardly blame them for wanting to milk that cash cow. They are writing for a living, after all. Coming up with something completely new and original with each and every book has got to be rather difficult, and then there's no guarantee that it clicks with your audience. Oh, there may be some rather artsey-fartsey writers who don't believe in series. But something tells me that either they're spectacularly good at producing stories that people will buy, perhaps trading on their personal reputation, or … I was about to say that perhaps they were happy to be less than popular writers. However, their publishers want to make money too, and would more than likely stop publishing unsuccessful writers at some point. After all, publishers are sort of like movie investors in that they want a return on their investment. They may not have to pay the writer to produce the books before hand (unless they have a contract that does just that), but I doubt that they'd want to keep paying unprofitable writers. They want writers who produce books that enough customers want to buy that the publisher can turn a profit.

It's interesting that we have the opposite opinion on this. I do think the ship was lacklustre and a lot of the features were not very good. As for the endless paths that was a crowd funding bonus thing. Deadfire had Fulvano's voyage as it's bonus (Dunnage, The Drowned Barrows, Ori O Koiki, Crookspur and splintered reef) A lot of good content there though then again without that content the game would feel a tad empty and the same can't be said for the endless paths. As I and others have said I found the micromanaging of the keep to be incredibly annoying where as the ship it's only slightly annoying. I do think you have a good point about resting bonuses and there could have been more ship upgrades available that did stuff like that. The ship does have things like merchants, visitors, other ship encounters ect they just are dotted around the map because it's a ship. I do think that a lot of them are not that interesting but they are nowhere near as awful as the repetitive and pointless stuff that happened at the keep. It's a shame the sea monsters goal was never reached though, it really feels like there should be more sea monsters in deadfire. I'm with you that the PoE1 stronghold was rather annoying to micromanage. I didn't find the ship particularly annoying as a stronghold. Of course, it had its other annoyances. IMO, it would have been nice if behind the scenes, your party got a rest every 24 hours spent on the ship while on a long voyage. OTOH, maybe some people would dislike losing that costly bonus you might have "purchased" when staying at an inn, if an auto-rest on the ship negated it. I agree that the generic ship encounters can seem repetitive. In my last party, I was constantly beating up on slaver ships, since they were an easy way to make a little cash from their swag, as well as a good way to work on some soulbound requirements. And I got a bit annoyed at myself when I went to Crookspur and defeated the slavers, because it put a stop to the respawning slaver ships and their nice little stream of goodies. I didn't beat up on the generic ships of other factions, because I hadn't picked a faction and didn't want to annoy any of them and risk losing one of my companions. (Having a deep reserve certainly makes your ship/party incredibly difficult to defeat in boarding actions. Your active party may only be 5 people, but having another 9 or so reserves makes for quite a powerful force during those boarding actions.) Honestly, I really missed having a deep dungeon like the Endless paths, or at least a greater number of more involved locations, like the "city" under Nekataka or the 3 level Engwithan ruin on the east side of the map. There were too many overly "shallow" locations that were little more than one, maybe 2, small levels. And in this way, I found PoE2 rather disappointing. If there is a PoE3, I hope that they spend more of their effort on developing larger, more involved areas than were in PoE2. They don't have to be as truly immense as the Endless Paths. For what it's worth, perhaps my favorite dungeon in all of the BG/IWD/POE games was the one in the Tales of the Luremaster. I absolutely LOVED that dungeon, and was both happy to complete it and sad that it was all done. I know that I replayed IWD1 a number of times, just to get to play TOTLM once again.

I'm holding out for blue cheese! Who knows? Maybe a little space alien named Boo will be hiding there.

Yeah, I don't see any logical reason why it should matter if the game is crowd funded or not, with one possible exception. For starters, all games are going to require an infusion of cash up front or a very wealthy game company that has the cash on hand to finance the development right from the start. Otherwise, they'll need to get the money from an outside source. For example, crowd funding or perhaps a bank loan. Now, with a bank loan, they have an incentive to make the best game they can with the loaned money because they have to pay back that loan. And with the self-financing option, the company may not have a loan to pay off, but I'm sure that they want to make that money back and at least break even. With the crowdfunding option, there are some details that I freely admit I don't understand. For example, is there any legal requirement that the game company actually release a game or have to return the money to the investors? (with or without interest...) Or, if a game is released, what if the game is garbage that doesn't sell worth a damn? Where do the investors stand in that regard? In short, what are the legal responsibilities involved in a crowd funding set up? One thing does seem certain. With crowdfunding, the game company is really laying their reputation on the line with their investors, i.e. their fans and supporters. And if they really screwed their investors big time, the game company's reputation might be forever ruined. Now, that doesn't speak to the buginess of the final product, but it does seem like their reputation is on the line with a crowd funded game, so arguably, the company has a fair degree of incentive to try to do their damnedest to keep their investor-fans happy, so that they keep their reputation intact and perhaps keep those fans willing to invest the next time the company may attempt a crowd funded game.

Let me put a different spin on this interesting question. Are single player games more buggy than online games that depend on a constant stream of revenue? Without any data, let me give my impression from a strictly logical perspective. I think that it's arguable that single player games would be more buggy than online games for this reason. At release, they might be equally buggy, but here's the difference. With single player games, you pay for the game up front, and the developing company may see no massive reason to continue investing in the game (i.e. squashing bugs) when they've made a good chunk of money and perhaps profit. OTOH, with online games, the economic model for the company depends on a constant and ongoing stream of revenue. And if the game is buggy, players may/will migrate away from it to other games if they see no commitment from the developer to fix those bugs. So, the developer has a vested interest in continually fixing bugs. Now, I don't know if the real life data backs this up, but my case seems logical enough. Thoughts?

Because I think that the writers saw the character in the role of Maia as a Rauatian soldier, not a Rauatian intellectual. I don't think that Kana would have fit into that position at all.

Nouser, honestly, *if* there's a PoE3, it seems to me like the devs were lining things up for it to happen in Yezuha, where Rekke is from. There seem to be plenty of hints in PoE2 pointing in that direction. And were that the case, I think that the point would be for the Watcher to take Rekke home. However, I doubt that that's set in stone. Heck, there are no guarantees that there'll be a PoE3 at all, though it'd be VERY sad if there wasn't a 3rd installment in this series. That Rekke story sounds like a really dumb idea. Especially since Rekke isn't a full fledged party member with no investment into the story whatsoever. No I stand by the fact that PoE should not continue with the Watcher and have a new type of protagonist emerge in the future. Some time needs to have passed since PoE2. A protagonist that can deal with the fallout of Eothas' actions. Have previous party members or characters just pop up as cameo's or maybe as part of a side quest or something. Or not at all. One of the main gripes I had with PoEII was how little impact your actions in PoE seemed to have on your party. Only Eder was agreeable. Everyone else was like: ah yea we travelled together for months, shared life, misery, dreams, happiness, hardship. Oh and we stopped one of the Gods from destroying us, killed dragons and ended the hollowborn crisis. But yea now you said you don't like cookies so now I hate your guts. The introduction of your old team came off really wrong. Especially Aloth and Pallegina. If it was reallity I would have told them to piss off. Ah yes this reminds me of the time I played BG2 and killed Anomen when he started his self righteous attitude towards Jan. I dispise people like him and Durance. With a vengeance. Somehow, Aloth also went that route. It wasn't enough for me to want to kill him and kick his body into a ditch, but he wasn't far off. Not far at all. 1. I don't think that a Rekke story for PoE3 is a dumb idea at all. I also don't give a flying (you know what) about "investment in the story". If anything, that's what makes it an even better idea, not a lesser idea. I *want* to see the story get away from most of the existing companions!!! 2. I'm also very much in favor of continuing with the Watcher, but just have that story move over to Yezuha. I'd like the story to be one where perhaps the Watcher is sent to Yezuha by the Gods to investigate some new rising power there. And of course, bringing Rekke along to help out. 3. Frankly, your gripes in the 3rd paragraph don't even show up on my "radar screen". 4. I didn't like Durance either. However, I suspect that he was included because the character devs didn't want to only have nicey-nice companions. They wanted at least one who was surly and not very likable. Honestly, I wouldn't have even included him in my part, except for the fact that he was the only priest and you encountered him early (usually the 3rd companion you meet), which at least for me, made it very difficult to not use him. Also consider that not everyone who plays PoE1/2 are going to always want to play perfectly nice Watchers. Heck, given the number of people who talk about playing Bleak Walkers, it sounds like there are plenty who play Watchers who are serious jerks, since to me, a "nice" Bleak Walker seems like a total oxymoron. I can't speak for Aloth in PoE2, as I've tended to leave him in my reserves and only using him for that late game Leaden Key related personal quest, and occasionally for battles that seem to require the services of a high level wizard. Thus, I haven't had many long discussions with Aloth, but those I have had didn't seem as bad as you're making them out to be. Maybe I'm missing a lot of his personal banter. Frankly, it seems to me like you're expecting every Companion to be paragons of virtue and to like every other companion. That hardly seems realistic to me. Heck, there can be people who seem normally very pleasant. But then they encounter someone who rubs them the wrong way and it brings out the worst in them. Hey, Pallegina doesn't like overly pious people, and Eder doesn't like people who are cruel to animals. Heck, some people don't like Xoti because her constant, over the top niceness annoys them. Anyways, I think that you have unrealistic expectations if you expect every companion (and perhaps sidekick) to be likeable and get along with every other companion, 24/7 (or whatever it is on Eora). That's just not the way that people are. Ok, so the devs will have to make up yet another reason for losing all your experience, money and equipment. It was one of the least appealing parts of PoEII. Your endeavours in PoE counted for absolutely nothing. It might have as well been a different character alltogether. It's cheap and unimaginative. And it prevents the game from growing into more. A lot of people do not like change. Because it's scary. Continuing the watcher story is a bad idea. It doesn't amount to anything. There's nothing left for the watcher to do other than going to a different land and do something else. Then why have the same character(s) participate and have it follow up on deadfire? No it's a truly unimaginitive idea. There's absolutely no point in doing so. I'd love to see a new protagonist with different powers that take the story to a deeper level. Sure have Rekke participate and go to his lands. But add 10-15 years and build a new story based on past events. It allows for so much more creativity. You confuse nice with likable. Viconia and Sarevok are not nice. But they are likable. What I like is something I enjoy. This has nothing to do with a persons herritage or "allignment". Anomen is a goody two shoe full of himself self righteous a-hole. He is not likable. Keldorn is a Paladin, but he's not a self righteous a-hole. So he IS likable. Durance is a self righteous smug know it all idiot with 0 intelligence. I don't find such a person appealing to have around just so he can spout his drivel at me on how well he knows everything and also about me. I found it hilarious that he found out he was wrong about everything. Made killing him so much sweeter. He was not a sad broken person. He was a dumbass and I knew that when I met him. Although now I just kill him as he utters the words "Saw you in the flame". Like a drive by killing, sell his loot and move on. Much better that way, because early game you really need the money. Better than having someone around that lowers the average IQ of the party. With Eder around that's saying something. 1. I'm not bothered by starting over again, XP-wise, in PoE2. And wouldn't be in a PoE3. Oh, I would probably wish that I could start at level 4-5, just because things are a little more fun when you have more than the barest minimum of abilities, but that's a very minor thing for me. 2. Regardless, we disagree on this profoundly. I'm perfectly happy to continue on with The Watcher, and head off to Yezuha with Rekke. Maybe on a mission from the gods to investigate some new and mysterious rising power, as well as explore a hitherto unknown part of Eora. And heck, unless you bring some companions with you, every potential companion or sidekick you'd meet in Yezuha would be completely new. (I'd be happy to just head off to Yezuha with only Rekke and Ydwin at my side.) 3. No, I didn't confuse nice with likable. "Nice" can be taken to mean different things, and often different to different people. But, yes, in the sense if "nice" that YOU mean, there is a difference. But I meant "nice" as likable.

We had almost half of the old cast from PoE1 show up in PoE2. Some as Companions (Eder, Aloth, and Pallegina). Others making cameos (Kana, Mahena, Devil of Caroc (as enchanted armor), and Durance... sort of). And I think that Eder might have mentioned Hiravias at some point. I just don't remember for certain. 7 (or out of 11 is a pretty good representation. Heck, one might even make the case that Maia is a semi carry over from PoE1. Not that she was in PoE1. of course. Her brother Kana was. But she represents a familial carryover, since Kana really couldn't fill the role that Maia does in PoE2. In fact, I'm tempted to think that the writers might have wanted to have Kana carry over as a full companion, but couldn't find a way to do it, and settled for his sister as a Companion and Kana in a camo role.

Nouser, honestly, *if* there's a PoE3, it seems to me like the devs were lining things up for it to happen in Yezuha, where Rekke is from. There seem to be plenty of hints in PoE2 pointing in that direction. And were that the case, I think that the point would be for the Watcher to take Rekke home. However, I doubt that that's set in stone. Heck, there are no guarantees that there'll be a PoE3 at all, though it'd be VERY sad if there wasn't a 3rd installment in this series. That Rekke story sounds like a really dumb idea. Especially since Rekke isn't a full fledged party member with no investment into the story whatsoever. No I stand by the fact that PoE should not continue with the Watcher and have a new type of protagonist emerge in the future. Some time needs to have passed since PoE2. A protagonist that can deal with the fallout of Eothas' actions. Have previous party members or characters just pop up as cameo's or maybe as part of a side quest or something. Or not at all. One of the main gripes I had with PoEII was how little impact your actions in PoE seemed to have on your party. Only Eder was agreeable. Everyone else was like: ah yea we travelled together for months, shared life, misery, dreams, happiness, hardship. Oh and we stopped one of the Gods from destroying us, killed dragons and ended the hollowborn crisis. But yea now you said you don't like cookies so now I hate your guts. The introduction of your old team came off really wrong. Especially Aloth and Pallegina. If it was reallity I would have told them to piss off. Ah yes this reminds me of the time I played BG2 and killed Anomen when he started his self righteous attitude towards Jan. I dispise people like him and Durance. With a vengeance. Somehow, Aloth also went that route. It wasn't enough for me to want to kill him and kick his body into a ditch, but he wasn't far off. Not far at all. 1. I don't think that a Rekke story for PoE3 is a dumb idea at all. I also don't give a flying (you know what) about "investment in the story". If anything, that's what makes it an even better idea, not a lesser idea. I *want* to see the story get away from most of the existing companions!!! 2. I'm also very much in favor of continuing with the Watcher, but just have that story move over to Yezuha. I'd like the story to be one where perhaps the Watcher is sent to Yezuha by the Gods to investigate some new rising power there. And of course, bringing Rekke along to help out. 3. Frankly, your gripes in the 3rd paragraph don't even show up on my "radar screen". 4. I didn't like Durance either. However, I suspect that he was included because the character devs didn't want to only have nicey-nice companions. They wanted at least one who was surly and not very likable. Honestly, I wouldn't have even included him in my part, except for the fact that he was the only priest and you encountered him early (usually the 3rd companion you meet), which at least for me, made it very difficult to not use him. Also consider that not everyone who plays PoE1/2 are going to always want to play perfectly nice Watchers. Heck, given the number of people who talk about playing Bleak Walkers, it sounds like there are plenty who play Watchers who are serious jerks, since to me, a "nice" Bleak Walker seems like a total oxymoron. I can't speak for Aloth in PoE2, as I've tended to leave him in my reserves and only using him for that late game Leaden Key related personal quest, and occasionally for battles that seem to require the services of a high level wizard. Thus, I haven't had many long discussions with Aloth, but those I have had didn't seem as bad as you're making them out to be. Maybe I'm missing a lot of his personal banter. Frankly, it seems to me like you're expecting every Companion to be paragons of virtue and to like every other companion. That hardly seems realistic to me. Heck, there can be people who seem normally very pleasant. But then they encounter someone who rubs them the wrong way and it brings out the worst in them. Hey, Pallegina doesn't like overly pious people, and Eder doesn't like people who are cruel to animals. Heck, some people don't like Xoti because her constant, over the top niceness annoys them. Anyways, I think that you have unrealistic expectations if you expect every companion (and perhaps sidekick) to be likeable and get along with every other companion, 24/7 (or whatever it is on Eora). That's just not the way that people are.

There's also a little bit of Ydwin reactivity in SSS. Perhaps one of the funniest bits of in-party banter in the entire game, when Ydwin tells Xoti something like "Be quiet. The adults are talking." If I have a gripe about Vatnir, it would be that I wish that the devs had worked to find a way to place him, say, in the Wild Mare to try to develop a way to make him available to the party earlier. As it is, you don't (or probably shouldn't) meet him until your party is rather high level late in the game, and you might be fairly committed to your existing party. It would have been nice if he'd been available to use earlier in the overall story, because without him, there's only one priest option available, Xoti.

She's the mirror of Maia. Pallegina is a Vaillian patriot. Maia is a Rautian patriot. And remember that both are representatives of their faction, so it shouldn't come as a shock that they're difficult if not impossible to sway away from their faction. Also, don't forget that Sarafen and Tekehu are also staunch defenders of their factions as well. So, it really comes down to the design of Deadfire's faction system and how 4 of the companions are very loyal to their factions. And it seems to me that it'd screw up the overall balance of these 4 companions if only one of them wasn't nearly as strong a defender of his/her faction as the others. I suppose that the devs could have designed things in such a way that none of the companions were strongly tied to a faction, but that might have seemed weird for Maia, Pallegina, Tekehu, or Sarafen. I tend to think that if they'd not wanted any faction-tied companions, the devs would have had to develop 4 very different companions who clearly had no love for any faction.

I didn't bother trying to run Rust down. I just assumed that that was the game's way of giving the player a big bleep you. As for the crowd funding, that's just dumb. They shouldn't have allowed that outcome to even be possible. I don't care if there are exacctly the same number of unique weapons or armors of each type. But there should have been at least, say, 3-4 for each type, with any beyond that being gravy. This number probably shouldn't include pre-order items. And frankly, shouldn't include items on those "revenge ships", I think someone called them. I'm NOT fond of hiding items behind extreme corner case situations that players may never see. As for the final paragraph, honestly, I don't give a flying firetruck about weapon/armor/shield crafting systems. To me, they're a waste of time that would be far better spent on MORE of those items. Not following Rust was an incorrect assumption on your fault. It was more like the game telling you that you needed to work for the best stiletto and one of the best rogue weapons in the game. And in fact was an enjoyable sequence you missed out on. You can't blame the game for your decision. Sorry, but I will blame the game. I was willing to engage in a big nasty fight to get the dagger. But when I see a character run away like that, my automatic assumption is going to be that it's the devs flipping me off. Imagine how a one time only player is going to see it. It was a silly decision to do it this way.

I didn't bother trying to run Rust down. I just assumed that that was the game's way of giving the player a big bleep you. As for the crowd funding, that's just dumb. They shouldn't have allowed that outcome to even be possible. I don't care if there are exacctly the same number of unique weapons or armors of each type. But there should have been at least, say, 3-4 for each type, with any beyond that being gravy. This number probably shouldn't include pre-order items. And frankly, shouldn't include items on those "revenge ships", I think someone called them. I'm NOT fond of hiding items behind extreme corner case situations that players may never see. As for the final paragraph, honestly, I don't give a flying firetruck about weapon/armor/shield crafting systems. To me, they're a waste of time that would be far better spent on MORE of those items.

Affliction immunities are never useless. I will say that I'm not so sure about having a disengagement immunity (or was it just a very high disengagement defense bonus?) on heavy armor doesn't strike me as the most valuable thing going. Not that there's anything wrong with disengagement buffs. It just seems to me that a disengagement buff would be more valuable for someone wearing light or perhaps medium armor, rather than heavy armor. I have some problems with the loot/booty in a very different way. I have to admit that I kind of like the old school paradigms or tropes when it comes to fantasy stories and games. And that carries over into items in the game for me. I wish that there were more items that seemed aimed at different types of characters. Not exactly specific classes, but did play to the tropes. Such as staffs that feel like they're wizard staffs. Or robes that felt like robes for, well, mostly wizards. I suppose that one could argue that the Chromatic Staff is sorta-kinda a wizardly staff, but to me, not enough. If it was a true wizardly staff, it should probably have the skill that buffs up certain staff abilities be Arcana rather than Metaphysics. Also, a number of the proc'd special abilities seem to be a bit too corner cased and difficult to use. Like the "True Love's Kiss" dagger which has its special proc'ing on stealth attacks, which basically means you can only use it once per encounter, and only if you have exceptional Stealth. I think that it would have been better if the special was more like other specials where the size of the buff increased with the value of the skill. At least this way, you don't end up with an exceptionally narrow set of circumstances where the ability can proc. And honestly, I don't really like all the item upgrades. I wish that the devs had spent that time and effort on creating additional unique weapons, armor, and shields, particularly weapons in types that are rather short in numbers. I could be wrong too but the Lover's Kiss is kind of built for a Roque so not sure I agree totally with your post... playing an assassin there is numerous ways to go back into stealth and backstab and potentially get the added bonuses from the dagger ... unless I am totally wrong what it means by stealth, and haven't tested but it could also stack with raw damage you are already doing as a Rogue with Deep Wounds Here is where I think the upgrades really shine ... it allows you to adapt the item to your playstyle, and character. I think the difference between POE and say old school D&D fantasy tropes, is that POE is even more nuanced for certain builds and characters - its actually the exact opposite of not having unique items for characters, they are just not as general. As for why I like stripped down weapons and stat buffs ... it makes you not rely on weapons and stat buffs - plus I think I dig crafting weapons, which I am just realizing now. Dude, this dagger may be great for Assassin builds, but that's only a tiny percentage of all possible builds in this game. And when there are only 2 unique daggers plus one soul-bound dagger (with limited class options), to me, this absolutely SCREAMS bad. It's really stupid in my opinion to have such narrow usage weapons when there are so few to choose from in that specific type of weapon (in this case, daggers). As for upgrades, I don't care about them because I would VASTLY prefer to have more unique weapons (and all items) in the game, rather than a smaller number with upgrades. To me, the upgrades only served to require time, money, and other resources that could have been (IMO) better spent on creating additional items, particularly in those item types that are currently low in number. hmm, but there are tons of cool Stilettos - and if you are looking for a fast weapons that does damage I really like the club ... But I guess I understand - if you want to play a fighter with a dagger ... wait a minute!? But that would be stepping outside of the tropes wouldn't it? I disagree too about only fitting some builds, as you can multi-class a rogue with any build ... but honest what would a wizard get out of stabbing someone from stealth ... especially with a dagger ... unless said wizard is suicidal I could see a monk using the dagger, but still not from stealth, unless the monk went Rogue than there you go. I just don't agree with the argument about how the weapons only work etc ... and as I stated before its fine to have the cool weapons, but its better to have somewhat cool weapons and awesome character choices to go along. Plus you can mod any weapon you want 1. There are only TWO unique stilettos. And one of them can seem impossible to get, i.e. Rust's stiletto. If you're not as strong as him, he'll massacre you. And if your part is strong, he just teleports out and runs away. So, in reality, there's really only one. 2. As for the usefulness of daggers, sometimes someone might just want to use daggers for the role-playing feel. But when one of the daggers is a soulbound one with limited class options, and another is one whose only ability is an extremely narrow corner case, this makes using daggers rather difficult unless you're willing to use generic ones. About the best option one has is perhaps a dagger/stiletto dual wield. But it's really lame to have so few dagger and stiletto options. 3. We're not going to agree. I think that you're wrong across the board. You probably feel the same about me.

Affliction immunities are never useless. I will say that I'm not so sure about having a disengagement immunity (or was it just a very high disengagement defense bonus?) on heavy armor doesn't strike me as the most valuable thing going. Not that there's anything wrong with disengagement buffs. It just seems to me that a disengagement buff would be more valuable for someone wearing light or perhaps medium armor, rather than heavy armor. I have some problems with the loot/booty in a very different way. I have to admit that I kind of like the old school paradigms or tropes when it comes to fantasy stories and games. And that carries over into items in the game for me. I wish that there were more items that seemed aimed at different types of characters. Not exactly specific classes, but did play to the tropes. Such as staffs that feel like they're wizard staffs. Or robes that felt like robes for, well, mostly wizards. I suppose that one could argue that the Chromatic Staff is sorta-kinda a wizardly staff, but to me, not enough. If it was a true wizardly staff, it should probably have the skill that buffs up certain staff abilities be Arcana rather than Metaphysics. Also, a number of the proc'd special abilities seem to be a bit too corner cased and difficult to use. Like the "True Love's Kiss" dagger which has its special proc'ing on stealth attacks, which basically means you can only use it once per encounter, and only if you have exceptional Stealth. I think that it would have been better if the special was more like other specials where the size of the buff increased with the value of the skill. At least this way, you don't end up with an exceptionally narrow set of circumstances where the ability can proc. And honestly, I don't really like all the item upgrades. I wish that the devs had spent that time and effort on creating additional unique weapons, armor, and shields, particularly weapons in types that are rather short in numbers. I could be wrong too but the Lover's Kiss is kind of built for a Roque so not sure I agree totally with your post... playing an assassin there is numerous ways to go back into stealth and backstab and potentially get the added bonuses from the dagger ... unless I am totally wrong what it means by stealth, and haven't tested but it could also stack with raw damage you are already doing as a Rogue with Deep Wounds Here is where I think the upgrades really shine ... it allows you to adapt the item to your playstyle, and character. I think the difference between POE and say old school D&D fantasy tropes, is that POE is even more nuanced for certain builds and characters - its actually the exact opposite of not having unique items for characters, they are just not as general. As for why I like stripped down weapons and stat buffs ... it makes you not rely on weapons and stat buffs - plus I think I dig crafting weapons, which I am just realizing now. Dude, this dagger may be great for Assassin builds, but that's only a tiny percentage of all possible builds in this game. And when there are only 2 unique daggers plus one soul-bound dagger (with limited class options), to me, this absolutely SCREAMS bad. It's really stupid in my opinion to have such narrow usage weapons when there are so few to choose from in that specific type of weapon (in this case, daggers). As for upgrades, I don't care about them because I would VASTLY prefer to have more unique weapons (and all items) in the game, rather than a smaller number with upgrades. To me, the upgrades only served to require time, money, and other resources that could have been (IMO) better spent on creating additional items, particularly in those item types that are currently low in number.

I wasn't aware of that, but honestly, IMO, it seems like too narrow. I think that I'd rather see it be more like this. Have the special do X amount of Raw damage per 3 (?) seconds for X seconds (base) (maybe a pretty good base of 12 seconds?). But also have this ability linked to stealth, where the better the Stealth, the longer the duration of the Raw damage. This creates a situation that values strong Stealth, but is still usable with almost any amount of Stealth. Otherwise, this dagger is no better than a generic magic dagger.

A big problem I have with some Soulbounds is that you find them so late that it's very difficult to get them upgraded. Also, some have upgrade requirements that are very difficult to achieve. I'm also not terribly fond of Soulbounds that are really low level to start but you end up finding them later in the game when, for example, a Fine weapon seems rather underpowered. I also don't like Soulbound weapons that don't seem appropriate for the class. I guess that that's just another example of how I prefer items that fit traditional fantasy tropes rather than those that seem to run counter to those tropes.