NathanH

For the starting-focus nerf, I have a suspicion that the fundamental reason people were finding Ciphers ridiculously strong is that major Afflictions apply on grazes, and even with short durations are very powerful. If I'm right, this is just going to be a constant problem with casters in general, and it's only that Ciphers were best-placed to take advantage of it that they look so strong. These sorts of balance changes are likely to only scratch around the edges of this problem. Indeed, I don't see my low-level Cipher play changing that much. A good patch that balanced Ciphers would nerf their most powerful attacks without nerfing less powerful ones. The change to their starting focus doesn't really do this. Ciphers will be weaker, but I'll be casting the same spells with them. The blunderbuss nerf is a good idea, because it does achieve such a thing. The most powerful focus-generating attack has been toned down, and less powerful focus-generating attacks have been improved.

I find the almost-English words annoying. If we assume that the languages being spoken in the game world have no particular relationship with English (because why would it?) then either something should be given its in-world name (if it isn't relatable to any English word) or an English translation (if it is similar).

I enjoyed playing Baldur's Gate 2 and Icewind Dale multiplayer, so it would be a nice thing. This type of game works nicely when played with friends. It's probably too much work, though.

It oughtn't be a big deal either way, but the principle "all achievements must be physically achievable by all players" is a good one. Actually I'd probably strengthen that a bit to get rid of achievements like "post something from the game on Facebook!" which is also an annoying type of achievement. Achievements should be completely in-game in all ways, that seems reasonable.

Those gold-named NPCs are part of a secret plot to destroy the region. You must kill as many of them as you can.

I'm not sure what I'd prefer corresponds to in the voting, but I'd say: 1) Companions ought to be fully voiced, and this is the most important thing 2) The main villain should probably be fully voiced, or something close 3) I like it when you initiate a conversation with an NPC and they say a line, like in the IE games, but this isn't a big deal and the same lines can be repeated across NPCs. 4) I don't think any other voicing is necessary. If there is spare money, then villain sidekicks and plot-critical NPCs should be prioitized, obviously.

I do find it a little annoying when a scripted quest breaks the standard game-world rules. Ideally, the reputation/crime resolution system would be robust enough that killing Harond assigns you the appropriate reputation penalty simply because it's known by relevant NPCs that you were involved with him and you went to see him and then he was dead, and that this system is in place for all other situations that share these properties or some of these properties, without need for developer scripting. Sadly, such mechanization is not really ever done and further nobody seems interested in attempting to do it---essentially, RPG developers are not particularly interested in really being RPGs. Another interesting point is that tracking such things by a simple numerical representation of "reputation" is way too simplistic. You should leave that situation with the possible reputations "not suspected", "suspected murderer", "known murderer". This is rather different from the alternative reputation "blackmailed a powerful lord" that another resolution can lead to, and yet will be tracked by the game in essentially the same manner.

I have stopped for a bit, but I will probably return soon. But since I reached Twin Elms my reaction to pretty much every quest has been "meh, I don't have any particular desire to do that".

Hah, it would indeed be great fun if you could sacrifice all the companions to it. Now if only there was a way to sacrifice backer NPCs to it...

I'm glad they didn't do low-int dialogue. At least, not in the ridiculous way it was done in the mentioned games. Stupid people do not talk anything like that.

Supposedly you're having nightmares every night and barely sleeping, but you only find out about this when Eder tells you you're having nightmares every night and barely sleeping, It's pretty odd. Th game doesn't communicate this very well.

I think I'm with the badger here. When I saw a Gul for the first time I didn't think "Aha! A creature that shares many similarities with a ghoul but likely with several key lore and mechanical differences!" but rather "Aha! A ghoul that is too cool for school!"

Major debilitating attacks like dominate and paralysis should probably give lesser related effects on Graze, rather than just reduced duration. So Charm and Dominate could give say Dazed or Confused on graze (still at half duration). Paralysis might give Hobbled or Stuck, that sort of thing.

You don't really need to worry about this in PoEt. I suppose Perception and Resolve are the most common. Might is probably the most fun. But its not a big deal like it was in Planescape. Build your character attributes for combat, and the dialogues will be fun enough regardless.

I wasn't even deliberately trying to do this quest, I just opened his door and he attacked me, so I killed him. Turns out he was a baddie. Well that's fortunate.