scrotiemcb

Most suggestions thus far are hideously overpowered and/or lack a coherent theme which fits Eora. Masochist's Anticipation Monk-only Passive +5 to DR. However, this bonus is reduced as you use larger Shields (-2 small, -4 large). Pauper's Grace Monk-only +15 to Deflection and Reflex. However, this bonus is reduced as you wear heavier Armor (-3 robe, -4 padded, -5 hide, etc).

I don't know if you were making an offhand joke or meant this comment in the deeper sense that I read it.I don't either, but I'm digging the deeper interpretation.

Dividing a day into halves of "morning" and "night" is also an arbitrary division. Admittedly, less so, but it would seem that Eorans divide their days into thirds on a cultural level. Which, you know, we do too. 24 hours is also divisible by 3, and we use the 8-hour concept plenty. It's a remarkably efficient way to set up 24-hour operations, which have seen military use for millenia of our history. What I find strange isn't that the number of hours isn't divisible by 2; what I find strange is that it's not divisible by 6. The Numenera you speak of also seems odd to me.

It is as if they were afraid to make wizards too powerful. Because in most of these games (and especially D&D), they are. I definitely think the 1st and 2nd level spells going "per encounter" needs to be just utterly removed. Which would be a wizard nerf, not a buff. That said, I feel like Wizard is a little underwhelming compared to Druid or Priest (both of which also currently abuse per-encounter spells). I feel like abilities like Arcane Veil and Grimoire Slam are just bad for the game because it takes emphasis off of pure spellcasting, which is what a Wizard should be about. I would much rather see those talents gone, and instead see something along the lines of Wizard-specific metamagic talents. After all, the Grimoire editing mechanic would be a great way to set up metamagic, putting elevated spells in higher level slots in the Grimoire. It would be fairly easy for players to manage, give Wizards a spellcasting edge over the other classes (plus, very confusing with Grimoire), and justify having a large variety of low-level Wizard spells, confident in the knowledge that a lot of those spells will fill higher slots.

1. Push mechanics are in the game. Pull mechanics are in the game. The AI should be able to respond to players bottlenecking by actually MOVING them. 2. To give additional tools (for both monsters and players), the Prone status should allow others to walk over you. So there would be 3 tools then: push, pull, and prone. 3. AI should be rather heavily random. We understand it's difficult to write an AI script which consistently recognizes chokepointing behavior and counters it. Don't put all the eggs in that basket. Have the AI push and pull and prone and teleport and everything else at least pseudorandomly so it is always a potential threat.

If you ask me a party of 6 is plenty of classes. No need for multiclassing, which has far more utility in a game with smaller parties. I have really enjoyed some classless RPGs in the past, but I enjoy classed ones, too. I like the classes in this game.

hi bhavv

Dangerous thoughts here. Both of these "sides" are extremely vocal minorities, representing but a tiny fraction of the overall populace. For most, the label "warrior" couldn't apply less, and their views (when they decide to even have them) comprise a mixture of PC and not-at-all PC beliefs, as well as several which are uniquely moderate. For the record, I am not a SJW. If forced to choose, I'd rather be a SJW than a "SIJW," but I don't have to, so I don't. The reason is that I am only willing to fight to a point. Someone in this thread said earlier that a murderer has no right to life, etc. Real eye-for-an-eye stuff. To me, whether or not they have a right to it or not is irrelevant. We, as a community, are not more free when we kill murderers, but when we prevent them. Vengeance is not a goal of mine. Mercilessness isn't a goal of mine, either. People will make mistakes. Sometimes, those mistakes will be so deeply rooted in that person's ethos that their behavior could be called evil. But this doesn't mean this always will be so, or what they have to contribute cannot be realized. In fighting evil, we should fight the idea, the offspring of an ethical error... but not the person, unless left no other recourse. And for people, if one cares one lick about social justice, we must take care not to hate them, but instead direct our hate in its entirety towards false ideas. There is a word I wish was less grammatically akward, and that word is "spar." It indicates a martial struggle, a fight, but the implication is that it is a friendly, or at least civil, bout, intended not to defeat others, but for mutual improvement, via the sharpening of skills, the discovery of weaknesses, and the improvisation of new solutions. I love sparring. But I hate war. So I'm content being a Social Justice Sparrer. But I'll never be a Social Justice Warrior. And even then, sparring is a hobby to me, not a mission.

The error only breaks immersion if you believe the error is not part of the game world. In this case, I think you could go either way with it. Which means that, if immersion is so important to you, you probably should have went the other way with it, if possible.

Nope. In one of my PotD fights a lot of my guys got KO'd and it came down to my fighter tank and a Xaurip Champion. I would have attritioned him out, except he used Lay on Hands on himself 27 times. Eventually he got through all of the Fighter's Health, negating his Constant Recovery. Xaurips don't play fair.

Ciphers shouldn't start with zero focus. But ciphers shouldn't start with full focus, either. 60% is probably about right.

I'd like to see a series of Talents which look to your Culture and Background for requirements. For example, I'd like to see the Weapon Focus Talents redesigned according to your previous Background (ex: Weapon Focus Mercenary), and class-specific Talents which vary according to your Culture, thus creating 7 different variations of Fighter, etc.

In general, I agree; I would like to see a lot of "hard, but not impossible", but I still think that there should be quite a lot of immunities, in the cases where it makes sense. For example, I don't think an Ogre should be immune to Prone, but it should be damn hard to knock him down, and certainly not with a Graze, no matter if the Graze is for 1 second. That's not really how the Accuracy/Defense system works. It's more like their Defense should be so high that a Graze is the best outcome possible.

I think Galawain might. But you can't pick him because... I don't know?

I think the original lyric was, technically, hate speech from someone who had absolutely zero ill intent. Which is actually quite common. Promoting an unfair view of other people accidentally is a relatively simple error, we've probably all done it at some point... actual bigotry is far less common. What I do but think is unfair is any accusation that the original limerick had ill intent, or that either the backer or Obsidian are transphobic. Saying a transphobic thing naively does not a bigot make. It's ad hominem fallacy, pure and simple.

Really? I find that doubtful, since it's fairly well-established in CRPG circles that respeccing is the devil.This is one of the things I loved about Divinity Original Sin. It had respec, but you literally had to deal with a devil to do it. You generally didn't come up ahead of someone who had built their character that way from the start. Wouldn't mind something like that in this game, provided it stuck to that principle: a respecced character will never be as strong as one cooked from scratch.

I'll agree with you regarding knocking amorphous oozes down with something as trivial as a shield bash. However, I don't think it should be impossible to knock an ooze out with a magical sleeping spell, or cause them to slip around on an oily surface. These things might be very, very difficult to pull off, however. I think it should be possible to terrify constructs or undead. In this game's lore, undead are more properly called vessels - vessels for human or animal souls. Can you terrify humans or animals? Of course you can. However, I could also see how it would be very difficult to scare such souls, because they've been through a lot already. Fire elementals should already be on fire, I'll give you that much. And being on fire should be a good thing in their book, healing them or some similar. This isn't to say you couldn't set them on fire; first, use cold or wet to smolder their fire, then set them alight once more. No idea why you'd do this, but you could. If said fire elemental is solid or liquid in any way, there should be a temperature which causes its current form to change. It has occurred to me that perhaps boiling a liquid fire elemental just turns it into an even hotter, more dangerous gaseous fire elemental - in other words, destroying its body merely creates a better one for it to use. So in the specific case of "this monster is a living avatar of this elemental damage type" I can accept an immunity. You should be able to make flying enemies come down to the ground (ex: Fighter's Knock Down). You should be able to make them vulnerable to ground hazards after you have done so. But you're right, Slicken shouldn't really work on flying enemies. Lastly, I've got a story about organisms without eyes. When I was in Afghanistan there were these locusts everywhere. If you've ever dealt with these things you know they have no apparent self-preservation instinct and will just land right in front of you and chill. I got bored, and removed the antennae from one, leaving it otherwise unharmed. Although it has eyes as well, it clearly doesn't use them much; it could no longer fly in a straight line, kept flying directly into walls, and I believe eventually killed itself flying too fast into a wall. A little more gruesome than I intended. The point is that even an eyeless black ooze has sense organs of some type (or types). You needn't attack eyes to functionally blind something. Now, in the case of an ooze this might be very difficult, or in some cases practically impossible (for example, if each individual cell of the ooze has sensory capacity), but it should not be a simple case of "no eyes, can't blind," but instead a more complicated lore decision which asks "how is this entity aware of its surroundings?" Maybe even update the Bestiary ooze you successfully Blind an ooze to explain how your character eventually figured it out. In general, hard things should be hard, not impossible. In a fantasy setting I'm a huge opponent of "impossible" and a big proponent of "you have to be pretty epic to pull that off." And sometimes lucky, too. Heck, they could be achievements. Give oozes, I don't know, +80 to defense vs Blind, and make an achievement called "Blind an ooze." Or "Terrify a Flesh Construct." Etc.

You fault me for sacrificing DPS, yet you use arbitrary and suboptimal point spreads. If your min-max Rogue doesn't have max Might and max Dex, you already fail. Proper Rogue is something like 21 Mig 4 Con 18 Dex 8 Per 18 Int 9 Res. Maybe 9 Int 18 Res if going for defense over duration. The only "DPS sacrifices" I make are modal. Yours are permanent.

That makes no sense. Lets burn that fire to death? Do you know what a fire elemental IS? It is the essence of Fire. It IS fire. "Turning up the heat" on fire, makes fire bigger, hotter and stronger. Not, weaker, smaller and "uncomfortable".I disagree. All solids have melting points, and all liquids have boiling points. If you melt or vaporize something, it dies. So unless a fire elemental is completely gaseous, it can be killed with fire. Although, admittedly, I'm taking about a game where you beat on ghosts with swords. Swords which would undoubtedly melt if a fire elemental was hot enough, dealing no damage (actually, wooden arrows and staves burning may be the larger concern). Regardless of the lore, for gameplay reasons, full immunities are bad, for the reasons I gave earlier. The lore can be adapted to suit.

The shield & hatchet is for defensive situations only. Pike the vast majority of the time (not quarterstaff because pike is in same focus group as good guns). As I said earlier, orlan tanks have nothing on moon tanks. Nothing. Ruminate gets it.

Wasn't there another thead about this? In any case, I'm opposed to immunities. Even a fire elemental, in my opinion, could be killed with fire. You'd just need some to turn up the heat so high in blows right past the elemental's comfort zone and goes into what it considers unbearably hot. This isn't to say that I don't think monsters should have powerful resistances. In the case of a fire elemental, I'd probably go with 40 DR vs Burn AND an ability of "whenever this takes Burn damage, this heals 10 Endurance." Could you damage it with a crit Fan of Flames? Sure; a base 100 Burn crit would still go through for 50 (hot!). But if you graze you're just healing it, and a standard hit would do mediocre damage. The reason I'm against immunities is because I don't like invalidating builds in an absolute sense. If a player designs his whole party around Burn damage, a fight against fire elementals should be a nightmare... but not impossible. In particular, forcing such a party to rely on an improbable string of crit RNG seems like a good way to say "you might want to change strategy instead of grinding this out." They could still grind it out, though. Same thing with status ailments. I feel a level 1 Wood Elf Rogue using a Hunting Bow at a distance should have about a 20% chance of grazing a Lesser Black Ooze with the status portion of Blinding Strike, and a 80% chance of miss. No chance of a full-duration hit at all. Immune? Not quite. But close.

Anyone can pick those cultures, so it's +3 Deflection, not +4. And my point was that the orlan has no RELATIVE offense advantage over island (or coastal) aumaua. The racial ability is worth AT MOST 3 Might. More likely 2. And aumaua have 3 more Might than orlans. This means the orlan is at best tied with aumaua offensively. With no way to break the offensive stalemate, defense becomes the tiebreaker. In other words, the two races have near-identical DPS, but orlan Rogues get murdered by Shadows and island aumaua Rogues don't.

Converting 10% hits to crits isn't that great of an ability. Basically like changing the hit range from 50-100 to 50-95. It ends up feeling like 2.5% more damage as Raw type. That's the orlan offense, compared to a flat 7% (1.3/1.21) more damage for aumaua (but which doesn't necessarily bypass DR). Which isn't conditional on having a teammate attack with you. Even if we consider max benefit a tie, aumaua isn't conditional and wins. +3 Deflection is the orlan defense. Versus the aumaua having a spare weapon slot to switch into a hatchet and shield, providing 17 to 29 Deflection. Aumaua wins decisively. Rogues need guns in a weapon slot. Period. If not you're just throwing away a perfectly good "first 2 seconds" Sneak Attack. Even if Backstab, you lead with a gun. Reloading to fire a second shot is completely optional. For Rogues, Hearth Orlan has no offensive advantage vs island aumaua, and a huge defensive liability.

First off, this whole chopping debate is stupid. Against an unarmored opponent, you pierce, slash, or crush; against an armoured one you pierce, chop, or crush. Functionally, chopping vs slashing reflects the difference in method you'd attempt to use fighting armoured vs unarmored opponents... but if you had a slashing weapon designed for unarmored opponents, you'd end up trying to chop an armored opponent, and if you had a chopping weapon designed for armored opponents you'd end up trying to slash unarmored opponents. Thus, slashing and chopping are essentially the same damage type; the only "difference" should be in character animations, representing the difference in tactics employed. More to the original point of the thead: increased range weapons are very strong in PoE. I legitimately have trouble imagining a current scenario where any non-reach weapon should be used over a reach one. If you wanna DPS, you wanna be safe; if you wanna tank, you won't be going two-handed anyway.

I wouldn't suggest Moon for a melee rogue, either, unless it's some kind of tank rogue. I'd suggest island aumaua. I feel the extra weapon set is a huge deal for rogues in particular.