scrotiemcb

D'oh. Fixed. I stand by Death > Fire. All of the "under 50% endurance" traits are pretty bad because if they trigger you're already in trouble. Fire is the clear winner in that category though. If it was a Top 7 list Fire might make it, but it's not.

I was expecting controversy. *shrug*

Logic fail. "Nature intends man to have sex with women" does not equal "nature does not intend man to have sex with man." If anything, based off what I can tell about the male sex drive, nature intends man to have sex with pretty much everything. Including women, sooner or later, hence reproduction.

I'm not a huge fan of binary choices, such as "no armor" vs "any armor," which is why I went very sliding-scale with my suggestions. Also, I think it should be done in the form of optional picks, not automatic abilities. I had no problem making STRONG talents for armorless monks, but if someone wants to play a monk in full Plate, I'm not trying to directly rain on his parade; he can pick something else instead. I also believe in uneven trades. Hence DR in exchange for Deflection, and vice versa. Keeps things more interesting and less of a math problem. So really I'm very much against giving DR to monks without armor... Give them Deflection instead. (Even makes more sense from RP perspective.) However, instead of optional talents (even levels), they could be optional abilities (odd levels). Or one each. Whichever.

1. Moon Godlike. When in a tank role, this is the Godlike which lives up to the moniker. Silver Tide as an ability is roughly on par with Constant Recovery in terms of keeping Endurance up, and in a similar way allows you to go Might (+healing) to improve both tank survivability and damage, even if not Fighter. Racial so powerful it demands consideration for nontank roles. Nerf should be incoming. 2. Wood elf. Distant Advantage sounds like what it is, giving Accuracy to anything ranged, making this the go-to class for your squishy ranged DPS types. Racial ability works with spells, too. I could almost end the list here. 3. Island Aumaua. The dark horse min/max pick for melee DPS types. The Might is nice, but the extra weapon slot is surprisingly excellent, allowing a slot for your firearm of choice to open things up, a quarterstaff or pike to beat on foes with from relative safety, and a shield and hatchet is things go south and you're engaged in melee somehow. Also allows up to three firearm volleys before reloading even once (four with a talent), which is a bit of a novelty but at least attempts to compete with Wood Elf for dedicated gunner. A little hampered by the underpoweredness of classes for which it shines. 4. Pale elf. 10 DR vs freeze and burn is no joke. Can be an interesting choice in parties where friendly fire spell damage is expected. However, with friendly fire AoE working as it currently does, burn DR is an unnecessary precaution. Could become a serious option in future if friendly AoE rules change. 5. Death godlike. There are paladin abilities which care about dealing the finishing blow. Death godlikes are good at dealing finishing blows. Dunno if it's worth doing, but it is best at something. The honorable mention goes to the most overrated racial choice, the wild orlan. Unfortunately, everything these +3 Deflection tanky dudes can do, Moon Godlike can do better, which makes them a solid but always second-best choice. +3 Deflection simply isn't all that much, less than a talent, and you're looking for at least one talent worth of racial goodness in min-max picks. I'm hoping the Moonies see a bit of a nerf so these little dudes become a more valid min-max option (it wouldn't take much). Your thoughts are welcome.

I feel rather strongly that a Monk is currently very incentivized to wear armor, which is very bad for his RP. I'd like to see something like these added to the game... Masochistic Anticipation Monk-only Talent Passive Available at level 2 +5 to DR. This bonus is lessened as you use heavier Shields (-2 for Small, -3 for Medium, -4 for Large). Pauper's Grace Monk-only Talent Passive Available at level 2 +12 to all Defenses. This bonus is lessened as you wear heavier Armor (-3 for Robe, -4 for Padded, -5 for Hide, etc).

Just because you don't get the jokes doesn't mean they didn't happen. I will say this though: if you go for a custom party right out the gate, a lot of the humor in the game dissappears.

In reply to the opening post, I feel your frustration. Sometimes it feels like internet critiques mentioning "balance" want to discorage variety and make everything the same. However, I don't believe such individuals are very good spokespeople for balance, because balance isn't about making everything equal, it is about making unequal things into equally valid choices. This might seem like a trivial difference, but it isn't. For example, let's look at two very old Blizzard RTS games: Warcraft 2 (1995) and Starcraft: Brood War (1998). Warcraft 2 presents two different races to choose from, and almost everything about the two races is the same, while Starcraft offers three race choices where each race is radically different from the others. Yet, Warcraft 2 is seen as have imbalanced race choice, while Starcraft is seen as balanced. This is because the very few things different in the former are seen as clearly favoring one side, so despite 95% sameness there is a clear edge in one choice. But with Starcraft, there are so many unique advantages and disadvantages that determining a clear winner is impossible. (Chess, the oldest strategy game in the world, shares Warcraft 2's problem.) Hopefully that is a lesson on how sameness and monotony is not the ally of balance, but instead its most insidious foe. True balance is about offering exclusives to mutually exclusive options, forcing players to compare apples to oranges instead of apples to apples, and creating meaningful choice. All sameness does is limit design space for balancing, as all attention shifts towards infrequent differences. And, yes, I also get the idea that you can play however you want and set up your own external objectives for a playthrough. However, good gameplay experiences are about fusing three things together: a legitimate challenge posed by the game, players answering these chchallenges with creative use of the tools given them, and receiving feedback from the game which corresponds to the quality of the player's execution. When you have all three in spades, that's good gaming, regardless of genre. I'm not saying every strategy should win (especially not in a self-imposed brutal difficulty), but it's important that winning can adopt a variety of forms rather than suffering a lack of diversity. The truly balance-minded among us are concerned that winning too often means doing the same as everyone else, and/or the same things over and over.

Your analysis (but not necessarily your conclusion) makes the mistake of confusing "high defense" with "tank." Tank is a verb more than it is a noun. The full verb might be expressed as "tank for." As in, tank for someone. This means 1. Having more suitable defenses than that which you are protecting and 2. Keeping enemies on the tank and off of the squishier party members. In PoE this is somewhat variable, but for a great many encounters it is indeed a case of simply having the highest defense possible; in these cases, the enemy AI does the work for you. But in a more active sense, punishing disengagement is PoE's aggro mechanic. In this second, more active sense, a Fighter has the edge. Arguably, two-handed weapons even have an edge over shields, since disengagement attacks are far more powerful with them. In practice, though, your analysis is correct. Bad AI is bad. In the future, however, I'd like to see an AI which evaluates your tank's real threat and disengages when appropriate. If you're all defense and zero offense, enemies shouldn't hesitate to disengage and go after juicer backrow targets if available.

BTW I should point out I still have a laugh at the SJWs out there. When I say it's like one's taste in broccoli, I mean it. So filtered through my ears I hear things like "I was born loving broccoli" (maybe so, but big whoop) or "legalize broccoli marriage" (the bigger question is why the state is involved in a church function at all), or maybe I even see a "broccoli pride" parade (which seems more appropriate for small rural communities whose lives all revolve around a single crop). Seriously, broccoli-lovers. Develop a sense of humor.

Gunpowder: invented in China 9th century, traveled to Europe by 13th century. Cannons were one of the first applications. Arquebus: initial use in 15th century, replacing the hand cannon, which lacked matchlock firing action. Printing press: developed in Europe in 15th century (ca. 1450). 11th century in China. I note this because this technology is absent in Eora. Pistol: 16th century (1540, France). I'd say around 1500 CE is what they're going for, with some tech up to 100 years ahead, some up to 100 years behind. Since the Rennaissance is generally considered 14th-17th centuries, and 1500 is the edge between 15th and 16th, a more proper term might be "middle Rennaissance." The independence of the Dyrwood (150 years before game start) and the decades of buildup towards it would most likely constitute the beginning of Eora's Rennaissance period, with animancers turning to Engwithan antiquity much as our world turned to ancient Greece. However, Eora's Rennaissance is not yet complete and is still likely centuries from completing.

Is it really? It's not like saying something is unnatural is the same as saying it's bad. Cars are unnatural, but I don't have a problem with cars. On what basis is it not a natural activity? It occurs in nature.I liked your first argument better. Nothing which occurs in our modern society can truly be called "natural" anymore. Not that I'm complaining. Hurray, technology. I mean, I now have a mild academic interest in whether the National Geographic brand of anthropologists have ever observed two male natives of an aboriginal tribe getting it on or not, but regardless of this the point would be moot. The proper attitude towards homosexuality should mirror possible attitudes towards broccoli. Is it intrinsically gross? No. Is it subjectively gross to some people? Yes. Is anyone here forced to eat broccoli? No. Do you really know if you like it or not if you haven't tried it? No. Does that mean you should if you haven't? Not really, it's just a food; it isn't that important unless you can't stand eating anything else you've tried. Are their situations where a man, despite his dislike for broccoli, would eat it anyway out of hunger? Depends on the intensity of the dislike. But nothing to be ashamed about. What's sad is that people have been shamed, not even because of having a particular taste, but because of some irrationally belief that trying a nibble is a lifelong commitment.

For those who don't know, -99999 Intelligence means that when you use Knock Down on an enemy, it sends them back in time a little bit over 4 hours, then applies the Prone status on them until the point in the future when you used Knock Down on them. Your AoEs, on the other hand, effect an alternate dimension instead of the current one, which makes them less useful for combat on this plane and more useful for destroying alternate-reality versions of yourself. See also: Deadpool Kills Deadpool.

Race: Ogre. I'm an intelligent sort, but I'm an Ogre at heart, something my intelligent side gave up fighting and accepted years ago. If I was in PoE I'd live in a messy cave. But I'd be very racist. Mostly against other ogres. Brainless scum, couldn't hunt for truth if it was biting their ankles. I'm not racist in real life, but being a smart ogre in Eora would drive one insane. Class: Wizard. At first I would have said "priest." I find it strange saying this, because in real life I'm an atheist. However, generally speaking the gods are real in fantasy games, so that wouldn't be an issue. Perhaps more to the point, in real life there is little I enjoy more than proslytizing. I and I alone, oh devoted flock, have found The Way, so now do as your humble leader dies, do as I do. Or at least do as I say. Thank God (nonfacetiously this time) for me. Which means I guess I need to answer which of the Eora pantheon I'd follow. My answerwould be that although I would consider Magranites swell folks, Galawain would have my heart. Read "The Book of the Hunt" in-game, and that pretty much sums up my philosophy of knowledge. Don't ask; experiment! Which means I probably wouldn't be a priest. Faithful to Galawain, in my own way, no doubt. But I'd be hunting for the real upcoming knowledge in the Dyrwood: animancy. Probably have to be a wizard for that. Plus, I could give sermons to my vessels all I want. And probably would. Probably would use ogre corpses. Kill 'em myself. Most Ogres are too stupid to be allowed to survive. Background: Aedyr - Mercenary. I actually am an Afghanistan veteran, and I actually went to the Marine, Navy, Air Force, Army, and National Guard recruiters to compare enlistment bonus. I went with the highest bidder. (Keeping my living area "army clean" was tge biggest pain.) Very few are more "mercenary" than me. In-game, I would probably have started off bashing skulls to fund my initial ventures into animancy, then work for the highest bidder. Stats: 11 Might, 15 Constitution, 10 Dexterity, 8 Perception, 17 Intelligence, 5 Resolve. I am wicked smart, but I have a lot of trouble in life, mostly for the and reasons Hamlet does. Seems very high Int, low Res to me. Equipment: I despise melee combat. I'd probably use an arquebus. I'd wear normal clothes most of the time, but I'd probably have a brigadine for situations when I know combat will transpire. Favored dispositions: Clever, Rational Disliked dispositions: Benevolent, Honest In conclusion: absent-minded professor of an ogremage who is a heretic of his beloved Galawain faith, works for the highest bidder, practices animancy, delivers sermons to his "experiments" to pass the time, and carries a rifle.

All you need to do is restore N spells at the end of combat. At the moment, it restores all of them all none, but unless the game is coded in a really strange way, the number restored can be arbitrary. Alternatively, you can set the number of available spells to N if the number is currently less than N.That isn't the same thing at all. Use all lvl1 spells first battle. Use none second battle. Have two (not 1) lvl1 spells third battle.

Alas, this is a problem which ailsThe whole Interwebs. From that which avails There is ne'er a fight Won with mental might; Brute tenacity always prevails.

To answer OP's hullabaloo, I posted my thoughts good and true. Only after I read And found out to my dread This thread's now about rhyming poo.

lol, just noticed this. I guess my rant was a derail. The best answer I can give is UI coding. If you have two separate level 1 spell abilities, one per-encounter and one per-rest, it looks ugly. If you don't, then you need to code a set of per-rest abilities that you do not have (or are hidden) when you have per-encounter uses remaining, then pops onto the UI once you're out. But if you do that, how stores the UI indicate how many are left? This is why I'm a strong proponent of removing the ability completely. The UI issues involved in preserving a balanced form of this ability are more work than they're worth. Better to just scrap than beating away at a convoluted system; the whole thing was unnecessary to begin with.

Voted "dedicated thread." Not so much because I think this issue is special or something, but because all thematically similar threads should always be merged to keep conversation consolidated, rather than appealing to OP ego by allowing yet another thread which discusses a topic which actually began, and therefore belongs, elsewhere. Ex: this one.

The word is pronounced (voice-acted) by Kana Rua when you first meet him. During the part where he discusses his, um, previous relations with a certain group.

I don't like the idea of a per-encounter spell talent because a per-encounter ability is generally much weaker than even a first-level spell. The only problem with the Extra Spell talents is that they aren't available early enough. Should be able to get 5 first-level casts per day (without gear) at character level 3. As a contrast, Arcane Veil should be a 1/encounter deal. Maybe mess with its Deflection or duration for balance.

That is a self-imposed mental block, plain and simple. You have more resources per rest, so you can afford to throw more out there. A level 9 spellcaster would otherwise have 18 spells per rest... do you really see yourself casting ALL of them in one fight? Although now that I think about it, spellcasters need one thing, and only one, to replace the "spells per encounter" mechanic: if you are out of 1st-level spell casts, you can still access the menu and cast those spells, but it counts as a second-level use (or third, if out of second). Same deal with using third-level casts on second-level spells and so on. This should start at character level 3. This way you could spam low-level spells in non-boss fights knowing you won't cut off your own access later, providing you're willing to give up a higher-level slot. In other words, if you want 18 Fan of Flames per rest, then so be it. But not 4 per encounter. Also, make the Extra 1st-level Spell talent available at character level 2, Extra 2nd-level at clvl 4, etc.

Why does this mechanic even exist? Spellcasters really come into their own at later levels anyway, with natural increases in spells per rest which allow them to spellspam more and more. The entire "spell per encounter" mechanic should be tied to a stake, burned alive, stabbed with a spear, buried, exhumed, put on trial, found guilty of heresy and decapitated. In that order. Or at least removed from the game. :3 None of this "gradual" stuff. None of this "talent" stuff. Just gone.

Well, in terms of monster synergies, I see what you want to do, and would like to see the same, but I disagree with immunities as a method. For example, you could have level 8 Pale Elf Paladins with high Dexterity and Perception, with Talents in Scion of Flame, Snakes Reflexes, Shield Style, and Deep Faith, who wear Burn-proofed Plate and wield Burning Lash weapons and large shields, tanking for enemy Pale Elf Wizards, with Scion of Flame, Snakes Reflexes, and Burn-Proofed robes, who cast Fan of Flames, Ray of Fire, Fireball and Wall of Flame liberally. Since the Paladins would have 30 DR vs Burn and about 100 Reflex, they wouldn't be strictly immune... but let's just say I wouldn't worry about AI friendly fire too much. (The interesting part is of this fight would be that player non-Burn abilities which target Reflex would also be rather heavily countered.) Now, could you still win that fight using Fire abilities? Um, maybe? But on PotD using a Fire spell against such enemies would almost definitely cost you the battle. Which is enough. Immunities, as I first said, are overkill, because they transform "really, truly difficult" into "impossible." The situation I presented is challenging enough to encourage tactical diversity without resorting to such extremes. But monsters made of fire should have high Fire DR. Really, really, really high.

I am not at all a fan of hard counters; outright immunities are a terrible idea. Why? Overkill. Strong resistences (and weaknesses) are sufficient to punish using the same strategies over and over again, without being a full stop to, say, a party without a spellcaster. That said, the game already does this surprisingly well. The only thing is that these weaknesses and strengths are usually best learned by savescumming orv repeat playthroughs, with the exception of kith (visually identifying armor worn and class goes a long way). So y suggestion there is to allow the Bestiary to be filled two different ways: the hard way by direct experimentation, as now, or by learning from NPCs or books. Although this would mean adding a bit more books/dialogue to the game, I feel just letting players know about strengths and weaknesses would go a long way towards satisfying players' need for strategic combat.