scrotiemcb

Well the way I think levels at the end should be (assuming party of 6): strict minimalist at level 9. By which I really mean level 9 and 50-80% of the way to level 10. This would be a pattern throughout the entire game; if you skip everything optional you should arrive at required boss fights just shy of next level usual minimalist at level 10. Should get this off about 1 optional quest per act. Moderate completionist at level 11. This should typify the normal player experience, completing many optional side quests. severe completionist at level 12. Getting that last 11000 XP should require some real commitment. As such, assuming the core XP/level system isn't changed, content which is even slightly optional should only account for 23,000-27,000 XP, with 40,000-44,000 XP from the strictly required portions of the game. Considering over half the content is optional, this would mean there would definitely need to be some XP skewing.

I've been thinking about this thread and realized something: just because you have x hours of required content and k*x hours of optional content, does not necessarily mean the game must reward y XP for completing only the required content, and (1+k)*y XP for completing all content. Why? You can reward players in various ways. And, quite frankly, XP is a bad reward for optional content. For required content, players should get the essentials which everyone needs - XP for leveling, generically good gear (such as Fine, Exceptional, Superb), and the recipe components to craft generically good gear as needed. Optional content, on the other hand, should cater to eccentricity. It is a great way to reward players with specialized equipment, unique items with oddball modifiers, and, if there are recipes for oddball modifiers, the components needed for those recipes. What you don't need to reward a lot of - and shouldn't - with optional content is generically good rewards like XP and cp, because then you're pulling everyone towards such optional content rather than creating interesting niches. So I am actually very unconvinced that the core XP system needs an overhaul. What I am convinced of is that unique items should be waiting off the beaten path instead of on it... and that something should be done with limiting the gold NPC merchants have so you can't just sell everything you kill.

Already covered attributes, now into other points in the OP... Stealth: I'd add an additional status effect called Mute: -30 Concentration -10 Intelligence -20 Accuracy with Spells cannot use Phrases does not alert other enemies to your presence Ranger and Rogue would all get out-of-combat Silence abilities "for free" and Cipher could get one with a class-specific talent (similar to getting Arcane Veil). Other classes might have Mute abilities as well. Combat would still start, but only for the Muted enemy; you'd still be Stealthed as far as the others are concerned. Definitely agree with individual Stealth instead of party Stealth. Experience: Here's what I would have done... Far more granular Reputation system. A single dialogue choice could increase a reputation by hundreds of points Give each Reputation an opposite. Gaining Deceitful when you have Honest points would just subtract Honest instead. Same with local relations. No XP from killing, or Mechanics... or even from quests. Not directly, at least. Your XP would be equal to the sum of the highest Reputations you've ever had. Period. So if you want to level up, you'd have to travel to new localities to either help or harm them, and play with a somewhat consistent personality. Literally, a role playing game. Stash: Merchants should have both... limited gold. Buying from them helps, but severely limited at first. individual tastes (may pay more for an item than another merchant, or sell an item for less) These two things alone would be sufficient to discorage "murder everything" play, because you couldn't fence everything and you're always looking for the best fences. No need to add unfun inventory encumberence mechanics, unless toggled on by player choice. Per encounter spells: should be removed completely. You're swimming in spells/day at high level anyway. It's overkill. Combat only: should be replaced with a mechanic that durations expire 3x to 5x faster outside of combat. Still really nerfs the tactic, less immersion-breaking. Armor being highest-or-lowest: right now all Armors have the same enchantments available. This needs to change; nothing else does. For example, an "of Evasion" mod which grants +Deflection but is only on Light Armor. Or "of the Battlemage," only on Heavy Armor, grants accuracy with Spells. Give players some hard choices here. Stronghold: Meh. I view it as the Blitzball of this RPG, if you catch my drift. It's just a minigame and I see no sense in getting too worked up about it. CNPCs: Nothing Obsidian ever does with them will ever be perfectly min/max. So the best they can do is what they've done: allow you to create your own lifeless replacements. Weapon Focus groups: The groupings should make sense to someone with zero knowledge of PoE but a general knowledge of RPG tropes and historical weapons. That is all. Intelligence is currently OP: Yep.

1. Attributes I agree with OP's appraisal of the current problem, particularly MIG/DEX vs PER/RES with INT uber alles. However, his suggestion is... well, as things stand now, a stat with +Accuracy is just a horrible suggestion, actually worse than INT is now. Separating melee, ranged, and spell damage doesn't really accomplish anything. If a character is about damage, then they are about damage, so they'll take whichever stat boosts damage. Action speed is actually a slightly different thing, since you don't need to be about DPS to care. However, separating Accuracy into two different stats would make a huge difference. For example, let's say Accuracy was split into two stats, the first of which now cares strictly about your ability to actually aim and hit things physically with other objects, while the second represents your ability to force your soul on others through effort of will. In general, the first Accuracy would be used exclusively against Deflection, while the second would be used exclusively against the other three defenses; for example, the Fighter's Knock Down would use the first for the primary hit (damage), and the second for the Prone status vs. Fortitude. As Durance says, names are arbitrary. But let's call my first Accuracy "Accuracy" and the second "Soulpower" (since Will is already taken). You might have a split like this: MIGHT: +2 Accuracy with Melee Weapons, +2 Soulpower, +2 Fortitude CONSTITUTION: +3% Endurance, +3% Health, +2 Concentration, +2 Fortitude DEXTERITY: +3% Action Speed, +2% Movement Speed, +2 Reflex PERCEPTION: +2 Accuracy with Ranged Weapons, +2 Interrupt, +2 Reflex INTELLIGENCE: +5% Area of Effect, +2 Deflection, +2 Will RESOLVE: +4% Duration of non-Ailment effects you create, +3% Healing received, +2 Will I feel that's a lot more balanced than what OP proposed.

I apologize for not reading the entire thread at the time of writing this. I applaud OP for his analysis of the problem. However, in presenting his solution, there is obvious hyperbole in saying there is "literally only one way" to skin the cat. Hint: always at least two. For those who don't know, the XP needed per level is a direct homage to pen-and-paper D&D. Not only is it the same general scheme, it's the exact same numbers. So with this awareness, we can come to one of two conclusions: either D&D has a crappy leveling system despite numerous times rewrites spanning decades, or the D&D folks came up with an additional XP mechanic to modify the situation Their additional mechanic is a little... strange. Link. Although giving the precise formula from this table eludes me, the point is that, as your party outlevels certain encounters, the amount of XP gained for that encounter is reduced. Being one level higher could easily mean 20% less XP received, and outleveling it too much could mean a trivial amount of XP, or even none. This creates a very complex system which performs roughly the same mathematical effect as the exponential XP system OP endorses, but also seems to better encourage players to seek out level-appropriate challenges rather than attempting to grind away every last bit of content the game has to offer in a single playthrough. Whether this last bit is a desireable objective or not in a CRPG is an important question, but I feel it's obviously important in a P&P RPG where players have more latitude.

@RedNoak: Sneak Attack and Backstab both exist but are different things. Sneak Attack is a class ability. Backstab is a class-specific talent.

The funny thing is that even though your suspicions about Divinity Original Sin are actually correct - the encounter difficulty rapidly drops as you go from "Act 1" to "Act 2" and is a joke by end of game... I still think you'd be nuts not to try it. The first third of D:OS, with the latter parts left unplayed, is arguably a better game than PoE.

I should point out that even 5% AoE and 4% duration, with a 10% buff to base radius/duration instead of 20%, would be a significant improvement. The only issue is some numbers would be difficult to round.

Same here. There are no other +5% per point offers, and AoE is very strong in misty RPGs.

I reviewed D:OS (http://www.larian.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=536853) and intend to do so with this game after beating it on PotD, without ever having tried lower difficulties. That said, I can already tell that, if I was using any numeric rating scale, D:OS would score higher. Period. It is not a perfect game by any means but it is simply gorgeous. It's basically this game, without loading screens, with added area transitions, and a better soundtrack, at least from what I've seen in my first several perfectionist rerolls. D:OS did drop off quite a bit lategame, however, so my final review might have the two fairly close. But inevitably D:OS will be the more recommended experience, because 10 hours of epic (followed by 10 hours of thoroughly optional mediocre) is always going to trump 20 hours of pretty darn good in my book.

Companions can be pretty much anyone as long as they're witty or otherwise interesting - it's a good place for writing staff to dump their best one-liners and short speeches. You don't need these huge backstories or huge goals. Essentially, take the cast of Archer (the cartoon), dress them like a Renaissance fair, maybe add a pinch of pathos and you're good. It is the villains which deserve the extra work. (Potential) villains are the characters that the player tries and sentences in the courtroom of their heads, and thus adding depth to make the trial as interesting as possible is what a good game tends to do. A lot of the appeal of Final Fantasy 7 was forged by a slow exposition on the genesis of its villain, and Bioshock IMHO completely nails it with Andrew Ryan. It is probably no coincidence that the most popular Chrono Trigger companion was one set up to be an adversary, not an ally. So in short: no need to focus on companion or hero backstories so much, focus on villains instead, and Eder is awesome.

Although I see Intelligence's role in some Wizard AoE issues, I feel the duration part of the attribute bonus is a bigger problem than AoE. After all, in order to pull off that Fan of Flames you probably had to use a Slicken or Mental Binding to hold enemies in place.

Just noticed this. I laughed. Have you actually tried both? Because I can't believe you actually believe this. It feels like 100% pure armchair theorycrafting and no testing at all; essentially, just a rationalization.

If Might was currently set to "+5% Damage" tand Constitution to "+5% health and endurance" then Intelligence wouldn't be OP. It's not about Int effecting both AoE and duration. That part is a little sketchy but probably fine. It is about 5% increases vs 3% increases. Assuming your character cares about both things (and there are characters that care MORE about duration than damage), you're going to grab all the 5s you can before going for the 3s.

This is the crux of the problem. Heijoushin points to the dilemma of the "Int dump Fighter" and while I see that point, I feel the "must max Int" Druid is just as bad. With Intelligence the way it is, anything less than max is going to be felt very hard, making an oddball build (such as Spiritshift-based) much worse than just focusing on casting. The game doesn't need to force max Intelligence down caster's throats so hard, and shouldn't. Also kind of disagree on Paladin; lots of duration and AoE going on. My point is: no, not really. With max Int you could have 50% more Savage Defiance duration and 60% more Carnage AoE. You'd be a fool not to have at least 15 Int, bare minimum.

By which I mean, if you don't invest heavily in Intelligence, chances are your character is going to be very dull. Pretty close to every ability of every class is modified by intelligence. Knock Down is duration. Zealous Auras are AoE. Rogue and Ranger special shots are duration. If you don't pump Intelligence (Int) right now, these abilities are horrible, because Intelligence has some huge scaling. For example, Barbaric Yell has a radius of 8m and a duration of 18 seconds on 20 Int, or a radius of 3.5m and a duration of 9 seconds on 5 Int. That is a staggering difference. So what happens is, you either invest in Int and get to actually do cool things, or you feel like a boring auto-attacker. The root of the problem is the numbers on the attribute. 6% area of effect and 5% duration is too much. So how much would be enough? There are characters in this game whose primary combat functions are afflicting enemies with status and/or applying buffs to allies. Consider the power - and popularity - of abilities like Slicken and Mental Binding. For such characters, duration is their "damage" - it is the primary measure of how well they're performing their combat role. As such, 3% increased duration per attribute point would be completely sufficient! AoE is a little trickier. Characters are built around statuses and thus duration as a direct end goal, while AoE is always a means to an end (damage, status, healing, or some combination). Still, a whopping 6% per point seems excessive. Here's what should happen: All base AoEs and durations increased by roughly 20%, subject to rounding. Intelligence bonus to AoE changed to 4% per point, duration bonus changed to 3% per point For example, Barbaric Yell (mentioned earlier) would go from 5m to 6m base, and let's be generous and have base duration go from 12 seconds to 15 seconds. A 20 Int character's Yell would then reach 8.4m and last 19.5 seconds - a little better than pre-patch, 5% more area and 8% more duration, but nothing outrageous... However, a 5 Int character would then have a Yell reaching 4.8m and lasting 12.75 seconds, a rather drastic improvement - 37% more AoE and 41% more duration. As you can see from the example, investing in Intelligence would still be worth it for many builds. But for those builds which do not invest, they'd still have usable options to not feel like autoattackers all the time, greatly improving fun for players building such characters. I welcome your thoughts.

The ones which last 6 seconds make your summon come out 2 seconds later. 8 second phrases mean 4 seconds later. Per use. Would you rather have 8 seconds of fiery weapons, or 4 seconds of Fortitude and Will and 4 seconds of dragon? The best phrases in the game are all available at level 1. :/

I find it a little distressing that several people view the poem change as "caving" to extremists. I have no doubt that extremists got involved, demanding the poem's removal in hypocritical ways. I think such behavior is reprehensible. HOWEVER The behavior of a handful of crazies is not a good basis for action, one way or another. If the worst human being on earth said that Steve Colbert is the devil, this wouldn't be a good reason to not watch Mr. Colbert's show, nor would it be a good reason to watch it. It would be hysterical babbling, nothing more or less, with no moral and no onus on you or me or Obsidian to do anything, in either (or any) direction. So in looking at Obsidian's decision here, let us look entirely at their actual choice and tune out the extremists completely.

Not at all. 1. The number of ability uses one has is finite (for most classes). The only way to get 20 seconds of prone out of a Fighter is to spec Intelligence. Dexterity has no effect. 2. Not every party member necessarily has the same Dexterity or the same role. In a one-on-one I see your point (either do 1.3 things a second for 10 seconds, or 1 thing a turn for 13 seconds), but there are five other party members to think about. But 3% duration is around the point where, even on a status-inflicting character, Dexterity starts to have niche cases where it is sometimes better (ex: 1v1). Which is good for balance.

Correct - but on top of that, area of effect should be moved to another attribute. It's not like Dex is 3% action speed and something extra on top. So to recap my continuously self-refining proposal: Might: loses bonus to healing Constitution, Dexterity and Perception: no changes Intelligence: loses bonus to duration, gains "+3 Concentration" Resolve: loses bonuses to Concentration and Deflection, gains "+3% duration," gains "+3% healing" Other: base duration of effects increased roughly 20%. Ex: current Knock Down has base duration of 5 seconds, so with 20 Int it lasts 7.5 seconds and with 3 Int it lasts 3.25. Proposed base duration 6 seconds, 20 Int lasts 7.8 seconds, 3 Int lasts 4.74 seconds.

Please see edit in previous post (not lightning enough). Edit: the tl;dr was "for status-inflicting and/or buffing characters, duration = damage, and Intelligence is +5% damage."

@Dirigible: your proposed changes are too drastic for a game already in release. Even my suggestion is dangerously radical but yours are just way too far out there. The objective shuld be patching the key problems using something which mostly resembles the current system, not reworking from the ground up. Your proposal isn't practical; at best, a thought exercise. The Duration element is the most powerful component. Many battles are won or lost over buffs or afflictions, and Intelligence plays a huge role in everything from the Fighter's Knock Down to the Cipher's Mental Binding. The 5% duration part of the Intelligence bonus is much more powerful than the 6% AoE part.

Oh! Had an idea: New proposal Might: loses healing bonus completely. Constitution: gains +3% healing received. Intelligence: loses area of effect bonus completely. Resolve: loses Deflection bonus completely, but gains +6% area of effect. The only problem would be a very small number of classes (ex: rogue) with no AoE abilities. They would still benefit slightly from the additional Concentration, but that is a trivial gain. I think a homage to D&D might be a fitting buff for Rogues, which would also give them a use for AoE... Factotem (Rogue-only talent, available starting at level 2): 50% chance to retain a used Scroll instead of consuming it.

Dirigible, you raise a valid point. All of the arguments I made regarding Intelligence's currently overwhelming power would also apply to an Accuracy-boosting stat. However, I believe the core of what I'm getting at is: two attributes which pump Deflection is one attribute too many. I admittedly am at a bit of a loss about what precisely Perception and Resolve should do. What I'm a lot more confident about is what they shouldn't do: essentially the same thing. I still stand by my points 1 & 2 above, but if you have any ideas on something to replace my Accuracy suggestion, your ideas are welcome.

PotD is the only difficulty setting I have ever played on. This is good enough for me. Why wouldn't it be good enough for you?