.jpg.ce846aae50e732dc4985eb712252381f.jpg)
CriticalFailure
-
Posts
83 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by CriticalFailure
-
-
Oh, I did check that subforum, but I was looking for topics with "1.05" in their title... Reading about it now, thanks.
-
I understand that the 1.05 patch is probably dropping tomorrow
Where did you see that?
-
#1 - Autosaves
#2 - Size of area art image (on disk)#3 - Resources for the area (units, 3D models, textures etc etc etc)
I know the IE mod lets you reduce the autosaves, but any workaround for #2 (i.e. replacing the images or something)?
-
GM is hard to pickup until levels 5/6 usually.
On a first playthrough, yes, but once you're familiar with the game, it's possible to get all the companions at level 3 (Pallegina will be level 4 regardless). You only need to fight in Caed Nua, and most of the enemies in the courtyard can be skipped if you use stealth and stay close to the walls. Once you've recruited everyone, you can go back to Gilded Vale and its surrounding areas and do all the sidequests.
-
I like low micro parties, but I find that melee characters sometimes obstruct each other if there's too many of them, especially if Itumaak or some other animal is around as well.
-
1
-
-
CriticalFailure, on 04 May 2015 - 12:59 PM, said:
On the other hand, I find it harder to envision a raging barbarian pew pew-ing enemies with a magic rod in a murdering rampage, as in b0rsuk's example. Everything's possible, I suppose, but let's just say I'd find it more unusual than a melee ranger.
Why ? Conan the Barbarian used bows on many occasions. I'm not talking about Arnold the Bodybuilder. Why is a tribal warrior one of the worst classes to use a bow ?
To be clear, I don't necessarily consider a tribal warrior and the barbarian -class- the same thing. The former could perfectly have a different class, and the latter is pretty much a berserker (it would actually be a more appropriate name, IMO). Now, my concept of a berserker/raging warrior is that of a melee specialist. With that I don't mean they shouldn't use bows occasionally nor be competent archers; I just don't see ranged combat as the focus of the class.
-
Personally, I miss long-term buffs that last through several battles, simply because the actual process of buffing is a chore. In practice, this means that I generally buff a lot less in POE than in other games, where I'm able to run around partially buffed most of the time without having to constantly re-apply the buffs (I'm not counting things like paladin and chanter auras here).
The OP has a point I more or less agree with, and playstyle and convenience are probably irrelevant to it. I just wanted to say that, in practice, when no-brainers meet tedium... laziness often prevails.
-
All right, thanks. I had figured that much about "alpha strike", but I was confused about other uses of the word, such as the aforementioned "alpha weapon". Now I see that the post I linked is referring to "alpha strike" too.
-
Sorry for derailing the thread, but while we're at it, I've seen some people use the word "alpha" a lot on this forums ("alpha weapon" was mentioned in in this thread, this post has a couple more examples, etc). I know what "alpha" means in general, but not in the context of gaming.
-
The average barbarian is neither dumb or smart, he is... of average intelligence, just like any other non-barbarian, average person. The point is that being a genius, while is always helpful, shouldn't be one of the main requirements of his profession.
Might is compared with Strength because that's how the game interprets it, regardless of what the description says. As others have pointed out, it's used in dialogues to raise people off their feet, to push rocks, break walls, etc. That's raw physical power, plain and simple, and I don't recall any instance where Might can be used in a different way.
-
Probably about the same amount as those pretending they're completely different.
Six attributes, three physical and three mental, with the same application in RP (even though a couple of them have a different name), which range from 3 to 18... Yeah, so not DnD.
-
I know, but they're big/two handed, so it could be that. But don't take my word for it; it'd need some proper testing. It could be I missed one of the furthest enemies with the small weapon when I tried it or something.
Edit: Just tested it a bit. It's hard to say for sure, but I'm not seeing any noticeable difference, and I'm reaching enemies that are relatively far away with a stiletto, so I guess size doesn't matter after all, in this case.
-
I never ran any extensive tests, but a barbarian I played seemed to reach more enemies with Carnage when using a greatsword than a one-handed weapon.
-
Minsc would have probably been better suited to being a Berzerker fighter kit than a true Barbarian.
As for Jimmy's point, I'm not buying it because frankly, nearly every other non-spellcasting class is aimed, however loosely, at being melee combatants. So I see not one bloody thing wrong with rangers being skewed towards ranged combat.
I do see him as a barbarian, but no kits in BG1 anyway, so the point stands.
Having an archer class is fine and I can live with rangers as they are, but I don't envision the concept of a ranger as necessarily married to a bow, that's all. It's not about game balance.
On the other hand, I find it harder to envision a raging barbarian pew pew-ing enemies with a magic rod in a murdering rampage, as in b0rsuk's example. Everything's possible, I suppose, but let's just say I'd find it more unusual than a melee ranger.
-
3. Paladins don't have the best accuracy, therefore stick to outworn buckler (and later little saviour) to avoid any penalties.
Considering you're taking Savage Attack, wouldn't Zealous Focus be a better aura then? I'm not convinced of which one I prefer.
The rapier Mosquito might be another weapon to aim for, for the endurance draining property. I often use draining weapons, but to be honest, I couldn't really say if they make a noticeable impact on survivability.
-
Dual wield or not, Jimmy's point is that rangers shouldn't be limited to archery. Fine, you can just ignore the archery talents, but then you aren't getting anything special from the class (I think; I haven't played much with rangers) except for the animal.
Minsc is hardly a good example of a typical ranger, anyway. He was a ranger because there were no barbarians in BG1, and BG2 just kept his class consistent with the first game.
-
The last 4 levels is just void of any good damage talents to take. I can't see anything on par with rogues, barbarians and monks abilities. Now I'm not saying they should be as good, I'm just saying there should be something. I'm guessing a dps fighter would be decent up to mid-game, and then just fade into sub-par-land. Am I missing something?
Well, rogues and monks need more micromanaging (I personally find spamming Torment's Reach every couple of seconds a pain in the ass, regardless of how strong it is), while fighter's offensive bonuses are permanent and you can leave them on auto-pilot. So I guess that, plus the fact that fighters are generally sturdier, is -something-.
Not sure how fighter's offensive talents compare to barbarian's in terms of usefulness and power.
Edit: And I just remembered you were specifically talking about late game (blame the beers I had earlier). Nothing for fighters in particular then, I guess.
-
I'd rather prefer toning down cipher spells across the board and leaving the starting focus as is, since starting focus nerf hurt the interactivity (and thus fun factor) of the class, but from the dev perspective changing focus was ofc much easier.
Exactly. I'm not arguing about power balance here, I just like how cipher can cast more often and be more liberal with spellcasting than other classes. I understand that simply reducing the focus is much easier than rebalancing all the spells, and I'm not saying it will RUIN the class for me, but it affects what I find fun and unique about it in the first place.
-
Uh. Then why not give the Cipher 3000 focus? Nobody forces you to use it all.
You can't apply "it's a choice" rationale to everything, or you just become a silly satire of Sartrean radical freedom.
"Of course I have a choice when you raise the price of water to a million dollars! I mean, I could just kill myself!"
No need to go into super sarcasm mode. I just didn't see anything wrong with it or in need of fixing as it was.
-
The change to Sanguine Plate makes Retaliation builds dependent on getting Hiro's Cloak.
... because this game needed moar rng amirite?
Besides the shield, you can (at least could) get another retaliation armour in one of the second round bounties (I wonder how much XP they give now, BTW). But don't tell anyone, lest they'll "fix" those items too.
I don't get why some people are so happy about the nerf to cipher's focus. I mean, to each their own and all that, but it's not like the game forces you to spend your whole focus reserve. Nor it used to force you to use the Sanguine Plate if you felt it was too cheesy, but I digress.
-
Buff for ciphers? Among other things, they start with 1/4 focus now. That was a bummer. I don't care whether that's "balanced" or not; I think I'm gonna find them much less fun to play after that change. And was it really necessary to halve the radius of Soul Shock?
Can't say I'm surprised about the Sanguine Plate. Removing the retaliation property is faster than actually fixing or rebalancing it, after all.
Glad they fixed One Stands Alone, at least. I know some people will dislike this change, but personally, I'd either feel like cheating or like gimping myself by not taking one of the best talents of the class.
The ability to hotkey different sets of weapons is also welcome, as is the companion respec (I didn't really miss it that much, but I like some variety after a couple of playthroughs). Shame they didn't implement stackable items (I think) while they were working on the inventory sorting stuff.
I see no significant changes for paladins, or rangers for that matter. Guess that means they're fine as they are... >.>
-
1
-
-
Rational = Think with your head. Passionate = Think with your heart. I admit that Clever and Stoic don't exactly feel -opposed- (unless you see Clever as talking when you shouldn't, or something like that), but the others are pretty clear. It's just how the game works, which doesn't mean I completely agree with it.
That's a different matter. Nobody is 100% good or 100% evil, but I think we can agree that those are opposites. The fact that you, as a person, see the world in different shades of grey doesn't mean that black and white themselves aren't opposites.Even benevolence and cruelty doesn't need to be opposed; I can be benevolent towards peasants, just to be incredibly cruel towards their oppressors.
That said, a paladin order could have two opposites as favoured, if it worked as in your example.
Back to Pallegina, it may not be perfect, but I think that increasing the bonuses at level up or something along those lines would work decently enough while avoiding some headaches and metagaming (and the bonuses would come roughly at the same time). As it is right now, I can see some people making her favour different dispositions depending on what character they're playing.
Also, keep in mind that many of the disposition-changing conversation options are simply based on your way to express yourself, rather than making decisions with any impact whatsoever. If I choose to talk to everybody I run into like a "clever" smartass, that doesn't mean Pallegina does (or favours) so as well.
-
Solo Potd?
Party hard (pun intended). But I don't see that making a difference in this case. Nor I consider solo POTD to be the default setting for generic discussions, anyway.
At any rate, both FOD and LOH are kinda lame. Even with the "wrong" pick, if such a thing exists, I don't think you'll be missing much.
-
If you're a moon godlike, if Calisca is dead, if you're in a certain area. If, if, if.
I went with LoH on my last paladin (who, by the way, didn't happen to be a moonlike). Previously I had taken FoD, but I didn't find them making a noticeable difference, and as the game progressed, I stopped bothering to use them in many fights. At least LoH can't miss the target.
-
1
-
Wood Elf racial too strong
in Pillars of Eternity: Characters Builds, Strategies & the Unity Engine (Spoiler Warning!)
Posted
Some people are a bit too obssessed with nerfs and balance, IMO. If perfect balance is the goal, they might as well remove the racial bonuses altogether, and let it just be an aesthetic and RP choice.
While I don't exactly -oppose- to racial changes, I don't think wood elf's one is such a big deal (not to justify a thread of its own, at least), and there's life beyond powergaming. Besides, say that the bonus gets reduced to +2, for example. Hell, to +1. I doubt anyone would call that overpowered, but technically, it'd still probably be one of the powergamer choices, if you're going for maximum efficiency.
Well, if you're referring to helmets, most are meh, and overlap with other gear. To me, the worst thing about that restriction is the inability to hide those hideous heads of theirs.