Boeroer

Quick question since I'm not superfamiliar with contemporary D&D rules: Since when (which edition) does a crit need to be confirmed and how does that work? I guess you have to confirm it with a successful "normal" hit roll? Which would make a lot of sense and that's how I know it from some other systems. I can confirm numerous critical toddler hits where it hurts the most. Didn't even need a weapon, knee and ellbows are sufficient.

You misunderstood me it seems. I didn't mean that those Blessings would unlock new areas but that you could simply choose that the world map was all open and accessible. So the first playthrough would somewhat limit your freedom and "guide" you through the game better in order to experience the story in the way the writers intended (to some extend). And after you finished that first, story focused playthrough you can do subsequent ones where everything (or most things) are accessible right from the get-go (if you wish so). Hope I somehow explained it well enough so that you guys can understand what I mean. Basically you'd transform the world map from semi-open to open for subsequent playthroughs. OR: give an option where players can choose a more guided playthrough ("experience the story like the writers itended") or a fully open world playthrough ("go where you please"). Maybe that could be a thing? Just throwing out ideas here...

Deadfire is an open world game, so is Skyrim: a game where you can go everywhere and won't get restricted in your travels. That means you could end up in a place where enemies are way too powerful for you - or too weak. That's why Skyrim has scaling and Deadfire has, too. Else a majority of the encounters could become unfun. But those problems with difficulty etc. are not my personal problems with open world games. They focus on exploration and that's a fine thing to have in general. But what I don't like is that it's nearly impossible to tell a coherent story/follow a plot in a somewhat cosistent way. I mean unless you stick to the default path through the game. But if you do that: why have an open world in the first place? So... as soon as you leave the trodden path it is inevitable that the main story/plot comes to a halt and you'll have some kind of sideshow. That also means that often players (me as well) get the feeling that the main story isn't really that important. Without the main plit in your head you might get the feeling that you are lost somehow. "Where to go next? Hm... no idea, doesn't really seem to matter that much, does it?" I believe it's incredibly hard for designern and writers to create an open world game experience without sacrificing consistency and urge of your plot. PoE didn't have that kind of open-world approach: you could visit all places only after you unlocked them. E.g. you can only go to Raedric's Castle if you first go to Easternwood - and so on. And on top of that you had three acts that were seperate from one another. Deadfire keeps this only in citites where you have to unlock the districts by traveling to the adjacent ones first. But the world map is free with the only exception that is Ukaizo which is the seperate endgame. This might also be related to the overall quality of the plotline, but Deafire's plot feels a lot less compelling than PoE's (and even that one didn't give you an overwhelming feeling of urge, but was fine with me). I think open world does play a part in this. Skyrim has the same problem, at least for me: what am I supposed to do again? Like: ultimately? I tend to forget... "Look, here I can become a member of the Brotherhood, cool. It's fun to get assignments to stab random people from behind and..." On the other hand pure dungeon crawlers like Eye of the Beholder drop the player into a place (a room or a forst or whatever) and there's only one (or two) way out. You fight your way out of the dungeon (or into it in pursuit of X) and usually there's puzzles and fights and all - but you can't go left and right that much. You are focused on the main goal. Funnily enough those games often have very little story and plot - maybe because they don't need them to create motivation and tension. The setting itself does already provide this. And of course such games are so much easier to balance. Usually fantasy RPGs are somewhat of an interactive story though. So plot, story, motivation - those are important. Else it's more like a combat simulator or a tactics game. See Battle Brothers: open world, focus on tactics/combat and no overarching plot/story, only some "random" goals to achieve and contracts to fulfill. And it works just fine - but it's not a game like Deadfire or Baldur's Gate or Plainscape: Torment or anything like that. So I would argue that the current "open world hype" is bad. An RPG has to be advertized with that or else player are gonna say "Wut? How 2000!" - even if it hurts the overall experience. A somewhat open world is okay - let's say open "stages" of the game world. Like open acts. Too much railroading like in Legend of Grimrock would hurt the replayability I guess - too much open world hurts the story and the feeling of progression. Something in between would be fine. It would be easier to write for, it would be easier to balance (no scaling of encounters needed) and it would be more exiting - especially in the first playthrough. Maybe one could even do a game where the first playthrough is not open world but you would unlock areas like Berath's Blessings and then would have a more open world in additional plythrougs..? Hm... getting interested while I write this...

Now rereading and missed "Priest of Eothas" the first time. I have to say Priest of Eothas/Chanter (especially Troubadour) sounds a lot more fitting to me than Priest of Eothas/Cipher. I mean thematically. Mechanically there's no problem either. Troubadour with its passive that lets you overlap two chants without gap and Ancient Memory + support chant coupled with a Priest makes a nice passive + active healer and buffer combo. And it is somehow fitting that a benevolent Priest of Eothas wanders around, putting joy in the hearts of his fellows with his jolly songs and such.

I would argue that weapon focus should be your first talent since its impact is biggest in the early game - but the rest:

Psion/Priest is actually not bad. The Psion's focus generation doesn't rely on hitting anything at all so a Psion would be the perfect fit for a supportive Priest (who also doesn't need to hit things that badly). Psion's focus generation scales with Power Level, so it's quite good at higher levels as long as you don't get hit (receiving damage is fine as long as there's no attack roll - so self damage or DoT ticks will not stop it). Priests may have ways to prevent getting hit. Most notably Withdraw (come out of it with full focus) and Skaen's Shadowing Beyond but also defensive buffs (especially Priest of Wael). Wearing a shield and staying in the back rows also helps of course. Priest of Wael/Beguiler is a great fit as well - thematically and also in terms of crowd control and buffing/debuffing. Priest of Woedica/Cipher does pretty nasty damage and focus refill with Soul Whip + summoned "claws". Even works well as Soul Blade.

And that's exactly why those weapons don't get implemented in a realistic way - because as I already said then everybody would wield a pole weapon. Players who wanted to play a stabby Rogue would be extremely disappointed that they don't stand a chance against that peasant with a pitchfork. Unarmed Monks would be ineffective unless they could somehow miraculously come into grappling range. This game - as most fantasy RPGs - is not a HEMA simulator. So its mechanics are there to allow all different kinds of players some fun and make combat enjoyable for all sorts of characters. Too much realism can kill enjoyment. Example: I once played the 3rd edition of a TTRPG where players with short weapons had to do separate rolls against characters with longer weapons in order to get into reach. And the long weapon guy could counter those rolls and do rolls of his own for regaining distance between them as long as there's enough room. Because that's more realistic when long reach weapons fight against shorter ones. That rule was making combat so tedious and unfun that it was scrapped in the 4th edition and never looked at again - nobody complained about that. It was more realistic but it didn't improve the gaming experience - quite the opposite. Abstraction is necessary and if flanking should be considered at all it should be an easy mechanic that fits into the existing affliction system. The current abstraction is a good way to do it because it isn't behaving differently from other afflictions - it's systemically fitting. I'd even go so far and say it isn't abstract/easy enough with that 180-degree requirement. Battle Brothers, which still is a game that balances all weapons but has a more realistic approach to their usage, is doing "flanked" this way: if more than one character is engaged to an enemy then every character who attacks this enemy in melee will get a +5% to-hit bonus. Every character who additionally engages that enemy (max six characters can surround an enemy) makes it even easier for everybody who attacks that enemy in melee: +5% to hit for every "flanker" (+25% max if completely surrounded). But only for melee attackers. Guys with reach weapons who are not engaged but can reach the enemy will profit from but not contribute to flankling. Now if you have the "Backstabber" perk you gain +10% bonus per additiona comrade engaging the enemy instead of only 5%. If the guy who gets attacked has the perk "Underdog" though then all those bonuses get downgraded by -5% (so to -0% usually and +5% for Backstabbers). This seems to be pretty much what you ask for: not everybody profits the same (Backstabbers get twice the bonus), some people are trained to fight multiple opponents (Underdogs can't get hit easier when surrounded unless there's Backstabbers) and ranged attackers won't get a bonus at all (in fact they risk to hit the flankers). It's far from being 100% realistic but you can rationalize its workings and it fits into the overall combat mechanics very well. Because everything is hex-based and perks and effects work in a particular way where this abstraction makes more sense than coming from a 180 degree angle or something. Same with flanking in Deadfire. It's not very realistic but it fits into the set of mechanics that are there and behaves as most other afflictions as one would expect. You can still come up with a somewhat plausible story why this abstraction can make sense and it's easy to play with. As I said earlier there would have been a chance to implement flanking in the line of Marking/Sworn Enemy etc. (I guess nobody gets what I mean) and that would fit your demands pretty much - but would it make the game experience more fun for the majority of players? Not really. Would your idea be more realistic? Probably. Would it improve the gameplay? Not likely. Players don't seem to care that much and a more complex solution that doesn't fit the affliction system might frustrate more players than it would please others. I would even argue that flanking in Deadfire is too fiddly and the 180 degree rule is too much. Since one of your arguments is that the effect is too strong (I do agree, -10 deflection would be more than enough): I would just tune it down: -10 deflection against melee attacks only. Ranged get nothing because while the enemy is busy with the flankers they have to make sure they don't hit their comrade(s) - so I would argue that evens out and thus no bonus. I also would exculde it from all PER afflictions since those immediately unlock Deathblows, but that's another story. One could even make flanking do only -5 deflection and then make it stackable: every melee attacker adds one stack of flanking. 5 attackers surrounding an enemy giving -20 deflection in melee. Or remove flanking from the Perception affliction path and make it its own layered affliction: flanked -5 vs. melee, surrounded -10 and -1 AR vs melee, overwhelmed -15 deflection and -2 AR vs melee. Numbers can be adjusted. Armor would get less because the surrounded/overwhelmed enemy is more likely to get stabbed into gaps of the armor etc. That would fit the system and cater more to your ideas. But I wouldn't try to exclude the guy who the enemy is facing since that's way to complicated. But I still think the way it works now is acceptable enough and I wouldn't touch it. I would however do it the way I described above if I were to design a PoE3 or so.

Isn't there a patch coming out now or what did I read recently?

Haha - oh man that is weird stuff. No wonder you thought that Aloth was superfluous. Under those circumstances I would use more Chanters instead of Wizards, too.

Sorry to double-post, but if you have massive problems with hitting and feel that one handed sabre works better at the moment: you can just use one sabre in the early game and switch to two weapons later - as soon as it gets better (it will get better). I mean before investing into a weapon style like One-Handed or Two-Weapon Style. After some levels dual wielding will def. be the better option for White Flames. You could even use dual wielding with a Rapier + modal in the main hand temporarily. It would have +13 ACC over a single sabre but still do twice the healing (second one with the offhand - e.g. a Dagger) while not being slower (White Flames skips the main hand's recovery). Lots of options...

That is correct. Summoned weapons, summons and even the Animal Companion do not scale their values with Power Level but character level. I have no idea why, but it is like that. The only "weapons" that use PL progression are Monastic Unarmed Training and Transcendent Suffering. The only thing about summons and summoned weapons like the Blackbow that does scale with Power Level is their summoning duration. Frankly I just forgot that you had specifically asked about the Blackbow in combination with Power Level - sorry. My in-length response around Power Level was meant more general. So while Prestige can be a very useful passive it doesn't do much for your summoned weapons and thus wouldn't be very impactful for Caedebald's Blackbow - you are right.

Camping supplies were 4, 2 on PotD. So on average you were right. Although it maybe would often be just a lable I agree that it would be nice to have the Animist thing with all classes. Afaikt all the negatives of subclasses are there to balance out the bonuses. But sure: if you'd have no vanilla class you wouldn't have to balance the subclasses with that vanilla class. See Paladins and Priests that have no drawbacks vs. Wizards subclasses which have massive ones bc. of vanilla Wizard. All in all I'm pretty happy with the classes, multiclassing and subclassing though. I personally am not a fan of the open world approach. I very much like dungeon crawling in the style of Eye of the Beholder or Legend of Grimrock - here I don't mean the graphics and style now but the from of progression. So I would totally be for a big dungeon. Hell, the whole game could be one big dungeon for me.

If debuffing and damaging spells come from the same caster and the same spell tier: maybe. But if you can debuff let's say Reflex with a low level Miasma so that your Freezing Rake has a better chance to hit...? Also often it's way faster to debuff + cast damaging spell if the debuffer and the damage dealer are not the same character. I mean that's also true if they both would cast damaging spells - but maybe you have a guy that has decent debuffng capabilites but only mediocre damage (e.g. low MIG) or your spells come with a debuffing affect and damamge (often Druid). And usually debuffs last a lot longer than for one damaging cast. Several damaging casts (also from more than one caster) can profit from one debuff. See Chillfog: one lvl 1 cast for a very long Blind which makes landing several spells that follow easier. It has a big impact on most encounters (not only because of the blind, but still).

No, you got it figured out pretty well. The reason why +3 Accuracy feels less valuable later in the game is that the ratio of your ACC/enemies' defenses becomes bigger and bigger because your ACC rises faster than your enemies' defenses. Not only because of level progression but also because of abilities (more ACC buffs/ defense debuffs), items, consumables etc. Or in other words: in the early game often your ACC is lower than the enemies' defenses while in the late game it's often higher. Edit: well - you gave the answer yourself while I was writing, hehe. Casters also can benefit from ACC buffs and debuffing the enemy. Also the spells (as abilities) scale accuracy while auto attacks do not. So it's not that much different after all.

Or that. But I really can't remember much about how 3rd Edition D&D things so...

And nobody actually tried to claim otherwise so far.

I didn't say that. You are refuting a statement that wasn't made. I never said (nor do I believe) that blades can pierce plate armor - nor did I say that a rapier was effective agaist plate. I merely corrected your statement that the rapier was invented in a time when armor was less common while in fact it was used while plate armor was on a steep rise. My initial point was that the rapier could be seen as the better sword - or daggers can be seen as inferior battlefield weapons - and yet those different weapons are all sort of balanced in most RPGs so that the player has some stylistic choice. The point was that if you make things too realistic then the game becomes boring: players would all flock to the most effective "realistic" setup which would be some sort of plate armor and a pole weapon. And that point I just made to show that flanking doesn't necessarily have to be implemented in the most accurate way - if the simpler solution also works well enough (what I think) mechanically and conceptually. I am a computer scientist and software developer and I know some of the inner workings of Deadfire by observation and inspection. The current solution of flanking is more systemic and is easier to fit into the affliction system than your idea. That doesn't mean it's a bad idea - and as stuff like Marked Prey, Minor Threat and Stalker's Link show your idea isn't impossible or even that hard to realize. But it would be more complicated than the current, rel. simple flanking affliction that gets applied like any other hostile effect. Also and especially with regard to the string of consequences for other abilites and mechanics that use flanked as a trigger. I didn't say that it's impossible, I only wanted to show that the current solution is easier to fit into the system and works well enough. So that this might be a plausible explanation as to why Obsidian did it that way. Since development time costs money and most likely the vast majority of players don't really care if flanking is a benefical effect on the player or a hostile effect on the enemy I presume that most developers would go for the easier solution (if they are not hellbent on doing a realistic version). This is not only faster but also more robust since there is less risk of intruducing new bugs - and it also doesn't entail a whole new stream of potential problems with related mechanics such as Heating Up/On the Edge, Sneak Attack and so on - as I've already mentioned above. If Obsidian had it planned differently from the get-go then it would be another case I guess. Maybe if they had made a seperate category of effects where stuff like Marked Prey, Sworn Enemy, Minor Threat etc and then also Flanked could have been put in. Then your idea would have had a good chance to not only be more realistic but also be systemic and fit well. But even then I don't know if it wouldn't be too complicated for the common player. I already find the mechanics of Marked Prey and Sworn Enemy a bit obscure for new players. Could be solved easily with better tooltips, explanation and tutorials of course...

Difference is that I make it pretty clear when I'm posting opinions and not factual statements. Saying "the way it is now is just wrong" implies that this is somehow a universal truth while it's merely your personal opinion. By the way I also don't like the Arcana/Scroll system either. In my opinion scrolls should provide completely different effects from class abilites. But I assume there are some arguments that speak in favor of the current solution. It's just not my cup of tea is all.

Gorecci Street is not a fair testing ground.

Ah, okay. But if you only use one sabre you also can only proc one instance of White Flames healing. With two sabres you will have 12 less ACC, but you will be able to trigger White FLames twice(!). So you have two chances to proc White FLames at least once, if not twice. With one sabre you only have one chance but with higher +12 ACC. And of couse you'll do less damage with FoD with one sabre only.

Wait: do you know what "average", "very roughly" and "just to have an easy number" mean? Again: I'm not arguing about the different impact a point of ACC has over the course of the game. I really think you need to read more carefully. You have a tendency to counter arguments that weren't made.

Who told you that dual wiedling brings a loss of accuracy? That's wrong. The only thing that would lower your accuracy would be a medium or large shield. PER 13 is completely fine - especially if you are not playing PotD difficulty. Also because you can put the Ring of Focused Flame on your Kind Wayfarer and then your White Flames have +20 Accuracy. Maybe you will miss a bit more often in the very earlygame - but after some levels PER 13 will be no issue. You could take 2 points from CON and one from RES and put them into PER if you feel that you need some more. You might want to have somebody in the party with 16+ PER at the beginning - because there are some secrets and traps that you can't detect if everybody only has mediocre PER. Very low DEX can be bad for a Paladin who uses Lay on Hands quite a bit. Because your recovery will be so long that sometimes party members die before you can finish recovery and cast Lay on Hands.

That is not correct. It was developed during a period where plate armor was prominent (1550+). I guess you are confusing it with a foil. Anyway - I don't want to turn this into a discussion about misconceptions about medieval weaponry since that's completey deflecting from the actual discussion and utterly missing my point: that realism shouldn't be a primary concern for a D&D inspired fantasy RPG. Unless you have insight in the code of Deadfire and are a programmer you can't judge how easy or difficult it would be to implement something. About rapiers (for anybody who's interested) :

Yes. Also because flat +3 ACC really loses impact later on. Unless you really want to to stack as much ACC as you can possibly get for certain special builds. If it would be +3% ACC - now that would be a whole different beast...