MaxQuest

Have you checked that the Window Mode is still set to "Fullscreen"? If it is... try to set it to Windowed -> Apply Changes -> Fullscreen -> Apply Changes. Maybe it will reset it. Otherwise you could try: ctrl+shift+esc (to open task manager) -> find Windows Explorer -> right click on it and restart. Do this while in game.

What qualifies as a light weapon? My bet goes to one-handed weapons that have 3.0s base recovery time. I.e: clubs, fists, daggers, stilettos, flails, hatchets, rapiers and torches. Ah, and there are also: wands and cat claws. And speaking of cat claws... - they were unique in that they are faster than other claws, but have same damage. Err, seconding the seconding call And also staying on hold, until the AoE weapon afflictions and Brilliant Tactician (when there are multiple tacticians) are fixed. P.S. Just wanted to add: - when Essence Interrupter is fixed, please don't forget to test Disintegration and Form of the Helpless Beast. Just in case) - when AoE weapons will start spreading attached Status Effects to enemies in AoE (and preferably to those damaged, not just hit enemies), please re-check that they don't lose their recovery with Full Attacks like before (on all 3 AI behaviours: full, auto-attack-only and no-AI). And check that "ApplyEffectsToPrimaryOnly" property works fine now).

Are you referring to the priest's rank 1 spell? It is an AoE that targets only friendly targets. And a charmed ally is considered hostile. P.S. If the charm duration got effectively longer - it's definitely a bug though.

^ Soulblade/Paladin pros are: - autonomy (due to the mentioned jack-of-all-trade'iness) - solo potential But he doesn't seem suited for a specialized party; nor has the best of focus-generating abilities.

I do agree with this statement, and with the point made I just don't like multiple shots with bows and reloading weapons, when used with cone/AoE weapon abilities that explicitly specify melee weapons ^^ Nor recursion that can get out of hand) Meanwhile I'm ok with somewhat-immersive "AoE" ranged weapon abilities . Think of Twinned-Shot. Or if there was something like: Quadruple-Shot, Rain of Arrows (BFME), Deadeye (McCree from Overwatch, who chain-shots at everyone). Stuff like that. Yes) Unlike Cleave, in case of HoF and WotW, descriptions do not mention "melee weapons". But hey am completely fine if they would. Actually I would be quite glad, and I mean it) With the only possible exception being sceptres and wands. Since they don't have reload, nor need to draw, don't have AoE, and are not as wonky in melee as a bow. There could also be a middle ground. E.g: - cleave can be done even with 2H ranged weapons, let's say arquebus. But it is used as a mundane club. - whispers of the wind, can work with bows, pistols, blundersbusses... but such ranged weapons fire only once. Or are used as mundane clubs.

That's not cheesy And that's hardly even exploit. That's a straight-up non-vague bug, since the description clearly tells "Sweeps the fighter's melee weapon in a large arc". So it's either implementation-bug. Or description-bug. And looking at the effect... I tend to think that it is related to implementation, because: - it's quite improbable that a character can reload the blunderbuss 5 times under 1s, when sweeping 5 enemies in melee. - the advantage gained is a bit too high, and doesn't look to be intended design. That said, I also find weird how Whisper of the Wind works with bows and firearms. I mean I can somewhat understand implements firing n shots without the need for draw/reload... but these... nope.

So... my current understanding is: - these bugs only occur when there is more than 1 tactician in party. (tehehe and I wanted to have 4 of them) - the bug #1... could possibly be explained in the following way: As we know: > Tactician gets SE_Brilliant if he doesn't have Brilliant_Tactician_Hidden_SE_Trigger on himself. > Tactician gets Brilliant_Tactician_Hidden_SE_Trigger if there are flanked allies or unflanked enemies in 150ft aura range. And what could be wrong: > The aura places SE_Transfer on all those who match the condition. After that, this SE is transferred to the tactician and triggers SE_Trigger. And if tactician has SE_Trigger he loses SE_Brilliant. > But it looks that the last tactician "steals" SE_Transfer (from enemies) for himself. I.e. the first tactician's aura places SE_Transfer on matching targets. Then the second tacitian's aura places SE_Transfer on matching targets. And perhaps it overwrites it on enemies, or something... but only the last tactician gets SE_Trigger, while the others don't, even if there are unflanked enemies. This could also possibly explain the bug #2 and #3. The last tactician is presumably affected by more SE_Trigger instances than he applied with his own aura, and thus he never gets rid of SE_Trigger. And that's why he doesn't get SE_Brilliant... But this is just a speculation, as I don't know what is the real order ingame: - aura1, aura2, aura1_SE_Transfer, aura2_SE_Transfer, or - aura1, aura1_SE_Transfer, aura2, aura2_SE_Transfer Also, could it be that: - Brilliant_Tactician_Hidden aura stacks on friendlies, but doesn't stack on enemies? - or SE_Transfer to lose ownership when multiple instances override each another, or parent aura is suppressed?

As requested, I have added more items. v1.1.0 brings 10 extra accessories: Coil of Resourcefulness (belt) Crossed Patch (headgear) Tax Collector's Mantle (cloak) Telda's Ring (ring) Ring of Selonan (ring) Seal of Faith (ring) The Ring of Wonder (ring) Girdle of Maegfolc Might (belt) Girdle of Driving Wave (belt) Cloak of Tireless Defender (cloak): Do note though: - priest and wizard rings were downgraded to +2 total spell usages, in order to better match the 2-per-encounter vs 4-per-rest limit of Deadfire vs PoE1. - Girdle of Driving Wave, provides 1-per-encounter "Improved" Knock Down. It is the same as usual fighter's Knockdown but has prone duration of 4s instead of 1s. For reference in PoE1 Knock Down had 5s base duration; so if you feel that 4s is not enough - feel free tell it. For more information check the mod page: here

Ehh, so that's why he's offline for awhile now... His notes, given in this subforum, were greatly appreciated. He notes that he "was very unsatisfied with his job". And it saddens me that this is not the first unsettling sign. I hope the company we like, relies on "not be evil" and not on crunch time and NDA. Or it's unrelated altogether.

Think of such a formation: frontline: chanter (1h+shield), paladin (1h + shield), wizard (1h + shield) midline (somewhere 4m behind frontline): priest backline (somewhere 8-10m behind frontline): cipher (bow), cipher (bow) Because of the closer proximity and lower deflection, hp and freeze AR, the priest acts as a magnet for enemy barbarians, shades and monks. Some ranged enemies might target such priest as well. I was often seeing Swadling Sheet proc in the first 6s of combat. The idea is: the enemies that ignore frontline, all gather in one place. Get AoE Stunned. Trigger Shod-in-Faith and bonus defenses from Gyrd Háewanes Sténes and Raiment of Wael's Eyes. And can be easily AoEd by wizard and 2 ciphers. Well and by priest too. Also Ring of Thorns is especially good on such a scapegoat in the early-mid game. Shades use Draining Freeze (which applies paralyze), and after that can hardly hit him. You can check shades target preferences: here.

Oh my)) Thank you for the pointers! It was quite informative. Although I must confess it looks really time-consuming))

Well, yeap we can say that. Just few minor notes: - there is 25% not 20% on the second line - it's action not attack. Because we were examining relation between action related maluses and dps. And if we would examine recovery or attack phase only, than it's results would get diluted by the second phase. - as Thelee already mentioned there are no penalties with "Attack Time" in description. Also there are no penalties with "Action Time" in description; but I used it for the sake of example. Good question The damage related bonuses/maluses are going internally through the same system as speed related ones. But there is a slight difference at the end: - final_damage = base_damage * final_damage_coefficient - final_attack_time = base_attack_time / final_speed_coefficient In case of final damage, we have multiplication by the damage coefficient. In case of final attack/recovery/reload time, we have division by the speed coefficient. That's true) Yeah, the game just shows you the resultant armor recovery penalty. But if you are interested, the game does store armor recovery time penalties as speed penalties: - for heavy armors it is: 0.645 (= 1/1.55) - for medium armors it is: 0.741 (= 1/1.35) - for light armors it is: 0.833 (= 1/1.20) And: - armored grace just adds +0.10 to that value (so 0.645 becomes 0.745 which becomes 1.33, i.e. 55%->33% recovery time penalty) - abraham and cutthroat cosmo also provide +0.10 - and nalvi provides +0.08 (but as an aura) Well... Action Speed system in PoE1 was even more complicated than this one I proposed a bit of polishing to it here. But it didn't matter because Obsidian has ditched the PoE1 idea of "reduce action time at the cost of recovery time first" altogether. And I am perfectly fine with that, as it was hard to just explain how it works. I am not fond of Action Speed system in Deadfire neither. But along with cons, it also has it's pros: - Thelee already mentioned it above. Plus here's a related post by Ensign. I'll just add that current system smoothed the scenarios when you have a lot of maluses, and when you have a lot of bonuses. - also current system is easy on the programmer. You just have an adjustedValue object, and throw to it bonuses, maluses, doesn't matter; and when you are done you just request the final value. I mean there is no specific order that you need to maintain. And it's the same for both speed and damage. @Thelee, props for the Sidebars. It perfectly explains the situation. And I like to believe that it is the lack of time - being what prevented Obsidian from implementing system like in 3rd paragraph (as it required careful evaluation of each modifier). Edit: Speaking of damage formula... I am more inclined towards something like this:

Edit: Oops posted in the wrong thread, instead of referencing it. @Mods: Delete this post please

A yes) I remember destroying the disk at Motare o Kozi. Not giving the map. And giving some vague answer about location. Yet met Furrante at Ukaizo. And I was like.. did you sneak past the Guardian? Or you witnessed my party downing him down, but still are going to attack me?

I am not sure how to understand this) The "less" is confusing me ^^ For example there are two hypothetical scenarios unrelated to Deadfire. In one you get [-3] penalty, in another [-5] penalty. > -5 is less than -3 > but -5 penalty is bigger than -3 penalty Thus I am unsure if to answer "less" or not. Let me just provide a few examples instead: 1). Let's say you have 1.0s attack time, 4.0s recovery time, 100dps, and the enemy keeps applying a stackable -20% [action_speed] debuff. - 0 debuffs: 1.00s + 4.00s = 5.00s (100.00 dps) - 1 debuffs: 1.25s + 5.00s = 6.25s ( 80.00 dps) (-20.00 dps) (-20.0%) (x0.800) - 2 debuffs: 1.50s + 6.00s = 7.50s ( 66.66 dps) (-13.33 dps) (-16.6%) (x0.833) - 3 debuffs: 1.75s + 7.00s = 8.75s ( 57.14 dps) ( -9.52 dps) (-14.2%) (x0.857) - 4 debuffs: 2.00s + 8.00s =10.00s ( 50.00 dps) ( -7.14 dps) (-12.5%) (x0.875) 2). And in second example, you will have the same 1.0s attack time, 4.0s recovery time, 100dps. But the enemy keeps applying a stackable -40% [action_speed] debuff. - 0 debuffs: 1.000s + 4.000s = 5.000s (100.00 dps) - 1 debuffs: 1.666s + 6.666s = 8.333s ( 60.00 dps) (-40.00 dps) (-40.0%) (x0.600) - 2 debuffs: 2.333s + 9.333s =11.666s ( 42.85 dps) (-17.14 dps) (-28.5%) (x0.714) Now let's try again, but with [+x% action_time] debuff instead of [-x% action_speed] debuff. 1). You have 1.0s attack time, 4.0s recovery time, 100dps, and the enemy keeps applying a stackable +25% [action_time] debuff. - 0 debuffs: 1.00s + 4.00s = 5.00s (100.00 dps) - 1 debuffs: 1.25s + 5.00s = 6.25s ( 80.00 dps) (-20.00 dps) (-20.0%) (x0.800) - 2 debuffs: 1.50s + 6.00s = 7.50s ( 66.66 dps) (-13.33 dps) (-16.6%) (x0.833) - 3 debuffs: 1.75s + 7.00s = 8.75s ( 57.14 dps) ( -9.52 dps) (-14.2%) (x0.857) - 4 debuffs: 2.00s + 8.00s =10.00s ( 50.00 dps) ( -7.14 dps) (-12.5%) (x0.875) 2). You have 1.0s attack time, 4.0s recovery time, 100dps. But the enemy keeps applying a stackable +50% [action_time] debuff. - 0 debuffs: 1.00s + 4.00s = 5.00s (100.00 dps) - 1 debuffs: 1.50s + 6.00s = 7.50s ( 66.66 dps) (-33.33 dps) (-33.3%) (x0.666) - 2 debuffs: 2.00s + 8.00s =10.00s ( 50.00 dps) (-16.66 dps) (-25.0%) (x0.750) So, As you can see: - the penalty from two [-20% action_speed] debuffs is less than from one [-40% action_speed] debuff. - the penalty from n [-20% action_speed] debuffs is the same from n [+25% action_time] debuffs. - the penalty from two [+25% action_time] debuffs is the same as from [+50% action_time] debuff. Also, the more and stronger speed_decreasing/time_increasing debuffs you are already afflicted with, the lesser effect a new debuff will have. Kinda yeah) You can use the following mini "lifehack": - take a look at your maluses - let's say there is -25% action_speed. This means you can "compensate" for it with +33% action_speed. - let's say there is +25% action_time. This means you can "compensate" for it with +20% action_speed. - remove this way all maluses (and bonuses that were used for "compensation") - and if hopefully only bonuses remained, use them in a simple, additive manner. Just convert them to x_speed first, if there are any x_time via 1/value. - and if you remained with maluses - perhaps this is not your dps character ^^ Because UI shows the attack/recovery duration in seconds, there could be just "attack_time" and "recovery_time" effects. But: - "Attack time" sounds like some army term, e.g: "attack time is 11:45. At that time we will launch THE NUKE". - We are too used with dexterity increasing speed. Maybe going for "action_speed" and "recovery_speed" would indeed be a better choice. Thus we would get rid of all these "_time" altogether, not to mention that internally it is converted to speed anyway. But this would also require proper UI/hover tooltips that would explain how did +30% action speed transform into -23%. Although you know what? we need this even now)) Seems that they were afraid of those -75% underpen and -50% graze occuring at the same time. But yeah, letting a certain % of damage go through no matter what is one way to get around that. Personally though, I'd prefer over/underpen coefficient being applied multiplicatively. ...And same for crit/graze,... but speaking of crits, there is bonus_PEN_onCrit and also overpen bonus, so it's a bit dangerous to touch it now.

I had 10 minutes to check this, and managed to replicate your issue. 1. I've loaded a save from my first playthrough (potd, NO UPSCALLING, party lvl 6): a. Spawned Dorudugan via SpawnPrefabAtMouse CRE_Construct_Helfire_Ironclad (typing by memory now) - and he had 147/180/145/167 defenses and 18 AR (base) (21 vs slash, 14 vs crush, 10 vs shock) 2. I've loaded a save from my second playthrough (potd, UPSCALLING_UP_ONLY, party lvl 20): a. Spawned Dorudugan via SpawnPrefabAtMouse CRE_Construct_Helfire_Ironclad: - and he had 159/192/157/179 defenses and 19 AR (base) (22 vs slash, 15 vs crush, 11 vs shock) b. Reloaded the save, and spawned Dorudugan via LaunchRandomEncounter RE_Helfire_Construct: - and he had 147/180/145/167 defenses and 18 AR (base) (21 vs slash, 14 vs crush, 10 vs shock) So as you can see, when I used SpawnPrefabAtMouse, Dorudugan got upscaled up by 4 levels. Although this is very strange. Because if you inspect gamedatabundles, upscaling should only occur if you have higher level than the creature, and Dorudugan has level 30 according to bestiary. And one more thing: according to bestiary he has: - 7648 hp - 117 deflection, 165 fortitude, 130 reflex, 152 will - 16 AR (19 vs slash, 12 vs crush, 8 vs shock) In PoE1, bestiary did included +15 to all defenses from PotD. And it looks like it doesn't in Deadfire. Edit: Also Bestiary in Deadfire doesn't take into account deflection from shields and 1h-and-shield-style talent.

Yeap, that's also a good idea While Pallegina and Maia might deny leaving Deadfire, Serafen (or sidekicks) would likely agree. In either case, that's at least some use for that sloop, once you buy a new ship in Neketaka.

No worry I've already created the itemmods for the items I need. Oh my... Btw, there is a strange feeling when you want to play the game, but haven't finished the mod you want to play with yet) The chances are... but for nearby future are quire low. The main intention of this mod was to add a few accessories from PoE1, because of: - there is relative lack of accessories in Deadfire - nostalgia - amulets and rings need no models. As for cloaks, headgear and footwear it is usually possible to find a similar model among already existing ones. Additionally, the accessory has to satisfy a few conditions: - to not be OP, as the intent is to add items that can complement and round some specific builds, but at the same time do not outshine the current top-tier options for majority of builds. - to not be to plain. A simple +1 resolve ring, won't do much. Now back to your suggestion related to PoE1 armors and weapons. I think it would make most sense, if Watcher could pay some specific NPC (think of Captain Thaenic from Deck of Many Things, Ignato Castol of VTC, and alike) to send an expedition by sea to Dyrwood. Let's say you give them: - a letter to your steward (or some responsible left at Caed Nua), - some ring of authority (e.g. Gathbin's Signet) - a ship or 20000 gold And after 2-4 weeks of ingame time, they bring several PoE1 weapons or armors (in whichever state they are) But... I have no idea how to do it So if you have some pointers...

Or here's a somewhat related, another wild and unpolished idea: Standard Action: limited to 1 per turn Half Action: limited to 2 per turn Quick Action: limited to 4 per turn Instant Action: limited to 4 per turn, but first cast is for free Such that, you can cast 1 Instant Action and 1 Standard Action. Or 2 Instant Actions, 2 Quick Actions and 1 Half Action. Stuff like that.

It's a somewhat confusing topic. Because on your first question there is no simple yes/no answer, due to opportunity costs. As for the second question, as Thelee already mentioned, we actually did agree. The problem was that we were using different definitions/perspectives for the said returns. But after all it doesn't matter if the cow is darker than light-gray, or lighter than dark-gray; as we only care for how much milk she gives^^ But if you want to get to the bottom of this, then here are the two perspectives: 1. One of the common definitions for diminishing returns is this (shamelessly taken from wikipedia): Since this takes into account only absolute gains, Thelee is correct by stating that we have "linear returns" from action_speed on dps. For example, we have 100 dps, no other modifiers, and we incrementally apply a stackable +25% action speed buff. Now we can compare the following scenarios: Scenario 1: > buff1: +25% action speed > step_sum: 0.25 > speed_coef = 1.25 > dps: 125 dps Scenario 2: > buff1: +25% action speed > buff2: +25% action speed > step_sum: 0.25 + 0.25 > speed_coef = 1.50 > dps: 150 dps Scenario 3: > buff1: +25% action speed > buff2: +25% action speed > buff3: +25% action speed > dps: 175 dps ...and so on So for every +x% action speed you get the same absolute gain. And this is linear returns. Btw, Thelee also elaborates on this in his Umezawa build (check the LINEAR RETURNS appendix). 2.a). Now the thing is, as a player you are not necessary interested in absolute gain. Personally I am more interested in the relative one. 2.a)i) First, let's take a look at the first scenario from point 1. The buff1, increased your dps from 100->125. That's a x1.25 relative increase. The buff2, when applied after buff1, although being the same, increased the dps from 125->150. That's a x1.20 relative increase. So in a way we could call this "relative diminishing returns", or also "intrinsic diminishing returns". Why "intrinsic"? Because majority of stuff in nature is subject to this. You have one drop, and add another one to it: now you have twice more. You have an ocean, and add a drop it. Basically nothing changed. Although this is a somewhat deliberate use of the term. So be aware. But since I don't have another, I use what I have) Now to answer why am I interested in this "relative whatever it is" in the first place? Because: 2.a)ii) Opportunity cost. Let's assume you have 100 dps. And can select one out of two buffs: Buff1: +25% action speed Buff2: +25% damage Whichever you choose, your dps will become 125. So in given context, the buffs are pretty equal. Now let's say you have chosen Buff1, and get an opportunity to choose again. If you choose Buff1, you will get x1.20 relative increase in dps: 125 -> 150. If you choose Buff2, you will get x1.25 relative increase in dps: 125 -> 156.25 So again (although I am kinda twisting it), the Buff1 became less efficient than it was before. Or let's do a less abstract example. Sure-Handed Illa provides the awesome -20% recovery_time and -20% reload_time buffs, and the character can benefit from both if he attacks with a firearm. So the player can get quite fond of it. But if he builds a streetfighter, the relative gain from Sure-Handed Illa will be lessened; and perhaps it could be more efficient dps-wise to start looking for some damage-increase options over reload-decreasing ones. 2.a)iii) Also we could speak about limited resource pools. Let's say you have 100dps, and can choose between +100% action speed or +100% damage bonus. But have only 2 fireball usages, after which you will have to auto-attack. It's kinda understandable that unless the combat ends too soon or is infinite, the second option will result in higher dps. Although must also remind about the overkill damage being wasted. And that a longer cast is easier to interrupt. 2.b). And now would like to elaborate on the "-% recovery time" that you have mentioned. Let's say you have 1.0s attack time, 4.0s recovery time, 100dps, and keep applying a stackable -20% recovery time buff. - 0 buffs: 1.0s + 4.0000s = 5.0000s (100.0 dps) - 1 buffs: 1.0s + 3.2000s = 4.2000s (119.0 dps) (+19.0 dps) - 2 buffs: 1.0s + 2.6666s = 3.6666s (136.3 dps) (+17.3 dps) - 3 buffs: 1.0s + 2.2857s = 3.2857s (152.1 dps) (+15.8 dps) - 4 buffs: 1.0s + 2.0000s = 3.0000s (166.6 dps) (+14.5 dps) Here not only relative dps gains are diminishing, but even the absolute ones. Because of recovery_time buffs effect on total_action_time being diluted by the unchanged attack_time. And one more thing about returns. Besides the relative vs absolute perspective (although absolute is more technically correct), it's also important to specify what entity do we examine. Let's take the previous example, and say that attack time is 0s: - 0 buffs: 0s + 4.0000s = 4.0000s (100 dps) - 1 buffs: 0s + 3.2000s = 3.2000s (125 dps) (+25 dps) - 2 buffs: 0s + 2.6666s = 2.6666s (150 dps) (+25 dps) - 3 buffs: 0s + 2.2857s = 2.2857s (175 dps) (+25 dps) - 4 buffs: 0s + 2.0000s = 2.0000s (200 dps) (+25 dps) So my understanding is that we have here: - (absolute) linear returns on dps - (relative/intrinsic) diminishing returns on dps - (absolute) diminishing returns on recovery_time - (relative/intrinsic) diminishing returns on recovery_time - (absolute) linear returns on recovery_speed - (relative/intrinsic) diminishing returns on recovery_speed And that's why it is hard to answer your question: So general answer would be: it depends)

Has someone checked the interaction with Potion of Major Recovery and Clarity of Agony? It would be quite interesting if they reduced Arcane Dampener duration right before getting suppressed.

It depends on player's preferences. If I am playing football and it's easy, I'd prefer playing vs stronger team, instead of getting rid of teammates, getting one leg tied to an arm, and an eyepatch to limit the view. That said, I enable stuff that makes the enemy stronger (PotD, upscaling, Ondra/Galawain challenge), but disregard stuff that makes my party weaker. Also there is an extra argument related to time needed to finish a completionist run. In Deadfire solo'ing would consume more out of my real-life time. And I usually have no time for that, or prefer to do some other stuff instead. In Tyranny though, it was viceversa, as it was actually faster to solo the game. There is no easy solution to this. Overleveling stuff feels cheap and kills the challenge. Once you start tackling every fight without taking a sweat at all, and it repeats over and over, encounters transform into a tedium, into an artificial time delay before you are presented with ending slides. Upscaling enemies to your level, has problems as well. No matter what you do - it's like your efforts didn't matter whatsoever, because enemy keeps the same pace. This was especially noticeable in Skyrim. In Deadfire though, default upscaling has a limit of "enemy level goes up but no more than by +4", plus there appear equipment/weapon options that propel you ahead of the curve. All in all, I think upscaling is a must in a game like Deadfire, because developers cannot easily account for: - is the player going for completionist run or doing only critical path. - is he doing DLC content or not. Otherwise we risk to get into "there are too many trash fights" or "this fight is impossible" threads. At the same time, I think that just bringing all under-leveled enemies to the player's level is cheap. - First of all it kills all the passives that apply to under-leveled targets, like: Double Tap, Executioner, Abjuration, Threatening Presence and so on. - Second, it partially kills the player's feel of accomplishment from leveling: like hey, I couldn't win this fight at level 5, but I can now. Ideally, I think, 80% of regular enemies could get upscaled to Players_Level_Minus_One. 20% of regular enemies upscaled to Players_Level_Minus_Three. But no more than by +9 levels. As for boss enemies - these should be at least 2 levels ahead from the player. Tbh, I was really excited when ship combat was announced as a stretch goal. Age of Pirates 2 was one of my favorite games back in 2009, especially for their naval battles. That said I definitely didn't expect that it gonna be text-based Btw, here are some Josh's remarks about ship combat in Deadfire: link

Well... they could be made 1-per-encounter in-combat-only. While they are per-rest they have very situational combat value for me. But hey, as you showed, there is at least that crouching usage. So that's something...

Na...I was recommending 1 bleakwalker. But won't recommend 5 of them. If all paladins have to be of the same order, then it's Kind Wayfarer only. As for whom to multi-with: v1: - wayfarer/trickster - wayfarer/monk - wayfarer/monk - wayfarer/nalpazka - wayfarer/skald (or another monk) v2: - wayfarer/trickster - wayfarer/tactician - wayfarer/tactician - wayfarer/tactician - wayfarer/beguiler This one: adjusted racials Obs kinda forgot to add scaling to Silver Tide and Battle Forged, so it fixes it.

Combusting Wounds behavior slightly varied across versions. I've seen players mentioning that it was working with DoTs or being bugged. But I know for sure that it wasn't triggering at all in v3.02, and was fixed in v3.03. Here's a related post about it. Indeed I could mix those up, that's why I left that remark I remember this post by Kaylon about flanking/engagement in PoE1. And it also could mix with what I experienced in Deadfire. Also it is unclear what to make of "One Stands Alone" (requires an additional threatening enemy to become flanked). Do you need 1 enemy from front, and 2 from behind? Or you need 1 from front, 1 from behind and doesn't matter where the 3rd is standing? I was under impression that: - have ranged weapon equipped: 0 engagement slots - have melee weapon equipped: +1 engagement slot - have shield equipped: +1 engagement slot No?