Loren Tyr

I never play turn-based games so perhaps they have more flexibility in this regard than I'm aware of, but I would think one quite defining difference between truly turn-based games and RTWP is that in turn-based games everything is sequential, whereas in RTWP it is parallel. Hence, in RTWP I can react to what the enemy is doing or to the outcome of something I did (especially now that we have easy retargetting). And similarly, I can coordinate the actions of multiple characters, or anticipate actions of enemies and time my own accordingly. That, I would argue, makes the two distinctly different.

While you are certainly entitled to your opinion, and I think it is always of interest to read other people's reasoned opinions: why undermine that by claiming to some kind of objectivity? Because by and large, when it comes to this sort of thing there is none to be had (and I would argue, it isn't particularly needed). Which in a way is also illustrated by the reasons you proceed to give, which read very much like reasons why you specifically prefer BG2 (and the series in general); both in the kinds of reason given, and in the way you phrase them. As you say, those are what *to you* makes BG2 stronger. Not meant as an attack on your preference of course, just curious where in your view that reasonable objectivity is in all that. Taking for example the last point, of the trilogy being an intensely personal quest, going from nothing to an almost godlike status: this is certainly something that plenty of people like, but how does that translate to an objective marker of quality?

Yeah, just rest with food. Or preferably, just keep taking drugs. Doesn't matter which either, as long as you keep getting high you'll be fine

I'd say consumable poisons are quite useful still as well though, certainly wouldn't call them underwhelming. For example, at 10 Alchemy Stone Joint ticks at 30 Crush damage, and the lowly level 1 Scorching Venom at 15 Burn (for 60s). Seems useful enough, I think.

Or you don't get the extra CON and just accept the additional squishiness, which is kinda the point of the subclass. And it's really not that big of a deal if you're attacking from range and aren't likely to get hit all that much. And in practice it won't actually be 15% more damage anyway, since it's an additively stacking damage modifier.

There might be some micro involved, yeah. Though on the other hand you don't have *that* many Smoke Veil activations (or invisibility potions) you can use in a single encounter. In that regard you probably should regard it more as an additional weapon in your arsenal rather than the main mode of attacking. It's best for doing burst damage with a good chance to crit and overpenetrate to something that is in dire need of some hurtin', but in particular in combination with some simultaneous secondary attack (poison, attack ability; or of course AOE attacks with spells or grenades) that can also benefit from at least the +25 ACC. You don't have too many, so have to make them count; and have something useful to do in between (though eg. a crossbow crit build will have that inherently, I'd say). One thing to keep in mind with Smoke Veil is that it has a relatively short duration, and it also has recovery so the time you have to actually attack from invisibility is somewhat limited (hence why it's suboptimal with grenades; they almost all have a fuse, so you have to have good duration on Smoke Veil for it to explode while still invisible). In particular, if you use crossbows/firearms you have to make sure you've reloaded before you use Smoke Veil, so you do have to keep an eye on that (as far as I know, shift + activate while the reload icon is showing will properly queue an action to happen after reload is done, though). If you're open to Assassin's though, you can also think about Helwalker Monk + Assassin, get some Dance of Death going to build ACC and wounds and build your Might bonus. In this case Smoke Veil also has added utility as an escape mechanism (as does Escape of course, but that doesn't make you Untargettable), which for that particular class combo you're going to need . With any Assassin build it does feel like it's moving away from a real 'thug' vibe though.

I'm not deflecting anything. I'm repeating essentially the same points I made before (and shall do so yet again) because you appear to not understand it: whether BG2 has a better story or not is a matter of individual perspective; and how important story quality is for the overall quality of a game is also a matter of individual perspective. You can hold all the polls in the world, but those fundamental points aren't going to change. If you hold a poll on this, you may well find that a majority of people participating in said poll prefer the story and setting of BG2 to that of PoE 1/2. Equally, if you hold a poll on ice cream flavour, you might find that the majority of people polled prefer vanilla over chocolate. In neither case would you be demonstrating anything more than a majority preference, and in neither case would you find anything contradicting the points I made. So sure, hold a poll if you want. Although I don't see how that will embarrass me, given that it is not relevant to my arguments and I don't remotely care about the result. But it would be a good testament to quite how sad you are, starting a poll for the specific (though futile) purpose of trying to embarrass someone. Admittedly, 'threatening' to do so if someone doesn't agree with you is probably even more pathetic, so it wouldn't be out of character.

Because I don't care enough to bother with it? And there are actually already several discussions on this forum about this, clearly it's hardly a unanimous verdict. Moreover, it's irrelevant. My point is that a) whether BG2 has the better/more immersive story is a matter of opinion, not of empirical fact. Even if there was a vast majority of people who agreed with you on this, the people who don't are hardly 'missing the point', they just have a different view of it. And b) how much the quality of the story matters when deciding how good a game is, is again dependent on individual preference. Clearly, given that this particular thread has gone on for nineteen pages indicates that there are a fair number of people here who don't think BG2 is the superior game, which means that they either disagree with you on either or both of points a) and b). Your dismissing other people's opinions as 'missing the point' doesn't change that fact; all that does is signal that you are not open to the possibility of different perspectives on this. 'Bro'.

I'd say thematically Marauder fit's best, with Shadowdancer and Swashbuckler a good joint second. Alhough of course mechanically Barbarian hasn't the greatest synergy with ranged characters (it's good fun with Rods though), and you can't really use any of its subclasses with it (also, Blood Thirst doesn't work with crossbows or firearms, forever killing my dream of machine-gunning an arquebus).

Just because Streetfighter is overpowered if you jump through a bunch of hoops doesn't mean the other subclasses aren't worth playing though. Especially with a ranged rogue, unless you want to be using Blunderbusses all the time (which of course in terms of range and penetration aren't great, and with Powder Burns you'd be at -15 ACC all the time compared to eg. Pistol). For ranged, I would always go Assassin (for me, Trickster doesn't at enough for that kind of build and I prefer keeping the full Sneak Attack bonus). The damage debuff doesn't come into play that much so isn't much of a drawback, so even if you only use Assassinate at the beginning of combat and maybe occasionally with a Shadowing Beyond / Smoke Veil / Invisibility Potion it's still useful. Especially if you are using poison, which is very apt for an Assassin of course. Nailing a tough enemy with a good poison effect at the beginning of combat can be very useful. Also good with explosives of course, but those don't work as well with Smoke Veil unfortunately.

Just because you prefer BG2 for those reasons, doesn't mean that other people are missing the point. Firstly, the plot and setting of BG2 being better is not by any means an incontrovertible fact; plenty of people (including myself) would disagree with you there. Secondly, how much that matters depends on how much weight is given to such factors in the first place, relative to such things as gameplay and mechanics, graphics and sound design, et cetera. A game can have the greatest setting and story in the world, but if it has godawful gameplay as well I'd consider it a crap game regardless (not that BG2 has either mind you; it's ok on both counts).

Even if it it primarily motivated by appealing to a wider audience, how does it damage the brand to increase ethnic and gender diversity? Especially in a franchise like Star Wars, where the range of characters already extends far beyond the "white, male, human" template by the nature of its setting anyway. All that's changed is more of that diversity got pushed into the bigger roles as well (though those remain quite human-centric still). And what does it matter anyway? Skin colour is a detail, it's hardly integral to the story or setting in any way. As for looking likely to engage in battle to the death: the (supposedly) biggest, baddest jedi of them all from the original trilogy was the grammatically impaired love-child of a muppet and a raisin, hardly intimidating.

I don't see why this is specifically a problem though? Sure, caster-caster multi's may not necessarily have the most synergy, so what? Doesn't mean you can't play them if the combination appeals to you thematically, or you just want to try to make it work well. No one's stopping you from using them, and I have no doubt any combination is perfectly viable.

It's odd that Frenzy and Shout are considered "magical". I guess it falls under that category because it functions like other magical abilities, perhaps? If those Barbarian skills were not affected by the Mage Slayer, would it make it useable or overpowered (especially when mulitclassed)? Mageslayer doesn't have a duration debuff. It used to at some stage, but that got removed a fair while ago, so Frenzies and Shouts and whatnot are not affected in any way by being a Mageslayer. I have also tested it and the Spell Disruption effect (duration is about 20s base by the way, though it get renewed if you hit again and stack more so usually that won't matter too much) does not affect abilities (eg. Disciplined Barrage, Knockdown), just spells. Though it's a bit harder to be sure with enemy creature abilities since those might somehow be considered spells, but in general my guess is most of them aren't and won't be affected by the Spell Disruption. It also technically functions as an interrupt, so a character with 100% Spell Disruption but with an active Concentration effect can still cast a spell; at the expense of the Concentration of course. In general I'd say the subclass is fairly well balanced. The lack of scrolls is hardly an issue, the lack of potions is more so but can be gotten around fairly easily as well. Obviously it can be impractical that your friendly spells can misfire on the character, but it's hardly prohibitive. And the 25% spell resistance is quite useful, and it can quite effectively shut down an enemy spell caster quite quickly (despite the description you only have to graze for it to take, so even a hard to hit caster should be relatively straightforward to shut down with it).

I was experimenting a bit with a Nalpazca monk, and discovered that the Whiteleaf drug effect never fully expires. The main bonus of it does, but it seems that the concentration effect that periodically renews does not. Attached is a screenshot, as show I have both the Whiteleaf drug crash and the Whiteleaf concentration effect simultaneously. I also have Burden of the Soul debuff, though not Burden of the Body; still have Gift of Meditation active instead. I have experimented a bit to figure out more details. When using another drug the Whiteleaf does properly go away entirely (also when resting), and when that second drug expires there is just the drug crash for that drug and nothing else out of the ordinary. Taking Whiteleaf again also works correctly, until it expires again (it also doesn't seem to matter whether it expires inside or outside of combat). I've also noticed that when combat ends, the currently active Concentration gets cancelled, and my character correctly gets just the Whiteleaf drug crash and both Burden of the Body and of the Soul (no Gift of Meditation). Then a few seconds later I get a new Whiteleaf Concentration, and the situation is again as in the screenshot. It seems that the component of Whiteleaf that periodically refreshes the Concentration doesn't get removed when Whiteleaf duration ends (but does go away upon rest or when using another drug). It's also not specific to Nalpazca monk by the way; giving Eder some and letting it expire also results in him having drug crash and concentration effect simultaneously. Anyway, that sums it up I think. I'm on the latest version in the beta. Also did a Steam file verification and tested again on an earlier save, but that doesn't change anything. I also noticed that when you first take Whiteleaf, the stat bonuses and concentration are combined in a single entry / icon on the character. But if the Whiteleaf expires and I get a separate Whiteleaf concentration effect and drug crash effect, if I then take more Whiteleaf the concentration and the stat bonuses each have their own entry / icon.

But how are you supposed to know what the 'right' amount of rest is? This is part of the problem with this kind of system, going into a dungeon (or whatever) you have no idea how deep it goes and how much resistance there is. Hence, it is very easy on the one hand to find yourself expending per rest resources too quickly (and having fights that are therefore easier than they were supposed to be), and having to run back to an inn for supplies and rest (though often not even that, since as you say there were a fair amount of camping supplies around to be found; so even without going back it would be relatively easy to overrest). Or on the other hand (and this is what I tended to do), you under-rest. Hoard per rest resources too much, relying on per encounter instead, but then having to rest to regain health instead (which if course would also happen more quickly than if you did hit the sweet spot and used somewhat more per rest resources). In which case some of the fights would have been more difficult than intended, some would be much easier than intended (because as you start running out of health and have a whole bunch of spells left, you might as well have a big blow-out on the next mob before you rest), and you generally don't really get to play with all your cool spells and items. Moreover, outside of longer dungeons there'd be little incentive to conserve per rest resources, since there is probably an inn around the corner anyway. Similarly, in a dungeon often it'll be pretty obvious when you've arrived at the end-of-dungeon boss (or rather, are about to), and you don't need to conserve anything anymore either. In which case you're also face with the dilemma of resting right before or not. You'll likely have the supplies for it, and there is no immediate incentive not to use them since it's end of dungeon, and next stop will be back to town. And there is no way of knowing what the boss fight was actually balanced for.

Same here. Without any clear cost to resting / elapsed time and no ability to really plan ahead either (except through metagame knowledge), it just turns too much into having to self-regulate your own difficulty level all the time. And there's a good chance you end up either hoarding spells and not using a lot of them at all (because you were saving them for a next encounter that never came), or over-using spells in a single encounter and making it much easier than it was supposed to be. That at least has always been my experience.

That's true, certainly. I wouldn't want the five spell classes to get too broad in that sense, missing out on a particular class should definitely put a dent in your arsenal, it should genuinely be specialisation in that sense. It's more that certainly at higher spell levels, there can be rather a lack of spells in certain schools. For example (not counting spells in special Grimoires, I don't have those to hand atm), Illusionists have no spells at all at levels 7 and 9. And at level 4 they only have Confusion, which in it's PoE2 form is hardly the most appetizing of spells. Obviously Illusionists can also use Transmutation and Evocation spells, but you'd want the backbone of an Illusionist subclass to be the Illusionism spells. And it should certainly be possible, without losing the unique flavour and capabilities of the schools, to at least give them useful things to do at each level. And the same, to varying degrees, with the other schools. And to a lesser extent with eg. Druids and Priests as well, obviously those don't specialise in the same degree but there is certainly a degree of that going on with different classes of spells (also via items of course). So indeed, I agree that the different schools / specialisations / spell classes shouldn't become too broad, but I think more depth can and should be added to them without that being a risk.

I do like the exclusion of schools personally (though I'd like the spell selection in general to be widened a bit; same with Druid/Priest as well by the way, just to give some more options if you do want to specialise in specific types), but definitely they need to rework the PL boosts on spells such that they all get a nice boost from it. Probably, at the moment they're just relying on general rules for generating that too much (eg. +X% to healing, +Y projectiles, etc.), without balancing that out better for individual spells (and some spells could have cool individual PL effects as well of course).

I'd say it depends a bit on the build and the consumable though. Not all potions are as readily available, and especially if you want a character to be using the same one often I've found you do need craft them yourself. And also eg. with a dedicated grenadier character for example. Though indeed, for a lot of scrolls and potions merchant ships in particular are a good source to keep you supplied. About it lasting six seconds by the way, if you have high Alchemy skill it'll also last quite a bit longer than that. The Alchemy is for the usage rather than the crafting itself (and same with scrolls/Arcana, etc.).

I am perfectly capable of having friendly conversations with people I disagree with actually, I have them frequently. Not with you though. But sure, must be all my fault, being confrontational and ascerbic (apparently) and whatnot. From my perspective, it rather seems that you're getting a touch defensive about your somewhat one-sided approach to building a melee assassin being questioned; you seem awfully eager to criticise my tone and style of argument, rather than actually addressing them. But if you want to be dismissive, that's up to you. Just to set one more of your incorrect assumptions straight though: I definitely have tried melee Assassin builds, and so far my experience is that they are finnicky (but then, they're supposed to be), but can be both fun and effective. And in its current incarnation (admittedly, this could change in future iterations), not even using 1H style *or* Great Sword switching *or* a martial multi-class... a great sacrilege to you, I'm sure. Anyway, feel free to get a last word in if you feel unable to take your own advice and move on just yet. You can feel safe in the knowledge that I shan't be reading it.

Yeah, in PoE2 the DoT effects are much better in this regard. In PoE1 they would indeed tend to crap out against heavier armour, because it got subtracted every time and you ended up with the minimum 20%. Because it's now based on Penetration and separate from the actual damage amount, low damage and high damage attacks get affected by AR equally provided the Penetration is the same. The drop in damage is -25% per point of PEN under AR by the way. So in the example, you hit the minimum of 25% / 1.5 damage at a PEN of 3 (not accounting for Might and such, obviously). It's evaluated every time by the way, so in the example you hit someone with a 6 PEN DoT and they then increase their Fire AR to 9, the damage will be reduced for subsequent ticks, etc.

Except that you say things like "the bonus only triggers on a crit" and rhetorically asking whether a single attack PEN bonus is better than the Streetfighter bonuses. Rather seems like you *are* forgetting some bits there. And similarly, when you start suggesting things like the Assassinate ability being underwhelming and the class being subpar, it rather seems like you're talking about the class and its abilities as a whole, not just melee Assassin builds. Which then raises the question what those statements are actually based on, given that the thrust of your arguments do seem to be specifically about the viability of a melee build. If that's all you're talking about, indeed my Evoker Assassin is not relevant; but then your claims about the class in general are irrelevant as well, so why make them? As for pontificating about your playstyle... yeah, I think I will actually. It seems relevant. You seem to be quite adamant about what is necessary for a melee assassin build. You *have* to go for a 1H crit build, you *have* to heavily invest in MIG/PER/DEX only, you *have* to turn it into a one-trick pony (never mind consumables and multi-classing), quickly blow through your Guile, start uselessly (?) auto-attacking and die. It remains a bit misty exactly why that would be the only or optimal way though; perfectly reasoned, I think not. And it does rather suggest that this may be informed more by your particular preferences in playstyle than you think. And apparently the video you're referencing doesn't agree, if it suggests using a Great Sword instead. So kindly do get of your high horse, would you? I have also at no point claimed that it is illegitimate to compare builds within a class. What's more, you can even compare them across classes as well! Possibilities are endless. It's not necessarily a very useful comparison if the different builds don't aim to fill roughly the same role though, which was my point. I can make a high DPS Fighter build and compare this to a dedicated tank Fighter build, to see which has the higher DPS; the results of such a comparison will be as predictable as they are pointless. Similarly, perhaps the point of a particular Assassin build is for example to quickly take out individual, possibly hard to reach targets. I would think it's quite reasonable to judge a build in relation to its intended role, an apparently very bizarre thought in your world. Good luck with 'generating positive discourse' though. I'm sure you'll get the hang of it some day.

Usually a bit after the battle starts, to give enemies a chance to clump up a bit more. Gives a chance to hit them with a Reflex debuff as well, which I'm liable to do anyway. Evoker Fireballs (and the like) already hit quite nicely by themselves of course, getting a lot of extra accuracy, PEN (high Fire AR not being too uncommon, after all), and an excellent chance to get some beefed up crits going definitely helps make a mark. And obviously you can Smoke Veil and hit them again whenever needed. Or start popping off some missiles, etc. I'm not too far in with this character yet, alternating a bit, but certainly having fun with it .

I'm not *expecting* a different story from BG2, it is what it is. I'm just setting out why I'm not particularly captivated by it, as perhaps a contrasting perspective to your own. Which of course to each their own, I'm definitely not intending this as a personal criticism or anything. I may not share your view, but I always find it interesting to hear how others experience things. But for me, when things get into "melodramatic" and "heavy on character drama", that's not really my preferred range. In that regard, the story in BG1 is more compelling to me. Maybe not the whole 'dark destiny' thing that's obviously there as well. But there, the getting enmeshed in the political machinations, the iron situation, et cetera. It feels like you are much more part of a larger setting with things going on independent of your own actions; whereas in BG2, much of it feels more like a backdrop to you running after Irenicus (and Imoen). Which is also why I like the PoE1 type of setup, where you see the same thing. The main character accidentally gets enmeshed in the whole thing, really. Thaos is in the game because he is a driving force behind what the Watcher has stumbled onto (including him being Watcherified), and therefore you as the Watcher get sucked into his wake. It doesn't fit the "hero vs villain" mould certainly, but that's not the only mould there is. A different mould it fits much better, is the "something's afoot, protagonist is trying to figure out what" mould. I mean, take Sherlock Holmes as an example: usually there wasn't really an antagonist around, that wasn't the draw of the stories. Or Heart of Darkness, entirely different mould of story yet again. These are undeniably compelling stories to many people as well, despite the absence of some personal hero-villain relationship or such. Certainly I think Thaos is an important part of the story in PoE1 and it is better for his presence, but as I see it not because of that kind of classic hero-villain vibe. He embodies more the larger forces behind it, their agent. He is an active and variable component, in a way a dot on the horizon to focus the chase through the mystery. But there doesn't need to be a direct personal connection for that, and often in these kinds of stories that's only to the detriment; it's just so the author/director/whomever can set up some big, climactic, hideously contrived and unrealistic fight at the end or something (yes, by all means, let's lock blades and have a good discussion in the middle of a grand melee; that would totally happen in reality). If it's a cop movie, it's not enough that the bad guy has done Bad Things and the good guy is a grumpy detective dedicated to doing his job; there needs to be a backstory where the bad guy villainously set our hero cop's bunny rabbit on fire or whatever, and now. It. Is. Personal! *sigh* Or somewhat more subtle variations thereof of course (though substitute 'assassin' for 'cop' and 'dog' for 'bunny rabbit' and you've essentially got the plot to John Wick there), and if done well that kind of plot device can certainly work. But I don't think it is by far a necessary component for good storytelling, and it is quite easy to go overboard with it.