Baltic

Isn't it more of a phrase than the exact meaning. As in a wizard tank will be okay but you're making a mistake if you try and make a tank with low constitution (ignoring illusion type tank builds) for example.

It is. Just cos something, in this case VO isn't important for you, doesn't make it an expendable feature for the reason that it limits editing alone. They are committing to doing "much more VO" so it must have make sense for them; they must be thinking it will help with the sales, they could be considering their target audiences' expectations and clearly they can afford it.As for VO quality concerns, come the **** on; does this game have cutting edge graphics? cutting edge mo-capped animations? and cutting edge whatevers? Yeah it has "good" quality graphs & anims, much better than the first game but its an AA game after all; why when it comes to VO it has to be top quality(I don't think Pillars 1 had bad quality VO/voice actors so I guess you people want famous actors for it or something?) or none? What this discussion is about needs to be cleared up. Editing is only a concern if we have full VO or don’t allow a non voiced segment in the middle of a voiced one. Whilst some people weirdly hate any VO, that has not been anyone’s arguement on this forum, so it probably shouldn’t be presumed.

But isn’t it good to have this freedom, it sets the expectation that the writing can be tweaked if it needs to be.

I like the partially recorded dialogue. Yes it can be jarring, epecaially since you can end up trying to wait for it to start playing, but it gave the impression that Obsidian had the freedom to change and add bits of dialogue if they needed to.

Wouldn’t multiple skill options be better for this? If you picked the fisherman background under hunter, you probably would pick something else over mechanics, for example.

Maybe reduce the number of skills from classes? Some people feel very pidgeonholed due to backgrounds having skills in the first place, so increasing the number of skills points from backgrounds would probably not make them happy.

I don’t think there’s any real disagreement here, just people coming at it from different angles. Corrrect me if I’m wrong but rjshae is just saying that magic doesn’t need to make sense to us, like how it seems nonsensical that a wand’s damage would be based off its strength or how shapeshifting doesn’t make sense due to conservation of energy. You don’t need to explain how shapeshifting works it can just be ‘because magic’. Lephys is saying that magic needs to have some restrictions otherwise you get questions such as ‘why can’t magic solve x problem?’ These viewpoints don’t necessarily conflict.

People seem to be presuming we’re going to kill Eothas a little too quickly. If we do have the option to kill him, it probably won’t be in a boss battle, unless he starts inhabiting a smaller vessel. There is a question as if there would be a point to killing him as he could be reincarnated again.

They should stay for as many rests as it says in their description (which can be found by mousing over the icons next to the character portraits). They will not stack with other inn bonuses (camping bonuses are separate) so resting in a room that gives a different bonus will override the current rest benefit.

Whilst I like the name might, my worry is that returning players will think they know what might does and thus not read its description and then try and recreate their pillars 1 caster who had high might. Edit: didn't read your post properly, if might isn't being changed much its name could stay as it was.

Not trying to excuse, just explaing why I think others think that way.

You can kind of justify bows and guns with idea of being able to draw it back or minimising recoil. A strength requirement for certain ranged with weapons or having diminishing returns for every point below that weapon would make more sense but people might be willing to accept it as game mechanics tend to have to become unrealistic at some point. I can't speak for guns and crossbows but being strong is helpful in archery and being weak would impact your ability as an archer. On the other hand the idea of wizards being underestimated by their appearance or brains beating brawn is quite popular hence why people are more bothered by might being useful for casters.Edit: sort of ninja'd

To be fair that might be the idea behind it. Make it clear to returning players that something has changed since Pillars 1.

From what I've seen they define 10 as average on the page for each individual stat so they should probably change the level chart.

The others still matter though. Just not as much as the main ones for that class. That's not the attributes' faults. That's the fault of the specific way in which the classes are set up. In DnD, they've typically affected a great deal of things. Just overbearingly is that PoE was an attempt to get away from that, yes, but I feel that the pendulum swung a bit far to the opposite end of the spectrum, where it feels like the effects of attributes are struggling to justify the existence of the attributes. As it stands, you just have a couple of attributes that are globally uber useful then the rest "don't matter" (as much). Instead of per-class now, it's just across the board, but the problem remains. Exactly right. PoE attribute system could be great with some fine tuning. - separate Might into physical and mental strength - make the abilities matter more across the board - instead of a linear cost and progression, introduce a point buy system where raising attributes costs progressively more. It hinders min/maxing and makes an evenly spread "jack of all trades" build viable Not trying to be argumentative, sorry if it sounds that way, just curious. What would you do to make physical and mental strength valuable to every class? Or do you not think they need to be?

I guess that’s to the choice of the individual Wizard/Barabarian I guess it would depend on the situation but if you were strong and knew magic you’d probably try and demonstrate with both. I meant more along the lines of whilst high Might wizards or druids would probably use some sort of ‘force push’ to knock down a wall, low might Wizards or Druids could also probably use a spell to do it. Whilst Obsidian could have done better at explaining Might than they did, when spellcasters are involved scripted interactions and conversations are likely always gonna have a few ‘Why I can’t I use magic?’ moments. Does that make any sense?

Whilst Obsidian could define and show might better, as soon as you start thinking too much about these options you run into trouble. Yes a high might wizard would probably use magic to intimidate people but so would a might 3 level 1 wizard.

Whilst I'm in favour of a walking toggle, scouting mode is what you'd use in these cases. It would be practically essential in the case of staying out of an enemy's visibility range.

A feature having been already added has no bearing on its ability to pertain to this discussion. Especially as it depends on how someone is using said feature. Also, I feel like you've misunderstood me, because you seem to think I'm arguing against walking being in the game, when it is quite the opposite. Allow me to elaborate: Combat-vs-noncombat stance = a distinct set of character animations that is already in "the game" (was already in the first game, so it's probable that it will be in Deadfire). What does this mean? That a line of reasoning was already followed leading to a "second" animation set being deemed worthy of their time and resources. What is walking? A "second" animation set for the characters, which we are arguing in favor of being deemed worthy of the developers' time and resources to add to the game. So... total bearing being had there. I very clearly presumed you had the same stance as me, pro walking toggle. I find the point I am trying to make very articulate so sorry. As I mentioned earlier combat stances have a very minor use in signalling the beginning and end of a fight. The current request in this thread is for Obsidian to add the toggle alongside everything else in the game. It has been their decision to (so far) not spend any money or time on this feature. This suggest to some degree that they do not see it as worthy of their resources. Everything else in the game they have already decided is worthy of them. Unless we are trying to request that they put the funds for one feature towards a walking toggle instead, the mention of other features add nothing as their existance does not give Obsidian the resources for the toggle or the popularity to make it worth adding.

It's objectively no less necessary than a non-combat stance in addition to a combat one. Everyone could simply jog around everywhere with their weapons out. Why waste animation resources on a non-combat stance? I'm not entirely sure if you're referring to the combat stance or the lack of sheathing weapons in Pillars 1. If you are referring to the stance it has some minimal use in informing you if the start and end of combat. If you are referring to the lack of sheathing they didn't need to change that, people were able to accept it in the first Pillars. Also the main difference is that Obsidian has already added those. We are not arguing that they should have put a walking toggle in instead of something else. Instead we are asking them to put something extra in the game. The features already added have no baring on this discussion unless it changes to a request to swap them out for a walking toggle.

No one actually has a problem with the idea of a walking toggle. They likely don't see it as essential for realism seeing as there will be countless other breaks from reality in game. Always joggging in a break most people can cope with which is why some people feel other things should be prioritised first.

Yeah, I have that set. But I don't have to have to walk each individual character around a trap that they should just walk around by them selves. Especially in combat where they may collide with one another, then the pathfinding AI goes nuts and they end up gods know where. That is true. It would make sense to make AI not step on traps once it was discovered. There is no situation in which you would want to set those up manually. What about traps that are unavoidable if you want to go a certain way? I think you can still try to disarm the trap and then trigger it if you're unable to. Though that may take more time than just running through with the whole party.It is easier to avoid the blast if you run over the trap though.

Yeah, I have that set. But I don't have to have to walk each individual character around a trap that they should just walk around by them selves. Especially in combat where they may collide with one another, then the pathfinding AI goes nuts and they end up gods know where. That is true. It would make sense to make AI not step on traps once it was discovered. There is no situation in which you would want to set those up manually. What about traps that are unavoidable if you want to go a certain way?

Fair point. I'm not pretending it's an ideal solution and obviously they wouldn't make it apply to every character but they already presume a fair bit in conversation. As characters can bring up your background, it's presumed you've told them about it as they couldn't know that stuff by looking at you. It's also presumed that you've got to a point in a conversation where you can say 'tell me about yourself' without it being weird. The conversations with nameless npcs presume a fair bit of conversation that isn't shown as their remarks are generally not the sort of thing that would be used as a greeting.

They could say there's a presumed/unshown part of the conversation in which the PC tells them.