Jump to content
  • Sign Up

blotter

Members
  • Content Count

    400
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by blotter

  1. I believe that Soul Whip was specifically identified along with Carnage as class abilities that would be subject to scaling with the class power source (source: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3807509&pagenumber=52&perpage=40#post469029383).To the extent that you focus on boosting the perks related to Soul Whip, your spells through another class would be comparatively weaker. Also, unless Soul Whip changes, the damage bonus will vanish more quickly if Focus gain is allowed through the spells of other classes (though that obviously raises some concerns of its own).
  2. Ah, my mistake. I see where you were going with it now (that you've explained it to me). (Edit: but pre-buffing contributing further to this state of affairs only follows with per-rest spellcasting, which is currently off the table outside of the Empowerment mechanic since the current plan is to make spells per-encounter in Pillars 2.)
  3. I don't think you actually meant narcoleptic here, maybe OCD? Actually, you can generate wounds outside of combat in Pillars 1 already by having a companion slap your monk around a bit. The problem with that is that they disappear so quickly that you probably wouldn't be able to get more than one or two (edit: actually, I just tried it with a greatsword wielding barbarian and Zahua with Transcendent Suffering 4 and they were able to bring the wound gauge up to seven in the time that's available, but they're also getting damaged by Rooting Pain at that range) for an upcoming battle for they reset back to 0. It might have something to do with the rapid regeneration of Endurance out of combat. Your argument got me curious about Focus, though, so I had Grieving Mother zap me with her wand a couple of times outside of combat and she didn't gain any Focus from it whatsoever. Even if they did change this in light of other pre-buffs becoming available, they could keep the window of opportunity to take advantage of the Wounds/Focus short enough to prevent you from breaking out your ultimate monk moves/cipher powers from the onset of combat.
  4. I'd also like to see them avoid relegating details about monsters (e.g., the tendency of Will O'Wisps to follow travelers, the tendency of shadows to afflict villages with nightmares, the fierce competition for food that's said to occur amongst wurms, finding the occasional victim in spore colonies that's been kept alive for extended feeding, etc.) to bestiary notes. Some of these things seem like good hooks for encounters/quests and others would make for potentially interesting visual perks for stealthy characters to come across.
  5. 1. Invisibility spells could have an edge in regards to visual detection but provide no advantage in avoiding detection by sound, since Pillars 2 will base detection on both sight and hearing. For monsters, like skuldr, that track by hearing or other non-visual senses, this could be a major shortcoming for invisibility magic. (edit: whereas a stealth skill could also logically encompass a knowledge and mastery of techniques to fool such senses) 2. There could be areas that are harder or easier to be stealthy in, with ranks in the skill mitigating environmental penalties while invisibility wouldn't. 3. Invisibility spells have the inherent limitation of a set duration and could also require more intense concentration than other spells as the caster actively works to suppress visual cues from their movement. As a result, the caster may have to move more slowly and carefully than someone using stealth. 4. Spells, items, and senses that allow for the detection of magic could make invisibility useless in situations where stealth would still be viable. 5. Rather than invisibility per se, the norm for such spells might be more along the lines of ambient enchantment effects making it more difficult to notice the spellcaster, but otherwise requiring many of the conventions of stealth to function (e.g., avoiding line of sight, keeping a low profile, etc.) Proper invisibility might be rather powerful/high-level magic with other tradeoffs like requiring the use of Empowerment, having a short duration, etc.
  6. What it does leave room for, however, is minor/regional/racial aspects of deities, which can accomplish much the same thing - I believe that the Huana have already been stated to revere Ondra under a differ name/likeness, though I can't recall the actual name right now. Conversely, it also isn't inconceivable that a given culture would see distinct deities as aspects of the same divinity (e.g., Gaun, Berath, and Rymrgand is a singular death god that goes through seasonal phases or is seen through different aspects based on the life that one has led), which can have significant impacts on how such deities are approached and interpreted. So what if they worship the same gods? That obviously doesn't equate to considering each other to be part of some happy extended religious family - nor should it, given how few of these deities mandate harmonious coexistence. There can be significant differences in interpretations of the faith/dogma or even the origins/nature of the deity in question (consider the Eothas vs Gaun and the tensions that the developers have mentioned as likely to occur between Eder and Xoti in regards to disagreements about their shared deity). Even where such differences do not exist or are less significant, conflict can arise through competition for the gods' favor or it may simply be the deities' will that these nations clash with each other. The fact that they can speak Aedyran is likely a consequence of Aedyr's colonization efforts as opposed to them sharing languages from the start. As for why there would still be such estrangement between the Dyrwoodan and the Glanfathans, I don't see how that's hard to understand given generations of conflict and resentment between them. The Dyrwoodan sense that Glanfathans are strange would have more to with aspects of Glanfathan culture, such as tribal organization, the fact that humans are a minority among them if there are any Glanfathan Folk at all (there are, I just forgot), the fact that they're semi-nomadic in contrast with the Dyrwoodan emphasis on agriculture, and a divergence in centuries to milennia old beliefs and traditions that a couple of new gods would hardly be a replacement or necessary explanation for. Not really. Woedica favors Aedyr, and Aedyr has always been about pillaging the Glanfathan ruins for all they're worth. Woedica doesn't want people mucking about with animancy, but that doesn't mean she has a problem with the nation she prefers benefiting from Engwithan artifacts that were created through animancy (or that she's against her agents actively practicing animancy to vilify animancy for that matter) - she reserves the right to practice her double standards and play favorites as the rightful queen of everything. If the Dyrwood vs Glanfath dispute regarding the Engwithan ruins has a religious dimension at all, then it is tied to the Glanfathan's reverence of the Builders and not the decrees of any god in particular. Which brings us to another point: for weird culture-specific faiths, you don't need gods at all. Faith is the source of priests' powers and their faith can as easily be linked to ancestor worship, Animistic beliefs and rituals (not to be mistaken for Animancy, which could easily spark a transcendentalist faith of its own centered around casting off the yoke of mortality, unlocking latent powers/knowledge from past lives, etc.), nationalistic religions tied to shared origins and destinies based on cultural identity, the worship of god-kings or queens, or even self-worship for the wildly narcissistic misfits out there. I actually agree with this. I just don't agree that inventing new gods for different areas/peoples comes anywhere near cutting it or is even a particularly valuable way to approach the cultural differentiation process.
  7. I'm definitely in favor of having spells/invocations/powers/potions/etc. available outside of combat. It seems like there'd be various ways in which to ensure that pre-battle spell preparations don't get completely out of hand, some of which were already in the game (e.g., bonus stacking limits). I also agree that going to the trouble buffing yourself extensively before a fight should probably make it easier, but to keep it from getting to the point of completely steamrolling encounters, a few possibilities come to mind: 1. Piling strong enchantments on the party could increase their visibility for magic detection-type effects, complicating attempts at stealth when dealing with enemies with a natural sensitivity to magic or access to resources that facilitate its detection. This could also potentially trigger traps/hazards in certain areas or allow enemies to relocate/prepare an ambush when appropriate. 2. There could spells and effects that function by turning beneficial effects against their original recipients - sort of like the d&d 3.5e warlock's Voracious Dispel invocation or perhaps even by transferring them from the intended target of the effect onto the caster. 3. Some of the stronger effects could have corresponding crash periods like drugs do (maybe even if the beneficial effect is dispelled, transferred, or cut short for added risk).
  8. Having the choice between three as in Tyranny would be great, as would anything beyond that (though with the far greater number of races in Pillars, I'm less sure we'll see this carry over). Fingers crossed for added NPC variation especially since they wouldn't necessarily have to make them cover all the different forms of armor/clothing that the Watcher and companions/sidekicks can wear.
  9. The developers have already mentioned that they plan to have watercolor portraits for quest giving NPCs. See https://www.fig.co/campaigns/deadfire?update=245#updates for more details and some examples. 1. We've seen unique idle animations for party members such as Eder and Aloth already; will all full-fledged companions have these and/or can we expect to see these occur among important NPCs as well? 2. Where recurring monster types are concerned, assuming that there are some, would you say the focus has been on refining established designs or adjusting them to better fit the different environments in which they are encountered? 3. Are there more variations in NPC body types or will they still share the same models?
  10. The developers mentioned in past Q&As that there would be unique dialogue options for characters who are from the Deadfire Archipelagos. They've also mentioned that they would work on integrating background options into dialogues as well. That said, I highly doubt your character will meet their family in Pillars 2. The Aristocrat option is open to all races, so in order for them to introduce your character's family believably, they'd not only have to come up with versions for each race but also relocate the versions to areas in which the presence of aristocrats of that race would make sense. That's a lot of work to do for one background out of dozens.
  11. If you mean changing your paladin's order from what it was in Pillars 1, then yes. When you import your save, you'll be able to select a new class or subclass as you see fit. I wouldn't expect companions or other NPCs to react to the change, though.
  12. I've seen various ideas on approaching the matter, like giving godlike parent race attribute bonuses on top of or in place of their own, racial abilities that scale more strongly, having "inherent" customizable headgear of their own like Devil of Caroc's armor (I've suggested this myself, suggesting that the features might emerge from talent selection, but rjshae also proposed a variation on the concept where the headgear would progress like a soulbound item), allowing access to lesser model-free headgear, etc. A lot of these ideas can be found here (http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/91650-what-about-headbands/),where they were discussed in more detail.
  13. That's more of a problem with godlike racial pros and cons than with enchanting head gear. Hopefully, the developers have something in mind to make godlike racial abilities/their progression less abjectly out of sync with what the race loses. If not, then I don't think that headgear enchantment options are going to be the thing that tips it all over once and for all since the equipment itself is likely to do that anyway. The new level cap is 20 and what godlike miss out on through lack of access to headgear may be that much more pronounced given the likely introduction of new and more powerful headgear to match this extended progression.
  14. If nothing else, Pillars 2 is supposed to be easier to mod. So maybe its a problem we'll be able to fix ourselves.
  15. If memory serves, her waist is bared in normal and fine hide armor, including the set she starts with, but the skin difference is really only noticeable from the inventory screen in my experience.
  16. The claim that having in-game effects and mechanics tied to animancy requires an animancer class is a non-starter. Animancy-based effects can easily be based on the use of items, as is appropriate for the discipline given its dependence on machinery and tools, and the risks associated with the use of such items as well as their efficacy can be influenced by the skills and talents of the user (as well as the power and characteristics of the items themselves). Things like creating flesh golems and animats could be approached through the use of skills and items as well, and the actual process could resemble the creation of a hireling (and being subject to the same limits in terms of party inclusion) or acquiring a sidekick. Like the blade golem in NWN 2, such companions could be enhanced through skill checks in dialogue and perhaps through the use of appropriate items (crafting materials in the case of animats, perhaps, and things like rare vessel flesh/bones for grafts in the case of undead). As I mentioned earlier, "summoning" undead doesn't really make sense within standard class/level progression schemes since the most powerful and difficult to control form of undead also happens to be the form that they all start in, but using animancy devices to lure, disrupt, or control vessels within an area is easier to fit within this paradigm since you wouldn't have to start off able to bend fampyrs to your will for it to be useful. If anything, not limiting animancy to a particular class actually allows for more extensive implementation through in-game mechanics since they would be usable by a broader range of characters. Consider the developers' response to inquiries into the creating of monk-specific weapons like spiked gloves: they were hesitant to invest the time and resources for something that would see use by only one class out of eleven (or twelve if there were an animancer class). If any class can potentially include animancers based on skill and possibly proficiency choices, then this becomes far less of a concern.
  17. Generally speaking, it'd make sense for traps and hidden items to be harder to detect while running. That said, I agree that introducing a whole bunch of punitive mechanics for running under inappropriate circumstances is just going to piss a lot of people off for no appreciable gain.
  18. Yeah, it's one of the changes I'm most looking forward to. On the subject of dialogue, I think they also mentioned Insight, Intimidation, and Persuasion skills, so there's probably going to be a lot more competition for those skill points.
  19. Keep in mind that the range of skills is being expanded. Currently, there's something like 17 instead of the original five. Lore, for example is broken up into Religion, Metaphysics, and possibly others, while skills overall are divided among the active skills (which you use in game) and the reactive skills (which you use for information/dialogue options), if memory serves, with separate points for both groups. Mechanics seems likely to remain an active skill, though, but it might be subdivided like lore was. Or not, part of the reason for the change was to allow for more character definition through your skill point allocations, and they may not feel that splitting Mechanics into lockpicking and disarm traps, for example, would be worthwhile from that perspective. Metaphysics is probably the go-to skill for souls right now, so I would expect animancers to have a bonus in that. If each background provides a skill bonus of each type and Mechanics remains as-is, then I agree that it would make sense for animancers for to gain a bonus towards it as well.
  20. This really varies with particular classes, but I'll grant that animancy does suggest a great deal in regards to profession and perspective (even if there are bound to significant procedural and philosophical differences between animancers both regionally and individually). That said, I think there are other ways to get animancer out there as a label/character identity without subjecting animancers as a whole to the thematic constraints that come with the class format, such as backgrounds and faction allegiance. If animancers are relegated to a specific class, then their most dramatic and infamous exploits almost inevitably get tied to level. Does that make Pandgram a level 20 animancer? Then what level was the volunteer who became the first undead and wreaked such havoc in the process? What about the animancer in the Baelreach incident who accidentally destroyed the souls of dozens of volunteers? Seems like he'd have to have a pretty high class level - was he level 10 or so, perhaps? If so, what levels were the angry villagers in the mob that killed him off afterward? What level do you have to be in order to make a wicht? Or an animat, for that matter? Mixing animancy in with class mechanics introduces these sorts of questions, which rather cheapens the history surrounding it in my opinion. It also undermines some of the themes relating to animancy, in particular the audacity of their research and the risks of tampering with forces beyond their understanding. After all, if the really earth-shattering exploits of animancy require a minimum class level to perform, then reaching X level as an animancer becomes an implicit qualification.
  21. Some of them will be reappearing, but Sawyer said you won't necessarily have them from the start. Rather, you might regain them as you advance in level or through the story. As far as specifics go, I think that Gift from the Machine and the Effigy's Resentment were mentioned as examples (probably also the gods' blessings, but my memory's less clear about those). I hope they transfer them all over, but at the moment they appear to be leaving themselves some leeway in regards to which reward talents make it back.
  22. We saw some out of combat uses for offensive spells during scripted interactions in the White March. With the developers planning to make more extensive use of scripted interactions overall in Pillars 2, we might see such applications for defensive spells and those few utility spells that are in the game as well. Just having a chance to put such abilities to less conventional uses is great, but I'd also hope that they also take advantage of the opportunity to show off a bit more of how these spells/powers/invocations/etc. work in greater depth than we'd normally see while using them in combat. Whisper of Treason, for example, might draw on lingering grudges and latent hostilities to turn your enemies against each other, The Lover Cried Out (...) invocation might make the chanter take on the semblance of a loved one in the eyes of the target, using Form of the Helpless Beast might also render speech impossible and confer a pig's instincts, etc.
  23. Yeah, that's what I meant: the ability to keep an animancer like Ydwin as a rogue throughout the game demonstrates the separation between animancy and magic (or powers, prayers, etc.)
  24. One thing about animacy is that it proceeds from the use of machines/tools and the effects that they induce in the souls of subjects. Arguably, then, the class progression format is fundamentally ill-suited to it since its capabilities are separate from the personal power of its practitioners. Take Heritage Hill, for example, where , or Caedman Azo, who had I agree with darqleo that backgrounds are a more appropriate place to introduce the Animancer for those who crave the title (though arguably it is already encompassed by the Scientist background, which for some reason only people in the Living Lands can have). Actually practicing animancy would be better represented through the use of skills, specialized equipment, and perhaps the occasional talent (such as limited but functional knowledge of Engwithan, like Icantha had, to better operate machinery for non-Watcher characters, something similar to the Gunner talent to allow simpler animancy devices to be used more quickly and thus be more practical in combat, etc.) The most dramatic and powerful forms of animancy would probably have to be quest-related, area-restricted, or tied to scripted interactions, but beyond that, what you could do would be based on two things: your skill and the power of your devices. More powerful devices could require different minimum skill levels to use safely depending on how powerful they are, but most of animancy's combat applications should probably have more to do with weaponizing its hazards than summoning undead or augmenting souls. Remember that all undead are of a single type with the only difference being their states of degeneration - going the standard necromancer route of zombies to vampires as your level increases hardly makes sense when the base state for undead is fampyr and it could take months for them to degenerate into a revenant suitable for a low-level character. Similarly, animancy-based combat buffs wouldn't make a whole lot of sense given how time-intensive and unstable animancy treatments have been shown to be. Disrupting souls to cause afflictions (potentially including turn/command undead-type stuff) or damaging them directly, on the other hand, both seem like things that should be possible in the midst of combat, albeit with substantial risks of backlash that can be reduced with sufficient skill and the right tools. Making a vessel sidekick become available through the use of animancy skills and machinery would be a nice touch for a quest-related application of animancy, I think. And there's Osrya, another wizard who practiced animancy. Ydwin's also a notable example in that she's the first on the list who can have no spellcasting capability whatsoever (as a single-classed rogue), and who knows what Ethelmoer or Moedred are class-wise.
  25. No more than a character's steady decline of health after taking damage over time as in Pillars 1. Less so at the moment, actually, since it sounds like you'll only gain injuries when you get knocked out, whereas health would diminish in response to any damage. That's not what empower does at all. Empower increases the character's effective power level while using a given spell by +3, increasing damage and anything else about the spell that's tied to level. Standard ranged attacks will not be comparable and most likely won't serve as a viable replacement during battles where you actually need the power boost that the empower mechanic provides. Because there's a significant difference between making a target temporarily incapable of taking any actions whatsoever and making it risky for them to move away from whatever's engaging them? Further, to be balanced, a weapon that stuns a target would need to be able to do so only sparingly, likely several times per rest, once/twice per encounter, or only when it inflicts a critical hit, for example, whereas an engagement property can be continuous since it does not shut enemies down as completely.
×
×
  • Create New...