Jump to content

blotter

Members
  • Content Count

    400
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by blotter

  1. In what way? If this is in regards to multiclassing being obviously superior to single-classing, that's something that'll have to be balanced to some extent whether or not the companions can fully benefit from the disparity. If this is about players being able to make build choices for companions based on mechanical advantages rather than roleplaying concerns, then restricting multiclassing won't stop this either; we'll still have free range in choosing abilities, skills, and equipment, which can all similarly have implications as to what sort of people the companions are, and these choices ca
  2. I set the attack option to K and that works just fine for me. If memory serves, it's one of those things that doesn't have a hotkey until you set one for yourself. I haven't tried that one, but I have noticed that I can't use Ctrl-Click to select multiple party members. The select icon changes to show the minus sign to exclude someone from selection, but never the plus sign to add someone like in Pillars 1 (not that it matters much with the drag and select option being available).
  3. Based on Sawyer's response, it has nothing to do with ensuring that the only multiclassing options for characters are those which 'make sense' for them (as if there were only one or two possibilities for each companion that could fit that bill). The only reason cited for the change was technical challenges in designing the UI and progression for the initial selection.
  4. Did you happen to have your entire party selected when you were trying to use the attack option on one of them? That will result in it switching to the crossed out circle, but if you try using the attack option with a single character or even a group of characters against a party member who hasn't been selected it still works (in my experience).
  5. You can still attack party members outside of combat using the sword icon or whatever hotkey you've tied to it. This works both when you've selected only a single character and when you selected multiple characters. The switch to the crossed out circle only occurs when you're trying to attack a party member who happens to be one of the people you've selected to perform the attack (such as when you have your entire party selected, for example). (Edit: And yes, I just dropped into the beta to confirm that right before posting; something about the thought of not being able to kill my companio
  6. While I believe your deductions are promising overall, I think it's worth pointing out that iconography pertaining to the gods that the Engwithans created could predate their manifestation as living beings for a number of reasons: The gods could be based on a primitive Engwithan pantheon that was conceived of ages before they had the means or inclination to search the Beyond for proof of the gods' existence. The gods' symbols/representations/creeds could have been instrumental in their subsequent creation: Well-established beliefs and legends about divine figures among the populace might have
  7. I'll cast my vote against both ideas as I think the game has enough artificial constraints as it is and this change, in particular, would eliminate much of what personally made me excited about Deadfire in the first place. The change may also look pretty bad more generally, considering how prominently they've featured multiclassing and the flexibility it affords in character building throughout their promotion of the game so far. If the respective benefits of single vs multiclassing need more effective balancing, then I'd prefer that they approach this via the scaling of higher level abili
  8. There won't be different body type options available for player characters unless Sawyer/the developers have changed their minds since then. There was some talk possible NPC model variation, but only child models are confirmed to be in (I hope that the fat, ass-scratching merchant of Adam's dreams makes it into the game as well though).
  9. Her original plan was to drop a meteor on them, which Abydon fractured and then blocked with his body when its fragments were still heading towards the Engwithans. If the goal was to put an end to their civilization, then the actions of both gods seem excessive if the Engwithans were already virtually extinct by that time. On the other hand, it could be that Ondra was more concerned with wiping out all traces of the Engwithans' culture and Abydon was more concerned with protecting these traces rather than the surviving Engwithans per se. This would make sense given the dialogue's emphasis
  10. In terms of their place in the setting, soulbound items don't really need a unique explanation for their existence as a category of items (which is what I assume Ninjamestari meant by "no real story", since, individually, they all have stories about their origins which are gradually unlocked alongside their enchantments). Pillars 1 already established that a) souls can linger within objects/places and/or b) soul energy can change how objects/environments function - soulbound items are just examples of either phenomenon. There are also multiple cases in which soulbound items are acquired un
  11. The winged (male_human_k) and horned helm (male_human_l) portraits both exist as options within the beta, so they have watercolor versions already.
  12. And that's where you've taken the assumption too far. The developers did say that skill checks will be more common than attribute checks, but that isn't equivalent to saying that attributes don't matter in roleplay anymore, as you concluded above. I don't know what to tell you about the Let's Play videos as I haven't watched any of them, but it's worth noting that some the attribute-specific checks that I encountered weren't clearly labeled in dialogue. The first Perception check that I mentioned didn't involve a choice at all, it was just extra information with the attribute's symbol in b
  13. Even if skill checks are more common overall, the beta has enough examples of attribute checks in dialogue and scripted interactions that it seems premature to conclude that the developers are planning to make them irrelevant to roleplaying aspects of the game, especially with the introduction of a requirements system that allows them to check for multiple distinct categories (e.g., skills, backgrounds, race, class, attributes, etc.) when determining if you qualify for particular options in dialogue/scripted interactions. At various points throughout the beta, it checks for Strength (if you tr
  14. A quick explanation of the purpose of the Topic and Strength parameters shown in one of the screenshots from the link AndreaColombo provided above.
  15. True, I honestly hadn't even considered that. It would be a departure from the way that every other proficiency works for every other class, but I can't deny that it allows for a lot more flexibility in deciding what to do with the proficiency. It'd also be something of a shame for monks to have no use for an unarmed proficiency's modal, but selecting it would allow them to blend Transcendent Suffering with the Devoted's subclass benefits as well as various passives that are tied to weapon proficiencies so it's not exactly wasted either. Maybe an alternative for the proficiency would
  16. I haven't spent much time considering the overall implications of this idea, but I do recall reading some complaints about Athletics being *too* useful in Deadfire, to the point that investing in it to some degree is mandatory: what if Second Wind became a feature that was tied to Constitution instead of Athletics? With the change, Athletics could boost Stride and Disengagement defense instead, kind of like the Tumble skill in d20, and mitigate terrain-based penalties/impediments. The latter steps on the Island Aumaua's toes, granted, but that's another thing I've seen a fair number of com
  17. Re: Question #1 - Proficiencies are supposed to reflect specialized training and techniques, and being able to hurt people with your fists seems as appropriate (to me) for a Fire Godlike Devoted or an Aumaua Berserker as it is for an Orlan monk of any stripe. This is already a game where we can use wooden clubs and staves to bludgeon flame blights to death without catching on fire and use daggers to carve up oozes without melting our hands off in the process, so it seems strange to insist that punching armored people without breaking our fists is taking things a step too far. Re: Question #2
  18. Or they could call it Flurry of Blows to appeal to the D&D monk crowd. It does seem like it could end up being redundant for monks, given the existence of the Swift Strikes ability, but then again, it could free up ability points that otherwise go towards the ability or equipment slots that would be tied up with equipment to get Recovery down to 0 if not for the boost. In either case, it's probably a good thing that the modal doesn't build on any of the things that monks already get augmented via Transcendent Suffering while still giving monks an edge in terms of getting a greater benefit
  19. While it's true that the developers have said that, it's also true that the beta contains multiple examples of attribute checks in dialogues and scripted interactions. In particular, the Strength check to force open the door to Poko Kohara directly contradicts your claim that brute force options have effectively been divorced from Strength/Might and assigned to Athletics. Incidentally, this was a Might check prior to the update and it was another example of a feat of physical strength in the vein of those Might checks from Pillars 1 that have been criticized in this thread and elsewhere (my ch
  20. I ran into this bug a while ago. If you want to, you can switch back to your original portrait by first changing it to something else (the portrait immediately before or after it, for example) and then changing back to it from there.
  21. The Beguiler subclass already delves into non-attack-based Focus gain via Illusion (presumably Deception) powers that they use against enemies, though they're currently bugged from what I've heard. To an extent, something could also be done without resorting to subclasses. For example, there could be an Echo power to transfer your Soul Whip to another party member (though there'd have to be significant downsides to both the cipher and companion, I suspect - perhaps the projected soul whip interferes with the companion's ability to heal and the cipher suffers increased incoming damage from
  22. Yeah, they didn't actually use the term "necrotic damage" to describe the specific damage type until 4th edition and after, but you're right that Chill Touch doesn't actually inflict cold damage. The caster channels negative energy to disrupt the target's life force or spook undead (though the latter part didn't carry over into 5e).
  23. I agree that getting an in-game glimpse of the keep in Pillars 2 before it's reduced to rubble would be nice, but if we do get to spend any time in the Dyrwood at the beginning, then I'd like to set off to the Deadfire from New Heomar. It's a port city and it's been mentioned enough in the first game that I'd appreciate a glimpse of it.
  24. Yeah, it would be interesting if the game's developments could potentially serve to challenge the Watcher's perspective on Thaos' choices as they learn more of the secrets of the world/the gods. Tinysalamander touches upon the fact that this has been addressed to a limited extent where companions and their issues regarding are concerned, but there's definitely room for further development. Also in relation to the end game, I wonder how often the Watcher will have opportunities during the sequel to try to convince others of what they learned within Sun in Shadow. Good point. In mos
×
×
  • Create New...