Wormerine

Backer beta access came with $99 tier and you can purchase it separately as an add on if you want access to beta but got a lower tier pledge.

That’s my stance as well. Not that you should win a tough fight on your first go, but if encounter design requires you to die in order to succeed than it sucks (you didn’t cast that spell before going in, YOU DIE). That’s why I hate roguelights with progression (rogue legacy). It is fun to make a one life run and loose because you are not good enough, but going in knowing that you will loose because you didn’t grind hard enough feels bad to me. Going into combat and loosing, not because I made poor imformed decisions during combat but because I entered combat without necessary protection spells and died within seconds feels bad to me. Now you could include that type of gameplay into the game. In PS:T death was part of the story and gameplay. Dark Souls series famously use death, checkpoint and soul drop as a mechanic. In PoE or BG it is no the case though. Death is pernament failure state from which you can not recover. Reloading allows you to try again but it is not part of the game.

If the class defines what stats your character should have than why allow player to distribute their stats at all and not tie stats to classes? If you give player control over stat distribution but classes benefit from one or two stats we get possible conflict between role playing and gameplay (a charactertype player has in mind and character they are creating because of game mechanics). While it’s fine for certain stats to be more useful for certain classes Obsidian wanted to unlock more role playing potential by making sure classes are viable with various builds. Ideally you want classes which are flexible with stats they favour while different builds feel distinct. I feel Obsidian’s systems weakness is differentiating in combat same classes with differently distributed stats.

That is correct. Even if grimoire you are holding contains a spell from a restricted school you sill won’t be able to cast it.

Yes, thank you. That is so me and probably one of the reasons I am looking forward to the change. I am a guy who finishes Tomb Raider games with 100+ healthpacks in an inventory. I think I can count on fingers on my hands times I used highest lvl spells in my Baldurs Gate playthrough. In Pillars I would mostly stick to low levels spells and “per encounter” spells in later stages.

Just a reflection: isn’t an idea of classes in RPGs fundamentally broken? It seems like the most defining part of character creation which either influences other choices you make or renders them inconsequential. You are a wizard and therefore you are what you are. In D&D system you have to adjust your stats to your class, or it will be unplayable. In PoE adjustments made to your character via stats will be small. Ideally, the attribute system would be designed in such a way to meaningfully influence all classes while still allowing flexibility in viable builds. Is that really realistic though? All classes would have to be capable of working in attribute combinations and as a result potentially fulfill various functions.

Well, the term barbarian implies the human being in question is uncivilized or primitive, and was how the Greeks designated people of non-Greek culture (who they largely saw as inferior, culturally at least). It doesn't necessarily mean barbarians are stupid but it sort of came to existence as a derogatory term that implied them being all of this. Yes, but Conan is the archetype fantasy barbarian--sword&sorcery, all that. What I'm curious about is why the fantasy barbarians that came after Conan are all a bunch of thick-headed idiots when Conan demonstrably was not. Because of Schwarzenegger films. For most people it’s what they think when you mention the character.

That is true there was something about those mechanics even though I wouldn't classify them as "good" or "engaging". I think that while mechanicly they weren't very good, they added to a fantasy of adventuring. I did like that vampires would suck out your "lvls" and the rest mechanic, even though technically pointless, did reinforce the theme of adventuring and danger. I would categorize them in the same shelf and the need of buying and manufacturing ammo in original XCOM. It wasn't an engaging part of the game. Ammo was cheap and easy to buy/manufacture, you just had to do it. While it was a chore gameplay wise, and didn't add any strategic/economic depth it did play into a fantasy of running a military organization. You had make sure those were available or soldiers would be deployed with empty magazines. All of the moders remakes (Firaxis, Xenonauts) streamlined this element, and I while I believe they did the right thing, there is a part of the "simulation" that is missing. Modern cRPGs tend to flat those "not good" mechanics out. I felt PoE had a fine balance, while games like Dragon Age went a bit too far. It is all a matter of taste & preferance. While I would like to see those really unique and dangerous enemies to return, and inventory management and pre-combat preperation to return I think it is possible to do it better than IE games did.

That’s very similar to how I played those games after my initial “getting to know the rules” playthrough. But isn’t that a big design flaw? In BG spellcasters (especially mages) ranged from useless to ridiculously overpowered depending if you cast spells or not. In my case, they would hang back and do nothing unless it was a major fight, while melee fighter and archer would deal with most mobs. PoE has similar issue though with wands and sceptres they at least contribute. They rarely used high spells even on PotD. This encouraging of not using characters in your party is a big flaw. Considering that limited resting (at least in BG) is an optional challenge not supported by implemented mechanics I really can’t agree with describing it as resource management. It’s like saying a shooter requires you to co serve ammo, while at the same time having a button which immediately replenishes all ammo whenever you want. There are two ways I can think of that would solve a problem - add to the game genuine resource management. Spells and other items&skills are limited and when you go adventuring you have to be smart on when you use it. Or encourage players to freely use skills at their disposal when entering combat. PoE2 is going for the second option. I like that though there are few warning light in my head: does that mean all spells will be less impactful, as being able to cast high lvl spell in every encounter in previous games would make them really easy. I was also worried about encounters changing into spellspamfests but with limited spell per encounter it should be an issue.

??????? I don’t watch GoT either. I saw first half of pilot episode and decided that if I feel like watching bunch of boobs there are better places to find those than HBO. Not my cup of tea what I am trying to say.

How does it change tactics? In both Pillars and Baldurs Gate after the battle you end up with full health. However in BG you have to spam rest button couple time before that happens. There is no limit to resting, there is no danger in resting (unless you are really low on health and some people could die in an ambush).

Planescape: Torment

I am not mistaking this at all. What exactly does role playing do? Why do people want to play any role other than their own in the first place? To fulfil a fantasie. As simple as that. Or to be more precise to fulfil some psychological need that is lacking from their daily life. So to berate someone for having fantasies when you're no different is hypocritical at best. I don’t think I can agree with you though you did raise an interesting point. Is consuming any kind of media fulfilling a fantasy? That would assume you only watch, read, play only works related to things you desired first. And that you know in advance what you want. An extreme example: I have no fantasy of living through world war 2 and especially ghetto. And yet I watched The Pianist, Schindler’s list and many more. Calling those films fantasies is absurd. They are compelling but for different reasons than fantasy fulfilment. I see games in similar way. Yes, there are games which do cater to fantasies -I play Elite, city builders, Batman for that very reason. I didn’t see PoE as a fullfiler of my fantasies. It was way to uncomfortable for it. Companions weren’t people I would like to have around (Durance) but they were engaging for different reasons. For the similar reason I didn’t like KOTOR2 on my first playthrough. Because instead of giving me what I want like KOTOR1 did it attepted to shake up my viewpoint of good&bad in SW universe. These st at least my thoughts on the subject.

Right, so you're saying in your daily life you regularly save the world? Help every random stranger (or kill them), fight terrible monsters, boldy go where no man has gone before etc? Are you saying that you are exactly as daring, witty and handsome as Commander Shepard and every other PC in existence? If so, then accept my apologies. You are clearly an enlightened being that plays games for their philosophical and speritual value rather than anything else. But something tells me you're none of those things. So, i hate to break it to you, but you play games for the very same reason us filthy "fappers" do. And i'm not making a fuss at all. I simply said that i would've preferred a different character. No more, no less. It is you who seems to triggered here. The point Sedrefilos was making was to not mistake fantasy as a genre: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantasy With fantasy as a psychological phenomenon: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantasy_(psychology) Fantasy RPG is not a game which fulfills your fantasies (though it can if that’s what devs are going for) but allows you to role play in a fictional world, often (but not necessary) drawing inspirations from folklore.

Not everything, just prebuffing. :-D why do we argue knowing all well, that will change nothing? In my case I am curious why OP wants prebuffing. I still don’t really get it. But I know he wants it badly.

The more moving/interactable parts you introduce to the game the bigger a chance of player breaking something. PoE was very restrictive and I hope Deadfire will open up.

Really? Weird. I've seen it with a friend. The cinema was almost full of people (seems to do well in France at least). Probably the only AAA US film i've seen in years that is actually worth it. Better than the original in some ways. While Hollywod only sell crap usually. Good surprise. My screening wasn’t too bad either. However, it’s been 2 weeks since release and according to Box Office Mojo the movie just broke even combining estimated domestic and international gross and I am pretty that doesn’t include cost of promotion. On one hand I don’t want it to turn into smash hit as doing a sequel was a risky endeavour already and I don’t need Blade Runner cinematic universe. But I would like to see more high budget SF like that. Villeneuve mentioned he would like to tackle Dune at some point. If BR proves those kind of films don’t make enough money to justify investment it probably will never happen. Still BR seems to be steadily earning money so we will see where it will end up in the end.

I hope banter is ON. https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/91677-the-dwarven-companion-recovery-front/page-4?do=findComment&comment=1888344 The image there is dead, but I got my answer from one of the devs, and it was positive back then... Yeah, I remember it being confirmed. It would be great to see anything on top of features listed in the vid. I find it strange they wouldn’t mention banter and “introductory quest related conversation” is so specific I assumed it is all there is. They could have limited the sidekicks content during the development.

sidekicks: 1) standard voice set 2) unique portrait 3) introductory quest related conversations It seems they will be quite a bit more shallow than I hoped for after initial pitch. No banter, no character conversation (whats your backstory.) I am afraid they might end up sweeping floor back on the ship after initial quest is done.

Unless things changed since PoE1 reducing someone’s radios is a negative only. Only the “core” radius of the spell hit both friend&foe while extended via INT radius hit foes only.

I want historical RPG Josh is mentioning. In of the interview Feargus mentioned an idea to do Noir RPG which is something I have been wanting for a long long time. I would take Cyberpunk over space opera.

Raising accuracy or damage of your attacks is also a huge deal. I'd just like the weapon to actually matter. Let a wizard with a broken stick for a weapon suck a bit at casting, just like a fighter with a rusty sword would against a dragon. I'm not advocating a game design where wizards are balanced around having no bonuses from their weapons and become overpowered if they have them. I'm not sure I'm informed enough to address the grimoire argument. Would I have to choose between a grimoire that buffs me and a grimoire that has good spells in it, or can I put the good spells in a grimoire that also buffs me? The latter would work. I'm not a fan of that item (and it's a scepter ), but let's say I am, then we have a good "caster weapon" even though it's only good when attacking, but it's only really a caster weapon on the basis that it can't bind to non-casters. Shouldn’t we compare how weapons influence fighter’s skills vs wizards spells and fighters use of weapons and wizards use of weapons? Though I do understand that your issue is that equipment doesn’t interact with spellcasting which for the most part is what wizard is doing. I would say that increasing accuracy of a spell isnt the same as increasing accuracy of an attack as the former is much more potent. Hitting petrify can be a game changing move, while more accuracy on weapon will slightly increase your DPS. I really don’t know that much about grimoires either, but I am pretty sure they mentioned they want to make them more unique.

@Lephys excellent post as usual. I remember BG2 having those spells which you could prepare before going in combat. You would combine three low level spells which then you could quickly cast at once when needed. That was neat. As it is right now I don’t feel like adding prebuffing makes any sense as spells don’t have an effect on the world except for combat. One of the things I really loved about Divinity is how reactive all skills were - you could use invisibility to sneak, teleportation to move party member through gap, or dangerous area, use flame, earth, air shields to bypass hazards, float your rogue to move through traps etc. The thing with BG&BG2 was that they had utility spells: wish, unlocking, search for traps etc. It made more sense to cast those spells outside of combat, because they were useful outside of combat. I would be very happy to see those skills and spells have a wider application than killing stuff. Especially now, when there are no per rest abilities. Not only they would make exploration more engaging but further diverse your playthroughs as you would have different ways of interacting with the world around you with different characters.

There will be helmet&cloak toggles.

Aren’t grimoires be more this time around than just spell containers? I feel unsure about buffing spells through items. Raising accuracy of your spells is a huge deal. Same with damage or duration. I certainly didn’t feel that getting weapons for a mage were unexciting. The soul bound wand which had a chance to mindcontrol was a treat (though a bit too good to not equip IMO). In my mind attack/ability are two different things. You CAN focus on weapons with mage if you want to. Making items more interesting for a mage is a good idea but I would rather see it done through grimoires and trinkets, with weapons having an effect when you, well, use the weapon.