Neckbitbasket

If this hasn't already been mentioned, I'm playing through Tyranny now and by comparison the companions in this game are very cardboard. Tyranny characters pop in a way that makes me want to learn more about them - the second character you meet is a soldier fused inside of his own armor, and he's just super casual about it. They engage you from the start and keep you engaged because they're all essentially representatives of the world's different factions, and it's your character's job to understand and mediate these factions, so you actually have an additional motivation to talk to them, and their input actually matters. PoE 2 takes for granted that I'll care without giving me a reason to. They either need to make the companions more integrated into the story like Tyranny and KOTOR, or they need to make recruiting them part of a sidequest that lets you more naturally get to know them, and gives them a reason to be following you around besides, "**** it, why not". Even in PoE 1, it bothered me how easily some people just committed themselves to a random stranger. KOTOR 2 at least justifies how quickly you bond to your companions supernaturally, and makes that part of the mystery of your backstory and a primary motivation for why one of the villains is interested in you; and the companions in KOTOR 2 still have way better reasons to be following you. Fallout: New Vegas (look at that; another Obsidian game) is a great example of the other way. Every companion you don't meet as part of the main quest has a sidequest devoted to initially developing them, and often involves you two working together towards a mutually beneficial goal, thus establishing a connection. And because sidequests like these are such a normal thing in New Vegas, you can often stumble into them without even realizing you'll get a companion out of it, which makes it feel way more organic.

This is a really good analogy, except you seem to be using it to point out the absurdity of the concept, but many people actually do work this way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrast_effect

What's wrong with doing things for the sake of competition? A lot people create extensive build guides on these forums because they enjoy getting recognition for their ideas, and sharing them with others. If this collaborative element wasn't something people enjoyed, then the strategy section of the forums would be a wasteland.

I don't know why people keep bringing up actual combat. I was using fencing as an example of a sport, in response to: In other words, this is in reference to an argument about language and semantics, and I was mostly trying to refute his supposition that the concept of "cheese" only exists within of the realm of games by equating it to a term with a similar connotation: "cheap". @knownastherat gave football as an example, which last I checked is still a sport and not gladiatorial combat (though to be fair, I've not checked in quite some time), so I responded with a personal anecdote about fencing. If you'd prefer a less personal example, look up Hack-a-shaq, or Shaquille O'neill in general, because he contributed to a number of changes to the rules of basketball due to his exceptional dominance on the court. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hack-a-Shaq

This implies that you play the game solo because you find it too easy otherwise. This implies that you want to play the game solo, but rely on consumables as crutches to get through certain encounters, and if they were to be removed/nerfed you would no longer be able to play the game the way you want - solo. Care to clear this up for me?

Great fighter? Uh... cute sentiment, but no. As I said, the technique is quite counterable (and we were also in 3rd grade at the time), and I don't think you understand the historic definitions of "great fighters". Life or death combat does not mean people didn't have an appreciation for skill, or were incapable differentiating it from other advantages such as size or weaponry. Lastly, this is a tangent and not even relevant to the point of my post (so let's move on). In my last post I mentioned the term "cheap", as in something that cheapens the experience of something or the significance one's accomplishments. To the OP, it seems that the overwhelming power of consumables cheapens their experience of creating builds because nothing they create could possibly rival the power of arcana, alchemy, and explosives simply due to their scaling. It is not so much that they prevent players from playing the game the way that they want, as it is that they prevent players from enjoying the game the way that they want. Let's actually use a different example, and suppose that I want to play a character that uses scrolls, potions, and bombs like a D&D-style artificer (which incidentally enough, suffered from being similarly overpowered in 3.5E, and was often banned by any sensible DM). But let's say I want to do that, and still feel challenged by this game. Now we have the same problem people were experiencing in 1.0 with classes like Paladin, in that if you played a Paladin you were just immortal, so people who wanted to play Paladins (myself included), not hold the idiot-ball, and still be challenged by the game were S.O.L. Nerfing consumables should not prevent you from beating the game solo. It may make it significantly harder to do so on PotD, and require you to build a character in a specific way, but I don't see how asking you to play on a lower difficulty is any different then you asking other players to ignore the existence of unbalanced consumables. The purpose of multiple difficulties is to accommodate many different types of players. PotD is more geared towards the people who do care about a TCS achievement, or recognition, or build creation. If you want to fly solo and not worry about getting stuck, that's kinda what the lower difficulties are for.

I doubt very much that most people would say that simply because to my knowledge "cheese" is not used outside of gaming: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/21867/origins-of-the-gaming-term-cheese-strategy, which is interesting to me by itself. Why gaming, why not I dunno .. football? Also, let's note that the etymology points to human-against-human competition, which brings me to the scrub: http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/introducingthe-scrub The term cheesing certainly originated in gaming, but that doesn't mean the concept exists exclusively within that framework. When I first started fencing, a strategy employed by one of the taller students in our class was to simply hold his foil straight out in front of him and advance incredibly quickly towards his opponent; practically running using the crossover technique. Because we were all just starting out, we had no idea how to counter this, and because the person was significantly bigger than almost everyone else, we couldn't do the same thing to him because his arms were just longer. While this is counterable, it was almost impossible to handle at the level of experience we were all at. Had I known the word, I would certainly have described it as "cheese": something that requires significantly more skill or effort to counter than it does to execute. I think at the time I called it "cheap", which is very similar.

The Rogues in WoW TELEPORT! What was that word someone used earlier? Oh, right.... Cherry-picking. And you have never been more transparent about it than right now. Thanks @Answermancer, I couldn't have said it better myself. Maybe someone who has more patience than I do can take this over, but I think it might be wiser to just let this thread die. If it satisfies your ego, Darkprince048, then feel free to consider yourself victorious (over me). I know that is all this is really about to you; and a victory by attrition is, after all, still a victory. Peace out, babe.

Also, let's not forget these stellar rogue abilities that only further this possibility. https://wow.gamepedia.com/Nightblade_(rogue_ability) https://wow.gamepedia.com/Shadow_Blades https://wow.gamepedia.com/Symbols_of_Death EDIT Golly, I really hate my Shadow Priest now knowing that simple Rogues are capable of using Shadow magic.

Step through the shadows to appear behind your target and gain 70% increased movement speed for 2 sec. Tell me, if you wanted to sneak up on someone in dim light, would you not "step through the shadows"? The animation in game is utterly mundane Except the part where you teleport, and that is a very stretched interpretation of stepping through the shadows. Especially in a world where Shadow Magic does exist. And let's not forget, you are also the person who described the Barbarian's leap as "flying", and used that as an example of abilities that made a Wizard feel "less special".

Step through the shadows to appear behind your target and gain 70% increased movement speed for 2 sec.

Also, had to find this. https://youtu.be/ecf-I6osFJs?t=37s

I'm sorry, I thought you wanted to discuss the rarity as well as the flavor of magic classes. I mentioned WoW because it's another RPG where even Rogues are capable of magic feats. http://www.wowhead.com/spell=36554/shadowstep Sounds very similar to something else doesn't it? https://pillarsofeternity2.wiki.fextralife.com/Shadow+Step Almost... identical.

Would you kindly argue a consistent point? Is that so hard? Because last I checked, I was arguing against your comparison of magic to science, because you like to bring up your medical degree so much. Tolkien's wizards are not scientists, as you said, they are demigods. These are entirely different points. Please stay consistent. You asked me to respond to your point regarding settings with "everyone is a mage" and prove that I have any knowledge of rpg settings, so I listed the ones that shaped the genre and support the classical archetype of a wizard, and now you deflect. I mentioned about a dozen others beyond LOTR. All major works of fiction that shaped the genre Clever boy Congratulations, except that only some of these back up your persistent comparison of magic to science, which is what I was arguing against in the first place. But since you seem to have moved on, lets address those works you listed. By Fire and Ice, I assume you mean A Song of Ice and Fire. If not, please correct me because I couldn't find a Fire and Ice series from my quick google search. A Song of Ice and Fire has nothing even called wizards in it. Wizards don't have a monopoly on magic because they don't exist. A better comparison would be clerics and priests. The only thing close are the Warlocks in Qarth, who are heavily implied to simply use drugs as a means of simulating the appearance of magic. A Song of Ice and Fire also features a group of ASSASSINS called the faceless men who are capable of shapeshifting, so contract killers have magic too. Guess you never read that series, or you would remember that. Hell, you'd know that if you just watched the show. Tolkien's Wizards are, as you said, demigods. Gandalf is the same species as the Balrog. Wrap your head around that one. Does that fit the classic RPG definition of a Wizard? Answer: No. Once again, I am not arguing against your point about a monopoly on magic being common. I am arguing with your assertion that magic is only practiced like a science, and takes years of study to master. This is untrue in LotR. This is untrue in Ice and Fire, this is untrue (in some cases) in D&D. If you want other examples - this is untrue in World of Warcraft (you know, that bargain bin MMORPG), this is untrue in the Kingkiller Chronicles (somewhat) because there is an entire dimensional plane of magical creatures known as the fae). Elerond mentioned had a good list in an earlier post. RPG systems Glorantha (RPGs like RueQuest and HeroQuest use this setting), one of the oldest RPG settings GURPS Technomancer (setting for GURPS in which everybody has magic) In Eberron, a D&D setting, low level magic so common place that virtually everybody has access to it Earthdawn (both setting and rpg system) Books Codex Alera series by Jim Butcher Darksword books by Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman The Xanth series by Piers Anthony The King's Peace by Jo Walton A Darker Shade of Magic by V.E. Schwab (there is three parrarel universes from which in two everybody has magic) The Crest of Zabutur series by N Lott You bounce between these two points. Wizards as defined by rarity, or Wizards as defined by the narrow domain of intelligence-based casters. Each argument has entirely different reasons for why it's wrong, so I'm not going to argue both with you. Hell, it's impossible to argue with you at all because you ignore half of the posts directed to you in this thread. I understand that there is a lot to respond to, but don't bring up points that people have brought into question without first addressing the countless issues with them that people have already pointed out. It doesn't matter. You are dancing around and around in circles.

Would you kindly argue a consistent point? Is that so hard? Because last I checked, I was arguing against your comparison of magic to science, because you like to bring up your medical degree so much. Tolkien's wizards are not scientists, as you said, they are demigods. These are entirely different points. Please stay consistent, instead of flip-flopping when it so suits you.