Luckmann

Durance had astounding writing, but about taper off to nothingness, though... Durance easily has the least fulfilling end to his questline. It's forced and just sorta is like.. "..what?". I was completely blindsided by that, considering that the writing was stellar up until that point. I'm still sorta shocked. If I ever get a chance to speak to Avellone, that will be the thing I'll bring up. What the hell happened, man?

Unless it's been updated by someone, though, that chart is super-super-outdated.

I am currently in Germany, and all I can say is kill me. Get me a swimming pool of snow so I can bathe is slush.

Well, you're looking at the wrong man, if you're looking for the rationale behind that one - I've repeatedly questioned Constitution gaining Armour Recovery Penalty Reduction and said that I'm not entirely sure it's a good thing. At the end of the day, my suggestions are based on assumptions and arguments made by others, and my knowledge of how the game works, and my own ideals of what would be conceptually consistent and rellatively thematic - it's not gospel, nor would I sell it as such. Well, not most of it, anyway. However, if anything should have Armour Recovery Penalty Reduction, it should be Constitution. First of all, thematically, Constitution is, well, your constitution. It makes a lot more sense that your recovery penalty would be reduced because you have the endurance (the word, not the mechanic) to move around a lot in armour, rather than your sheer strength or might to haul things around (which isn't even represented in the game, regrettably - I would not mind Might restrictions on armour, but I also want Encumbrance and limited inventories and stash). Second, if we keep to the thematic explanation behind Might (which is entirely incompatible with how Might is actually portrayed, I know that, and would have no problems abandoning this silly idea, or actually reinforce it in the game, but that would require revision of a hell of a lot of content) then Might is a lot more than Strength, and at least partly represents your personal willpower and spiritual strength as much as physical oomph. Take from that what you will. But thirdly, it ultimately does not even come down to the first two points. It comes down to Attribute Bonus balance, and Constitution could use a boost, especially an offense-minded boost, to give it more utility beyond meatheading. If we get to the bare-bones of it all, mechanics will always have to trump realism or versimilitude, as well as conceptual or thematic arguments, and in this case it just does. My suggestion aren't written in stone. If you can convince me that some other setup of Attribute bonuses would be better, while still in line with how it works in PoE (rather than a complete revamp of the system, which isn't feasible in the least) I will start pitching that instead. I used to oppose Perception-based Accuracy, too, but changed my mind after a discussion with Sensuki. In this particular instance, though, while I question the very idea of Armour Recovery Penalty Reduction as a thing, at least to a degree, at least it mechanically, thematically and conceptually lines up, which is actually quite important to me. A lot of people have no trouble saying "It doesn't matter" if Aloth would have a Might of 18 or Edèr Suddenly having higher Intellect than before, but I prefer if everything lines up. My issue with the idea of Armour Recovery Penalty Reduction is that it could end up reinforcing the Armour Dichotomy even further, and I would like to see it coupled with a complete overhaul of the armour and weapons system, but I know that's not going to happen.

It differs, afaik. I think that Savage Attack kicks in at 20% and the Death Godlike's racial activates at 25%, but it could've been changed, or I may just be wrong. But afaik it's not a uniform concept, for some reason, and for some reason you have to fight PoE:s mechanics tooth and nail to know how things work. One of the biggest flaws of the game is the needless obfuscation of mechanics. PoE isn't very big on clarity.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/80542-i-cant-save-my-game/ Usually, spamming isn't something that makes people want to help you. And don't play it off as "I couldn't find my post", it's more or less an ad verbatim repost. I mean, you've got *two* posts total. C'mon.

So much this. It's been annoying the hell out of me since Day 1, that all of the different races gets (at least supposedly) meaningful sub-races, while humans get the whole "race is only skin deep" spiel and a whole bunch of nothing. The fact that the human racial is also both so conditional and specifically circumstantial is also annoying, and contributes to the strong sense of meh-ness of humans as an option.

I'm going to second the recommendation for D:OS. It's very different from PoE, I think that it's a bit more hodge-podge, and the humour is sometimes waaaay off, and the writing ranges from OK to awful, but mechanically and gameplay-wise, it's a great game, and great fun, and it sports a solid co-op (it's not nearly as much fun to do the quite bare-bones talk-between-your-own-two-main-characters thing alone). There's an Enhanced Edition coming out within a few months, although it's been adapted for consoles, so it could go both ways. Provided you've got a good enough computer for it (the Enhanced Edition is going to be DirectX 11 only, for some reason) I'd wait to see how that turns out before committing.

I believe it says Attack Speed, so provided it's working as intended, it only affects Attack Speed, which is different from Recovery and Reload Speed. So yeah, it's unfortunately a bit wasted on gunners.

The exact changes haven't been revealed yet, probably aren't finalized, and haven't even been publicly tested or discussed. I think it's far too early to jump the gun on these kinds of discussions. We have no idea if Deflection has been removed from Perception, for example.

"To even Minsc" is a bit of a sad of a comparison, considering that he's easily the most shallow and annoying character in BG.

That'd be a lot of bonuses to one stat and go too far IMHO. I do think just adding the armor recovery penalty is an interesting idea though. Another that's been proposed is to have it affect healing received. It's not a lot of bonuses. It just looks like a lot of bonuses because of the format. It's essentially a bonus to Endurance, the Armour Recovery penalty, and Concentration. This covers defensive bonuses, offensive bonus, and endurance/health mechanics. The +2 <Defense> is a ubiquitous bonus that every Attribute gets. Armour penalty reducation alone wouldn't solve the issue of Constitution being useless to most classes or roles, in fact, I've questioned the idea of Armour Recovery Penalty Reducation extensively. It sounds neat, but in reality, with the current armour dichotomy, you'll end up wanting either full armour or no armour anyway, depending on whether you're tank or DPS, meaning that all simply and only adding Recovery Penalty Reducation would practically just mean an increase of DPS for tanks. A DPS that's still going to be comparatively rubbish. The goal should be to make Constitution a better choice for a wider range of classes (and arguably roles), without making it a no-brainer choice. Would a flat +1 Endurance per Constitution and +2 Concentration do that? I don't think so. It would just make Constitution a more appealing choice for your spellcasters and your melee non-tanks. I would even consider increasing the +1 Endurance to +2 Endurance, although that might make the very earliest game too easy. The both-flat-and-percentage bonus to Endurance is necessary to compensate for the fact that low-Endurance classes gets extremely little use out of Constitution, but could use the boost the most, while those that gets use out of it, doesn't really need it. I would change it to flat-per-level, but no bonuses are doled out in fractions, and I'm not sure how the system would handle it (or be able to), and if it was +1 Endurance per level, well that'd very quickly get out of hand; assuming 20 Endurance, that'd be an extra 120 Endurance by level 12, and I'm not sure the system would be happy with that. Edit: Actually, I'm going to go ahead and revise my current suggestions to the following: Accounting for the fact that 20 Constitution (or higher) are significant edge cases, and even so would only add an extra 26 Endurance (10 Points * 2 Endurance * 30%), albeit at level 1. For reference, Barbarians have an Endurance of 48 + (16*LVL), and Wizards 30 + (10*LVL). (For rationale behind the other modifiers, see this thread)

Yeah, I don't think anyone is really expecting Sword Coast Leg-Ends to become a good singleplayer roleplaying game. So there's that. Well now we know that you're just trolling. No thinking person would be able to say that with a straight face.

Plague of Insects is just a really crazy spell, from a really crazy class. I'm not joking when I say that the only times I've had real problems in PoE have been when I've faced enemy druids, whether they're the spellcasting dryad-like things, the ogre shamansorwhatever, and when I met 3-or-something random druids by the roadside. Druid enemies really just are a huge step upwards in terms of potential i-rape-you-ism, and never in line with equal-level partners. I can casually steamroll a full dungeon just to run into a few druids at the end and be taken by complete surprise, party wipe. The best way to deal with them is either massive amounts of CC - just keeping them stunlocked or unable to cast spells, this is usually easy if you have a Cipher in the group and if there's only one or two druids - or to just go all-out BLITZKRIEG! on them, and sacrifice everything to get them down before they get anything done.

I'm not sure if any of them figured out how to change the Attribute Bonuses - I would've expected someone to push out a mod for it by now, considering that it's one of the more criticized flaws of the main game by fans discussing the mechanics of the game. I tried to take a crack at it myself. Took a glance into the files and it was like staring into the maw of hell.

I still want resting restricted to rest-spots, and when in the wilderness, a chance of being attacked. The only possible argument I can reasonably see against random wilderness area encounters is that PoE doesn't have that many wilderness areas, unfortunately. I was hoping that the expansion would be an opportunity to revise and go over existing content, and add a bunch of new wilderness areas to the game, but alas, it was not to be. Personally, I'd love wilderness encounters, but there'd have to be some wilderness in order for it to feel right. PoE doesn't have much wilderness at all, just some roads on the way to somewhere more important.

I think you've completely lost it, old man. If anyone can divine this, give me a call. Pointing out your constant strawmen is completely unrelated to anything revolving around "o' a feel argument" (?). Saying that how something feels has meaning has nothing to do with logical fallacies. You can argue appeal to emotion and so on and so forth, but ultimately it's unrelated. This honestly left me confused at first, so I went back and reviewed the thread, and yup, neither Elerond and Matt516 "corrected" "you misrepresented strawman". I'm trying to work out your sentences there; your meaning isn't entirely clear, but neither of them corrected anything revolving around strawmen relating to me (or you, for that matter). I don't think Matt516 has even addressed me. You are the single most confused individual on these forums and if we compare what you're writing these days to before, you've seriously gone downhill. This is rapidly approaching "rambling ol' man peeing himself at the supermarket"-levels of sad. :| Only thing Elerond said was that, when I said no-one had made that argument, he claimed that apparently, some people in some thread somewhere had, at some point. Which I hadn't seen before nor since. Feels are obviously hard to gauge, but it is far from impossible to get a general idea. The rational approach is indeed to maximize attribute spreads that are playable and fun, and contributes to build diversity, without obvious pitfalls or "no-brainer" choices. In this, Obsidian failed miserably with the Attribute Bonuses at launch, which are lopsided, easily min-maxed, and only tangentially useful to anything other than the very widely defined roles of Tank vs. DPS. That's not options. You say it yourself, you are, at the end of it all, fundamentally agreeing. All the attributes should be useful for any class, not necessarily of equal use for all roles. Meanwhile, in reality, there's a very sharp line, mechanically, for roles and classes in relation to the Attribute Bonuses. To this, you basically say that oh, it doesn't matter too much, you can finish it with any combination. And that's true. I know that's true. I've said that many times. But just because something works doesn't mean that it works well. And that's the difference. And Obsidian knows that the Attribute Bonuses are wonky and lopsided, and that many of them contribute absolutely zero to most classes or roles, and heavily favours min-maxing. They know it so well that they changed the Attributes of the companions to compensate, because they knew full well that Perception wasn't just sub-optimal for Aloth, they knew it was utterly and completely useless, dead weight, soak-up of relatively (in the right sense of the word, relatively) valuable points. And the fact that you can stumble your way through the game like a drunken fool and still not only succeed, but prosper, and the fact that Attributes doesn't matter that much at the end of the day are things I actually consider terrible, so it hardly feels like an argument worth considering to begin with.

Full stop there. You're making an assumption that in no way needs to be true. If Perception is changed, don't look at that change in isolation. One of the things that have been discussed a lot is splitting up the benefits of Intellect as a consolidated spellcaster attribute, meaning that if you want both +AoE and +Duration, you'll have to take both Resolve and Intellect. Also, if my suggestion for Constitution is considered, while you as a fully ranged Wizard that stays away from the positioning spells might not want to pump it, dumping it will leave you weak as a kitten, especially in the early game. And enjoy that extra penalty to your recovery speed if you were considering wearing anything other than Clothing. Anyway, these considerations is what makes for a good Attribute system, the point being that the "no-brainer" choices die.

But Strawnir, no-one has complained that a non-traditional fighter build is viable. I realized long ago that your strawmen doesn't stem from issues with fallacies, but from some cognitive issue in regards to understanding what people are actually saying, and I think you're obfuscating those cognitive issues by "pretending" to speak like a hyperbolically accentuated retard. But it doesn't make it any less important to point it out, lest you'd win arguments by walkover. "It is a fighter afterall and having 3 might and 8 constitution really breaks the role playing feeling..." you can't be this obtuse. HA! Good Fun! Saying that having a 3 Might and 8 Constitution Fighter breaks his roleplaying feeling is not the same as as complaining that non-traditional builds are viable. Misconstruing someone's position in order to make it largely indefensible and attacking that argument (or lack thereof) instead is known as a strawman. And that's why you're called Strawnir.

Exactly. A tracking number would just alleviate all the problems, since both they and I would know if the package has arrived or been delayed, or whatever. Of wherever the hell it's gone at all. A package without a tracking ID is just an invitation to disaster, whether it's recipients saying that they never got the things they did, or if it's some sleazebag at the local post office skimming the top of the packages pile.

I expect we will. I'd be very surprised if 2.0 isn't released before the expansion, and if the expansion isn't going to be 2.1 at best.

Technically, they are already separate (at least Melee and Ranged are), just not when it comes to the Attribute Bonuses, and it's (unfortunately) not clarified on the character sheet It's theoretically possible for items (or whatever) to give bonuses only to ranged, or only to melee, or (probably) only to spells. In regards to the Attribute Bonuses, though, I think that it'd be a mistake to split them up. It would only really serve to pigeon-hole the bonuses and add too much weight to individual Attributes depending on whether you're ranged, melee or a spellcaster, since the attributes would still be able to stand on their own in regards to non-melee, non-ranged, or non-spellcasters. Basically, it'd be virtually impossible to balance.

Well personally, I really wish One-Handed Style wouldn't apply when shields are equipped, and I think that if you want to take full advantage of what you propose - a weapon and a shield when going on the defensive, and just the weapon when you're on the offensive, an obviously optimal set-up, then you should have to "pay" for that by taking both Talents. Howeveeeeeer, that being said I completely agree with you. My Edér (I haven't played a tank myself) regularly have several different weapons, but only uses one shield, and there is no efficient way to change between weapons without changing the shield. This is something that seriously needs to be addressed. Weapon Sets should not count as Inventory Slots; you should simply assign weapons and shields in the inventory to the quick-slots.

But Strawnir, no-one has complained that a non-traditional fighter build is viable. I realized long ago that your strawmen doesn't stem from issues with fallacies, but from some cognitive issue in regards to understanding what people are actually saying, and I think you're obfuscating those cognitive issues by "pretending" to speak like a hyperbolically accentuated retard. But it doesn't make it any less important to point it out, lest you'd win arguments by walkover. Nakia is correct. Everything that's been mentioned so far has suggested that the saves will be entirely compatible, but depending on the changes made, your character(s) might go through a mild change, since the bonuses for certain characteristics will be changed somewhat (hopefully for the better). And before you ask, the idea of a respec has been thrown around a bit, although it's (thankfully) not certain. I still advocate the idea of a one-time respec upon loading a pre-2.0 save, a neat little pop-up on the loading screen, and a paperclip going "I see you're trying to load a pre-2.0 savegame. Would you like to respec your characters?".

That would be absolutely crazy. The overwhelmingly vast majority of spellcasters are not going to be Orlans from The White That Wends. The game needs to get less focused on min-maxing, not more. Even an Orlan spellcaster from The White That Wends (this is the part where we lament the lack of white fur for Orlans and no portraits with white fur) that maxes out Perception to get that +11 will be passing on other things, such as Might, which would've increased the damage of the spells used, Intellect or Resolve (assuming Intellect is no longer a consolidated caster stat), Dexterity (which would be useful if Robes counter as Clothing, instead of an arbitrary form of armour, or if the spellcaster used Clothing), or even Constitution (assuming it's buffed). +10 Accuracy is good, yes, but you don't have infinite points. What're you going to dump?