Luckmann

Been saying this for a long time. I don't even want the "Quality" line of Enchantments to be, well, Enchantments. They should be attributes intrinsic to the weapon, qualities of forging.

Oh, Strawnir, as usual, no-one has made that argument.

Well, I think it would make sense at least for rank 3 spells to become Per Encounter at level 13, in keeping with a pattern of level 9 - rank 1, level 11 - rank 2. That means a wizard's Expose Vulnerabilities, Deleterious Alacrity of Motion and Minor Blights would all become Per Encounter. Can you imagine the hurt? And it'd still leave room for something like Arcane Dampener or Displaced Image for situational use. Exactly. The first expansion part - as I predicted - adds 2 levels. It can be assumed that the next expansion part will add another two. That's all of Rank 3 and Rank 4. All the available spells, especially for Priests and Druids that does not even have to choose, every single Encounter. There has been a lot of suggestions relating to ways to mitigating this as well as making Druids, Priesta and Wizards more distinct from eachother, but the devs haven't really acknowledged the issue anywhere I can see. It's unprecedented leaps up in power compared to non-Spellcasters, every second level, out of the blue starting at level 9. It really needs to be reworked.

You know; there are some other numbers between 1 and 100. It's perfectly possible to not deliver a fantasy stereotype while still having an interesting character that is not a super-special unique snowflake in every way imaginable. I mean, come on, why does it have to be a bald male monk? Couldn't it have been like a non-bald male monk? Or a female monk? It's like they didn't even try. GM and Durance are perfect examples of how you can have a weird character without giving him a super-gimmicky premise like being a construct. The female dwarf hunter was also a nice change to the male melee dwarf cliché without going completely over the top in design. Why not more of this? Why go into extremes now all of a sudden when we managed to walk the fine line of "middleground between cliché and ape**** crazy" so well? I don't know about the whole thing about the monk. Edér is just another peasant-gone-fighter, and he's easily one of the most well-written and interesting characters in PoE in my opinion, precisely because he's just some guy and practically a walking fantasy trope on a very basic, fundamental level. And he's fine like that. And Eric Fenstermaker is wrote him, and he's the one that's writing the new monk. So I have high hopes. That being said, I do agree; Grieving Mother and Durance are perfect examples how you can have a weird character without giving him or her a super-gimmicky premise like being a construct. I can't say I'm a fan of that. I wasn't a fan of Sagani, and some of the primary criticism of Sagani was that she was just too bland, and didn't feel engaging. So maybe now Carrie Patel is pushing too hard in the other direction, I don't know. I think that's a mistake, though, and that Sagani could've been an interesting character. Characters doesn't need to be outlandish or have crazy gimmicks, they just need to be people, interesting people and good people in bad places. I dunno. Golem-inhabited-by-the-soul-of-a-murderer-and-oh-look-evul-rogue-I'm-evul-look-at-me-oh-I-won't-kill-you-you-are-interesting-to-me already feels pretty snowflake-y. I don't think anyone is declaring them cliché or condemning them yet, as much as showing some warranted concern.

Uhh.. not feeling the "best UI people in the industry" when it comes to the UI itself, honestly. The base UI in PoE is rather terrible, compared to anything you can set up with the IEMod. It's at the point where I flat-out won't play the game unless there's a new release of the IEMod. These are also the same people that refuses to let you differentiate between Neutral NPC:s and Allies - you need the IEMod for that too, or everything shows up as either Red or Green. Howeveeeeeeeeeeer, I do agree in liking the UI improvements. They're actually very nice, and the only thing I could question is adding more UI features before many of the issues with the current UI hasn't been hashed out (it's still a mess of bars in combat, for example). But being able to tell ranges and such is gon' be cool.

Do you mean Per Encounter? I think they are Per Encounter, meaning you can cast up to 4 (base) from rank 1 or rank 2 per encounter. At Will would mean you can cast them an unlimited number of times per encounter. Still, this seems like it would be enough, though I haven't gotten there yet. The difference is semantics. Per-Encounter is practically At-Will in PoE. Four uses of level 1 and then your regular spells on top of that is more than enough to get you through any fight. And at level 11 you won't care anymore because you'll have more spells for free than you'll have combat time in most fights. And fights that could take longer than that, you'll probably be chain-casting more powerful spells anyway. ....I really hope they fix the blanket spell ranks as per-encounter in the expansion, because that's going to become real crazy real quick.

Preferred Forton. That said, I'm really looking forward to Forton Zahua. Sounds interesting and is written by Eric Fenstermaker, who also wrote Edér - although I'm not a fan of the portrait, it's a pretty big departure from the art we've seen on Forton/Zahua, especially when you say that he's the guy on the cover. I don't know what it is, maybe it's the symmetrical nature of the ritual scarification. Can't say I'm looking as much forward to "The Devil of Caroc", who sounds both snowflake-y ("I'm a GOLEM inhabited by the SOUL of a murderer, and my name is a verb!") and trope-y ("I'm en evuuul rogue and I've DONE things!"). I wasn't a fan of Sagani, either, but this seems to be going wrong in the opposite direction. I question the label of "New Feature" in regards to Stealth, because it's honestly nothing short of a fix to a horrible, horrible state of affairs upon release. I'm really, really, really looking forward to seeing that fixed, and it'll make a real difference to combat. Unless other things are also fixed, I'm not sure it'll make a real difference in how things actually play out, but at least it won't feel like you're fighting the system just to do anything with a rogue or melee squishy of any kind. The Accuracy and range indicators are a welcome addition, but I'd still like to see a better UI overall, and there's many opportunities for improvement, such as a centred combat log and moving recovery time indicators away from the clusterf**k that is on-screen, and into the UI, above, below or to the sides of party member portraits. Official supporting a modular UI would be even better, and mods have show that it's very doable. The current official solid UI is pretty terrible. I'd prefer that to not to have to happen, but in the current system, it's probably the easiest solution, and it's better than what we have. Reviving Exhortation, I'm looking at you. I was just talking to Roby and Adam about a respec feature. It's a little complicated, but it's not something we're opposed to and we're going to look into the logistics of implementing it. I know that's vague but character creation and advancement are complicated and sometimes seemingly simple things are quite difficult. With some of the new scaling, I've been tuning down some of the other means of powering up base abilities (like Talents). Until now, Talents were one of the only mechanical ways that we could scale some abilities up. Please, please, please dear lord, no, no respec feature. People want new characters, have them create new characters. It's not the end of the world, and even radical changes aren't going to completely gimp their current characters. Pillars of Eternity is extremely forgiving as it is, to the point where it's sometimes hard to discern whether build decisions meaningfully changed anything at all. And as for Talents being tuned down - boooooh. If anything, Talents needs to be tuned up, but more importantly, Talents that affects Abilities shouldn't be looked at from a Buff/Nerf perspective to begin with, but from a perspective of adding features and effects to pre-existing abilities. Talents that simply improve something by X is boring. Talents that add Y aspect to something is fun. Versatility and utility is harder to gauge from a balance perspective, but it also has the potential to be more fulfilling as a choice and have more interesting effects than straight-up buffs. This may sound very "Bah Humbug", but which combat stats are tied to which attributes is such a minor problem compared to the rest of the issues with the game that I didn't even end up bothering to release it as a mod/part of the IE Mod (I did make it and test it though, in v492). [...] Unfortunately. As much as I can't wait to see the Attributes being fixed (which took me by complete surprise, considering that it's been completely ignored since well before release), it won't magically "fix" the game itself. There are far worse offenders, such as a lack of thematic immunities and sensible resistances, the armour dichotomy, the same-y weapons (partly due to the problems related to armour), the war on mobility, the obsession against buffing, and the utterly insane and completely arbitrary "Combat Only" system. And even that is secondary to a fluffmuppet like myself, who find the narrative oddities much, much worse. Like. Durance. Best character. Worst, most nonsense ending. Which makes me want to ask the question; what about the base game? Can we expect some revised or revisited content? Some additional polish in the storytelling department and a second pass on the sidequests? I'm hoping "Yes" but expecting "No". And will the new aspects of the expansion (CNPC:s in particular) be properly integrated into the base game, such as having interjections at appropriate times (including sidequests) and conversations with existing CNPC:s? Proper integration of expansion content is extremely rare and expansions stand out as sore thumbs when it's absent.

This is actually a very important point, that should be made. Once you're level 9, your Rank 1 Spells become At-Will and can be cast at every Encounter, all day, every day. This means that as a Druid, you'll probably not want to go into bows much in terms of specializing anyway. At level 11, your Rank 2 spells become At-Will. So. Yeah. Don't bother with Penetrating Shot or anything else. You'll be casting spells all over the place; there's no reason to spec for auto-attacks and weapons.

By all terms? No. Real expansions are not typically split into pieces, and certainly not expansions "in the classical way". Also, not a pessimist, but a realist. I cannot see a way that this is ultimately beneficial, compared to a full expansion. This doesn't mean that everything is doom and gloom, or that I'm saying that it'll turn out terribly. But if I'm wrong, and this doesn't negatively impact the state of the game in some way, I'll eat my hat. And either way, it's decidingly not what was promised in the Kickstarter, which was specifically (a) classic expansion(s); not episodic content, not DLC:s, and not piecemeal parts. I wonder what they're going to do about the inevitable power creep. Two levels for Part 1 and two levels for Part 2 is going to throw a massive spanner in the works in a game that already suffers extensively from pacing issues. I wonder if they're going to address the mechanical problems with spellcasters or if they're fine with the enormous jumps in power.

I'm still not clear on what your definition of "expansion" is, sorry. Does it need to continue the story / be another story entirely, as opposed to a new hub in the same story? Because Throne of Bhaal had the Watch Tower (or whatever the name of that thing) and I understand that this is pretty much how BG1's expansion worked too. By the most loose of definitions, an expansion is anything that expands upon the game itself. That's really all there is to it. Often, people separate between DLC:s and Expansions rather arbitrarily based on perceived amount of content - DLC:s tend to be small and entirely self-contained. An expansion can either continue the story (Throne of Bhaal comes to mind) or be another story entirely that is connected to the main game in some way (usually terrible and somewhat jarring), or be a direct expansion and improvement of the main game itself (Tales of the Sword Coast and partly Throne of Bhaal, etc). There's no way to know, since those two are mutually exclusive. It's easy to say "Oh, it's just one whole thing split in two, and half price instead", but it's practically near-impossible to substantiate. What would you have preferred for FONV? Four good but glued-on-to-the-sides, related but completely stand-alone, DLC:s at $10 each, or a full-blown cohesive and well-integrated expansion upon the game world for $40? I know which one I'd pick. But I also know which one is the profiteer's choice. I used to really support the idea of a Kickstarter for PoE2, but I don't think they're going to go that route. On one hand, they could do really well with the new fans that they've pulled in, but on the other hand, they've also alienated a lot of the hardcore core, little by little. And yeah, sure, customers are customers, all of them pay one way or another, fair enough, but fans aren't all the same, and I'll take the diehard core of crazies over the fickle masses any day of the week. KS:s are fuelled by hype and expectations, and promoted by word-of-mouth and grassroot nolifers, and that's just not a thing with the modernists.

Just to chime in with the others, they're right. Resolve means absolutely nothing to you, unless you're going to Spiritshift a lot. And you're not. Because that'd be stupid.

What do you mean exactly by "a real expansion"? To me, the White March sounds like it. Real expansions, as opposed to piecemeal DLC:s chopped up and doled out in connected or stand-alone episodes or pieces that can be cashed in on over and over again. Interestingly, FO:NV was probably one of the worst offenders in recent memory.

I loved Durance's, and I don't think that was very straight-forward. The conclusion is still.. odd as all hell, though, and really turned me off the entire game. I haven't played since I concluded his quest.

I don't think it's intentional, because there are four distinct weapon styles for three distinct types of weaponry usage; two-handed weapons, shield and weapon, dual-wielding, and single weapon. To have some of them work together is very odd, and messes with some very common default assumptions that actually doesn't need to be messed with at all. But if I'm wrong - and I very well could be, because at this point, you'd think it would've been fixed by now if it wasn't intentional - then you're right that the wording is unclear and should be reviewed to clarify. There's been a couple of good discussions on the topic of the One-Weapon-Style Talent, and there's been a couple of good suggestions. I think adding Hit-to-Crit percentage isn't necessarily the best or more interesting, but at least it would favour people that actually stick to the One-Weapon-Style (as in Duelists) rather than being far better for Weapon-and-Shield-ers. To me, getting the One-Handed-Style Talent bonus when using a Shield in your off-hand makes as much sense as if you'd get it while dual-wielding. Your off-hand is occupied with a shield, just like it's occupied by a weapon while dual-wielding, and you shouldn't get the bonus.

That's a problem with the mechanics of the game, and not something PotD actually changes. Difficulty and complexity shouldn't hinge on the enemy cheating or having inflated attributes. I thought the way PoE was going to be balanced in regards to difficulties was the best idea for the genre in decades, but the execution leaves a lot to be desired, but that's due to the lack of complexity in regards to the mechanics of the game. PoE is easily abusable, the combat formulaic, the tactics repeatable ad nauseum, and practically lacks any strategic depth whatsoever. Now, if it sounds like I'm dumping on the game, I want to stress that I like a lot of things PoE did, but there's just so many things that could've been done better, and no-where else is this more evident than in the countless combat encounters. And it's not even a problem with the encounter designs or the enemy AI, but with the mechanics themselves - even if encounter design and enemy AI of course could also be better, it's not what creates the issues. Encounter design and the AI in the IE games were complete trash, and it still managed to be better on average, unless you specifically abused the flaws of the system. In PoE, you don't have to specifically abuse the flaws of the system, they come running headlong against you and can't be avoided, and you can drunkenly just sorta stumble through the entire game without ever reading what the spells do or how this or that skill or talent interacts with whatever or whomever. If we want to fix those issues, we're talking reworking the armour system (and it's interaction with weapons), reworking enchanting, adding appropriate and intuitive immunities and resistances, unique powers, talents, skills or tactics used by certain groups of enemies, and so on. Variant blanket buffs or nerfs to enemy attributes does nothing good.

Yes he does.

Hah! I thought this was a new thread, but it turns out that it's just the old one that's been bumped and that I have, indeed, read the whole thread. Lucky for us that's already been confirmed. Oh? When? Where? I'm a bit out of the loop these days.

Just to be clear - are you using "duelist" here to mean "someone fighting with two one-handed weapons"? No, that's dual-wielding. Duelists fight with one one-handed weapon and a free offhand.

The Devs said that as the expansion was promised before the game was released that it was decided it would be best to release part of the expansion early so as not to keep the Kickstarter backers waiting too long for something. Hence why we get Part 1 now as opposed to getting the whole thing 3 months from now. So it's really more of a quirk than anything representing how future expansions will play out. Still, I don't mind getting something early if it means we can play with it while we wait for it to be completed. Well that explanation is rubbish. Imagine if the same logic would've been applied on the base game, that it should be released as quickly as possible so that the financiers wouldn't have to wait for too long. What it means is that each part is essentially going to have to be self-contained, and it's almost going to have to have that exact "DLC" or "glued on" quality no-one in their right mind would want.

Can't say I'm a fan of the episodic approach. Why not just give us a real expansion? It's what practically everyone was asking for since well before the Kickstarter. Also, it feels like it puts a nail in the coffin when it comes to getting actual expansions in the future, and I know a lot of people were hoping for expansion of the main game and going to regions it might make sense for us to go, but we can't (Eir Glanfath, the actual Dyrwood Forest(s)/Kindle Vale/Abbey of the Cloven Wheel, etc). If the CNPC:s aren't fully integrated into the game (meaning interjections into the main storyline, interactions with other CNPC:s, etc) and if we don't have logical reason to actually do the travelling it's going to involve going to the White March (essentially making it a DLC glued on to the side of the game) I'm probably going to simply put PoE away in disgust and try to never think of it again.

I haven't read the whole thread - probably won't - but one thing I immediately see missing is Individual Stealth and Combat Stealth.

This. Gunner speeds up reload time. That's all. It's not weapon-specific in any way. It's got a reload time, it's affected. This means Crossbows, Arbalests, Blunderbi, Pistols, and Arquebi. And yes, Two-Handed Style only works for Two-Handed Melee weapons. Oddly enough, on the note of styles, One-Handed Style works with shields, though, and stacks with Shield and Weapon Style, and is actually far better for shielders than it is for actual duelists (partly because the One-Handed Style Talent is horrific for duelists, but also because shielders will be getting a lot more grazes). Most have recognized it as a bug, but given that it's still not fixed (to the best of my knowledge), one has to wonder if it's not intentional, but it's incredibly inconsistent.

Thats just the slider I recommended except only with 2 positions. Practically, yes, but I usually don't consider it a slider if it's only got On/Off. I personally think it was a bad decision to have PotD in the game to begin with, they should've just had PotD create crazy hard encounters.

It means nothing. It's just used as colour-coding for identification. The reason your name is blue is because you're using blue as the colour of your character.

I know. Hence why I said "dump below 10". Thanks again for responding. I see a new post from you already. It's great to have someone to talk it through with. So, thinking about your responses, and assuming those stats are in order as they are listed in the game menu, I've had some thoughts and wanted to see what you thought about the concepts I've listed below. First off, dialogue checks range from 11 to 19 points in an attribute. You can see their numbers by turning on the appropriate game option. There's one option to show the values, and another to show options you don't meet the requirements for. I have these options off, because I want an immersive experience and it feels a little like cheating for me, but feel free to turn them on if it doesn't bother you. [...] This reminds me of how much I hate that. There should be conversation choices lost when you dump Attributes, and checks should range well beyond 19 - it is not uncommon to have up to 24 in a given stat at any one time, later in the game. Limiting it to a range of 11 to 19 and never lose conversation options favours the min/max approach too much and makes it easy to unlock a majority of options on a single character, and makes it harder to differentiate characters in terms of characteristics - such as the rogue acrobat type ending up with practically the same options as the strong knight.