Luckmann

Oh, poor Strawnir, flailing like a sinking crash-dummy. I think the best part is where you say I haven't understood the issue, then describe the exact issue as I already explained it, and then go on to detail the bug, ending it all with saying that wasn't a bug. It's been a known bug since forever. It likely had to do with how those spells were modeled after traps to begin with, and the issue was just too far down on the list of priorities that it wasn't fixed until now. ignoring your strawman claim and just barreling ahead, eh? irony. we described why mechanics + traps weren't a bug. priests got no more benefit from the mechanics accuracy boost to their spell traps than did any character using a physical trap. is why we were told that it were working as intended. is only two people we ever saw raise this issue during the beta, and you weren't one o' them. were more than a few threads complaining about bugs making X or Y class overpowered, yes? show us the ones that identified priests as overpowered. show where you claimed this were a bug during the beta. show where obsidians noted it were a bug. if this were such a well-known and obvious bug, surely you will find considerable pre-release evidence, no? Gromnir and some guy named ushsomethingorother. so, show us. HA! Good Fun! Oh, Strawnir, just strawmanning away like a champ. For everyone watching, note that the Strawnir does not actually address the issue, but rather deflects and creates the strawman of trying to make the argument into something it never was. It brings up the beta, which is irrelevant, and it brings up whether I reported it during the beta or not, which is similarly irrelevant. It also brings up that "priests got no more benefit out of mechanics accuracy boost to their spell traps than did any character using a physical trap", which is also completely irrelevant. The bug was that Seals were considered Traps at all, and got any benefit from Mechanics whatsoever. No-one in their right mind thought that Mechanics contributing to Priest seals, or that Seals and Traps were mutually exclusive, was working as intended. Then there was Strawnir. Strawnir, it's getting sad. It is like watching an alzheimer's patient degenerate. so, not gonna show anything? figures. traps were not known to be wildly unbalanced til after release, so a feature that had a spell treated as a trap were not considered inherent unbalanced-- why would it be? treat a seal as a trap is not a problem if traps is balanced, yes? use different math than other spells? well gosh, hazard spells do that in the current builds. hazards is 'posed is s'posed to work different. is not a bug. were not a bug. (actual, treat seals as hazard should be reconsidered 'cause increased accuracy is only making sense if the hazard is genuine hazardous to friends and foes. seals, being only hazardous to foes, don't genuine need increased accuracy.) regardless, traps were broken. is not that seals were treated as traps that were problematic, but that traps were broken. traps were nerfed in an incremental and piecemeal fashion so it ain't surprising that fixing all traps has taken a considerable amount o' time, effort and and rebalance. but this ain't new territory. Gromnir is forced to be repetitive, 'cause you are unresponsive and obdurate. so, show us. no? figures. furthermore, you don't have any idea what is strawman, as becomes increasing apparent every time you post. disagree with you and your premise does not make a response strawman... what a chucklehead. add illustrations and examples o' why your claims premise is flawed is also not strawman. http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/78279-rpgcodex-review-1-hŵrpa-dwrp/page-30#entry1674203 claim that d&d and ie game hard counters and insta kills is having same origins, strengths and weaknesses is not strawman. claim that seals as traps were needing o' rebalance as all other traps were also not strawman as we never attributed the argument to you... then knocked stuffing outta it 'cause it were so obvious weak. you are hopeless. again, read the linked post as well as preceding and subsequent posts to get yet another education in the strawman logic fallacy. force us to yet again define and correct your continuing misapprehension is becoming spam. HA! Good Fun! Strawnir, Strawnir, Strawnir, will you ever learn? I've explained to you time and time again why what you're doing are strawmanning - that you try to attribute stances to others that they have not taken, and attack that stance, instead of addressing the argument. Here it is again, you go on and on about traps, even though the point raised always was that Seals was never supposed to have gained bonuses from Mechanics, and that the fact that they did was a bug. It has nothing to do with traps going through balancing. It has nothing to do with conversations regarding how traps work. It has nothing to do with respeccing or who reported what during beta, or other threads on the subject. Nobody in their right mind ever thought that Seals were supposed to benefit from Mechanics in any way, whether it was more or less compared to traps - another strawman you tried to push, that you were somehow right because nuh-uh, Seals didn't benefit more. As if that matters; as if anyone actually raised that point and that it needs to be addressed. Nobody did, except you, attributing it to others, and arguing against it. Straw. Man. And you even try to misrepresent the previous thread where you also did a number of strawmen, and when called on it, you go on and on with other strawmen. Many people explained the difference to you, that people wanting a more IE-like experience should not be lumped into some pro-"d&d-like" group, because there are important differences, and people were arguing for different things. You tried to say that people were arguing for "more d&d", when no-one was, and explained the difference to you. You tried to paint the "other" side as representing something they didn't, and attack that position. Textbook strawman. And you do this constantly and consistently. It lost it's charm at least 6 months ago. Everyone that takes the time to trudge through your posts knows this, provided they've got a positive IQ. No-one can take you serious anymore; you're practically just trolling, if it wasn't for the fact that the ignorance is real. Even now, you're trying to deflect by pulling on a completely different conversation that has no relation to this particular issue at all. You are Strawnir, the Lord of Straw, Fighter of Windmills and Honorary Don Quijote of the Obsidian Forum.

It should've been both. Both percentage and flat modifiers, and the individual modifiers on top of that should've also been flat, not percentages like they are now.

I just glanced at the thread, and let's be clear that unless something's been changed, a Graze that is converted into a Hit cannot be converted in turn to a Crit. So you can't score a Graze, have it converted to a Hit, and then have that Hit converted into a Crit. Only your "natural" Grazes will be converted into Hits. Only your "natural" Hits be converted into Crits. The only one that should ever take the One-Handed Weapon Style Talent are tanks with shields, or anyone that for whatever reason is using a shield and has sucky Accuracy because of it. It is horrible for actual Duelists.

There's nothing random about it. There are 3 prerequisites. It's as "random" as the D&D penalty to AB if you wield a medium weapon in your off-hand. Also, if you want to discuss realism instead; sure! It's easier to be accurate when your brain doesn't have to account for the differences between the weapon in your right hand and the weapon in your left hand; size, length, weight, optimal trajectory. It's easier when it's mirrored. Except it's not. The only time this'd be remotely true would be if you're literally ambidextrous, which is a pretty rare trait. Also, this would in no way account for the fact that there is no reason two swords or two clubs would be equal in how they handle in terms of size, weight, distribution of mass, and shape. This makes no sense. Not conceptually, not realistically, not mechanically. It's not brilliant, it's stupid.

Cool. Some people were talking about PoE as a brand, well, it was always intended to be, as far as I know. As long as they don't start spreading everything out on a wafer-thin veneer like Bioware, I don't mind at all. I was thinking the same thing. I'm sure it'll be a nice card game and everything, and it comes down to how it functions. If it's actually more like a board game - but with cards as the base - and not akin to Magic the Gathering and so on, I can see it working. Not a huge success, maybe, but a profit, definitely. All we really need is a good scanner and I'm sure we can run it over Roll20. It'd be nice if they'd release digital kits with high-resolution versions of all the pieces and such for digital/online use (or aritstry, or whatever) but I doubt that'll happen.

My main character was a duelist (and a Paladin, to boot ). So yes, there are people that do. The question should be whether it's good or not. And it's not. It's pretty terrible, compared to any other combination, except the verymost beginning of the game, where the flat +12 Accuracy is huge. Especially the One-Handed Weapon Style Talent is useless. It is an ironic twist that it's far more useful for someone going Weapon and Shield-Style, since they benefit far, far more from a Graze-to-Hit bonus - nearly useless to actual duelists, who will already have a much lower amount of grazes compared to anyone else, especially if they really push for higher Accuracy (which they should; a duelist build is all about the Accuracy).

6 out of 8 threads you've started had been specifically on the issue of physical goods. Is it really that hard to bump your pre-existing threads, instead of starting meaningless new ones? Democracy.

No. For the exact same reasons as before. Not only will anyone that dual-wields have that Talent anyway (making it a false restriction), but all it'd really do is to restrict the effective dual-wield combinations further, and it'd still be a boost dual-wielding absolutely doesn't need.

Pretty much, yes. Not only is there no inherent reason why such a bonus would exist, but it would also practically force anyone that is dual-wielding into dual-wielding two weapons of the same type. Nevermind the fact that you'd effectively be giving dual-wielders a flat +5 Accuracy. So no. No thanks. This. If anyone at all is going to have a bonus when dual-wielding, it's Small/Light Off-Hand weapons combined with medium Main-Hand weapons. That'd still be iffy, mechanically speaking, but at least it's somewhat defensible, imo.

No thanks.

Compare it to the chokepoint tactic, or the fact that enemies tend to clump around the one tank in front, ignoring the back. It isn't about people having badwrongfun, or about plugging exploits. It's about the AI being dumb as bricks and the game effectively trivializes itself. I as a player shouldn't have to neuter myself in order to have an acceptable gaming experience. Like I said, compare it to the other two, more accepted issues with combat. Your argument is analogous to saying "If you don't like the enemy clumping around your tank in front and ignoring our back line completely, don't use ranged characters" or "If the enemy can't deal with choke points, and that bores you, don't use choke points - run wildly into the rooms and throw caution to the wind and get surrounded on purpose". There are legitimately people that have practically taken those stances in the arguments, believe it or not. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be good tactics, and I'm not even saying that there shouldn't be encounters that can't be trivialized - I'm actually fine with many encounters being trivialized if you just approach them the right way. I'm saying that if there's a choke point that enemies can't deal with, they should use your tactic against you and start pelting the tank with arrows, if available. And enemies shouldn't clump around your tank and run circles around other members of the party in an attempt to get to him. And enemies shouldn't suddenly zone out when one of their friends runs away to attack the opposing party (that's you). I've said it many times, and I might just as well say it again - it's not about difficulty. It's not about badwrongfun, either. If it was all about difficulty, that could be solved with numbers inflation (such as PotD). It's about the combat becoming predictable and formulaic, and the enemies acting (or being acted upon) in nonsensical manners, "abusing" clear gaps in the AI or the system. I should absolutely be able to get into position and pull one of the enemies, to have the rest of them come running around a corner. I shouldn't have to run headlong into combat in order for the AI to engage properly. And although I realize that fixing this issue for me and others would interfere with some people's wish to pull enemies one-by-one and have them zone out and return to position, it isn't ultimately about me thinking that they are having badwrongfun, but about fixing what we perceive to be a pretty serious issue in how the opponents in the game behave. There is no such camp. Or rather, there is no camp that opposes any such a camp. And people shouldn't have to tie their arms around their back and headbutt their way through the game in order for it to provide a challenge, guessing at what is a tactic that is in the "spirit of the rules" and what isn't. There was one combat encounter in the game that I thought was genuinely fun and engaging, and it was when I accidentally stumbled into a room full of xaurips. When the argument becomes that you should cripple yourself or rely on random clumsyness in order for something to provide a real challenge or be interesting, I think we've pretty much hit rock bottom. This is part of why I hate Achievements. It's created the idea that if there's an Achievement, that's supposed to be one of the intended playstyles supported by the game. The game isn't intended to be played Solo. It's a party-based game and Path of the Damned is supposed to be ridiculously hard. The fact that the broken mob luring is necessary for a Triple Crown Solo run isn't a good argument for anything. Before release, developers doubted whether someone would even be able to do Triple Crown Solo (...which just means that they really, really, really should've done more playtesting).

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/79020-if-pillars-of-eternity-had-romances/

See: My argument isn't really as much what is realistic as what feels thematically... "right". I agree that from a realistic point of view, rapiers aren't inherently more accurate, but as you say, it's a lot harder to skewer someone than it is to simply swing at them, but that's where the thematic feels come into play - a rapier is a precision weapon, a light weapon you take aimed pokes with, thus it gets a +Accuracy bonus. Daggers I share completely, I see no reason for them to get +Accuracy. Most daggers in the game look more like knives anyway, and the stilettos fulfil the whole pokey-pokey thing and circumvents DR because of it's short-range aim or whatever. Which is why I said that I want Daggers to have "best of Slash/Pierce" - a bonus Light weapons currently do not even have access too, and Daggers suffer from the same thing as Clubs - why would you use them? Spears get +Accuracy for the same reason Rapiers do, I guess. So it's much less about what is realistic, and more about feeling and mechanics. Mechanically, 3 out of 6 light weapons have +Accuracy, and no weapon gets a bonus to Interrupt (which I feel would fit Clubs) and no weapon gets "best of" (which I feel would fit Daggers). That's the perspective I'm keeping. The strict realism really never enters into it. _ Verisimilitude is not simulationism. Even those harping on "realism" are generally just looking for a flimsy excuse for the suspension of disbelief relating to the system at best. Daggers being Best-of-Slash/Pierce doesn't just make more sense than +Accuracy from that standpoint - or at the very least just as much sense, which isn't necessarily a lot - but also from a mechanical, systemic perspective. The goal should be to have verisimilitude, mechanics and gameplay somewhat in sync. One thing does not invalidate the other, and asking for any one part to be strengthened doesn't make someone a simulationist, a fluffmuppet or a rules lawyer. No-one wants to play a game that veers too much in any one direction, unless they're functionally autistic.

Rangers "suffer" because they are easy to suck with. There's actually not much wrong with the class itself - I'd like to see more generalized abilities/talents, not just in practice, but also in wording, which may seem like semantics, but it's important for clarity. For example, take Wounding Shot - it doesn't have to be a Shot at all, but because of how it's named, it would seem that it's ranged-only. Which I consider a problem. I also do not like how the Ranger's focus is so split between the animal companion and the ranger itself. Bonuses are spread all over the place, in Talents and Abilities, while you also want to maintain an effective "main" character. My suggested 'fix' to this would be to move most Class-specific Talents and passive Abilities into a third "Feat" or "Perk" system, and have you gain that every even level, Abilities every odd level, and Talents every level. Or something to that effect. But I digress. The ranger can be incredibly effective, and there's several viable builds, and oddly, one of the best builds I've discussed with people is a melee ranger that flanks opponents with it's pet. But it can also suck donkey balls, worse than most other classes (I played a truly terrible Paladin, but it was still much better than my terribly-built Ranger). I think that the ranger needs work, and that the split focus between the general build/character effectiveness and the class gimmick (the pet) was a mistake, for the same reasons it was a mistake for the druid (spiritshift). I think that the change to a more generalized approach to role was good (allowing you to choose between melee or ranged, for example) was good, but suffer in execution (Vicious Aim works for melee, but Swift Aim doesn't; why is the choice dichotomy clear for ranged, but melee doesn't even get one?). The ranger needs work. Not buffs. I agree with one assertion - that rangers can be pretty darn good. But I have no idea how you can say that they are low-maintenance. The added character (the pet) actually adds a lot of extra maintenance if you want to stay really effective. Yes, you can put them on auto-attack on enemy X, but that'd be a waste of an opportunity. And Paladins are actually amazing, but only if you build them in specific ways. They are the the only class that is completely pigeon-holed in role, partly because Obsidian seems adamant to never fix the Attribute issues. Much like rangers, Paladins need work, not buffs, and I think they actually need a more substantial rework than rangers, especially with the current Attribute line-up (which will likely never change, because reasons, I guess).

It's not the one thing I want, but I entirely agree with the wish itself. Enemies should absolutely not "cheat" - they should be held by the same systemic limitations as the player, or at the very least roughly so. For example, you can't be a bear, but if you were a bear, you should have the same general abilities available to you as an NPC bear would have at the same level. So while it'd be OK for, say, a puma to have a cooldownable infinite use of a rake attack, enemy priests should absolutely not have an infinite amount of spells, unless there's very good reason for it.

I asked myself the same question in this deceptively named thread: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/78435-why-are-clubs-accurate/ Daggers should absolutely be changed from +Accuracy to Best-of-Slash/Pierce. And Clubs should get increased Interrupt.

Oh, poor Strawnir, flailing like a sinking crash-dummy. I think the best part is where you say I haven't understood the issue, then describe the exact issue as I already explained it, and then go on to detail the bug, ending it all with saying that wasn't a bug. It's been a known bug since forever. It likely had to do with how those spells were modeled after traps to begin with, and the issue was just too far down on the list of priorities that it wasn't fixed until now. ignoring your strawman claim and just barreling ahead, eh? irony. we described why mechanics + traps weren't a bug. priests got no more benefit from the mechanics accuracy boost to their spell traps than did any character using a physical trap. is why we were told that it were working as intended. is only two people we ever saw raise this issue during the beta, and you weren't one o' them. were more than a few threads complaining about bugs making X or Y class overpowered, yes? show us the ones that identified priests as overpowered. show where you claimed this were a bug during the beta. show where obsidians noted it were a bug. if this were such a well-known and obvious bug, surely you will find considerable pre-release evidence, no? Gromnir and some guy named ushsomethingorother. so, show us. HA! Good Fun! Oh, Strawnir, just strawmanning away like a champ. For everyone watching, note that the Strawnir does not actually address the issue, but rather deflects and creates the strawman of trying to make the argument into something it never was. It brings up the beta, which is irrelevant, and it brings up whether I reported it during the beta or not, which is similarly irrelevant. It also brings up that "priests got no more benefit out of mechanics accuracy boost to their spell traps than did any character using a physical trap", which is also completely irrelevant. The bug was that Seals were considered Traps at all, and got any benefit from Mechanics whatsoever. No-one in their right mind thought that Mechanics contributing to Priest seals, or that Seals and Traps were mutually exclusive, was working as intended. Then there was Strawnir. Strawnir, it's getting sad. It is like watching an alzheimer's patient degenerate.

Yeah, it's been a bug since release. It's never worked. I have no idea why the string even exists. Even a missing string would've been preferable to the confusion and frustration this causes for a lot of people.

That's exactly what you do. You give the Endless Paths Level 3 Statue of Yenwood it's sword, Resolution, a Sabre dropped by a Greater Black Ooze in Endless Paths level 4. If that's not working, you've run into a bug.

Oh, poor Strawnir, flailing like a sinking crash-dummy. I think the best part is where you say I haven't understood the issue, then describe the exact issue as I already explained it, and then go on to detail the bug, ending it all with saying that wasn't a bug. It's been a known bug since forever. It likely had to do with how those spells were modeled after traps to begin with, and the issue was just too far down on the list of priorities that it wasn't fixed until now.

Some people have been abusing the fact that they benefits from (until 1.06) Mechanics, since they count as spells. But yes, they're pretty good either way (which is why them benefiting from Mechanics was so broken). Hopefully they also fixed the issue with priests not being able to place both traps and seals, too. Someone abusing an obvious bug that gets patched isn't really an argument in favour of a respec feature. *chuckle* this weren't something that just popped up. seal spell accuracy were a known quantity even during the beta and the obsidians responded that it were working as intended. the trap math as a whole were wonky but it didn't become apparent when there were other ways to boost accuracy and when we were only playing levels 4-8. traps has been adjusted multiple times since release. this were not a bug, but it were an oversight. petrify were also altered despite the fact that it weren't bugged. cipher focus were not bugged but it became obvious that it were excessive. hell, all during the beta we had folks joking that a cipher with leadbitter could max focus with one opening salvo. weren't a bug, just took obsidian a while to address. etc. wanna look at the list o' post release rebalancing? is more than a few abilities that is still disproportionate powerful. *shrug* observation: the overpowered nature o' priests were not "obvious" to you during the beta. silly rabbit. HA! Good Fun! One day, just one day, I hope I'll see a post from you that's not a strawman. You're talking about balancing, pull in the issue of trap Accuracy and cipher focus. I was talking about the very obvious bug of Mechanics contributing to Seals. You shall henceforth be known as Strawnir.

Not even hard. Priests can be amazing, and if you consistently put up seals and prepare for battles, and maintain ~2 melee priests, you should actually be doing quite well. I would put an Eothasian and a Skaenite up front, backed up by at least two Magranites with Arquebi. Pew pew, healingz. Some people have been abusing the fact that they benefits from (until 1.06) Mechanics, since they count as spells. But yes, they're pretty good either way (which is why them benefiting from Mechanics was so broken). Hopefully they also fixed the issue with priests not being able to place both traps and seals, too. Someone abusing an obvious bug that gets patched isn't really an argument in favour of a respec feature.

Yeah, that really bummed me out too. I hadn't tried yet, but I heard about it. Considering that it's a few lines of text at most for an alternate solution to a pretty classic and early received quest, it's pretty bad.

Three notes: First, Confusion does not turn enemies into allies. It makes them neutral. This is not readily obvious to those that play without the IEMod (...why would you, though?) since Obsidian decided (...again, why?) to not let you differentiate between allied NPC:s and neutral NPC:s. Second, I think it's wrong to rate Web low on the argument that Tanglefoot is better and somehow replaces Web. Web is a Wizard spell, Tanglefoot is a Druid spell. It is very possible, maybe even likely, that a party does not have both. Third, judging it on Path of the Damned isn't a good idea. PotD inflates all the base numbers of opponents, potentially giving a very skewed idea of how spells work or how they're supposed to work. If it's a general guide, stick to non-PotD. If it's a PotD guide, make sure to make it clear that it's a PotD guide and nothing else. Guides in general doesn't exist for user review or as a reference tool, that's what Wiki's are for. Guides should focus on explaining what things are good and why they're good, not the underlying mechanics. 8/10 Good for X, sometimes Y is exactly the kind of information you want a guide to give you. That being said, it would also be wonderful if the Wiki got some help, yeah. And if someone is going to go through all the spells one by one, I can't think of a better opportunity.

He's only there at night, and you're actually hinted as to his existence in the quest to retrieve the blacksmith's stuff in Gilded Vale. Reminds me that I still haven't found him, thanks for pointing it out.