Luckmann

You think free invisible instant attack with no animation that can occur at the same time as a character is physically attacking a different unit or in the middle of an attack animation/casting a spell/doing something else as long as they have a melee weapon equipped is realistic? Or that if you attack somebody they always have to stop and attack you? Yes I do. Pick up some foam swords, try a 2 v 1 fight, you ll see how quickly you die. One free attack is nothing compared to a realistic fight. Also, the engagement system forces you to approach fights with a plan in mind, not blindly rush in and then fix your own mistakes, which means more strategy. And the engagement system also works both ways, to hinder enemies as well. As someone that has been in actual street fights.. yeah, no. You don't turn around and try to run away from someone with a weapon with any kind of reach unless you're fast as hell, but not only is it possible, but the fact that we turn and run at full speed, and then get Engagement attacks on us, has no basis whatsoever in reality. You can't even move forward or jump to the side without trigger Disengagement attacks, let alone back away slowly or reposition. Saying it is realistic to get instant, super-charged, invisible attacks on someone that moves during a fight is completely ridiculous. The Engagement system forces you to approach fights with a plan. That plan is "My tank runs first and glues everyone to him, and then the rest of us picks everyone off at a distance". Stop pretending that it adds some kind of meaningful depth, all it does is penalize movement and makes sure that everyone gets stuck in an immobile cluster, as well as playing up the importance of pre-combat positioning.

Wow, that's a really ****ing sad spread.

I haven't gotten to the temple yet. I'm just about to start, and I'll probably not get through it until tomorrow. Yeah, it's annoying that companions don't seem to acknowledge who you are at all. I can see how this lack of reactivity can have some hilarious results, like working with the Dozen. Utterly ridiculous. I'd love it if my choices actually mattered and working with the dozen would be near-inconceivable. I'd be incredibly surprised if an expansion went back and addressed things like this in pre-existing quests and conversations. Pleasantly surprised, yes, but very surprised. Even if the expansion would add content, it wouldn't fix the base game. But I also don't want some checklist system where quests are assigned on a per-Deity or per-Order basis. I just want it to make sense and get some general reactivity throughout the game. Wow, that's certainly... disheartening. I haven't done the Temple yet, but if you start a Priest of Eothas, faith being a key part of Edér's concept, you'd expect more bromancy content, not less. It sounds completely deranged that you'd miss out on Edér- and Eothas-based content and bonding because you're a Priest of Eothas. I was really looking forward to see if the Temple would actually let me relate to Edér's stories, with a shared faith, having gone through the sacraments together. Maybe a line of dialogue to reaffirm my own experiences in the same vein, going through the same rituals, tending the candles, the cleansing ritual, etc. I get the feeling that the game was made for Ciphers, and then they added the other classes like "Augh, if we have to, I guess, gawd". Because they apparently get a lot of stuff intermixed with the main storyline, and they actually get dialogue actions sprinkled here and there, which I haven't seen with any other class so far, whether would be just performing the last rites on someone or screaming at someone with a barbarian bellow.

agreed. josh is visible so he gets undue credit and blame. nevertheless, pointing out that poe mechanics did not spring forth from josh's skull like athena, fully armed and armoured and looking to make grognards suffer for their crpg pretensions, is wasted breath. HA! Good Fun! While yes, Sawyer gets some undue credit and blame, there's no doubt that many defining aspects of PoE that have turned out to be considerable issues are due to Sawyer's pet peeves and hangups. The whole "no hard counters"-thing, the lack of counterspelling, the war on movement, and the irrational hatred of buffs. No, he can't be blamed for all flaws, but a couple of defining ones rests squarely on his shoulders. For example, I don't think he's responsible for the issues with Party Scouting and No In-Combat Stealth, the lopsided Attribute system, or the armour dichotomy. Or at least, I don't know a way to blame him yet.

That's cause it's the RPGCodex place, the book there references many users as do the weapons in the store. Out of all the backer content stuff, I think the Inns were the only thing to hit the mark. The NPC:s, the memorials, the items, all of it is either terrible or jarring, or both. Also, I lol'd at the fact that the RPGCodex made a whore-house. Is there a list of what inn "belongs" to who (or what), somewhere?

Report it as a bug. He's probably just too privileged.

Alright, so, I realize the title sounds like I have a cool story or something. I don't, really. I'm many things, but not a writer. I just started playing a Priestess of Eothas, after being somewhat dissatisfied with the reactions (or rather, lack thereof) towards my Paladin Bleak Walker Deathlike, Aedyr Aristocrat. Thinking that I'd get some cool overlap with Durance and Edér, as well as tie into more into the universe and the immediate on-goings of the game and the immediate area where things are playing out, I decided that hey, Eothas is hated here, and I'm tired of being a blackguard that is trying to be good (because that's all Bleak Walkers are, unfortunately; Blackguards). So I'm going to note down disappointments and good moments here. First, some information: Female Meadow Human. Priestess of Eothas. Aedyran Cultural Origin. Clergyman (Clergywoman!) Background. If it's ever relevant, I can add that I've done some minor cheating. I'm starting out with Weapon Focus: Peasant, Hope Eternal, and Sanctifier. I have yet to see Talents ever influence dialogue, however, but I enjoy thematic/mechanical overlap. I'm going to be fighting with Implements, primarily, and boost Holy Radiance with Inspiring Radiance and Brilliant Radiance, first thing I do. Unless I can think of something else, I'll probably grab Interdiction, too. There's also probably going to be a lot of double-posting here, for which I apologize. The editing function has a timer and I was thinking I'd add things as I go or can think of them. Alright, go. First things first, straight from memory, I must say that the conversation with Calisca was a let-down. Not only didn't anyone in the entire prologue mention my class, but Calisca, when asking about my past and my background, wondered what happened to my previous flock. I went with them dying when the village I'm from was sacked. She then asked me the standard question of what I'm hoping to achieve with going to Gilded Vale. And.. these never seem to be influenced by Background or Class. As a Priest or a Clergyman, I would've loved it if I had the chance to tell her that I'm going to try to gather a new flock, or that I'm just preaching the faith. So far, nobody has ever even asked me what faith I'm of (and nobody has referenced my class, either). This would've been an excellent opportunity to tell a Priest of Eothas that "Ooooh, you're an Eothosian? That's.. bad news. You should keep it to yourself." I went with telling her that I'm a settler/colonist. It's the closest thing that fitted. Then the bitch abandoned me in Cilant Lis because Heodan was wounded and we needed to sleep. What a bitch. Reaching Gilded Vale... nothing. They ask me what I'm doing there. The regular routine. No questions except the one about settling. Alright, no biggie, didn't expect anything, maybe they just don't care. I can't react to the fact that the Temple of Eothas is in ruins, which feels.. wrong. At the very least I would've want to ask "Why would someone do such a thing?!". Alright. Nice that they asked me if I've given birth to any hollowborn children. Probably some bullsh*t profiling based on the fact that I'm "female". C'mon people, didn't you know that gender is out? Can't you tell that I'm clearly a mayonnaise biplane self-identifying as otherkin? Fascist cis-scum normie. Let's pick up Aloth. Cool. He references the fact that I'm Aedyran. Cool. Nothing special. Fair enough. I resent that he thinks I'm aedyran and just assumes that I'm his "countrywoman", like I'm some piece of meat for him to possess, but I respect his opinion as a trans-person of the elven persuasion. He can't know that I'm vailian on the inside. So, sleep at the inn, talk to the animancer, aww yiiis, time to talk to Edér, mah bro, mah brother in faith, mah tank, let me have your babies, wait what did I say that out loud? Aaaaaaaand... nothing. He talks at great length about being of the Eothosian faith, about serving in the war against Waidwen/"Eothas", the ruination of the Temple of Eothas, and what happened to the faithful in Gilded Vale. And nothing! This was.. a huge let-down. At one point, I can even ask him.. "Who's Eothas?". That was.. awkward. Not a single comment. Nothing. Not a mention of how I appreciate his continued support, not a condemnation of the treatment he had his received, nothing. Augh, fine. Let's pick up Durance. Because, y'know, Durance, right? Durance is a pretty cool guy. And he's got a pretty.. "personal" connection to Eothas. He went to meet you because of a vision. He is a priest of Magran, a now-enemy of Eothas and not well-liked by most Eothosians. And... Nothing. Not a single comment. I'm wearing what pretty much is priest robes. I've throwing priestly blessings around. I meet another priest. He's got a history with my faith. My faith has a history with him. And not just Magran. Him, specifically, although to be fair, yeah, I don't know that yet, but either way, I'd expect something. Nothing. He did not comment on me being a Priest, nor on being an Ethosian, and I couldn't express anything relating to the fact that I'm a Clergywoman, a Priest, or an Eothosian. I wonder if I could even greet him as one of my comrades in faith if I were a Priest of Magran.. I'm starting to have serious doubts. I make myself a group, fill out the blanks, so I can have a full group of adventurers and avoid getting extra experience. I go beat the sh*t out of a bear, talk to a spirit. [Clergyman] "Be at peace, spirit. May you be blessed with greater fortune in the next life." ...alright, so, it's strangely not [benevolent] at the end there, but at least it's something. Must feel hella out of place for Skaenites, at the very least. I'll add more notes as I go and run into various situations, but right now, it's not feeling good.

"Tank" at least has been in current use since 1994 or longer. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_%28gaming%29#Origin ] That's not really.. relevant to what he asked, though. A term can have existed in one context and established in another, and not have been popularized until a third. I never read any real discussions involving these firm roles until the popularization of MMO:s, and certainly not in the discussions relation to the IE games. Whether some people knew the terms or not.. I have no idea. But it certainly didn't come up often enough to be noticeable.

Point? Or is this some silly attempt to whitewash (heh) racism into something unavoidable. We are human beings, we can rise above our nature. The point being, of course, to correct Amentep. You trying to ascribe it a wealth of meaning just looks silly in context, since I directly quoted him (her, whatever). Also, to say that we can rise above our nature because we are human beings... heh. That's incredibly arrogant and anthropocentric. Humans are no less animals than.. animals. Such beliefs are founded in the same abrahamitic and deist beliefs you no doubt criticize in Christianity.

You're largely missing the point. The point isn't that chokepoint tactics doesn't make sense or that chokepoint tactics shouldn't exists, or even that chokepoint tactics should be avoided specifically by having the enemy spamming AoE:s or teleporting around the place. It's bad enough that enemies have infinite uses of everything (and there's nothing worse than flat-out systemic cheating AI). The point is that it's boring and ridiculously easy to set up, and trivializes almost all combat. Like Hiro said two posts above me, it isn't really doorways and chokepoints that are the problem, though. It's systemic issues, from Engagement mechanics to the lack of hard counters and immunities, and meaningful enemy-specific powers. If I could set up chokepoints and really feel the pressure, like my one-two tanks were really slugging it out and I had to work for it, and if the enemy had ways to deal with it, or if there were a diverse set of abilities available to them to try to avoid it or punch through it, I'm all for chokepoints. I like the idea. It can be fun. Chokepoints in some games are the best things ever, they just keep on coming, the sweat is running down the forehead, you're doing your best to hold back the tide, something fails, it's a mess, everything is perfect, you feel victorious. But PoE isn't that.

It's all about figuring out where you stand in the social structure, usually by picking up on cues from other people; how they relate to you, how you relate to them. Most children start out by imagining they're the center of the universe, then eventually realize that they're not: that what they say impacts different people in different ways, and what different people say impacts them in different ways, and then they learn to modulate their behavior accordingly. What's perfectly cool between very close friends might be entirely unacceptable between strangers, even if the individuals in question belong to the same general social grouping. The shorthand for this is "growing up." Specifically in your case? I understand that Scania has a pretty nasty history of racism towards a whole bunch of groups, so if I was a Scanian I would be extra-careful not to play into the stereotype of Scanians as ignorant bumpkins who only beat up Arabs because they think they're Jews. ... Scania has a pretty nasty history of racism towards a whole bunch of groups? Do you mean when the Swedish king rode over the border, to kill Danes at his leisure? Or do you mean when the scanian language was weeded out and, when recognized by SIL, resulted in a strong informal protest from Sweden? I realize that you're just trying to be antagonistic and paint everyone with the same brush, but to be clear, if scanians are anything, it's victims of racism. To say that we have a history of racism towards a whole bunch of groups isn't just ridiculous or childish, it's false. Or, at least, no more than anywhere else; likely much less. As for the rest, it's basically just gibberish. You can't pin me as to whether I'm up or down, and you can't reasonably explain what up or down even is. You talk about finding your place in the world and growing up, but what you're really saying is that it's entirely subjective and based on either your or the subject's opinion of themselves and others. That is to say, complete nonsense. Anyone can apparently clearly be anywhere on this imaginary scale of up vs. down and the scale can mean anything. If I as white is discriminated against, and I retaliate, up, or down? And what about vice versa? Why is one legitimate, but the other isn't? Because punching up isn't the same thing as punching down? You haven't even been able to explain what that means, or why punching in any direction would be permissible. But that's the thing; racism is taught. While oppression (in general) can lead to a class system that class system isn't inherently racist (it is inherently "otherist", making marginalising people by race, gender or anything obviously observable very easy though, hence why it goes hand-in-hand so often). Racism itself isn't taught. It's inherent. Even the youngest of children can differentiate between races and react differently towards those that they recognize as "not like me", even before realizing what they are.

Am I up or down? Is there a way to tell? Is there a spreadsheet on when it's OK to target people? Insult them? Beat on them? Is it by relative income, or by population percentage? Education? Or maybe relative ownership or social positions based on ethnicity? What about jews, are they considered "up" because of their positions in media, banking and politics, or "down" because of their relative population in relation to the host nation? Inquiring minds.

...what? I saw nothing wrong in what he said, but more to the point, why would it be wrong to judge someone over video game mechanics.. when it's their job to work with video game mechanics? It's like saying I judge my gardener over something so trivial and subjective such as landscaping techniques. Well.. yes?

Small nit-pick; the Ranger doesn't have ranged combat as one of it's gimmicks. Actually, most of it's Abilities (all?) work with melee weapons as well. I do agree with the sentiment that if a class has a gimmick that is supposed to be part of it's core concept (so, in essence, a major ability or class feature that is considered integral to the class) then the class should be focused upon that, and gameplay revolve around that in some major capacity. Otherwise, it's just going to be "something something plus". In essence, the Ranger is a combatant like the Fighter or the Rogue... plus the pet. And with the pet as a tacked-on feature, not the focus of the class, it will be judged in relation to those other classes, the pet notwithstanding. It becomes very hard to balance and the class becomes unfocused, the choices unintuitive.

I would really hate this, because it would ruin any chance of ever getting ammunition into the game. And I really, really, really want ammunition in the game. Also, Special-Arrows-as-Abilities would be Ranger only, discounting the fact that the modular approach to classes has given unprecedented freedom. It would forever deny Rogues and other classes that may want to be archers (or that wants to get more archer-supporting Abilities; Fighters, for example) these special arrows. And if you introduce the Abilities as Talents.. well.. we're already pretty Talent-starved. Taking a Talent just so you can use just Fire Arrows twice per day (or whatever) would be annoying as hell. Stunning Arrows, Frost Bullets, Exploding Bolts.. no, ammunition, definitely ammunition.

Well, actually, I guess you're right, in that while I'd still consider it stupid, it could probably be a lot of fun, and pretty far from viable. The two priests and druids could probably fulfil any tanking duties quite competently. Especially Priests should have no issues building for being battle-priests, which could save you from having to use a whole bunch of spells per encounter.

Dividing it into 27 hours makes perfect sense. It gives you those 2 extra hours of sleep you always wanted, as well as adding 30 minutes to the workday to compensate for 30-minute breakfast and afternoon coffee breaks.

Oh, the Cipher is my favorite class. It's just that from level 9-12 or so it's so powerful it trivializes the content. Amplified Wave is ridiculonk, and chain casting Mental Binding isn't much different. To be fair a lot of classes have this issue, Gaze of the Adragan trivializes the endboss, etc. The *main* issue is that other casting classes need more per-encounter utility. But it wouldn't hurt to make ciphers have a *slightly* slower start, just so they couldn't always open every fight with their biggest whammy. They sortof have the inverse problem from Chanters. Just like the fight is always over before Chanters get to use an Invocation, most fights are usually over before high-level Ciphers need to attack with a weapon. Just like Chanters should probably start combat with a couple phrases "in the tank," at least at higher level, Ciphers should probably start with slightly less focus "in the tank" (at least unless they take the "Greater Focus" talent, which conversely should do more than it does; it sucks now). VVV But I do like them! I just want playing them to be a little more challenging at the top end. If I didn't like them at all I wouldn't play them and wouldn't have any opinion! VV When I glance at your avatar, I see Lemongrab, and I read "ridiculonk" as "redonkulous" in Jake's voice. Anyway, generally agree. I'd like to see Cipher's Focus dropped to at least 30% (from 50%), with the Greater Focus Talent improved. Because as you say, it sucks now. Why would anyone even consider getting it, ever? If Focus was dropped to 2-3 (from 5) per Level (Even levels 3, Odd levels 2), and default Focus was dropped to 30% (from 50%), I could see the Greater Focus Talent actually increasing default Focus to 50%, or maybe even back to 50%, as well as increasing the maximum focus by 10 (so, 5 default focus with the Talent).

I would like to see a range of ranged-focused Abilities and Talents added to Fighters, but if you want an Archer, Rogues actually make amazing ones. I wouldn't mind a little more "ranger flavour" to it, but if it's the archery itself you're after, but hate having a pet, rogues can be great. I would argue that as long as the whole Party Scouting/No Combat Stealth-thing isn't fixed, rogues are much better with ranged weapons than with melee ones. Especially with the way tanking works ("all too well", one might say), favouring tanks and ranged DPS and nothing else. It should also be noted that rangers, in so far melee builds can be considered good, can actually make really good melee-ers. A lot of the wordings seek to pigeon-hole rangers into being conceptually ranged, but they make surprisingly competent melee combatants, including sword-and-board. Synergizes well with the pet for stacking bonuses on attacking the same target.

Yeah, you're doing something wrong. Most players I know that plays on Hard have no trouble surviving on 2 Camping Supplies. If anything, the Per-Rest limitations (or rather, resting limitations themselves) aren't nearly draconic enough. The more I play, the more I see how a "resting area" system would've been preferable, with resting not only being limited by supplies, but by location, so no resting in dungeons without being attacked by enemies in the middle of sleeping, no sleeping in cities without being pushed away by guards or attacked by thugs, and resting in the wilderness should have a small chance of seeing you attacked by animals, trolls or brigands. The only safe spot should be designated resting areas and inns. You're meant to conserve your powers, not blow everything at every turn, at every encounter. Having a mixed team of nothing but Druids, Priests and Wizards is shockingly stupid, and it should be. Well. Until level 9, when everything breaks and any semblance of balance is thrown out the window.

No.

Wizards may not be as powerful as Priests and Druids, but any discussion on balance is broken once any one of them reaches 9th and 11th level, at which point they get all their 1st and 2nd rank spells as Per Encounter, respectively. Personally, I think there's a lot of changes that could be made, mostly dealing with an increased number of spells in the grimoire (by a progression scheme), rebalancing of the whole Spells-as-Per-Encounter mechanic (on a per-class basis, not one-size-fits-all), and more interesting spells for wizards, focusing them on utility, flexibility, and specialization. It doesn't need straight-up buffs. Spellcasters need to be differentiated and the per-encounter stuff reworked. As for the 4th point, singling out Ciphers and Priests is unfair. A lot of classes have dialogues here and there, and depending on what you play, it's going to be very lopsided no matter what. Apparently, Kind Wayfarer Paladins have a lot of references if you play them, but I can confirm that Bleak Walkers have extremely little (that I've noticed). Priests of Eothas have a lot right at the beginning, and then it's just sorta forgotten. Dialogue reactivity to Class (and Deity/Order/etc) and Race needs to be rebalanced across the board, and not just between themselves, but throughout the game. For the last points-by-points, only thing I can agree on is enchantable spellbooks (in some fashion) and metamagic, because metamagic is cool and could really set Wizards apart from Priests and Druids.

PoE, easily. They're completely different games. It's like asking me if I prefer The Sims or CS, imo. That's not to say I didn't like Grimrock 2. I loved it.

Rangers are actually relatively fine now, especially compared to even the last backer beta. That being said, if a class is going to be based around a gimmick (Ranger Pet, Druid Spiritshift) I think that the class should be largely centred around that, and I think the Ranger (and the Druid) fail in that. The pet mechanic should be just as central to the Ranger as the Wounds are to Monks or Focus is to Ciphers (nerf!), and it just doesn't feel like it is. I think the shamanistic aspects of the Ranger (as underlined in the background, descriptions, the tie to the ranger, etc) should be mechanically supported at a much stronger level, making it possible to play a Ranger with a more spell-esque feel to it (but without Spells, in game terms), and with much stronger support for the pet. It should be possible to build a Ranger that feels almost druidic, a ranger that is basically just an archer with a harasser companion, a ranger that sends his charging bear in to rip and tear while the ranger himself just supports (...dare I say.. WoW-esque totems? ..maybe? Don't kill me.), as well as a melee ranger that runs in with his sabre and flanks the enemy along with his friend.

Not at all. The fact that it's a fantasy setting just means that we make certain assumptions going in about the state of the world. E.g. it's like earth, but in the late middle ages, with magic, and dragons etc. But that doesn't mean that everything goes, or that everything fits the setting. E.g. if one of the NPC's were a mid 1990's gangster rapper, in a lowrider, wielding an UZI, you'd hope to christ that there was some really really good explanation as to how the heck he'd fit into this setting. 'Else it would just break the settin, and the immersion. But of course, a lot of stuff is going to be a departure from realism in the persuit of fun, like the lack of weight encumbrance. But if it doesn't clash with the fun, and it's not difficult or impossible to implement, the devs should strive for realism (winthin the setting). And semi-realistic drops like this is a step in the right direction for some people, even if carrying all that stuff around isn't. Further, whether they drop full equipment or not, doesn't have to have anything to do with the economy in principle. That's simply an issue with a lack of balancing the economy. If they lowered the prices somewhat, there wouldn't be an issue. I've just reached act 3, been fairly completionist, and I only have around 9K left. So so far it's not even an issue. Well I agree completely with the post... except for one very small nit-pick at the end. At a certain point, it doesn't make sense to adjust the prices, because in my mind, there needs to be at least a semblance of relative worth. I realize the vast majority of games gets this wrong, including PoE to a degree, but daggers shouldn't have a value of 50c and full plates a value of 30c, just because the enemy tend to drop more of the latter, and then a room at the inn costs 150c. That being said, PoE does make a fairly good job of making you feel poor. Stuff is costly. Sometimes nonsensically costly (...1500 to make a scroll? And the merchant wants HOW MUCH for a Trap? But I just sold him the same damn trap at less than 10% of that price!). I think the biggest issue really is the automagical access-everywhere unlimited stash, coupled with no weight limits and infinigold merchants. It lets you haul absolutely everything out of everywhere, that you'd probably pass on in most games for not being worth your time, effort and space - and then mulch it into gold at the nearest two-legged vending machine. And an enchanting system that incentivizes you to stick your hand into unsuspecting animals and monsters and take their internal organs with you, too.