Luckmann

I think the suggested table is still too sharp, and in some regards it's even worse from a balance, for example, you actually end up even crazier than now (with 2/e of 3rd Rank spells). But the idea of it starting earlier is good, I just think it should be much, much slower, and certainly not at the point of having two full spell ranks at level 12 at 4/e (and definitely not three and a half spell ranks). I also want it to work differently between the spellcasting classes, where their "extra progressions" work differently. Per-Encounter spell slots for wizards, Deity-specific spells for Priests, and added Spiritshifts/Wildshapes or similar for Druids. This isn't just because there's a marked difference between Wizards and Priests/Druids (Wizards can only fit 4 spells in their Grimoires; when Priests and Druids get to level 9, entire spell ranks gets unlocked), but because spellcasters are just too same-y.

Based on your save time? Did you leave your party in the wilderness and went on a weekend trip?

I love the "everything is dropped" design. Always have. It's arguable flaws are usually limited by the fact that you can't carry an infinite amount of loot and just scrape the entire bottom of the barrel clean. But.. yeah.. not in PoE.

I would agree with you, logically this makes complete sense... however, has anyone made any tests to substantiate this theory? Is it possible to see the accuracy rolls in the combat log when casting spells etc, to definitively or quantitatively to prove that this is the case? It was confirmed by BAdler in a discussion on Accuracy near the end of the Beta. I suggested that all Accuracies should be listed in the character sheet, because the game is actually capable of separating between "Melee Accuracy" and "Ranged Accuracy" and so on, but only shows "Accuracy" based on what weapon you have equipped, and while (most?) spells use Ranged Accuracy, modifiers that apply specifically to your weapon (Even if that weapon also uses Ranged Accuracy, say, a bow) only apply to the weapon, not to spells. So as with most things, it's all clear as mud.

Because I assume that the installer has been patched. well iwe kept my original gog download, and the patch file That's.. actually a good point. So did I. But I don't think it's an issue with the Talents themselves. I think it's an issue with how effects are re-applied on loading.

One would hope that Obsidian themselves would resolve the issue. There should be no hard level or XP cap. They should design the game so there just isn't enough XP in it to reach level 13. Wouldn't that be impossible to do without also eliminating the less-than-6-party-members XP adjustment? (Unless, of course, the XP needed to progress from level 12 to 13 is greater than the XP needed for level 12 + 50%. Which would be pretty silly.) A level cap is an inelegant solution, but they've got to stop somewhere. Probably less bad than many of the alternatives. Feel free to eliminate it. It doesn't make any sense and it's not needed. It annoys the hell out of me that you're drowned in experience right away, and to avoid even more experience, you need to beeline to fill your party up as soon as possible.

Robes aren't clothes, for some odd, arbitrary reason, and they actually come with penalties. I don't want to post all the robes because I haven't finished the game yet, and if I search through the files, I'll probably run across some unique stuff I may not want to see yet. The only reason I could do it to the clothes is because there isn't really any unique clothes. Well, actually, that's not true. There's one more set of clothes that are related to a quest, but I specifically didn't include it, for that reason. No clothes come with enchantments. I may do robes at some point, we'll see. :| And just as a side note, I hate how the clothes look so different from male/female in some cases. Basic Dyrwoodan Female looks almost like a noblewoman, while the Dyrwoodan Male looks like a well-off peasant at best. Similarly, Vailian Clothes look better on women, but the fact that both of them looks a bit like clown suits annoy me. I wish there were something without the floral pattern. And Aedyran Female looks atrocious. Yes, the Aedyran Male looks a bit silly too, but at least he's clothed. The female version looks like she's wearing a short-short toga in carnival colours. I wish she'd have a shirt and some pants on, at least. Would look more dignified and less "savage". Overall, the only ones I like are the female Vailian, female Dyrwoodan, female Dyrwoodan Vest (which is nothing at all like a vest), male Dyrwoodan Fur, and the Ixamitl ones. And by "like" I mean that they look appropriate somehow. The ixamitl ones are ugly as sin, but well-designed (looks like some mixup of american indian and east-european folk clothing). The only one I'd willingly wear is probably Dyrwoodan Female and Dyrwoodan Vest Female. Everything else is pretty much "Sigh.. if I must." Edit: Also, several articles of clothing seem to have.. "fuss" or "fuzzy thing" on them that looks weird in-game. You can look at the Female Dyrwoodan Clothing, and you can see that there's a small.. red-ish.. thing going on. The same thing is going on in the Male Dyrwoodan Clothing, in the hood/cloak/scarf-thing. It looks very out of place and interferes with colours. The Male Dyrwoodan Fur also has it on it's pants, if you look closely. Annoying as hell.

But there are no "the aumaua". There is Rauatai, which has a lot of aumaua, but they live elsewhere, as well. Your next-door neighbour might be one. Similarly with "the dwarves". Which dwarves? If any dwarves plan to do something, odds are that there will be quite some non-dwarves with them. I'm certainly not defending the treatment of godlikes in the game. I honestly wonder why they felt the need to include them and then basically forgot about them. As for the mundane races, I think it's a nice deviation from that boring fantasy staple of race being everything. That's completely beside the point; the fact that Rauatai is primarily made up of aumaua is enough for racial tension. Nevermind the fact that dominant groups are more likely to favour themselves, even subconciously, within the own society. While pointing as Rauatai and say "Aumaua" might be an issue in Defiance Bay, Rauatai might have it's own power-struggles involving the fact that the leadership is largely made up of aumauans, something I'm sure is causing resentments amongst the orlans. And so on and so forth. I think it's a nice deviation from the "race being everything" mould of many fantasy settings, where dwarves are a unified group in this place, and elves are one group in this place, and if there's other places it's like this, and so on and so forth. But at a certain point, it starts getting ridiculous that there's no vilification or tensions at all, it's just not believable, and it enters the realm of the absurd after a while. It's like a medieval multicultural theme park with guns and rape except people got divided across colour because everyone is mysteriously oblivious to the physical and psychological differences between them, despite the fact that they can't even breed with eachother. Except, y'know, it's not just skin deep. It's not about the size of the ears or something silly like that. At best, references to ears and size are slurs. Like you say, not every culture would have the same opinion of every race. That's exactly the point. Some cultures will villify or praise different races and peoples, they're not going to be some odd uniform rainbow culture. I mean, honestly, what true Aedyran would accept Orlans as anything resembling humans or elves? Don't be silly. I bet you're some Vailian lapdog.

Hahaha, I thought that was hilarious though. I had to go through it three times at least.

Any Ability during which you perform an attack relies on Accuracy, such as a Fighter's Knockdown and a Rogue's Blinding Strike and so on and so forth, and you thus benefit from whatever amount of Accuracy you have with the weapon with which you perform the attack. If you have something that is not specifically part of your weapon attack(s), it will still benefit from +Accuracy from other sources. For example, if your Wizard has +5 Accuracy on his sword, his spells will not become better, because he is not actually performing a melee attack with his spells. If he has +5 Accuracy from an Amulet, it will apply to his Spells. The system isn't very.. clear, but that's that's how it's supposed to work.

I made a thing. http://i.imgur.com/kvMQQTR.png

except there are barely any reactions to your land of orign or your background also, they have no more meaning reactionwise than raceI've gotten a ton of reactions as an Aedyrian Aristocrat so far. I can't comment on other combos though. As an Aedyran Aristocrat, I can only think of 1. Pretty far from "a ton". Might get better at some point, or might just be subtle as all hell, but I've stopped playing that character now, because the lack of reactiveness was getting to me (Deathlike Bleak Walker Paladin, Aedyr Aristocrat).

Why? This assumes that everyone in the world subscribes to some nonsense "race is only skin deep"-philosophy. If a conflict was actually based on the shape of your ears or your degree of hairiness, I'd agree, but that's usually not what it's about. It's about a conflict based on the fact that wild orlans being base savages that would benefit from education and civilization; you'd be doing them a favour, really. It's about a conflict based on the fact that deathlikes? They are born that way. They're diseased, you know, you can tell, just look at that parched skin, and those growths? Nothing short of the plague. You think it's some accident Ondra's Gift had to be locked down due to the plague spreading, just a few days after he visited the Salty Mast? It's about a conflict based on the fact that godlikes.. what's up with godlikes anyway? They think they're somehow better than us? The Knights of the Crucible have started to accept their numbers, and they're really just favouring eachother, like some kind of chosen people. Before you know it, they'll have replaced the leadership with their own. It's about a conflict based on the fact that aumauans are planning to attack Defiance Bay. Did you hear that Kauna Raua guy down at the pub? He couldn't help but to go on and on about the cannons of their ships. You know why we don't have an Embassy here? They call us uncivilized savages, as if we are some damn orlan slaves. It's about a conflict based on the fact that the dwarves are planning on retaking Durgan's Battery. Is that a risk we can take? We just got out of the war with Readceras, we could never do the same thing again. It's sponsored by the Merchant's Guild in New Yarma, and I've heard that the Trading Guild in Defiance Bay is planning on joining; why would they be joining agents of Readceras? ****ing dwarves. And so on and so forth. I don't think anyone cares about the colour of your skin or the size of your ears. What matters is on the inside. And what is on your inside sucks.

This. The game is largely built on a modular foundation. Attributes affects everyone equally, anyone can use any weapon, anyone is affected the same way by armour. It would be very odd if they left this particular design philosophy and suddenly gave is prefab classes or kits. They could've made a multitude of kits already, but instead we choose Abilities and Talents on a level-by-level basis. Why would they uproot that?

But the IE games (most of them) didn't really have any "strong" races, though. In BG2, the most notable was Half-Orc, and yes, it could've used some reactions. Certainly nothing like Godlikes. If you could actually play duergar, drow, aasimar, tiefling, etc, etc, I would've been annoyed if there were no reactions to it in BG2, but it didn't allow you to, so it never really felt out of place that they didn't comment. Not getting comments on being a Deathlike at all (I can only remember it getting brought up once, and that wasn't until Defiance Bay) is.. odd. You'd think the guy with his face covered in branches or his hair and skin on fire would raise more eyebrows. I don't buy that, though. Race might not be a "huge issue" in Eora, fair enough, but how often does a Deathlike pass through Gilded Vale, especially during a veritable plague during which everyone is on their toes about ill omens? Pale Elves are rare, really rare, in these parts, yet not even a comment from other elves? Don't buy it. No-one is so racially tolerant, especially not without excessive brainwash, as to not raise their eyebrows when they see something they've never seen for the first time in their life, even if there's a cultural emphasis on.. culture. Or nation. Whatever.

It's okay, dearie. I already know that you're delusional, you don't have to prove it. When all else fails; sling mud? All too predictable. You'd rather be petty than to face your own issues, like virtually all SJW:s.

Hammerzeit!

Well for the first argument, that is a legit concern for combat, yes. For the second one.. uhm.. no. Nobody has made that argument. I've seen a lot of strawmen on these forums, but this probably takes the cake. Nobody have said anything even remotely resembling something touching upon that issue. I honestly have no idea where you got that and I have no idea how to actually argue against you - which is the problem with strawman arguments. They misrepresent or misunderstand something for the purpose of create an indefensible position that they assign their opposing party. In reality, two points have been made. The state of the combat is stale, flat, simplistic, and boring, and Immunities and Resistances that makes sense based on the opponent should be introduced to alleviate these issues, no matter the original design philosophy of "Hard counters are boring" or not. This is a rational argument. The current lack of immunities makes no sense based on what we are fighitng, and it feels wrong, and out of place, that you can blind that which has no eyes, knock prone that which has no firm shape, and have opponents that fly slip on terrain effects. This is a emotional argument. Based on the second argument, it was suggested that it doesn't matter, that it all makes sense, because all abilities and spells targets the soul, not the body. Which is just horse****, everyone laughed at it and dismissed it as flagrantly idiotic. There was great happiness. And then you show up and.. actually defend this? You are the one that create this strong dichotomy between Fighter/Rogue/Ranger Abilities and Supernatural abilities. Nobody else have even suggested it. Quite the opposite. "Just because you have the mental focus and presence of mind to direct electrical energy from your fists, do not mean that you are influencing the soul of whomever you are hitting in a meaningful way. There are words in the game world for people that can do this, and it's "Cipher" and "Animancer". And even so, many of the things a Cipher can do is not implied to be so much subtle or direct manipulation of an enemy's soul as much as it is directing his own soul, the souls of his allies, or to basically thrash the souls of his opponents in order to achieve real-like, out-of-body effects." So.. yeah. I have no idea what you're talking about. This in no way inherently restricts one more than another. Quite the opposite. I've repeatedly mentioned that flying drakes should be immune to Slicken and (most) terrain effects. I've repeatedly mentioned that I'd prefer it if they were immune to that, but not a Fighter's Knockdown. I've mentioned that frost elementals (for example) should be immune to Chill Fog's blinding effect, but perhaps not Blinding Strike. And Oozes should be immune to Knockdown's Prone, Slicken's Prone, Blinding Strike's Blind, but perhaps (perhaps!) arguably (arguably!) not Cipher's Blindstrike. So what you say is taken straight out of thin air. I know how it works. I'm saying how I would want it to work. If it wasn't obvious, there's a difference.

As someone who has at multiple times referred to people, both black and white, including officers, as "f***ing animals", I would consider a claim of bigotedness or racism on part of the officer to have about as much legitimacy as the claim of an inherently transphobic limerick. The video didn't load for me either, I think he's just pulling this stuff from some link list to try to make points. Like argument-in-a-bottle or a how-to guide on facing online fascism. Awwwww, I'm sowwy I hurted your feeluhngs. Want a cookie and a tissue for your bruised feelings? Some grape soda and some cat vids will surely make you feel better. You know what they say, if you can't hack the logic, accuse them of you not understanding and run away citing productiveness.

Only if I can have Two-Handed Warhammers. The fact that I can't go wild with something sledgehammer-y makes me want to cry.

Honestly, I have no interest in more classes. The game already has a lot of classes to choose from, and the selection is diverse - I would argue even too diverse, in some regards. The bases are covered. I'd much rather see expanded content for existing classes. New Abilities at all levels comes to mind. Fine-tuning and balancing. Expanded class levels even if it's just for systemic purposes (up to level 20, even if the game with expansions is capped at level 12-16). I want more stuff and more options, not another class. I want to have an aura that makes all my allies do Flame damage with every attack, as a Paladin. I want racial Talents. I want to see the Weapon Focus Talents changed and have more and more diverse Weapon Focus Talents. Classes? An even 12 would be nice, but I honestly have no real interest in it. Kits could be nice, but with Culture, Backgrounds and free Ability and Talent picks, I cannot see what would be gained from it that couldn't be done with an increased number of diverse Abilities and Talents for pre-existing Classes.

0/10. I suggest you repeat first- and second-grade English.

Honestly? Not that great. I'd worry how long it'd take before I was accused of rape. In all seriousness though, on a personal level, insulted, of course, but if you make a joke about someone killing themselves because they slept with a man? Nothing. I'd feel nothing. Except joy, if the joke was funny, but all things being equal, let's just assume nothing. You'd have a point if racism was defined simply as discrimination based on race. Most social justice advocates don't define it that way, so you're either ignorant of what the conversation is actually about or you're arguing in bad faith. "Most social justice advocates". And therein the issue lies, of course. Just because you want to redefine something so that it excludes whatever group you personally hate does not make it OK. Whites are subjected to racism, often systematic, institutional racism, every day, often under the guise of affirmative action and "reverse racism". No group has a monopoly on victimization and any race can be the target of racism. Disregarding anyone out of hand based on who or what they are, instead of what they say or what they argue, is at the very core of the issue. Defending this behaviour just because someone shares the same clique as you is nothing short of hypocrisy. "It's not racism when we do it". Classic. The target doesn't matter, and neither does the abuser. Abuse is abuse, racism is racism, and trying to pin all the faults in the world on a single boogey-man, the proverbial windmill, to absolve yourself of guilt, as a person or as a group, does nothing to resolve any issues anywhere. At best, it's perpetuated, at worst, it escalates due to reaction to baseless accusation. It creates exactly the two-or-more camps that everyone purports to want to abolish or dissolve. Want to make a point? Argue based on merit and facts, not feelings and ad hominems. Anything else should be rightfully ridiculed.

Make your mind up. If vessels can be terrified by holy light, they have some sort of survival instinct, period. What you seem to be missing with this example is that, unlike Dungeons and Dragons, in Pillars of Exile, both of these things have souls. Souls which can be targeted by magic - Cipher, Chanter, Priest, Wizard, etc. - doesn't matter which, they have souls. Those souls can be hit with magic, and thus they should not be completely immune to fear etc. Some of your other examples are valid, some aren't, most are a bit simplistic. No, there's a difference between a threat of physical harm, and banishment. A barbaric yell would do nothing vs. a vessel or spirit, but shattering their simple minds by a blinding flash of holy light is different. Terrify is not always just Terrify, just like Prone isn't always just Prone - for example, flying opponents should not be subject to terrain effects like Slicken, but they should still be able to be attacked with Knockdown. But you also call it Pillars of Exile, so.. eh, not sure of how serious I should take you. But there's literally no difference between magic that affects a target's soul and magic that affects a target's soul. This isn't D&D. That cannot be emphasized enough. (Reading Path of Exile new expansion news lol sorry for typo!) There's a huge difference. Not only are far from all Abilities "from the soul" other than in it's most basic form (Rogues, Fighters, for example, mostly have nothing that can be described as supernatural feats of strength or soul-power), but even those that are from the soul, directed force of personality, focused soul-power, "ki", "focus", "wounds" or whatever, are virtually never implied to affect the soul. Just because you have the mental focus and presence of mind to direct electrical energy from your fists, do not mean that you are influencing the soul of whomever you are hitting in a meaningful way. There are words in the game world for people that can do this, and it's "Cipher" and "Animancer". And even so, many of the things a Cipher can do is not implied to be so much subtle or direct manipulation of an enemy's soul as much as it is directing his own soul, the souls of his allies, or to basically thrash the souls of his opponents in order to achieve real-like, out-of-body effects. And like I have said repeatedly, in some cases, it can be appropriate to argue "You affected his soul". These are however isolated cases, at best. You cannot reasonably argue that a Blinding Strike from a Rogue is implied to target the enemy soul. You cannot reasonably argue that a Fighter's Knockdown somehow knocks down the soul of the opponent. It's ridiculous. If you want to argue that a Cipher's Eyestrike should still cause eyeless opponents to be blinded, as it targets the general senses of the opponent, through affecting his soul? You have my ear. But as a matter of fact, in general, as a matter of principle? No. No way.

That doesn't actually, y'know, change it or suddenly make it offensive. It just means that the author has bought into the idiocy. And for reference, it is hilarious that you don't know what a windmill is in context. Sweet, even. I almost forgot to mention this gem. The author admits to his own work as being offensive, yet you brush it off completely; what sort of mental gymnastics is required for such a feat? Do you do this with others like Einstein, where, when he mentions "God does not play dice," you construe that as Einstein buying into the "idiocy" of quantum mechanics? If someone draws Muhammed, knowing that it will be offensive, does that make it offensive and thus validate the censorship of the work? Of course not. To misconstrue this into some argument relating to a quote by Albert Einstein and his comments on quantum mechanics is just childish. This is extra funny, because he never actually said that, but that is beside the point. A more apt comparison would be if Darwin's studies would be prefaced with the quote of him realizing that many will be offended by his works. Would that mean that his works can be reasonably considered offensive? Of course not. I would say that he's buying into the idiocy of his contemporary religious communities. I can say "Muhammed was a pedophile"; I know that could possibly offend people. It does not mean that I think that it is reasonable to be offended. The beliefs of the author is, in context, completely irrelevant. There are many great persons that I would laud in one way and call out in another. This is not mental gymnastics. It is consistency. You clearly did not, because you went on about constant reminders, when fighitng windmills is about creating imaginary targets and blowing them out of proportion. You did mention Androgen insensitivity syndrome. I accept that that exists. This is not the same thing as accepting every individual crazy person's taken offence as valid. There is a marked difference between recognizing a disease or syndrome, and saying that society should be moulded after them. Just because something is a real thing does not mean that we all buy into their disorders or indulge them. Schizophrenia can, amongst other things, result in the belief that you are something you are not. If you tell them that they're not, they are offended. They react, often violently or in an abusive manner (like the original twitter lunatics). I recognize that schizophrenia is a real issue. It doesn't mean that I recognize their delusions as legitimate. No, you are not Napoleon and I'm not going to re-enact Waterloo. No, I'm not going to support your request to build a helicopter pad on your lawn with public funding because you think you're an Apache attack helicopter. And I'm not going to stop making innocent jokes because you think it's doing something it's not. The poem isn't remotely transphobic, and I'm not even sure how you can overinterpret it to the point of being misogynistic. It doesn't disparage transexuals as a whole, and certainly not clearly. Nor does it poke at the idea that a woman being a man is something to be ashamed of. If there's anything it pokes at, it is the fact that a person was tricked into having intercourse with another person despite the fact that he clearly didn't want to have intercourse with this type of person; tantamount to rape, in my book. What happened to the issue of informed consent, was that just forgotten from one crusade to the next? It is funny - not to mention somewhat offensive - that you would think me a straight male. "Undoubtedly", even, based solely on your bigoted and biased opinion - stereotyped, even, at the very least. The fact that you think that this somehow disqualifies me belies your disregard for argument rather than ad hominems. It matters more to you who said it, than what is said; somehow, one person's argument weighs more than someone elses, just because they're not part of a particular social, racial or economical clique. That a person, whether "trans indivudal" or not, found it offensive does in no way clearly refute the point. The point being that it doesn't matter whether they're trans-, bi-, black-, white-, heli-, manoid-, proto-, germo-, whatever-whatever. Your offence taken does not dictate policy. Anyone can be offended by anything. Christians are offended by gays. Blacks are offended by whites. Communists are offended by fascists. Retards are offended by jokes. Offended people are offended by other offended people. It doesn't matter. "I'm offended"; well so bloody what?