Luckmann

Oh, concentration camps, now? Seriously? Oh, we're not censoring anything, we're not the thought police or anything, we're just relocating the undesirables.

Oh, look, another thread. Seriously though, if anything should be locked, it's useless polls. People will talk about what people want to talk about, and I hope that the forums remain open in that regard, always, and do not attack or ban specific subjects in some mistaken attempt to calm things down.

Move to the UK. It took me two years to even get evaluated for ADHD, my first psychiatrist decided I was a drug-seeker because I was a student at the time, and even my current one won't consider anything that's not slow-acting, which leaves me screwed if I want to do anything productive for longer than 8 hours a day. You know how long it took me? About a year. But then, when we did it, boom, over in an afternoon and evening. Apparently I deal with problems by laughing at them and have an IQ above the norm, but still scored poorly on attention/memory tests in relation to what I should've scored. Badabing badaboom, been trying drugs for well over a year now. Slow-acting, fast-acting, doesn't matter, I can eat them like pez and all I feel is a blood welling into my brain at times. God forbid that I'd get a professional that'd try to give me the good stuff, nah, let's just keep trying metylphenidatehydrochloride until your kindeys burst and the liver explodes. Otherwise they'd have to write a letter and apply for a permit to write me a prescription. This latest batch I got is even signed as "4 in the afternoon", bitch do you know what happens when I take these after 12:00? Nothing. Except insomnia. Not even the fun kind of insomnia where you can still do stuff, like when consuming too much caffeine, but the disturbing kind of insomnia where everything still says "Sleep, you tool!" but your head keeps saying no. At least in the US they seem to throw Adderall after you when you turn a corner. Here it doesn't even exist. Edit: The general "you", not you you, obviously, you're British. The worst part really is when you're a person that actually tends to shrug pain off, and just because you're not rolling around on the floor, you're clearly not in so much pain. It's like some people think that if you're in serious pain, you should be having something like a 5-year-old temper tantrum and act like a tool, otherwise the pain isn't bad enough or real enough. **** those people. Just because I'm in horrifying pain doesn't mean that I'm going to be a little bitch about it, but that doesn't mean that I'm functionally able to do anything right now other than to clench my teeth and give you the thousand-yard-stare of death.

I'm bored, so let's see if we can do some constructive theorycrafting or use our imaginations for a moment. And by ours, I mean yours. And by we I also mean you. In fact, nevermind, I want you to use your imaginations for a moment. There are currently 5 different godlike types in the game, out of which 4 are playable. Each godlike is associated with a divine power or deity, and we know (more or less) which is which. Avianlikes, blessed by Hylea. Firelikes, blessed by Magran. Naturelikes, blessed by.. Galawain? Deathlikes, blessed by Rymrgand.. I guess. Moonlikes, blessed by Ondra. But there are many more gods, and, presumably, more godlikes. What would a Godlike of Eothas be like? Unsatisfied with my previous game as a deathlike bleak warden, mostly because there's not nearly enough reactivity to my background (Aristocrat) and the fact that I'm a godlike (not even Pallegina mentions it, it seems; I was hoping to get some extra convo at least, we're both Paladins and we're both Godlikes, what the hell?! Q_Q), and the fact that Bleak Walkers turned out to just be blackguards by any other name, I decided to play a female human priestess of Eothas, to see if I can bro it out with Edér, get some interesting stuff out of Durance (my second choice would've bene a priestess of Magran, a fiery whore), and things like that. It wasn't even acknowledged at the beginning of the game, I was hoping to be able to tell Calisca I was there to spread the faith or whatever, but I'm drifting, I tend to do that, sorry. So I asked myself what a godlike of Eothas would look like, or be. And what happened to them after the Godhammer? I can't imagine that there are any in Dyrwood that wouldn't get constant **** flung their way, but let's ignore that - after all, I should've gotten **** for being a Deathlike, too. And then I asked myself, what would other Godlikes look like? What would they be? What would they be influenced by? Some are pretty obvious, the ones we already have. Magran is a goddess of fire, so, firelikes. Onda, moon and water, so moonlikes. Galawain, which we assume gave us naturelikes, all about the nature (although animalesque forms could also fit Galawain). But how would a godlike of Eothas be characterized? Eothas is the God of Light and Redemption, so.. something sunny that isn't fiery? Abydon, God of Crafting and the Forge? Berath, God of Cycles, Doors and Death? Skaen, God of Secret Hatred, Resentment, and Violent Rebellion? Wael, God of Dreams, Secrets, Mysteries, and Revelations? Woedica, Goddess of Law, Memory, Rightful Ruleship, and Vengeance? How do you characterize a humanoid around the concept of doors, or law? Theories? Ideas?

While we're on the topic, I want to add that it's a travesty that you can't actually name savegames. It's crazy to see in this day and age, especially for a game that had nothing to do with console peasantry.

I didn't mean for a reason, I said for reason.

Kith. Because hell is other people.

If I had the gay, Durance would be my waifu.

What if I'm a fanatic for reason?

As has been said, the 1.03 patch changed the Attributes around for CNPC:s and gave them better ones. Instead of solving the issues with the Attribute system even being so lopsided, they changed the Attributes around even if it makes no sense for the character itself. This change was not retroactive, so if you started a game before 1.03 and recruited Sagani, you're stuck with the pre-1.03 Attributes she had. If you examine the Attributes, you'll probably find other differences. The Wiki really should list both pre- and post-1.03 Attributes.

Eh.. "Good enough"? Well.. I mean, it's possible. It really comes down to what is "enough". With a group, you can certainly complete the game, no doubt. But does dual-wielding beat it by a landslide? Yes. The +12 Accuracy that you gain for duelist fighting isn't nearly enough to compensate, and the One-Weapon Style Talent is utter rubbish - it only happens when something that will be relatively rare to you happens, and the higher your Accuracy gets (and as a duelist, you will want to stack Accuracy, obviously) the less useful it gets. Even if we assume an equal Deflection and Accuracy, Grazes only happens on a roll of 16-50, which is to say 34%. The higher your Accuracy gets over the enemy Deflection (and again you are all about the Accuracy, and have an extra +12 Accuracy to boot) the less Grazes you are going to get. And then, when you DO get a Graze, there's only a 30% chance that it will become a hit (upping the damage from 50% to 100% - that is, to say, a 100% increase to what you should've gotten). Overall, that is pretty damn terrible, when compared to Dual-Wielding and Two-Handed Weapons. No-one has run the math against using a Shield, because obviously, that is all about the defences and will always come up as the shortest.

I've mentioned this myself a few times now, once I realized that it was in the game (it never was a thing in the Backer Beta, because it was capped at lvl . I haven't harped on it much, because I'm actually fairly confident that the developers at some point has to realize that it has to change. It will simply destroy anything even remotely pretending to resemble balance at higher levels, past level 12. Not only is it disproportionate because it represents an unparalleled jump in relative power compared to non-casters, who get nowhere near as many or diverse Abilities, and certainly not as blanket Per Encounter Abilities, but the spellcasters themselves will be at odds with eachother, balance wise - primarily Priests & Druids vs. Wizards. First, some facts for those that do not know what the issue is about: At level 9, all spellcasters (Priest, Druid, Wizard) can use their rank 1 spells 4 times Per Encounter, instead of Per Rest. At level 11, all spellcasters (Priest, Druid, Wizard) can now also use their rank 2 spells 4 times Per Encounter, instead of Per Rest. If you have Talents that previously added +1 Per Rest for a spell rank, that rank now gains +1 Per Encounter instead. This is a crazy jump in power, and if the formula continues like this, it means that, even if we assume that each expansion (two are planned) only increases the level cap by 1 or 2 levels, spellcasters will have 4 Per Rest spells of rank 3 at level 13, and 4 Per Rest spells of rank 4 at level 15. They also continue to progress in terms of Per Rest Spells for those ranks that aren't already converted from Per Rest to Per Encounter, and they continue to get new Ranks. Spellcasters have a theoretical 10 different spell ranks at a theoretical class level of 20 in the system. Nothing is comparable to that. Nothing. There's a good argument that although spellcasters get boring levelups every other level, because they mostly get a new rank of spells and make no real choices except maybe where to place skill points, but there's an equally good argument that spellcasters already have unequalled jumps in power, gaining a flexibility any other class can only dream off in terms of abilities. Most classes gain a new Per-Encounter ability that they can use 1-2 times Per Encounter, or maybe 1-2 times Per Rest. At levle 9, spellcasters get their entire range of spells 4 times per encounter. Put that in perspective. Also, this interferes with some of the primary arguments for ditching the "Combat Only" flags on Abilities and Spells, because that in turn ties into the whole issue on self-buffs, but the reason I'm mentioning this is primarily because that is completely beside the point. I'm lampshading this before it becomes an issue. If we completely ignore the whole argument on "Combat Only" mechanics and pre-buff issues (or lack thereof) this system is still incredibly troublesome. Getting back to Priests & Druids vs. Wizards, Priests and Druids are free to use their entire spellbook at any time, and can pick and choose what they want to use at a moment's notice. This is also part of the problem. When the Wizard gets to level 9, he gets his rank 1 spells as Per Encounter, 4 times Per Encounter. But the Wizard can only hold 4 spells at a time (as a side note, I always thought it was weird that this never ever progressed either, but w/e) per spell rank in his grimoire. He has to choose. Priests? Druids? Choose freely for the entire rank. 4 times Per Encounter. Ultimately, I'd prefer to see different ways to differentiate between these classes; I don't think that this same, blanket system should apply to all 3 of them. Give Priests Per-Encounter Abilities based on their God(ess). Give Druids additional Spiritshifts and Wildshapes. Give Wizards the ability to turn 1 of their rank 1 spells into 1-Per-Encounter at level 7, and then 1 of their rank 2 (or lower) spells into 1-Per-Encounter at level 9 (and up the uses of the rank 1 Per-Encounter to 2-Per-Encounter). Or something. But this thing, this here, like it works right now? God no. Nononononono. Please no. Edit: This is an excellent solution. Priests and Druids do not have spellbooks/spell slots like that, but I would love this for the Wizard. Suddenly one of the slots in the grimoire gets a golden glow, or a new kind of slot opens up, and oh, look, anything in it can now be used Per-Encounter.

Vok, I just want to edit this post and tell you that you're my hero. That is all. Like someone said, that's the hotfix. For reference: 1.03.524 1 is the released game; theoretically, a Pillars of Eternity sequel could have "2", but it is more likely that it'll be counted as it's own project and start from 1 again. Could also be used for expansions. Most of the time, it's not. 03 refers to current version number. This will change with each patch and update of the game, and it follows sequentially. Next patch will be 1.04.###, after that it's 1.05.###. 524 is the daily build number. This changes from day to day and is mostly used for tracking builds internally, by Obsidian. So when there are hotfixes, this is the only thing that will change, because it is not a "real" patch, it is just a fix to the previous patch. This may not always be consistent, because I'm not sure if Obsidian counts days that they're not even in the office (after all, why number a build that you haven't built?). So when the last number changes, you can be sure that it is some very small change, but a change that have been judged very important, or they wouldn't have released it as an update at all.

So... no 1.04 this week? I have this faint recollection of someone saying week of April 6th. They may well change the attribute design, but I can guarantee that might will always effect both physical and magical damage. Muscle Wizards are here to stay, and the game is better for it. The whole Might issue isn't.. *so* grating to me, because it's entirely possible to build a pretty good Caster by just focusing on Intellect and Dexterity instead. I prefer to think that Might is actually tied to physical fitness, and that this has some form of interaction with your soul and the power of your spells or whatever. Makes the whole thing feel like it makes a lot more sense. If they fixed the issues with the Attributes, it would be a lot more viable to make "traditional" mages by pumping Perception, Intellect, Dexterity or Resolve, anyway. What annoys me more in this context is really just that Robes doesn't count as Clothing, for some reason, and thus imposes that nasty -15% Recovery Speed Penalty for practically no reason - and thus any spellcaster I have will always be wearing regular clothes, bar special circumstance (...I wish the Enchanting system was better.. I'm looking at that armour of yours, Aloth). It feels arbitrary and if I'm making a "classic" mage, I'd like them to wear robes, but... no way, why would I?

That'll do, Pig, that'll do.

I am talking about an argument pro-pre-buffer sympathist made to prove that no-pre-buffs in PoE are wrong: because in PnP (in DnD setting) the GM couldn't forbid players to pre-buff themselves. Truth is, you don't pre-buff yourself prior to each encounter - or prior opening every single door - because you can't predict or spot all encounters before they happen and if you do pre-buff youselves like that you're going to run out of pre-buffs and end up being in a worse situation overall, because the GM won't allow you to sleep that often. That's the point I am making. As a largely irrelevant point, I must say that a GM could definitely forbid the players to pre-buff themselves. And if he did, I'd call him an idiot, flip the table and leave the session, but.. actually.. I think I'm making a pretty good point here, nevermind. It's less about them needing pre-buff and more about them being able to as a rule ("In any true RPG I can do this, so I should be able to do this in this one, or this isn't a true RPG" kind of argument). I am not against pre-buffing as such, but I think the game lacks good system to make it more meaningful than just being tiresome for those who use spells left and right. Why? Why would it be tiresome to pre-buff? You wouldn't be able to use more than 1-2 at best, because of the short durations, and you'd not want to do it, most of the time, because you'd be expending limited resources to do it, and if it's not worth your time, don't do it. Even if all "Combat Only" flags disappeared from the game today, it would not alter the way I play the game in any major way. This is partly because nearly all battles amount to tank-and-spank with the tactical depth of shallow petri dish, but at the end of the day it's mostly because I would not want to expend the time, effort and resources it would consume. It's just that whole levels 1&2 of per rest spells for all 3 classic casters in PoE turn per-encounter at levels 9&11. This is a whole 'nother can of worms, really. It *is* however a valid argument, in that it'll give free range to cast rank 1 and 2 buffs at those levels. But as I've said earlier, that system needs to die, it's fundamentally unbalanced and broken, whether we take buffs into consideration or not. Even if we assume that the expansions will add only 2-4 levels, that will give all casters access to four uses of each rank, of any spells of ranks 1-4, per encounter. It's so insane there's no words for it, and it has nothing to do with buffs or pre-buffs. So it needs to die either way, and then it'll no longer be an issue in regards to buffs, either - and at this point, that'd just be gravy.

Hey, hey, hey, hold it right there. That sounds racist and I'm possibly offended. Feel free to read the entry about their name on wikipedia, I did get a laugh out of it I've heard about the band before, but I did actually go to check it out, because I had never put any thought into it before. So been there, done that.

Durance, followed very closely by Edér, with Grieving Mother following at a close distance. Durance really feels like the kind of guy I'd like to just sit down with and drink a beer with.

I wish it would be possible to vote in a scale, because it's not really representative of overall quality when you can only pick one hard answer. I personally feel Pallegina, but Sagani is pretty high too, followed at some distance by Aloth. Then there's a gulch between him and Hiravias, then Kana Rua, Grieving Mother, another pretty big gap, and then Edér and Durance is up there fighting over who should be considered the best. Like some others, I feel that Pallegina feels like a vehicle to make a point or provide setting information, rather than a real character, but I also think that she feels snowflake-y and out of place compared to the other CNPC:s. Sagani is pretty good by comparison, but feels flat and a bit uninteresting. Which is worse is something I think largely depends on personal preference.

Path of Exile: PoX. Pillars of Eternity: PoE. /shrug Really couldn't care less how people chose to abbreviate as long as it makes sense. It's probably always going to be PoE for me. Hey, hey, hey, hold it right there. That sounds racist and I'm possibly offended.

The flawed assumption of course being that buffing is a consistent no-brainer choice that you'll do habitually before any encounter (or any major encounter). Which is of course not true at all, not even in PoE today, even if we remove all the Combat Only flags this very moment, because buffing requires time, effort and resources, same as any other decision. The D&D-style issues of senseless pre-buff upon pre-buff simply do not exist as a problem.

....not relevant to Pillars of Eternity General Forum? Anyway, my personal wish, Alpha Protocol-based game... feat. Archer Sterling.

First, strawman. Second, jokes are part of culture, yes, but attaching the mountainous amounts of meaning to it that SJW:s seem to do is ridiculous. More often than anything, jokes are funny precisely because they are about a subject that is regarded as serious on some level r another. When you say that we can't joke about serious issues, you are essentially saying that they shouldn't be discussed culturally. If we let the offended dictate what we can discuss, what we can talk about, or what we are "allowed" to talk about (whether due to censorship or bullying) no matter the merit of the offense taken, no matter how many or how few are offended, and no matter whether it's context is reasonable or not (such as in a harmless joke) and no matter the intent, then there is no end to the rape train, and we become increasingly culturally shallow to the point of absurdity, something already happening, people reduced to nothing but producers and consumers in a daily hamster wheel, unable to even debate or discuss at the most basic levels, because heaven forbid if someone would make a joke about the womyn at the workplace or that someone would misunderstand you and accuse you of misogyny, racism, antisemitism, warcrimes or identity theft. I stopped reading after about this point. Despite the mountains of complaints by many (women and men), such as astrophysicist Katie Mack, the fact that you can say "no one would reasonably care about" the blatant sexism sure reeks of a lack of empathy. What would you say to Katie Mack face-to-face if you had the chance? That she's unreasonable for pointing out blatant sexism in the science fields? I would tell her to Wo-Man Up. Seriously though, really, you seem to be under the assumption that just because I'm face-to-face with someone, I would have a problem talking to them like a reasonable human being. I would, in fact, not. I'm not familiar with her level of hysteria on the subject, so where it would go from there, I have no idea, but that's really beside the point. She doesn't get an automatic shield made out of implied offense any more than you do. Incredible, though not surprising. I doubt anyone even read the numerous links I've posted of systemic sexism against women in the science fields, which includes plenty of actual sexual harassment, so it's not surprising that you would not be empathetic to their plight, that you would just tell them to "wo-man" up. Spoken like a true individual in a position of privilege. Most of your links you've posted are not actually sources, they're just articles that discusses issues, sometimes from basis of a paper, and invariably from a biased POV. The belief as to whether there is systemic ( ) "sexism" against women in the science fields is completely irrelevant to the point I was making, and you're basically just hurling accusations and trying to deflect whenever anything you say is actually directly addressed. You then deflect again and start talking about how people probably aren't even reading your links about the systemic sexism in the science fields, and then call me non-empathethic to their "plight" because of my "privilege" ( ). By this point, this is where I'd expect all the other people that support your general position would start facepalming and whine "stop defending us..." to themselves. Except that this behaviour is so common amongst self-appointed SJW:s (which I always found ironic, considering that "SJW" is dripping of irony since it's creation as a concept, yet people now wear it willingly like a clown suit) that I honestly would be surprised if your cohorts aren't sitting by the keyboards cheering you on. Ah, ending with more insults, it's a classic repertoire of your posts in this thread, I've noticed. I don't really understand the whole "self-appointed SJW" stuff, as I've never even heard of the term prior to the whole gamergate mess; I'm just someone who is well aware of discrimination and social injustices, having been on the receiving end of it (in real life), and not just of the simple racist name-calling type. Somehow, that I care about social justice, makes me "self-appointed" and to be ridiculed? If you deny that systemic sexism does not exist, or that you do not believe in male privilege, there really is not much to discuss, no more than what a geologist can discuss with a flat-Earth creationist. I only participate in these threads to show, for whoever is reading, that there are people that do care about addressing things like sexism and social injustices, and that *GASP* they're friggin gamers. See, here you are really just doing it again. It is as if you can't help yourself. Well to be fair then... it's a pretty legitimate concern. It's a bitch for you, yeah, but.. you can't blame the doctor for being concerned. Not only from a long line of addictive personalities, but also an addict yourself, you're probably about one dosage higher away from getting addicted to the prescription meds, whether they help or not. Prescription painkillers are ****ing insidious because you need them to function, but you need to up them because you build tolerance, and then when you taper it the pain gets even worse, and bing, boom, enjoy your new hardcore addiction. I do not envy you. D: My own fault, yes--but it was also over a decade ago, now. I've been homeless, I've watched people dealing coke in the parking lot, etc. My life hasn't been easy in the years since then--but I've never smoked meth again. I've never done any drug since then except smoke pot, smoke cigarettes, and drink tea. I haven't even been drunk in almost 8 years. I'm not looking for vicodins from the doctor to get high. If I wanted to get high, I'd go and get high. There's nothing stopping me from that but myself. There never has been. I go to the doctor because I'm in pain, and I don't want to hurt all the time. I go to the doctor because my hand is cramping into a claw and I can't do the dishes. I go to the doctor because I lost three days last week to curling up and crying in my room from a migraine. I guess my question is this: How long do I have to suffer to pay for one year of my teenage stupidity, and the failings of the family I was born into? I get that, I really do, and I wasn't challenging your case at all. But the answer to your question is unfortunately probably "forever". It's cases like this where it annoys me that you can't get medical cannabis in Sweden, because while I have no idea if it would specifically help you, obviously, it's at least only psychologically addictive, rather than physically addictive, and until there's more and better potential painkillers like that, hereditary addictive personality type plus prior substance abuse will always be a legitimate reason for concern, whether you're 21 or 65. But there's a good argument that situations like yours is also a reason why people start self-medicating, which is.. usually bad.

Well to be fair then... it's a pretty legitimate concern. It's a bitch for you, yeah, but.. you can't blame the doctor for being concerned. Not only from a long line of addictive personalities, but also an addict yourself, you're probably about one dosage higher away from getting addicted to the prescription meds, whether they help or not. Prescription painkillers are ****ing insidious because you need them to function, but you need to up them because you build tolerance, and then when you taper it the pain gets even worse, and bing, boom, enjoy your new hardcore addiction. I do not envy you. D:

No, no. No. Not EVE Online. I know I joked about people wanting to put SJW:s into a diesel truck with a reverb exhaust pipe earlier, but not even I would subject them to EVE Online. I stopped reading after about this point. Despite the mountains of complaints by many (women and men), such as astrophysicist Katie Mack, the fact that you can say "no one would reasonably care about" the blatant sexism sure reeks of a lack of empathy. What would you say to Katie Mack face-to-face if you had the chance? That she's unreasonable for pointing out blatant sexism in the science fields? I would tell her to Wo-Man Up. Seriously though, really, you seem to be under the assumption that just because I'm face-to-face with someone, I would have a problem talking to them like a reasonable human being. I would, in fact, not. I'm not familiar with her level of hysteria on the subject, so where it would go from there, I have no idea, but that's really beside the point. She doesn't get an automatic shield made out of implied offense any more than you do. Incredible, though not surprising. I doubt anyone even read the numerous links I've posted of systemic sexism against women in the science fields, which includes plenty of actual sexual harassment, so it's not surprising that you would not be empathetic to their plight, that you would just tell them to "wo-man" up. Spoken like a true individual in a position of privilege. Most of your links you've posted are not actually sources, they're just articles that discusses issues, sometimes from basis of a paper, and invariably from a biased POV. The belief as to whether there is systemic () "sexism" against women in the science fields is completely irrelevant to the point I was making, and you're basically just hurling accusations and trying to deflect whenever anything you say is actually directly addressed. First, you defend SJW:s completely demolishing a human being and his achievements and that you can't understand why people consider this a "lack of empathy and perspective". When you have it explained to you exactly why this is so, why people think that this is a flagrant display of a lack of empathy and perspective, you say that you actually stopped reading, remaining wilfully ignorant. You then start talking about the "mountains of complaints" by "many" - completely beside the point and the answer you first asked for - and ask me what I would tell Katie Mack face-to-face in a discussion on the topic. I indulged you and told you that I would really do no different than I am doing here, I would say that she'd be unreasonable if she considered the bullying of a man due to his choice of shirt, however tacky, at the height of his career and who's contribution to mankind is incalculable. You then deflect again and start talking about how people probably aren't even reading your links about the systemic sexism in the science fields, and then call me non-empathethic to their "plight" because of my "privilege" (). By this point, this is where I'd expect all the other people that support your general position would start facepalming and whine "stop defending us..." to themselves. Except that this behaviour is so common amongst self-appointed SJW:s (which I always found ironic, considering that "SJW" is dripping of irony since it's creation as a concept, yet people now wear it willingly like a clown suit) that I honestly would be surprised if your cohorts aren't sitting by the keyboards cheering you on.