Luckmann

You mean tolerated by a vocal minority. Just because you call it "vocal minority" does not make it so. If the fanbase is anything to go by, it's pretty far from a minority of players - but obviously, a fanbase is not representative of the entire player base. It is much more likely that the vast majority does not give a **** either way, either because they don't care or because they never even noticed. This is pricesely why it wasn't included in the patch notes. If they knew it would be widely accepted, it wouldn't have made a difference, but by not including it, they saved themselves from the flak they would get from people that aren't already aware of it.

Got it, it's good to know that as long as it's a joke, it's never offensive to anyone. Let me brush up these racist Mexican and Asian jokes that I saw on the internet and tell it to my Mexican and Asian co-workers tomorrow. I'm sure they'll be perfectly fine with it, because you said so. Depending on the nature of the joke, yeah, they should be, unless they are part of the perpetually offended, too. I've known a lot of people that have had no problems with making jokes about them. 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.

You have really strictly limited combat items. You have an unlimited stash -- which affects nothing in game balance but convenience. Not true. The Unlimited Stash is definitely affecting the game economy and incentivizes murderhoboing. That said, the "Combat Only" items are at least twice as ridiculous as the "Combat Only" Spells and Abilities. ^ this, exactly. BG/BG2 fights were "cast all prebuff spells, attack, move to next encounter, repeat" Not only is that not true, but a more important point to be made is that this is not an Infinity Engine game, and is not bound to the rules of any edition of D&D. As was settled earlier in the thread, the fact that there were issues in BG/2 does not mean that the same issues have to exist in PoE. It is not an all-or-nothing situation. This entire argument that keeps being repeated is a false dichotomy and argumentum ad.. mechanicum?

Those charts actually exist because the pain cannot be measured, or verified. It's all subjective--what you say is an 8 might be a 5 to somebody else, etc. There is no "pain unit", no discreet measuring system. There is no way to objectively quantify pain. Yep. This is, incidentally, a large part of why people with chronic pain issues have such a hard time getting the regular medication they need without meeting with suspicion that they're junkies or the like. It's a pretty serious problem that leaves many people suffering needlessly when their doctors won't believe them on what they're experiencing. This is true. My fiance has Ehlers-Danlos syndrome; her main symptoms, beside dislocating joints and such, is simply severe chronic joint pain. I have a badly healed boxers fracture on my right hand and chronic arthritis in all of those knuckles, along with migraines. Both of us have real problems getting the pain medication we need because of this very issue. Can we turn this into a "fun with physicians" thread? You can't get the medicine you need because they don't believe your pain is as bad as you say, and I'm getting constantly increased dosages of prescription drugs that have no effect. 288mg (36*8 ) of Concerta/Methylphenidatehydrochloride per day? And another 40mg (4*10)of Ritalin/Methylphenidatehydrochloride on top of that? Sure, can I have a Pez dispenser with it? I prefer Cherry and Lemon, Strawberry is scrub tier. I didn't, but it's funny, because I've never identified as a GG:er. So you're saying that we should all just accept an obviously transmisogynistic poem in the game, despite the fact that there are trans individuals playing the game? That ought to make it welcoming for said trans players. Or that it's perfectly appropriate for a high-ranking scientist present for a monumental, historic moment to be wearing attire that portrays women as sex objects, despite the documented misogyny that already discourages women from entering the science fields? That must make women comfortable working around you! And somehow, those who point out such sexism are depicted as having a "lack of empathy and perspective" by apologists such as yourself. Please do enlighten me. No, I think he's saying that it's not obviously "transmisogynistic" at all. Because it's a joke. And if you are offended by it, whether you're a "transperson" or not, you're being ridiculous. And I think a lot of people agree that the shirt was inappropriate. But not because it's "sexist", or that it portrayed women at sex objects, because it wasn't, and it didn't, but because of the high-profile nature of the event. Inappropriate? Yes. The reasonable thing would have been to send a mail, saying, "Hey, your employee's doesn't really convey a professional attitude in casual attire, even if I realize that they tend to be experts in their field not usually working with the public, and thus not accustomed to presentations of this kind, so you might want to think about that in the future", not bully a genius-level expert in his field over Twitter and Tumblr until the point of crying due to wearing a tacky - not misogynistic, not sexist, not oppressive, not offensive - shirt. A shirt he wore because he wanted to show off something a female friend of his made professionally, because he was proud of her and she was proud of her work. To even argue that this was not the lowest point of feminism in the history of civilization really underlines the sheer insanity SJW:s tend to exhude. It is utter lunacy to even defend the whole thing as warranted. Meaningless, pitiful, pathethic SJW:s without anything better to do decided to crush one of the brightest minds on the planet over a perceived slight, at the peak of his career, at the event of what was his life's achievement, the culmination of decades of study, years of work. This is exactly why we hate SJW:s so much. This is exactly why people want to cart them off and put them into the back of a diesel truck with a reverb exhaust pipe. That is the lack of empathy. That's the "somehow". Because that's what happened. Somehow, pointing this "sexism" out - which no-one would reasonable even care about - and bully a man to tears, was more important than appreciating the work done, the advancement of civilization and technology, and the cultural impact of the context. And that's the lack of perspective. SJW:s are the blindest, most deluded people on the planet, and I would rather support a somalian warlord than SJW:s. At least the somalian warlord can blame circumstance, SJW:s are ignorant, pathethic, soulless, vindictive, delusional and violent little ****lords by choice.

If they actually cared one way or another about the little war you are trying to instigate here, they would lock this thread. They locked like 5 of these threads if not more, if anything they realized its kind of pointless by now. So yes, of course they care or at least cared. THey will lock this one eventually too. Alright, I've pretty much fallen out of the thread by now and haven't been keeping attention, the only reason I popped in was because of some Likes, and I decided to check the last page real quick. Saw this, and.. ...let's be clear on something. The Obsidian boards (seemingly) have a great deal of autonomy, and while this does not mean that moderation is not always the most reasonable thing in the world and is sometimes hamfisted or seemingly arbitrary (The two warnings I've gotten on my lifetime on these boards were.. weird).. the mods do not jump and snap to it at Obsidian's beck and call. I also have a personal belief that this is actually why Sawyer stays out of these forums, because they are a largely uncontrollable environment, even to him. Whether this is because Obsidian actually doesn't try to micro-manage, whether due to company culture or policy, or because the moderators are stiff-necked in relation to the slippery slope of overzealous authority, I don't know, and I really don't care. I think they let these things live out of principle, and don't lock them down because they're "pointless", but when they're actually breaking the rules, have reached a point where they're entirely off topic, or they've reached the post limit (I think that's 20 pages). I may not like all moderators, and some of them may seem moodier than others when it comes to this or that, or certain topics (which they more often seem to stay away from, probably so it doesn't drive them insane; or have their emotions mess with their moderator duties - which is actually pretty professional and reasonable). In this ****storm, let's just get it clear that the moderation on these boards is actually overall great, especially as far as official boards go (Bioware boards entering what amounted to a complete lockdown when Dragon Age 2 was released comes to mind; and I will never forget losing all my phat lewt and DLC:s when getting banned on the boards after the whole Epic Community Event thing when I called Ray Muzyka a hack). So no, "they" likely wouldn't lock this thread, whether they care about "the little war" or not. It's left open, because, it's, like, a free country, man.

You. It's you. You are starting this ****. In every thread. You are not addressing your phantom enemies somewhere off on Twitter. You are ****ing with other fans of this game. You are drawing in ideological concerns where none belong. You are a pain in my ****ing ass. Boo hooo. QQ Seriously though, get real. I didn't bring it up in this thread more than I bring it up in other threads, which is not at all. But I take issue with ignorance wherever it shows it's face or raises it's voice. You, on the other hand, have a total of 151 posts, of which at least 24 are directly or indirectly related to this, just since March 31st. I didn't look further back, because any earlier and it starts predating the debacle. So, yeah, relatively speaking... *cough*

If it doesn't affect firearms. And it doesn't affect crossbows or arbalests. Guess that the answer to your question is.

I hate you so much.

I would generally advice against both Constitution and Might on a Tank, but in this case, if you're set on Moonlike, definitely Might. I would still advise maxing Intellect and putting the rest in Might in this case, though. Even if Might is better for you than for most tanks, Intellect is still better (as always).

We should do fandubs and put it up on YouTube.

...how? I have never been able to name my saves.

Somebody made a feeble, old joke. Someone else came along and said "that's pretty offensive, could you fix it?" And then the GG crowd -- not understanding or caring how such a joke could be offensive -- comes along and decides that being offended is the worst possible thing a human being can do. It's not reasonable! It's crazy and we shouldn't cater to it! It's censorship! It's fascist! It's the thought police! It's a conspiracy of people trying to exercise their power over others! it's blowing things out of proportion! How dare someone be offended at a joke? It's literally going to cause the collapse of civilization! And now we're taking offense that someone else is offended! Such a shame that Pillars of Eternity is completely ruined by the removal of a lame limerick and society is going to go down in flames. You're basically arguing that Rosa Parks should have shut up and stayed in the back of the bus, because she literally ruined buses for all the white people who they really belonged to. Gandhi should have just let Britain rule India. Ditto for American colonists. That dude in Tianamen Square should have let the tanks roll on. Women should never have asked for the right to vote. Slaves should have just kept their heads down and their mouths shut. "Lesser" people should never stand up for themselves. ...except this isn't anything like that. It's people asking "could you not make stupid jokes about us? Otherwise we might not buy your game and might make some angry posts on Twitter." And for this you think they're "crazy" and keep starting new threads to whine about it after it's already done. This, Bryy, this is hyperbole.

My suggestion will always be "go with what fits your character", but I'll be honest in that when it came to that choice, I had no idea how to interpret the binding/repairing the rope, either. After all, the Steward is tied to the Stronghold, and she's doing fine. If he's tied to the Stronghold, he will also not be reborn anytime soon, which could be a blessing to someone like him. But it could also be sentencing him to eternal torment and servitude, never-ending madness, chained to a rock while experiencing your previous lives over and over. Letting him go seems like a pretty neutral or good-ish thing to do, but the other two are pretty questioanble, morally, as to whether they're good or evil or whatever. It's very unclear how it happens or what the effects actually are.

Guttural? That's just offensive! D: (It's 17:00, it's noticeable that you're finnish.. or.. you know.. living in Denmark)

No.

That's because that used to be true, before.. well.. nerd-dom, for lack of a better word, became a viable platform to politicize. Now it's targeted left, right and centre by nutjobs that never had an interest before you could use it to push doctrines en masse. But it won't. I'm suspecting that they'll let it fly for another month and then they'll start bringing down the hammer on the whole issue, which will just make it worse and then they'll firmly entrench themselves and then they'll be bought by EA and folded into Bioware. Or, you know, two out of three. The point of the feigned offence is to make you understand that the situation is unreasonable precisely because any number of people can be offended by any number of things, and anyone can feign any form of offence. I'm offended you don't recognize my right to identify as an apache attack helicopter, and demand that it is included in the game. This should not have to be spelled out to you. Okay you didn't seem to read my whole post about if you say something is offensive there needs to be context So why are you offended that an apache helicopter isn't in the game ? There must be a valid reason if you say so ? You see my point, so that was a silly and irrelevant point you made I did not say context. I said merit. I'm not offended by the fact that there are no apache helicopters in the game, I'm offended by the fact that I can't choose one as my gender, you cisgendered apachephobic scum. Check your privliege, you cannot possibly understand what my people go through on a daily basis. Anyone can be offended by anything, and anyone can feign any degree of offense over anything, or even be offended by proxy (as often is the case). It is not reasonable to accomodate the perpetually offended, because there's always someone offended by something, somewhere. When there is no intent, and no merit to the basis of the offense, it cannot and should not be taken seriously, just like you aren't respecting or supporting my wishes to be heli-kin.

If you read my post carefully you'll find that I'm actually just explaining why people are offended, I am not stating that their system of thought is unquestionably correct. I'm not asking you to dismantle it or prove it wrong. I am explaining that it exists and that people adhere to it, and that is why they are offended. You can't disagree with the fact that it exists - this is self-evident, as the products of it is the only reason we are talking about this in the first place! The adherents find the joke damaging for reasons they consider to be legitimate, and their reasons are very different from the conservative censorship (i.e. Tipper Gore/Dead Kennedys album cover, DH Lawrence/obscenity charges etc.) framework in which people are offended by dead babies or whatever. If you think they are the same, you don't understand the framework itself, which means you're arguing without knowing what you are talking about. That was my original point. I do happen to agree with these thoughts of social justice, though, hence my statement that I also want **** like this gone. I don't want people thrown in jail over it, but I do think people should think twice before casually making jokes that contribute to a culture of oppression. This really just supports the statement that the ones that are offended are being delusional, rather than reasonable. We shouldn't take delusional people seriously. The reason they are offended is irrelevant, unless there's any merit to the claim, and if there isn't, the fact that they are offended should be treated with due ridicule. "I'm offended" isn't a good enough reason for anything. I find your suggestion that I need treatment insulting. Furthermore, why should I alter the forum on my end, when it's clear that someone else is the cause of my distress and it's obvious that all that needs to happen is for them to simply change their avatar? @rheingold: why do you insist on distressing me? Please, change your avatar. The irony here is palpable. This is wonderful. I think it's pearls before swines, though, RottenBrain. The point of the feigned offence is to make you understand that the situation is unreasonable precisely because any number of people can be offended by any number of things, and anyone can feign any form of offence. I'm offended you don't recognize my right to identify as an apache attack helicopter, and demand that it is included in the game. This should not have to be spelled out to you.

That would really just mean that someone higher up in Obsidian is also a perpetually offended idiot that goes around looking for malice where there is none, and seeks to take offense by proxy. It is true, what you say, of course, but that's really beside the point. It just means that the mental rot is severe - it wouldn't really make anything better. Worse, if anything. Until proven otherwise, I prefer to believe that, taking into account that nobody is perfect, most people at Obsidian are reasonable, thinking individuals that sometimes makes mistakes, just like the rest of us. At least until proven otherwise. I talked to a professional microbiologist once, and she was dumb as a sack of bricks. Arguing with her felt like driving over her with a truck. It really wasn't fair. Most academicians I've met are delusional, rather than intelligent. Education is not a substitute for thinking, although of course, it's best if you do both.

Awesome argument, bro. See, this is the problem here. It's impossible to prove a negative. A thing isn't a thing just because you say it is. Just because you're offended does not mean that the rest of the world will bend over for you, or that that offense is even worth considering. The perpetually offended actively look for things to be offended by, often by proxy, in order to validate their pitiful existence or whatever gaping hole they are feeling where their soul should be. Your issues are not for the rest of the world to have to deal with. Just because you have issues, does not mean that the world is out to get you. The level at which social justice warriors find non-issues and blow them out of proportion is not reasonable by the measurement of any thinking individual. It is comparable to a paranoid schizophrenic insisting that we help him evacuate the first floor of all buildings, or the gremlings will get him. Or someone with OCD insisting that we cover up the lightswitches in all public locales, because otherwise he'll have a problem going there. It is not the world's job to cater to every single brand of crazy all at once. We deal with the default ones and the serious ones, the rest is just incalculable and unreasonable. Intent and effect are at the core of all issues; the intent here is clear, it is not in question, because there was none, and the effect is incalculably insignificant to the point of not being measurable, and the claim to effect so flimsy it hardly can be substantiated by anything other than someones bruised ego and the feelings of someone that goes through life looking for reasons to be offended, defining their existence as "the other". And in a way, I guess they are "the other", in that all other people have settled down with the radical idea that the vast majority of people couldn't give any less of a **** about them unless you insist on pushing yourself onto them. Which probably ties into the reason as to why they feel this incredibly urge to do exactly that, or they'd fade into the irrelevance all individuals share. Boo ho. Exactly like that, yes. Except not sarcastic. And also the fact that I don't actually hear anyone use it as an actual pejorative, but /shrug. Either way, nope, couldn't give any less of a single f***.

Why? Beastiary XP is a great mechanic. It allows me to skip some fights that I already figured out anyway without missing much, but still incentivizes me to at least check out the content once or twice (I regard battles as content). There is no point in battle repetition. Dragon Age was incredibly terrible because of this, forcing the same battles onto the player over and over and over. It's great that PoE allows me to skip some battles without making fighting utterly pointless at the same time. Because it completely misses the point of Goal-Oriented Experience, the point being that it is intended to incentivise the seeking of solutions and allow the developers the freedom to design a wealth of different scenarios that can be solved in any number of ways, whether it's talking, sneaking, murdering, stealing, completely avoiding area X and instead skip to area Y because of reasons A, B, C, or anything in between. The fact that it would make the balancing of experience much easier is really just gravy, and something players can largely ignore, but is probably valuable from the POV of the developers. Clearly they have a hard time balancing experience anyway, after all. Bestiary Experience is de facto Murderhobo Experience, except it's capped after a certain number of kills. And the fact that they compromised on this issue indicates that they wanted to appease both parties, and the fact that they still included Trap and Lockpicking Experience indicates that they never understood on what basis people argued for Goal-Oriented Experience to begin with, because you've essentially transferred the issue of murderhoboing as the most default solution and applied it to traps and locks. For example, it is now in your best interest to not pick up keys. Why? Because you want to lockpick the doors, not use the keys. It is also in your best interest to return to traps you have previously found, yet been unable to remove - there's a ton of experience waiting for you in the first dungeon of the game, alone. And forget about finding alternative solutions, walking around the trap, or even throw one of your party members at it to spring it, that would just be crazy talk, and you'd lose out on experience. Had they understood the issue, they would either have disregarded Bestiary Experience and just opted for Murderhobo Experience - because why not? - or they would've not included Bestiary, Trap or Lockpicking experience at all, and left the decisions as to seeking the solution to the given scenario up to the player. Now, as I have mentioned before, there are other issues at play here, such as loot (why wouldn't you murder everything just for the loot when you can, anyway? It's not like you're limited in what you can carry), but that really just reinforces my belief that the whole thing is sorta half-assed.

Doesn't matter. It's Mechanics. Only Mechanics. Also, you need to be in Scout Mode to detect both secrets and traps.

Don't be ridiculous. It would never have been changed if Obsidian wasn't pressured into doing it and the person in question weren't contacted. He shouldn't even have been asked to begin with. This argument of yours would only have merit if the content creator would not have been pressured and would willingly contacted Obsidian by himself. I've never even heard the "SJF" term. I don't find them offensive, mostly because I'm not a nincompoop walking around trying to find things to get upset over, but I do find them ignorant, since SJW crazies, vagrant Tumblrites and the Twitter lunatics are rather far from being fascists or national socialists, and I think that using these terms further dumbs them down into meaningless, contextless slurs. There are specific things that defines these ideologies and social movements, and it shouldn't be used as slurs. I think the term "Social Justice Warrior" is degrading enough, since it's absolutely shock-full of sarcasm, positively dripping with irony. There are more constructive and fitting labels to apply to them, rather than to tack on what can by now only be described as meaningless nonsense, such as "idiots", "lunatics" and "crazy f***s". And if we feel the need to be more colourful, that's really beyond the scope of the board and topic. Hee's my take on it: Jokes undeniably help create cultural attitudes and cultural understanding, this one is a reflection and a product of a cultural understanding of trans* people. It falls in line with the long-standing trope of representing trans* people as "traps" (the only other variety found in popular media - until very recently - was the psychopath, think Jame Gumb in Silence of the Lambs). This is a harmful stereotype because it contributes to a culture of ignorance and transphobia, perpetually casting trans* people as weird and dangerous, defined essentially by their sheer perceived weirdness and their perceived goal of tricking straight people into ****ing them. This is part of the reason why transphobia is so common and certainly part of the reason why the attempted suicide rate for trans people is at a mind-blowing lifetime 41% (!). You can disagree with this, of course, but there is a logic to the "offendedness", whether you like it or not. I don't want jokes like these gone because I am personally offended, I want them gone because they has a real detrimental effect on the lives of real human beings. Except, of course, that it doesn't do anything like that.

That's funny, because I'm probably the one on the boards that would be the quickest to say the exact same thing. In this case, it really boils down to me enjoying durability and attrition mechanics, as well as extensive crafting systems. Your argument is just as applicable to the resting mechanic as it is to a durability mechanic, by the way; you either buy "boring consumables" to rest in the field, or you "treks back to town" to rest. At the end of the day, individual mechanics do not make a game, but the gestalt of the mechanics do. Sometimes even two good mechanics can make a third one, that would've been good on it's own, bad. For my sake, they could've introduced starvation mechanics too. Think or die. It's not made "for most people". It's made for what really is (or was) a pretty niche market, precisely because mass appeal is dependant on the lowest common denominators, appealing to the most base instincts possible. Also, this is basically argumentum ad populum.

... which I appreciate a lot, for RP reasons alone. The difference between Beastiary XP and trap XP: While the former is a compromise towards the pro-combat-xp-crowd, nobody and I mean literally nobody ever asked for trap XP in the first place... This is something the devs and devs alone insisted on having. Which ties into my belief that Obsidian never seems to have understood the argument between Goal-Oriented Experience and Murderhobo Experience to begin with. They seem to just have seen people requesting X or Y and been like "Eh, whatever" and then do their best to appease both, without really making a call based on the arguments.

Well the key reason most people don't understand why the perpetually offended found it offensive in the first place was probably primarily because it wasn't offensive at all. I think that's the key reason.