Stun

And in ToEE it was even worse, since some spells and items were complex and they had extra branches of clickable choices in the radial menu. For example, sometimes you found yourself in a situation like this: ^Look at that. This was supposed to be a solution to 'screen hogging' panel-themed UIs that were the standard RPG fare back in the day. Yet it could (and often did) take up the whole screen during tense combat. And for an otherwise stunningly beautiful game like ToEE? Good God.

That's it? A couple weeks? Do it.

Oh right. Because in the classic system where there's only 1 health bar, using healing magicks during a battle never happened. I said this in my first post on this thread and I guess I have to say it again: I found myself needing to rest way more often in this beta than I did in ANY of the IE games. So if "rest spam removal" was the design goal, then Obsidian has failed already.

Do *I* agree? Nope. And that's a loaded question by the way. Aside from Planescape: Torment, the IE games were about fighting. So of course they're going to rely on...fighting, and then the after effects of it, which will depend on how well the player party fought. If they were reckless, or used a dumb strategy, or if they simply sucked ass, then the player will probably look back, after beating the game and say, yes, the game featured an over reliance on fighting, healing and resting. But I don't judge the IE game mechanics on the experiences of crap players and neither should anyone else here. You know, Who cares? This isn't about 'average players'. It's about the mechanics of a game that is very much *NICHE* and NON-MAINSTREAM. The mechanics for such a game should not be designed under the assumption of a significantly large casual player base who will be too lazy to cast heal spells, after engaging in combat which was, to them, so punishing that their toons need an endurance bar as a buffer to their health bars.

They already do? Money management is a complete non-issue in BG1, as there are only 3 items in the entire game that cost more than 10,000 GP and can only be found in shops (Dagger of venom; light crossbow of speed, and the Shadow thief armor) In the meantime, there are at least 2 vendors who sell multiple copies of every wand and every potion. You don't need a 6 pack of Monster summoning wands when you can use one of them 20 times, and then either find another, or go buy 2 more. You can, in fact, break BG1's whole illusion of challenge by spamming vender-sold items. Using just potions, wands and scrolls you can buy from High Hedge (fairly cheap and about an hour after leaving Candlekeep), you can Obliterate Drizzt when your party is only about 3rd level. That is, quite literally, the definition of Broken. Funny though that Bg1 does not have the reputation of being a broken game. I wonder why that is. Perhaps people don't friggin care about its broken economy because they're having too much fun? Maybe?

You must have me confused with someone who thinks a single health bar + healing spells (like how the IE games did it) is an " inherent Problem" that need to be minimized. You would be wrong.

Eh? That's not necessarily true. I've always maintained that Obsidian has a pretty cool thing going for them by making souls be a source of power, so if they *do* come up with a decent in explanation for why there's no healing magic in the game, or why resting is so earth shakingly powerful that no known magic can duplicate its effects; or why minor injuries and flesh wounds heal themselves up in seconds when there's no enemies around, then I'll be ok with the system. Or at least I'll say "well, it's not my preference, but it's a viable alternative". But really, what I'm trying to do is to get people to understand that when developers take a simple and elegant mechanic and make it illogical and multi-layered for no reason but to check-mate bad player behavior, or to introduce an artificial challenge, We all should see it for what it is, and not come up with silly justifications. We KNOW why the endurance bar regenerates and the health bar doesn't: It's josh's solution to the 15 minute adventuring day--and to try and please the Grognards who despise the instant regeneration mechanics in modern RPGs while at the same time pleasing the modern RPG lovers who enjoy the fast-paced, "on to the next fight!" nonsense that games like dragon age, witcher and skyrim have made the norm. Here we have a bizarre system where Both mechanics are at play simultaneously. And we know why there's no healing spells. Josh hates pre-fight and post fight rituals. He calls them "rote". Just as there's no pre-buffing in PoE, there's no post fight heal-casting either, because "waste of play time". That's all I have to say on this beat-up topic.

Resiliency. And pain tolerance that comes from experience. It's no different than how it is in say, Boxing. a top ranked heavyweight can withstand a champion's punches for 12 rounds, while an amateur will probably get knocked out after just a couple of punches from that champion. Not that it matters. in 2nd edition AD&D, a character can, in fact, do 50 points of damage from one sword swing, thus one-shotting either fighter. Now explain to me the miraculous overnight life healing powers of a bed roll and how it utterly trumps the divine power of a 12th level priest of a greater god.

Citation needed? I can only recall Josh saying that there wouldn't be any artificial barriers in place purely to stop you from attempting to complete the game solo. I don't remember him guaranteeing it would actually be possible. http://www.pcgamer.com/pillars-of-eternity-interview-josh-sawyer-on-world-building-magic-psychic-warriors-and-more/#! This is exactly how Bioware's devs answered the the question of "is BG soloable"? No wait. it's isn't. BG1 actually has a load screen tool tip that says "no one class can handle every situation, be sure to use a party blah blah blah". HA. How wrong was that?

Wow! Fixed! Adam, can you run this by Kaz?

Because it's neither as quickly accessible nor does it feel natural and comfortable. Also, it doesn't address the screen view problem that many people tend to complain about (right click on an enemy....and suddenly a giant radial menu pops up blocking your view of the world....right in the middle, even!) I can't stand Wheel HUDs. In both ToEE and Planescape Torment I found myself constantly wrestling with them.

There's a difference between every class being a viable choice for a party slot in any one encounter and one class being the optimal choice for every party slot. Obviously. But what's that have to do with anything? Are you claiming that Wizards in Baldurs Gate were the Optimal sneakers, trap disarmers, lock pickers, healers, archers and tanks?? Regardless, Lets not pretend that PoE will be all that different. Josh has flat out said from day one that PoE will be soloable. And by definition this means that any class will be able to deal with any challenge. So I'm not sure how anyone can argue that the system in place is some radical departure from the IE games. It isn't.

They don't have to be the same mechanics. They're viable alternate solutions to the challenge at hand. Does anything else really matter? Although I do find it odd that anyone would cite the "wizards can do anything" design of the IE games as some sort of "problem" while at the same time praise a system where every class can sneak, disable traps, tinker with locks, etc.

They're supposed to imagine their Roles, and their actions, and their emotions. Not why that tent they rested in for 8 hours suddenly cured all their broken bones when magic couldn't.

In Baldurs Gate, thieves weren't the only ones who could unlock chests. Wizards got Knock, And everyone else got strength bonuses to lock bashing. In Baldurs Gate, thieves weren't the only ones who could disarm traps. Wizards and clerics got summons they could send ahead to detonate traps, And everyone could use Algernon's cloak. In Baldurs Gate Thieves weren't the only ones who could stealth. Rangers and Bards got stealth. Wizards got invisibility spells, and everyone had access to potions of invisibility. Of course, none of this matters, because Baldurs Gate had multi and dual classing, so just about anyone could be a Thief, in addition to whatever other class they were.

Ala the Divinity: Original Sin way. I agree. Love that system to death. It's my preference in every RPG that isn't an IE spiritual successor. For PoE, though, I want things to feel like they did in Baldurs Gate.

No thanks. We shouldn't have to "imagine" or "make up" the game's lore. That's the developer's job, remember? And if they fail, then that's a black mark on the game itself. As of right now, we have no such game world explanation to go by. Instead, all we have is Josh Sawyer's mechanics explanation, which is overly cynical and gamey in my opinion. The reason for the health + endurance mechanic is to simply prevent rest spamming and save scumming via layers of padding and "second chances" (if you go down in a fight you're not dead! you're just out of endurance for a while! So no need to reload! Yay!)

I agree, but this is a semantics argument. One I used to loudly profess before the masses here put me in my place. Sure, fighting style isn't a class, but if you want to go there, Rogue isn't a class either. It's a description given to anyone who 1) doesn't play by the rules (he's gone rogue!) and/or 2) doesn't adhere to the status quo (rogue elements in our society!). It's only D&D tradition that made them a profession, and even D&D called them Thieves initially, rather than Rogues. In PoE, Rogues do #1 and #2. They're warriors who fight dirty rather than traditionally. They're scoundrel-like opportunists who kick others when they're down. Should they be more unique than that? Yes, but if the devs were to make them the only class who can sneak, the only class that can pick locks, and the only class that can disarm traps, then having a rogue in your party will be 'too vital', and I'm pretty sure that goes against Josh's philosophy of "no required party composition".

Gold deflation...broken economy.... So? The game does not require you to play the stock market, or the role of an accountant, or even a business owner. So what difference does it make? I will say one thing about that though. If I'm playing this game, I find myself concentrating more on my finances than I am on...you know, dungeon crawling, exploring, combatting and questing, then I will see this game as a failure.

That's an inventory issue, not a merchant issue. And BG2 had Bags of holding, gem pouches, ammo belts and scroll cases.... while not having any true money sinks, or crafting ingredients that had to be managed. I'm not quite sure how one can claim some giant difference in the end when all the factors are added together and a comparison is made.

I agree. The game is simply better looking than the IE games. I don't know if it's the graphics that make it so, or the art style, or that bizarre hybrid of 2d & 3d, or a combination of the above, but the results are plain and obvious. They nailed that aspect of the game. Period.

...is not what anyone on this thread has said. Or argued. Or suggested. Contrary to the black and white world some people here live in, there is, in fact, a middle ground between a system where merchants sell God-like gear, and a system where merchants sell crap. The IE games hit that spot. And they also had the unlimited merchant gold system. You put these two together and you have a situation where there's no friggin problem that needs to be "fixed".

You mean a mod. Please tell me you're not actually judging BG2's mechanics based on fan mods. Enough of this banal prattle. Here is the actual history of Baldur's Gate 2, if anyone's interested. In the fall of 2000, BG2 was released. There was the standard version and the Collectors edition. The collector's edition featured those two bonus merchants. Roughly 6 months later, Throne of Bhaal was released. It added those two merchants to the main game for everyone. One month after that, the Final patch for BG2 was released. It added those two merchants for everyone who didn't buy Throne of Bhaal and didn't have the collectors edition. And that's it. There was never any 'automatic inventory placement' or 'starter gear' or any other modern day Dragon Age nonsense with BG2. But this is all meaningless. What exactly is your point in citing those merchants anyway? Is it your argument that they somehow ruin BG2 because they add "God Items" to the game that you can buy? LOL Give me a break. Between both merchants and their massive stocks, there are only 2 items (count'em, 2) that can even compete with the vanilla game's better loot. they are: 1) the robe of vecna 2) The shield of balduran. One is a class specific Robe, and the other is a shield with mundane stats (a cursed property, actually) and which is only useful against one type of enemy in the entire game. If this is your case against BG2's merchant system then you've got nothing. No vender in BG2 sells anything even remotely as powerful as the Ring of Gaxx, or the Amulet of Power, or Carsomyr, or Crom Faeyr, or Celestial Fury, or the Staff of the magi or even the Gesen Bow. And that is because BG2 did it right. The best gear has to be fought for. The shops are just there to assist you on that mission.

I have no idea what you're talking about here. BG had DLC? And what Items got put in your inventory at the start, exactly?

<gag> Can we please display a modicum of honest debating and dispense with the worthless straw man arguments? Your scenario featured Armor of invulnerability +10, ie. a theoretical absolute top-of-the-line, artifact level piece of gear. My argument is that such powerful items should never be for sale in a friggin shop in the first place. This is precisely the type of magic loot that a party should have to quest, bleed, or even die for. The purpose of shops should always be: 1) To buy a party's loot 2) To sell consumables and standard class-build based gear (spells; grimoires, crafting recipes/schematics etc.) 3) To sell magic items of moderate to rare power. I'll ask again. What problem? The catastrophic scourge of a high level party managing to have enough gold to buy what they wish to buy in the game? Nope. I don't see that as a problem. Because I don't care if I become so filthy rich that I don't have to worry about insipid, contrived, gamey 'choices' like "should I upgrade my garden, or buy a ring of protection +3!?". If I want a money-management mini-game, I'll go buy Turbo Tax deluxe or something, and then play it. Question: If Hassat Hunter is the only one who hates such a design, does that mean it's a "problem"?