Elerond

I would guess that they have plans to add more, but they aren't currently very high in to-do list for artists.

They could use exploration xp for that, by awarding player xp if they reach the room/whatever is behind the locked door/trap field/etc..

Difficulty level is different from game mechanics in that way that it changes how rules and mechanics in game work and so creating different challenge for the player Players can challenge themselves by deciding not to use certain mechanics or rules that developers are given them, but that has little to do with developers letting players to do what they want and more that developers didn't offer enough challenge modes for players. Selecting higher or lower difficulty level isn't as itself way to play game in more or less efficiently, but it can change what is most efficient or lest efficient way play the game. And in my opinion player electing not to use some mechanics in the game don't make original design better even if it makes game more enjoyable for the player.

Right now, from what I tested yesterday, you can put 4 enchantments on a weapon (armor or shield). The "Exceptional" is a single enchantment. I need to verify if the DT Reduction count has one, I don't remember. So you can add 2 more enchantments on that Estoc. Also, the enchant button on the weapon always show up, you need to go in the enchant panel to see that you can't put more enchantments on a weapons and try some enchantments (nothing is telling you that you reached the max anywhere). When I try enchant it, the known recipes list don't show +weapon mods selection, so I can't add any enchantments on it. Same thing has happened also other equipment that should be enchant-able, which is I think it is bug, but I can't be sure as I don't know for sure that I should be able to enchant it (and those other items).

I find it bit strange that you can enchant that Exceptional Estoc, I think it is bug also but I am not sure.

Save-scumming is not problem as itself, but it can become problem if using save-scumming is most efficient or in worst case necessary way to play the game, then one could argue that there is something wrong in how game mechanics are designed, especially how rewards and punishments are designed. In WL2 it is not necessary, main quest cannot be stopped by a random roll (outside of combat :D). It is not necessary, but in many cases it is most efficient way to play the game, because of high reward for successes and heavy punishment for failures design ideology that game uses. But save scumming is not necessary problem in WL2, as game is designed so that players can save-scum if they want, meaning that it's feature that designer of the game were fully aware of and decided to included it any way, so it is intended feature that is purposefully included in the game, so its existence is problematic only if it makes game feel less fun to play, which is thing that depends on individual that you ask about it.

Save-scumming is not problem as itself, but it can become problem if using save-scumming is most efficient or in worst case necessary way to play the game, then one could argue that there is something wrong in how game mechanics are designed, especially how rewards and punishments are designed.

1. And that is still OK if you can also finish the game without everyone using ARs.3. No there are no such doors/containers. Everything can be passed in multiple ways. I would say that shooting twice per turn with end game sniper rifles using head shot with 100% accuracy is much more effective than using end game assault rifles with burst, as sniper can single shot most of the enemies quite far away.

E3 video showed that there is background specific choices in conversations, but in interviews developers said that background choices don't lock out any content (quest/items/etc.), but they give player ability to have personalized character, meaning that those background specific conversation options are there only for roleplaying purposes, like for example player can tell npc where their character is originating from and what they did before they joined doomed caravan, etc..

I disagree because in this point because BB_Fighter does fine with 1H weapon. Constantly over 30 points damage per hit and weaker enemies he slaughter with ease as you can see from my screen shot, where he uses that default axe which he starts with.

I would say that fighter is most OP class in current build, here see for yourself

yup, you are correct if goal is to get same actual change instead of just setting 30% relative difference between attribute values and then adjusting base values according to that. For such goal they should use formula like "damage/healing base value * (1.2 + might bonus)" which would give out exact same numbers than previous version.

I would say that it depends how you want look at it. Difference in between might 3 and might 18 is in both cases is 30% (0 as zero point might 3 gives character +6% and might 18 gives character +36%, 10 as zero point might 3 gives -14% and might 18 gives +16% ). So in that sense it cosmetic change. But if base values in game aren't changed accordingly then there will be changes in in final values of things in the game. But one could argue that base values are actually interdependent thing from attribute bonuses, which can be adjusted independently to change balance in the game. So ultimately you can say that change is cosmetic or that it isn't cosmetic and be right depending on how you want to look at it.

I think helmets could be changed so that they give +1 - +2 DT and -1 - -5 to accuracy. Which gives them role that isn't fully cosmetic but don't make them too overpowered.

Pathfinder added active abilities through feats.5e added fighter subtypes where some are passive and some have active abilities so they catered to both type of players. OE can do the same. They can, but is there any more compelling reason to do so than catering hypothetical groups of players that may or may not exists in meaningful scale? Meaning is there some reason from point of view game mechanics or gameplay that would be better with such approach instead of going with quite low maintenance (singular active ability and some modal abilities) build that can be made more high maintenance with feats by adding more modal and active abilities, even though current set of feats don't yet convey this fully (but at least it is or has been the plan to give fighters such feats)? So is the point that fighters should be even more passive in their basic build or do you only feel that there isn't enough feats that give fighters more active abilities? I feel PoE should give its backers a way to play the game similarly to IE games where some classes were very low maintenance while also providing active abilities for newer players. It does not need to be through feets but through multiple choice of class abilities during level up. So you feel that fighters (and some other classes) in PoE are currently too high maintenance by default?

Why effect in the game is not good enough? Because effect isn't as massive as it is in AD&D. And I would point out that when you calculate average damage increase caused by might in combat compared to AD&D you should also take account factor that character's in PoE do damage with their attacks more regularly than character's in AD&D, because default hit change is higher in PoE.

It's not cosmetic. The attribute bonuses have been nerfed through the roof. Previously 18 Might gave you +36% damage, and changed your Morningstar damage (base 18-28) to 24.48 - 38.08 Now 18 Might gives you +16% damage, and you get 20.88 - 32.48 Pretty big difference. 18 Dexterity used to give you 18 Accuracy, now 18 Perception gives you 8. And so on and so forth. If something didn't change in Obsidian end after discussion in attribute thread it should have been only cosmetic change, but they may have forgotten or not have time or wanted to adjust every creatures' and characters' stats in world lower but haven't made all the changes yet or maybe wanted to rise relative power level of some creatures and characters, hard to say when we don't know what their intentions behind changes are. I would say if they would disclose their intentions we could give more accurate feedback how we feel about how well they have succeeded in those intentions, but maybe their intention is just to adjust numbers around until most of the feedback about them become positive/accepting/something like that.

Pathfinder added active abilities through feats.5e added fighter subtypes where some are passive and some have active abilities so they catered to both type of players. OE can do the same. They can, but is there any more compelling reason to do so than catering hypothetical groups of players that may or may not exists in meaningful scale? Meaning is there some reason from point of view game mechanics or gameplay that would be better with such approach instead of going with quite low maintenance (singular active ability and some modal abilities) build that can be made more high maintenance with feats by adding more modal and active abilities, even though current set of feats don't yet convey this fully (but at least it is or has been the plan to give fighters such feats)? So is the point that fighters should be even more passive in their basic build or do you only feel that there isn't enough feats that give fighters more active abilities?

It is minor

Wizards are somewhat good in 301, but I think they need bit faster casting or their spells need their power tuned up little bit. Of course we don't currently see one of wizards major advantages in BB, which is versatility in their spell list and ability to switch grimoires in middle of battle to get access spell that are better suited on your needs.

Chanters have healing aura that constantly heals your party

Wasteland 2 Hookability: Very Hooking, I can play over 12 hours long sessions Lastability: offers over hundred hours of gameplay Entertainment value: I find game to be very entertaining Heartstone: Heroes of Warcraft Hookability: I find this game very hooking as I find myself to return to play it day after day Lastability: I have clocked over 300 hours, so... Entertainment value: I find this to be more time spending game than entertaining. Godus (beta 2.x.x) Hookability: I find game to be quite hooking, but also good background game as it don't need constant watching Lastability: Currently I have clocked over 400 hours, but as I run it in background that isn't necessary that impressive Entertainment value: I find game to be surprisingly entertaining even though gameplay has lots of waiting build in it. Divinity: Original Sin Hookability: I find this game to be only mediocre hooking, as my average game sessions with it are only 1-2 hours long Lastability: Game has lots to do, but currently I don't feel that I will play more than one playthrough Entertainment value: At it best game is very entertaining, but it also has some low points that bring my enjoyment down. Watch_Dogs Hookability: At begging game is promising, but then it loses it appeal, so I would say that overall hookability isn't very high Lastability: I didn't finish the game and probably will not finish, so I would say not very high Entertainment value: At first very entertaining then it becomes chore and loses all it entertaining value Heroine’s Quest: The Herald of Ragnarok (release date 25.12.2013) Hookability: I find game to be interesting but its hooks don't bite very deep Lastability: I played game about 10 hours, so quite short Entertainment value: It brought up all Quest for Glory nostalgia that were buried in me, which made game very entertaining to play Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance Hookability: Game wasn't for me Lastability: Can't say, because of previous point Entertainment value: I see why some would find game entertaining, but for me it was not Titanfall Hookability: Game wasn't for me Lastability: Can't say, because of previous point Entertainment value: I see why some would find game entertaining, but for me it was not

All classes were designed so that they have useful role in the combat. Priest were designed to be support characters, which is role they do quite well in my opinion, even though I feel that chanters and paladins are better choice for support character, because of their passive de/buffs, where priest is much bit too high maintenance support character for my taste. But I have find out that with my play style priest is most effective when I use them as debuffer that makes rest of my party much more deadlier. Healing spell I have find out to be somewhat useless, because I don't usually need restore endurance to any of my characters before fight has ended and then endurance regenerates in seconds to full.

Whiners be whining. EDIT: also, how is a post from the devs on the official forums NOT hearing from Obsidian directly? seriously guys... They are KS backers, so I would guess that they would like to get news about delay in KS update instead of this forum. And I can't fault them doing so as PoE is KS project and major information such as delays should be given for backers in KS updates. Although I believe that next KS update will include that information and forum message was to give backers that read this forum heads up about delay.

She is writer of those comics not the artist, although I don't think she has anything against art that were used in those comics, but my point is that she isn't one that decided how the characters look in those comics..