rjshae

*types, types... remembers of Poe's Law... ohh* Tbh, I was thinking it would be nice to have an even higher difficulty, a completely bonkers one. That would feel to a 6-man party, almost as current PotD for a solo. Gimli mode: certainty of death. small chance of success.

Mental handicap parking only...

This. I like to manage whole dungeons without resting at all too. With your limited pool of potions and healing spells. But with this resting system, where a nap heals everything, i'm just frustrated. And the new thing about injuries doesn't look any better to me. I still don't know why they feel the need to revamp the good old health system. Just because it's old does not mean it's bad. Wasteland 2 allows this kind of gameplay, and i like it a lot. Looks like i pretty much play the same way as you. And i loved priests in IE games, with their self buffs and healing spells pools. Potentially they could enhance the Trial of Iron mode to include specialized supplies and talents for dealing with certain types of injuries. That would make the resource management more challenging, while leaving the simplified rest/healing system for the rest of us.

Assuming that this is still accurate, I agree with the portrait change. I really liked the first portrait but it's important to have one that matches the character. She's still perfect and I'm sure I'll come to love the new portrait as well. Perhaps one may even liken her to an elven Morticia Addams? Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc

The walking animation on that dog looks a bit squirrely, as if the floor were too slick.

It was enjoyable to see that lighting enhancement for shadows. Keep up the great work!

The smaller radius will be a penalty either way, and the friendly fire factor will make the spell more difficult to safely position in a melee environment. It doesn't seem very self-defeating. But they could always make it worse by inserting a random targeting error.

People have pet owls?

They still have a form of pre-buff; now it's linked to camping. The developers could expand upon that and allow spell casters to automatically apply long duration magic buffs while they rest. For example, a Wizard could apply a resistance to charm, while a Priest could apply a disease resistance.

This is simply incorrect. It's not about bias or preconception, it's about the literal purpose of stats. They are simply player metrics. Why? Because, well, imagine PoE without any stats, (nothing else added to compensate, just no stats), then tell me nothing would be missing. Imagine that everything's subjective, and there's no objective reason for the existence of stats within an RPG system. Can you tell me what's missing in that hypothetical? Of course you can. Same thing with Might. If I were a developer, and I wanted to quite feasibly take advantage of a character metric that exists within the game world (physical strength), in the interest of creating a scenario in which ONE Wizard might be able to do something that a different type of Wizard would be unable to do, I am unable to do it. In the equation, Might is a big "(X+Y)", and I cannot call upon either X or Y, separately, even though they exist. I'm not inventing muscles or arcane power. They both exist, as dictated by the game. Maybe Might does everything that you and Obsidian want it to do, but that's not the same thing as doing what it's "supposed to." Or, to be more technically specific, the stat system is not doing what it is supposed to do. If you had a system whose stats were only Tallness, Gumption, and Hair, would you tell me that "Meh, if that's how the person who invented it wanted it to be, then it does everything it needs to do"? Would it be simple bias that anyone would have any kind of a problem with those stats, as entire character metrics? I really wish you would put as much effort into actually explaining how the problem is only player preconception as I put into explaining my point. Everyone keeps trying to shoot down this stuff with "Nope, sorry. Incorrect. Also you just like DnD stats too much" or some such nonsense. Just because two things happen to be similar doesn't mean they correlate. I'm not biased against anything. I'm objectively evaluating the stat system as it exists, in the unbiased context of an RPG that aims to do what it is RPGs do. The Might stat (amongst others) have shortcomings within this context, not simply as compared to one or another attribute systems that I just so happen to like. If I like a different stat system, it's because it does a better job of actually providing character metrics that support more creativity in the game world. Not "because it's stat system X." Well, I can't say you actually convinced me of anything with these statements. Take the Wasteland series, which uses an attribute called "Luck". Does it have anything to do with the actual physical attributes of the character? No, of course not. It's a tuning parameter; a hidden attribute. Luck is provided as a random modifier to certain outcomes. People here keep trying to attribute the Might attribute to a mechanical function. But is it? Or is it a value for chi in a world setting with a different physics? Somebody says I want to build a "wimpy Wizard/Barbarian". Okay, call him a wimpy Wizard/Barbarian with poor muscle tone but with a powerful chi drive to propel a great axe or cast a fireball. Or some other explanation. Might can just as well be a tuning parameter. Toss out your expectations and adapt to the setting as it is.

The "problem" with the Mig stat is player preconception. Viewed without that bias, Mig does the job its supposed to do just fine.

One might think of it in terms of Paladins and Priests being ahead of the curve. I.e. they already had subclasses, whereas the other classes did not. Presumably their spell lists will still be changing in various ways, as will their availability.

Mmm, we're gamers. We like to solve puzzles. Get used to it.

Gaming time is limited for us older chaps.

To me it's a wash: Negative: Combat situations will need to be simpler because there are fewer tactical circumstances your group can handle without turning it into a random brawl. That makes it less interesting. Positive: Characters can have more active abilities to fiddle with during combat because you can focus more on each individual. That makes it more interesting.

Perhaps an interesting possibility is that Aloth's cohabitating personality is now expressed as his secondary class, but only if he took the appropriate steps of accepting Iselmyr in the first campaign. Perhaps she's his inner barbarian?

I expect the polling trend to be: more bang for fewer bucks.

There are two characters with Cipher, Fighter, and Rogue classes. Going by the logic that the Developers want variety in choices, I'm going to guess that Konstanten and Fessina won't have those classes. Fessina is dressed like a Priest or Wizard; Konstanten is maybe a Monk or Druid?

I too like the most bang for my gaming buck. I've never spent a dime on small DLCs. When I know there is add-on gaming material coming, that just makes me hold out for the GotY edition, or equivalent. Just sell me the expanded game then get out of the way...

Pillars of Eternity Tactics -- recruit and train your own roving warband then fight for a kingdom through a series of turn-based battlefields on a hexagonal grid.

Possibly a case of putting the cart before the horse here. Did they decide to reduce the party size after these changes... or before?