rjshae

I'm curious about the interpretation of this Kind Wayfarers' restriction. Does it apply to every creature that is not immune to sneak attack? Or are there particular creatures that are especially vulnerable to a sneak attack?

In terms of discovered grimoire, having the ability to merge spells from various different grimoire into a single grimoire may help alleviate the concern over unusable spells for the wizard subclasses.

Presumably the buff to spell power will provide an assist to low Might Wizards. It wouldn't take much: +15% damage is equivalent to +5 Might. There should still be plenty of spells available for Wizard subclasses. However, I think where a big problem will come up is in acquiring grimoires from subclass wizard specialists; many of the spells (~40%) will be unusable.

They've posted all of the subclasses. Goldpact Knight is a Paladin subclass. No "Knight" fighter subclass though. https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/93848-update-40-multiclassing-part-ii/ "Fighter Black Jacket - Bonus weapon proficiency, reduced Recovery when switching weapon, but lacks Constant Recovery. Devoted - May only be proficient in a single weapon. Higher Penetration and crit damage with that weapon. Suffers Accuracy penalty when using other weapons. Unbroken - Bonuses to Engagement and Disengagement Attacks, but lower Stride. Really? That seems like an odd omission. Perhaps they'll add it in later?

We've seen mentioned the arcane knight, ghost knight, and goldpact knight. Will there be a knight subclass of fighter? That is, a fighter that follows the chivalric code and is skilled in the weapons and armor of mounted combat.

A couple of points: 1) There are no required stats. 2) Ignorance does not make one stupid. One can be a highly intelligent barbarian and still remain ignorant of civilized ways. I suppose to the naive that could make the barbarian appear stupid.

Fire on the Run -- an enhanced version of Marked Prey. The ranger fires at the marked target while moving, but suffers an accuracy penalty while doing so.

This setting doesn't have much in the way of Cure Health potions, so I like to think of the "camp supplies" as a logistics marker that's a stand in for providing whatever perishable healing broths, balms, and medical aids you need to cure their ills while the party rests up and recovers. It's not really a set of twigs and logs. It could easily be made much more complicated by providing specific supplies for specific injuries, but why overcomplicate the process and make it more tedious?

*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.