rjshae

- "I came here to sell my junk." - "Sure, let me see your junk first." Okay, just call them "Sundry goods" then.

I came to like the Dragon Age 2 approach of just calling the extra stuff "junk". They can just give us a pile of junk and let us sell it for some nominal sum.

I resolved by media install issues with Windows 8 by grabbing a copy of the downloadable GoG release. I can't vouch for that approach with Win10; it seems to work fine for some folks on Win10, and fail miserably for others.

Sorry you feel that way. It's just a bunch of folks expressing their opinions. Nothing to dump on really.

I partly agree in that the attributes could potentially be re-tuned to have a bigger impact, say by doubling all of the modifiers. It's unclear what sort of impact that would have on the game balance though, and it may put in too much incentive to min-max. Personally I'd prefer that they re-work the skills to allow us to better differentiate the characters.

So in other words: you don't want to play a game, you want to play make-believe. You can do that if you want, but don't expect others to take your views on character building seriously if that is your aim.There has to be a balance reached between the two. Average player (aka majority) is gonna fall in the middle on this. they want to role play and play a character ideal but still want to be effective, gameplay wise, without having to get too deep into (or worry about) the math and mechanics. My point being, what would be some exceptable middle ground changes that arent pure role play or pure power gaming? Thats where I have a hard time thinking what could be changed to make it better overall. Yes, I tend to build based on the character I want to play rather than for power gaming purposes. My geeky power gaming "munchkin" itch has long since been sated and now I prefer flexibility in design. A less optimal but more interesting character is simply more enjoyable to play. Unless one is playing with an entire party of custom characters, creating your PC purely for power gaming purposes isn't going to make a major difference anyway. You're just one-sixth of a team made up of mostly pre-built, non-optimized characters. Right, but this is a forum that largely caters to the power gamers, the people that want to know exactly how things tick. Going "well I don't want to power game!" here is kind of silly. Who cares what "average" players want? Give them an "automatically assign stats" button to go with the "level up automatically" option and they can focus on having fun. Pathfinder is not somehow hostile to roleplaying and "just want to have fun" players that don't obsess over eking 5% more throughput from their attributes, despite being a "Wizards must have Intelligence" system. You'd simply have an interface that goes "Strength is necessary for Fighters, Dexterity and Constitution are recommended!" and that would make everything accessible and simple for regular players (along with "suggested feats" buttons like we got in KOTOR 2 etc.) I'm not even talking about min-maxing when I say every build needs Might and Intelligence to be good. I don't min-max any of my characters. Doesn't make Might and Intelligence any less dominant. No, this is a General Discussion forum. It's entirely appropriate to discuss how supposedly "non-Power Gamers" want to play. How anybody wants to play PoE. You're also completely missing my point. It's about being able to enjoy PoE with multiple different build types, not how do you build the Wizard who can deal the most dps.

Right. I'd expect that a Wizard trying to create a new spell would depend heavily on Intelligence. And the one who reads it doesn't rely on Intelligence? Or do the stupid Wizards just point their finger at pics on the page like a tourist with a menu and then "stuff happens"? Why can't Ciphers or Rogues cast spells from Grimoires if you don't really need to understand the complex formulas? It's like they wanted to change the Wizard class from established fantasy norms just to be different and it ended up a nonsensical mess. When they could have called it a Channeler and done anything they wanted without raised eyebrows. Welcome to a different fantasy world with different fantasy rules. It doesn't have to satisfy any "norms" except its own. Perhaps Wizardry in Eora is like playing a musical instrument, in that it takes endless practice to master and become part of the muscle memory. That's why Ciphers and Rogues don't just pick it up. However, it takes a rather different type of mental capability to write a good song than it does to perform it. So it is with Wizardry spells.

Right. I'd expect that a Wizard trying to create a new spell would depend heavily on Intelligence.

This pretty much sums it up. In DnD, when you look at the stat spread of a character you can imagine what they are like. In Pillars, when you look at the stat spread you can see micro modifiers to other stats. D&D: You're a wizard 'Arry, so you *must* have high INT, or else you will suck bigtime. PoE: You're a wizard 'Arry, so you *may* have high INT, but don't be so hard on yourself. Don't get me wrong, I just think not every system has to duplicate one another. Frankly, I respect them both. If Wizards are presented carrying a big book wherever they go and spells are complex magic formulas in that book.. yes, all Wizards must have high Int because their approach to magic is scientific. An 18 Might, 8 Int blaster Wizard carrying a fancy grimoire seems more like a parody. "Unlike priests and druids, wizards do not personally shape the magic that is released. Instead, their grimoires' spell pages do most of the work. The wizard's specialty is in understanding how to help the magic flow in and out of the grimoire without going haywire."

So in other words: you don't want to play a game, you want to play make-believe. You can do that if you want, but don't expect others to take your views on character building seriously if that is your aim.There has to be a balance reached between the two. Average player (aka majority) is gonna fall in the middle on this. they want to role play and play a character ideal but still want to be effective, gameplay wise, without having to get too deep into (or worry about) the math and mechanics. My point being, what would be some exceptable middle ground changes that arent pure role play or pure power gaming? Thats where I have a hard time thinking what could be changed to make it better overall. Yes, I tend to build based on the character I want to play rather than for power gaming purposes. My geeky power gaming "munchkin" itch has long since been sated and now I prefer flexibility in design. A less optimal but more interesting character is simply more enjoyable to play. Unless one is playing with an entire party of custom characters, creating your PC purely for power gaming purposes isn't going to make a major difference anyway. You're just one-sixth of a team made up of mostly pre-built, non-optimized characters.

Huh? Still trying to wrap my head around this surreal statement.

This pretty much sums it up. In DnD, when you look at the stat spread of a character you can imagine what they are like. In Pillars, when you look at the stat spread you can see micro modifiers to other stats. Because Wisdom is so much clearer than Perception or Resolve?

These type of threads would not be common if Pillars' system wasn't broken. It's functional, but that's about the best that can be said for it. There's clearly a reason Obsidian are putting a sizable amount of effort into tweaking and revamping the character creation system for Deadfire. These types of threads are common because it's common that some people have very strong opinions about their ideal system (that is as old-school as ADnD most of the times). The team is putting time in perfecting character creation but the stats is not something that will change much (if any), as Sawyer himself mentioned. There are plenty of spells available that mostly deal damage and/or have effects that last for a short duration. These are going to be least impacted by a low Int. To me it's mainly a matter of tuning your spell selection to your attributes. Low Mig/High Int: go for Aoe spells with long durations; High Mig/Low Int: targeted spells with short durations; Low Mig/Low Int: maybe jack up your Dex and Per, focusing on rapidly spamming a target with damage spells. Or: don't skimp on the only two useful stats in the game since there is no build where being deficient in one is better than being good in both. Low might and int - your spells do **** damage (and your auto attacks), have tiny AOE, reduced duration. Three casts of minor missiles will do about as much damage as one cast from a high Might build. Three casts of Fireball will do about as much damage and cover as many targets as one cast from a high Might, high Intelligence build. Oh, you pumped PER instead of MIG or INT, for that pathetic ACC bonus? Cool, my high INT build just pops a +50% duration Eldritch Aim and has more ACC than your PER build while also having larger spell AOE and duration. So remind me again why dumping INT or MIG ever makes sense? Note: I removed the condescending and insulting statements from your reply. Your argument applies purely to power gaming. Other approaches that make sense are cases where the player wants to play a particular build that isn't tightly wrapped around that narrow power gaming concept. Let's call it "role-playing". Players do play the game that way, and the attribute system makes it viable.

I don't know that I'd call it dishonest, but it's true that the motivations in tabletop versus video games are quite different. They have to be since a tabletop game hides a lot more of the information and is generally more flexible and unpredictable.

This is an illusion, though. Wizards pump INT here just as they do in D&D. Look at the build lists and look at how many Wizard builds involve maxed or at least strong INT scores. Look at how many Fighter builds involve maxed or at least strong MIG scores. No, that does not demonstrate it's an illusion. The attribute design was intended to make multiple possible builds be viable. The fact that many player's Wizard builds involve high Int does not disprove that. It only shows that a high Int Wizard is what many players conceive of as a "strong" Wizard character. What would demonstrate it is an illusion is several playthroughs using a low Int (but otherwise well-designed) Wizard, which all show it is a piss-poor non-viable character. Yes, and a low INT Wizard (just as a low INT virtually anything) is a piss poor non-viable character in Pillars. Compare a character with minimum INT to a character with maximum INT and tell me there's not a massive gulf in strength and usability. INT controls too many core elements to be anything but a god stat for basically every character (doubly so for characters who use a lot of spells... such as Wizards!) A Wizard with low INT will have spells which are effectively single-target when they should have a small AOE, will have DOT's and debuffs that last a couple of seconds when they should last several, will not be able to substantially benefit from short-term buffs like Eldritch Aim, etc. I swear, time after time, all these people acting like Pillars doesn't have god stats and dump stats just must not have ever really paid any attention to the system or tried a variety of builds. Once you start doing that it becomes immediately obvious that Might and Intelligence are the best stats, and stats which EVERY class and role wants. It's absolutely no different from classes having assigned primary attributes in D&D. It just gives the illusion otherwise. It may help if you looked at this issue from a different angle. The point of the attributes system in PoE is to allow multiple different builds to be viable. That does not mean that every attribute needs to be equally weighty to each class. Indeed, every class has a few slightly more favorable attributes and a few less favorable. So what? The point is you can still build a decent character even if you don't max out those favored attributes. Regardless of whether Might and Int are the marginally better stats for a Wizard, they do not limit the types of builds you can have. A player can build a playable Wizard with average to sub-par Might and Int, if they want to focus on a different play style. Does that make sense? If you want a properly balanced attribute system, you play Champions and accept the extra complexity. It isn't needed for PoE.

I held off on finishing my last playthrough because I didn't want to undergo the final now-pointless boss battle again. I wonder if that means I won't be able to import that character into PoE2?

There are plenty of spells available that mostly deal damage and/or have effects that last for a short duration. These are going to be least impacted by a low Int. To me it's mainly a matter of tuning your spell selection to your attributes. Low Mig/High Int: go for Aoe spells with long durations; High Mig/Low Int: targeted spells with short durations; Low Mig/Low Int: maybe jack up your Dex and Per, focusing on rapidly spamming a target with damage spells.

iZombie is back up and running. Seems like Seattle may become the first zombie nation. The fix for that, of course, is more coffee.

Now all we need is to clone a Megalodon so we can strap the frickin' laser to its forehead.

This is an illusion, though. Wizards pump INT here just as they do in D&D. Look at the build lists and look at how many Wizard builds involve maxed or at least strong INT scores. Look at how many Fighter builds involve maxed or at least strong MIG scores. No, that does not demonstrate it's an illusion. The attribute design was intended to make multiple possible builds be viable. The fact that many player's Wizard builds involve high Int does not disprove that. It only shows that a high Int Wizard is what many players conceive of as a "strong" Wizard character. What would demonstrate it is an illusion is several playthroughs using a low Int (but otherwise well-designed) Wizard, which all show it is a piss-poor non-viable character.

It might be entertaining to have a few characters that speak the common tongue poorly, but can communicate well in certain regional dialects. If you share a common background then you get the full interaction with more options, and you receive a reaction bonus of some sort.

If they are going to develop another game set in the Forgotten Realms, I'd rather see it based in a whole new locale. How about letting us explore Algarond or Chondath, for example?

I just tried working an example. In D&D v3.5, a +2 Con adds a +1 to hp total. For a fighter, a 1d10 hp/level gives an average of 5.5 hp/level. So the +1 hp increases the total for the fighter by about 18% for a +2 Con. In PoE, a +2 Con gives a +10% health and endurance. It's similar for Str and damage: +2 Str increases long sword 1d8 (~4.5) by +1, for a 22% damage bonus. In PoE a +2 Mig gives a +6% damage bonus. To me it looks like PoE has scaled attribute impacts back by roughly half or more. But that may be to balance out lack of level scaling for spell damage, as well as other factors. I think we would need to look at the entire picture.