rjshae

How about: give AV a higher deflection vs. ranged (+30?) and lower vs melee (+10?) scale down the AV deflection by the armor recovery speed Probably getting too complicated at this point.

It sounds like you were mislead my the thread title and so I forgive you. Take care.

Ah, we have a special guest from Trollsylvania.

Considering that they are still balancing the beta builds, I'm not sure this concern will survive the final release.

If nothing else, I have to say that the in-game characters in PoE look vastly better than in the IE games.

Eat sheep and dye [wool], the grumpy Shephard's handbook.

Well it's not exactly for a game, but this Kickstarter might be of interest to sci-fi fans: Save the Sci-Fi: The Next Generation Their goal is to track down out of circulation sci-fi books, clear the copyright, then scan them and make them available as an e-book. They try to do one book per month, and have restored 36 books thus far.

Fair enough. But it's a two per rest, short duration spell that against any decent enemy that has a negligible effect. If you already wear heavy armor and cast AV, things look different though. You might even boost your deflection to untouchable levels. It's I think already a problem, that there are builds with so high deflection that they almost never get hit by certain enemies. To make AV halfway balanced, it should give diminishing returns I think. That is, if your deflection is very low, it should boost it considerably by perhaps 50 points, and if your deflection is high-end, it should only get boosted by perhaps 15 points or so. They could penalize the AV using the recovery speed of the armor worn and explain it away as some sort of interference effect.

All arguments for point-based builds mixed with career starter packages, I'd say.

Yes, I've enjoyed 12 Monkeys to this point. The last episode (when the lab gets attacked by raiders) was the best thus far. I've tried several times, but I just can't seem to stay interested in Helix.

That looks like a 25% deflection improvement; in D&D terms it's equivalent to a +5 AC boost, or better than the +4 you get with the mage armor spell.

n/m

Are you suggesting that this is an EA project? If not, then your opinion doesn't seem relevant.

I'd like to try playing a Fallout game as a super mutant with a conscience; that would create some interesting possibilities.

It seems like a cap on merchant gold could be one of the options for Expert mode. Perhaps it is too late to implement that, so maybe it could be included with the expansion?

I'm not sure their combat skills would necessarily be mediocre, but they would likely go for light armor, fast weaponry, and try to escape or avoid situations rather than engaging in a long drawn-out battle. For soul-based powers, I'd think an adventurer would mainly benefit from very personal abilities rather than ranged attacks or summonings. Thus, enhanced senses, possibly divination, unusual physical maneuvers, and abilities to dodge, deflect, disrupt, or mislead hazards such as spells or traps. Some of that can come from alchemy or unusual weapons.

Exactly, and I think that's a bigger problem than "do vendors have realistic amounts of gold in this game designed around the player obviously selling everything he finds, conveniently, for plenty of cash monies" ever was. Why does found-loot need to be a constant, reliable source of revenue in the first place? I mean, the stronghold management is optional, and it's going to supply money, right? Why not looting pawning? Perhaps because this type of game is placed in a medieval epoch and there really isn't another source of significant funding for peasantry? I mean, the possibility of loot was often a strong motivation for peasants to join a military campaign. We can't really relate because we live in an age of relative plenty compared to the middle ages, and so we have different motivations.

A couple of things I enjoyed from visiting the site: I like the rotating lock maze idea and the in-game backer items. The graphics... well I suppose it's a prototype at this point; but there's room for improvement.

Well at least it was a fun game all the way to the end. I'll bet many non-partisan fans enjoyed it; much more than last year's romp. I still think the Hawks need to work on improving their O-line; that will improve every aspect of their offense, and help them out when they are in the next goal line drive situation.

I'll take a wild guess that DR 10 is the default, and the others are against those specific forms of attack.

collaborative checks sounds bad - idiots with low "lore" can't figure out complicated task - even if there are 6 of them. At least thats my way of looking at this ... Collaborative effort is how a lot of scholarly teams work these days. Everybody brings different strengths to the effort, so the whole is stronger than all the individual contributors working separately. It's not unrealistic to do it this way. With a computer it's easy enough to figure out the effective odds of a skill check with multiple contributors. Just figure out the odds of them all simultaneously failing the check (which is the product of their individual failure odds), then subtract it from 100%. Your high skill character is still going to dominate the odds, but they will receive a small bump from the others. i ment that eg 6 persons with skill level 2 solving task level 12 souns unrealistic - though same ppl doing task level 3 or 4 is ok - read attentively, as we already resolve this xP Fine. If you do the math correctly then the idiots with the low "lore" skill will in fact contribute very little to the effort. But the idiots will in fact still be able to provide the occasional insight that allows a problem to be solved. Even if all they do is suggest something the nudges an idea out of one of the more clever members.

That sounds like it would work for a roll-to-succeed system, but doesn't PoE run more on a X level of skill Y needed system? I.e. if it's a skill check for level 5 and you've got 4, you'll fail 100% of the time, but with 5 or more you'll succeed 100% of the time? You could still simulate it by selecting an appropriate skill range and using that to compute a failure %. Ex: use skill range 20 to compute odds. Character skill level 4: (20-4)/20 = .8; two skill level 4's: .8 x .8 = .64 = (20 - 7.2)/20; thus equivalent to skill level 7.

collaborative checks sounds bad - idiots with low "lore" can't figure out complicated task - even if there are 6 of them. At least thats my way of looking at this ... Collaborative effort is how a lot of scholarly teams work these days. Everybody brings different strengths to the effort, so the whole is stronger than all the individual contributors working separately. It's not unrealistic to do it this way. With a computer it's easy enough to figure out the effective odds of a skill check with multiple contributors. Just figure out the odds of them all simultaneously failing the check (which is the product of their individual failure odds), then subtract it from 100%. Your high skill character is still going to dominate the odds, but they will receive a small bump from the others.