Nixl

Can't believe that I missed this thread. While I believe large changes to priests are unlikely at this point, I hope that more deity-focused spells make it into the game (via expansion, mod, etc). I'll need to give this a try tonight.

The Spanish Inquisition. All priests with red clothing. Alternatively: 1.Priest: dedicated to buffs and damage spells. 2. Priest #2: Dedicated to stamina healing (and more buffs). (can rely of both priests for stamina healing in bad situations). 3. Ciper for master of puppets. 4. Barbarian. 5. Paladin. 6. Barbarian.

I like the music, but some tracks are more subtle and forgetable. The music of the town, however, does give me a morrowind vibe, which I am all for.

Overall, it seems that there is not as much room for builds as I expected, because we can get so much right off the bat. We start off with a lot of points and several classes (priest and mage) have a really broad toolset that covers for any inadequacies. Moreover, with regards to stats, might seems so central. Also, I am not sure this is the right topic to bring this up, but I am starting to wonder if Obsidian could better balance the stats/builds by making stamina more substantial. For instance, let's say that some class abilities costed stamina. Constiution could give more stamina, whereas intellect or resolve could lower the stamina cost of such abilities.

I have had similar issues jde3. It would also be nice to have a better visual indication on the targets (unless I am just being blind).

Yes, I did so with my BB rogue, especially in the Dyrword ruins. I used the rogue to pull groups into another room with the best choke point (so most of Dyrwood ruins lol). That way only two or three could attack my party at a time, and I could maximize Ward Seal/Fireball, since they would bunch up.

I played with a priest on hard. I think the difficulty is inconsistent between enemies. For isnstance, the enemies in the Dyrwood ruins dungeon are pathetically easy, whereas some of the spider groups felt much harder at times. I really hope they up the skaen cultists a little. Although the Dyrwood ruins has more choke points and the spells used were not nearly as nasty as the petrify from the spiders. Another factor is that I think the priest class is actually pretty good. I find that Ward Seal does a very decent amount of damage, especially on choke points. Edit: @Maviarab, perhaps do not send the tank in alone. I think if it gets flanked that is when it will get beat down into the ground. I have had some decent success forming a line consisting of my priest, the BB priest, and the BB warrior. Also, I think the BB priest has a holy might type spell that provides 5+ might and 5+ consitution (not sure why I do not remember this 100% by now). Moreover, the BB priest has ward seal, which I think injuries any enemies that walk over/stays on it. So place a ward seal in front of the tank, where the enemies will definitely walk over. That has helped me, but I admit that I do not have a 100% understanding of this game's mechanics just yet.

The key is in one of the chests, if I remember correctly. It took me a while to find it. Follow through the area after the rope walk/grappling hook. It is in one of the larger, open rooms.

I voted yes for more stretch goals. I am a fan of new companions and new/additional class mechanics or classes (if feasible).

I suspect that I should blame a certain rogue(y) for this one. As far as evil goes, I suspect the main source of "evil" is what you do with your companions more so than what you do in the world. Specifically, I assume that we can push our companions over the edge or sell them into slavery.

My vote goes for Planscape, Baldur's Gate, and Mask of the Betrayer. Kotor 2 would come close as well. For Planscape, I enjoyed the backstories, but most importantly I enjoyed what you could do for the characters. The same goes for Kotor 2. As for Baldur's Gate, truth be told, I disliked or just did not care about a lot of characters beyond their function, (still voted for it lol). For instance, after a while I just could not take Aerie anymore. One exception is Viconia. She was fun to have in a party and I was genuinely interested in her backstory. Finally, I have not finished Mask the Betrayer because of graphical glitches as the text disappears or the text box goes black. The characters are wonderfully woven into the story so far.

Not sure what to think of the information just yet. I keep trying to imagine the system and I just think of RTS games such as Warcraft III. All of the stats went towards something useful (mana, hp, attack/movement speed, physical damage numbers). The stats of the hero did not necessarily make or break an engagement. Instead, the abilities, the choices, and the items are what mattered. This will sound heretical, but I do not think this is an inherently bad system. Ideally, it seems to deemphasize stats and place greater emphasis on how one uses abilities or items. I admit, I have not read every reply, so perhaps someone has a good counter point for why the system is problematic.

And you believe it has potential to be great based on... what, exactly? I've seen lots and lots of examples and explanations of how the system could go horribly wrong, but no examples or explanations of what the system could add to the game: All that the defenders seem to have to say is "You just hate innovation." If I may put forth an example, in System Shock 2 players had to preserve ammo as well as guns because most weapons, aside from the trusty wrench, degraded very quickly and repair was limited. This type of durability added an additional consideration to engaging in a fight. The consideration was that while a gun may end an encounter faster and easier, it meant that you had less options for future encounters. This, in my opinion, is what a durability system could add. Now, I am not saying that System Shock 2 and the system proposed here would have been the same. In System Shock 2, the environment was very controlled, while in PE we will have an open expansive world. In such a world, gold likely will be available in great quanities and depending on how random encounters work, we will always have something to sell. The question/issue is how much extra gold will we have around. Nonetheless, I did think that durability could add an additional edge or survival mechanic to combat if given some more time to develop.

I understand, I hope my post did not come off as "Obsidian can do no wrong," or putting words in your mouth. Certainly not my intention. It would be fair for me to admit that part of my post was discussing responses outside of your post. We are on the same page in that such a mechanic needs to be developed more if it is to remain and feasibly fit.

I believe that it does. On a thematic note, perhaps it comes down to the expectations of the adventure. I assumed that we would venture between civilization and more "savage" or forgotten areas of the land. Hence, I imagine a survival element outside of the cities as if we are re-exploring certain areas of the continent. I think where my argument became confusing is that I prefer durability for the survival aspect of it and not so much the money sink. I know the developers have tied it to a money sink and I do agree with other players that it could be spent on many others things such as fortress upgrades, mercenaries, bribes, ships, etc. Outside of a money sink, I think durability has a place in making game decisions more intriguing.

I can definately see this being a problem if a character has a super powerful item that degrades. If each character has 2-3 weapons or torso armour of relatively equal power it becomes less of a problem. Of course the problem could be reduced greatly if characters could purchase something to reduce decay. What about a follower who keeps equipment in good condition or something like that. I really don't like the idea of continuously having to go back to town. It certainly could be a problem, but I think most people already carry around two or more weapons or at least have access to two or more weapons. That may be presumptuous, but even the most casual player that I have seen takes more than one weapon. ( I realized I just followed an assumption with an anecdote.) Therefore, I do not think of it as a huge issue. I would also pose the question of what if players cannot continuously travel back to town or continuously repair? Would it change the mechanic in your opinion?

The issue is that players don't play that way. Yes, the usual hardcore player will set rules on himself to not go back to town to repair mid-dungeon, but most players will go back every 5-6 battles to repair and restore durability and come back: the very definition of degenerate gameplay. Players will undoubtedly bring several weapons with them and rarely use the most impressive weapon unless needed - and otherwise will use the weapons they find on enemies to fight future enemies. It doesn't play as a tactical challenge as it is currently described; it is only a nuisance and a money sink and nothing more. It is dishonest to portray it otherwise b/c it hasn't been sold to the players as anything more than a money-sink and an opportunity to make crafting more relevant to multiple party members. Thank you for the response. While I understand your point, I respectfully disagree at this juncture. I disagree for two reasons. First, if players are walking around with multiple weapons, which in my opinion most do, then that mitigates repair spam. For that reason, I simply do not see it as a huge issue at the moment. Could it be once we have more information? Yes, certainly yes, but until then I think Obsidian should keep durability. Second, while repairs can potentially lead to degenerate gameplay, I think that there are many more factors that determine degenerate gameplay. Specific to this issue and P:E, I do not think durability in itself is a degenerate mechanic. What could make it degenerate is easy availability of gold, low cost of repair, ease of the fights, and quick travel. Repair spamming is feasible if the convenience factors (gold, etc) around durability make it more feasible than tactics. In my opinion, what makes degenerate gameplay is if the means to skip the mechanic are easier than dealing with the mechanic itself. Take for example System Shock 2, the number of credits, repair kits, and hypos were limited and at times involved risk, especially at higher difficulty levels. I would argue that repair in System Shock 2 was not degenerate, because there was little to no way around it. In contrast, in most IE games one can simply rest after each battle to recover spells. Now, I understand System Shock 2 is in no way similar to how P:E will pan out, but I believe that there is more to gain by having a durability mechanic than without. If it does not pan out, then an easy to install mod can easily fix that. Finally, while Obsidian did unveil this as a money sink, I do not think its applications are thus only tied to a money sink. If durability is a mechanic Obsidian wants to add, it can apply it in a variety of ways beyond money. I think it is simply too soon to say that durability will just fail without giving it more time to develop.

Reading some of the replies off of this site and codex, I like the mechanic even more. I hope that Obsidian keeps it at least at max difficulty setting. I believe Infinitron on codex brought this up, but the durability mechanic paired with a lack of healing options could create some interesting gameplay. Going into a dungeon or an extended journey becomes a battle of attrition where you potentially have to plan what weapons, spells, and consumables that you use. Rather than rely on a single weapon throughout, one may have to rely on multiple weapons to conserve the most needed weapons for later. The right weapon for the right job, which I believe most players do anyways regardless of a durability mechanic. If paired with limited healing options, another reason that I like durability is the potential effect on health conservation. One can use their best weapon for every fight and as a result conserve more health at the cost of durability. In contrast, one can use a weaker weapon to conserve durability on a stronger weapon at the cost of health. I believe that this would be an interesting challenge on a higher difficulty and if this is a goal of the system then I like it. In fairness, I know that some people argue that they do not like having to return to town, especially in the middle of a dungeon. I would argue, however, that is an issue of preparation and not the durability mechanic itself. If one brings just a single weapon to a dungeon, then I do expect some discomfort. That is, if the dungeon creeps do not drop additional weapons, which otherwise would help to offset the issue. Overall, I do not think IE players are foreign to the concept of bringing mandatory equipment to a dungeon or a fight. I think bringing an extra sword or picking up additional weapons to conserve durability adds to the gameplay. edit: I think another possibility brought up is making town visits more significant to offset any annoyance with repairs.

I hope this makes it onto any future update about crafting.

Well, there was the bottlecap mine in Fallout 3 and New Vegas. Edit: And the 12 gauge coin shot from New Vegas that used legion denarii. Cannot believe that I forgot New Vegas considering how much I played it. Kudos to your memory.

Not necessarily advocating this, but we always use gold to buy components in RPGs, but has there ever been an RPG where gold is an actual component? In other words, using gold in ways other than buying. Such a concept is more humorous to me, but I cannot think of a single game playing around with gold outside of buying. (probably for good reason).

Personally, I like the idea of gold going towards crafting, pimping my stronghold, and bribes. I would also like to buy mercencaries, ships, and company/merchant guild, but that is probably going into crazy territory. I would also argue that some of the complaints are in part due to weak balance of gold and other materials in other games. By weak balance, I mean an over abundance to the point of trivializing the mechanic. I think System Shock 2 had it correct. Repair and weapon choice took a role in picking and choosing fights.

Alright, I may be in the minority, but I like durability and crafting. I know that many people will disagree with me, but I think System Shock 2 made item durability matter. Engaging a creature or using one weapon over another was a decision going into each fight that I appreciated. I like the potential for a survival mechanic/theme, but the balance of such is a fine line. The line being, in my opinion, the availability of gold, materials, and weapons. If the player is awash with materials and gold then I feel that the durability requirement becomes trivial and without much meaning. I would like to see upper difficulty levels truly reduce the amount of gold and materials that one can find. That to me, would make the mechanic meaningful. Another aspect to potentially play around with is if certain creatures and attacks had a greater chance of hurting durability.

Why should a person who have dedicated his life to guard a pilgrim road (just an example, i thing a sertain order in the lore was dedicated in something along those lines), have a spesific power to smite undead? By what logic? Also we don't know if PE will have undead, or even if it has them they would be your typical undead. The souls concept can allow them to make an original spin on undead. From what I have gleaned, smiting undead is still a possibility. Every class expresses its soul differently. Paladin's radiate their life energy/soul, which has a perk of empowering nearby living creatures. It could have the opposite effect against undead.

I understand the concern about being a buffbot, but I think the Paladin will be more rounded in the final product then the original post let on. What I got from the dev posts is that Paladins are unique in having auras and other short term buffs on top of melee prowless. Paladins may not have the damage potential (big numbers/crits) of a fighter/warrior, but they are worth having around.