Caerdon

And without Kickstarter there won't be backer NPCs and limericks!

A few random ideas: Cut XP gain by 50% No pet name tag when hitting Tab (the key, not the drink) Give all enemies significant bonuses to 1-3 defenses and 1-3 DR types (so that players really need to pay attention to them) Let me release my pets so they can scamper around within the walls of Caed Nua Fix the custom notes section Fix INT AOE gain so it matches the description and/or remove the added friendly zone and make the area adjustable instead within limits dictated by INT Buff bows Nerf the cipher. Nerf it to oblivion! NEEEERRRFFF!!!

The most important issue of them all.

Do they? Final Fantasy is the only example I can think of.

You don't get any (major) experience from enemies, only from doing quests.

1. Having a 100% larger AOE doesn't really equate to dealing 100% more damage. 2. How is using an intended mechanic, with abilities that were designed with that mechanic in mind, in the way intended by the designers, considered "cheesing"? 1. No, not in the long run. But with twice the area you can often hit twice the number of enemies. And that extra 100% area is friendly zone, which makes using AOE much easier - in fact, that's often what makes using that particular spell feasible in the first place. In my opinion +100% area bonus from 17 INT is just disproportionally huge. 2. ...because it's cheesy? Frankly, I'm not convinced the devs really understood how exactly we'd be using that extra friendly area, so whether it's truly "the way intended by the designers" remains an open question.

I repeat, INT affects AOE way too much. With 17 INT you have doubled the area. That's insane. 17 in MIG would give +21% damage. +100% area is just overkill in comparison. I do agree with Zwiebelchen, though, and I remember that discussion back in the day. Whether by scrollwheel or by dragging, an actual adjustable area within INT limits (either larger or smaller than the default) would be great, and there'd be no cheesing with the friendly area anymore.

Are you talking to me? Multi-classing is a sensible concept. Dual-classing is not.

6% probably wouldn't be too much if it actually increased the area by that amount, but right now the effect is just too much.

During it's 40-year history D&D has come up with an impressive amount of stupid ideas. Of all those stupid ideas only a tiny handful are as ingeniously stupid as dual-classing.

Unity patches are notoriously big even for small changes. Nothing to do with unity. It's all Steam.

There were two main reasons. A) Almost universal move to 3D graphics and publishers' demand of 3D for marketing purposes B) Raising popularity of console gaming and publishers' unwillingness to market PC exclusives That's pretty much it.

It's autopatched, not optional. How many times do I need to say this? It's Steam that does the autopatching, not Obsidian. Use GOG and you can choose yourself whether you install a patch.

Yet it's a completely optional patch.

I don't understand this irrational fear of level scaling. It can be done sensibly. Let's take BG1 as an example. Sarevok keeps sending hired killers after you. He and his forces also have lots and lots of hired mercenaries as underlings and bodyguards. Now, shouldn't your notoriety, your achievements not affect how much resources Sarevok would allocate to deal with you? Of course it should. Anything else would be stupid on his part. I totally agree with PrimeJunta here. A little bit of level scaling on the critical path would've made the whole XP balancing issue a whole lot simpler.

Yeah, that's how it would've worked in IE games (aside from IWD2, or has my memory totally abandoned me?), but why in the name of Eothas would they give you a soloing XP bonus in that case?

I think INT is great for a Rogue at least. Your Strike abilities have a big impact on your total DPS as they give you sneak attack.

Why aren't you complaining about Steam then? In fact, how can a man with your sense of ethics buy anything from a company that patches stuff without you explicitly opting in? Smells like double standards... I got my copy from GOG and neither it or Obsidian have forced me to patch anything, I did that voluntarily. I use Steam because I can buy their prepaid cards with cash and don't have to give my credit card number or info to buy games. GOG needs a credit card. In other words: you're ignoring your ethics for the sake of convenience. Buy stuff from stores where you can pay with cash.

I'm especially curious to know how XP works when you're soloing - I hear there's some sort of soloing XP bonus or something... but wouldn't a solo character already get all that XP meant for a six-character party? Essentially it's +10% for each character slot empty. 5 total = +50%. You gain less total XP from all sources, but it's split between fewer characters, and the net result is +10 to +50% depending on party size. Uh... so, if a quest gives me 600 XP with a six-character party, a solo character would get 100 XP + 50% = 150 XP? Or did I misunderstand something? If that's correct, it seems kind of strange that the game outputs the total amount of XP awarded instead of just the per-character XP, but maybe I just look at things differently than others...

If that's the only way of managing resources you know, maybe you should tune the difficulty down a notch. I don't use ciphers because they're stupid.

Why aren't you complaining about Steam then? In fact, how can a man with your sense of ethics buy anything from a company that patches stuff without you explicitly opting in? Smells like double standards... I got my copy from GOG and neither it or Obsidian have forced me to patch anything, I did that voluntarily.

Wow, is that only with Minoletta's or other projectile spell (like Kalakoth's Minor Blight)? IIRC it works with all single-target direct damage wizard spells, not sure about other casters. No fireballs, unfortunately. Unfortunately I can't remember where it was mentioned... it was some long thread, and there was some rudimentary proof that it seemed to be really working like that. But you might want to test that yourself.

Can't disagree with that, really.

So, I guess it's time for me to repeat my question from the first page: I'm especially curious to know how XP works when you're soloing - I hear there's some sort of soloing XP bonus or something... but wouldn't a solo character already get all that XP meant for a six-character party?

Beside the point. I talked about limits on the mechanics (and the lack thereof), you talk about choosing not to utilize the resting system to the fullest, voluntarily gimping your IN GAME performance in order to avoid OUT OF GAME tedium for the player. Everything I said stands. Yes, I do. And it's an easy choice. If the game allowed me to rest wherever I wanted with no in- or out-of-game cost so that I'd just have to impose limits on myself, then I might complain, because human mind is imperfect and easily tempted. But as it is, the game makes running back and forth sufficiently tedious, that I'm not tempted to rest spam (hell, I didn't do in in BG series either). Therefore I'm "forced" to play more tactically, and as a result, I end up enjoying the game more. And yes, it's beside the point. Because you have no point. You keep going on and on about how the game doesn't put any limit to resting and how there's no in-game cost for resting. Sure, you're right, there isn't. No one cares, you can rest to your heart's desire if you want to - if you're willing to go through the tedium of doing so. And as you're complaining about that tedium, I assume you arent willing? But... that would mean you aren't going to rest spam, so... what was the problem again?