PrimeJunta

Fixed that, plus the bit about hollowborn commonly dying (they don't, however they're commonly killed or abandoned to die by their parents).

You actually did that? You're a horrible, horrible person.

I can do a quick write-up. And yes, all is revealed.

Wraiths. I thought it was a pretty cool twist actually.

This is just a silly argument. You might as well say that AD&D magic is all about the relationship between level and one of the 5 saving throws.

I wonder how that would work actually? The Engwithans had to reduce masses of souls to raw essence and then make the gods out of that. How would a mortal absorb enough souls to get there while retaining any semblance of identity? (Except dragons. They're clearly special.)

The aura burns off headgear. Well-known fact.

Interesting design: Elegant design: I know which one I prefer.

Don't forget the gishy spells. Summon a weapon, pop a couple self-buffs (Deleterious Alacrity of Motion, anyone?), and move over Elric of Melniboné.

Nothing's stopping you from doing that. Why?

Pillars magic does have its problems (specifically, it lacks the depth and complexity IE game magic had at higher levels), but lack of power isn't it. If you think Pillars casters are underpowered (compared to the IE games), you're playing them wrong.

Not this again. The point with a fixed camera is that it removes one big thing to fiddle with when playing. That makes the game -- including combat -- flow better. At least I'm strongly opposed to a rotatable camera in Pillars 2. Whether it's done with prerendered backgrounds or real-time rendering (like SRR) I don't care. Just no rotatable camera. (And before you go, "Well then just don't rotate it," nope, won't work. Levels have to be designed differently for a fixed camera than a rotatable one.)

It's kinda funny actually: when I first played Pillars, I loved the hell out of Durance and GM. However, upon replays, something about them has started to grate. They're out of place, like a Salvador Dali in a Norman Rockwell exhibition.

I figure it depends on the Deflection you're attacking. The extra ACC you get from a single one-hander may make the difference between grazing and hitting, in which case it's better. OTOH if your ACC is comfortably above DEFL, dual-wielding is going to better. On the other hand, in that case you probably won't have much trouble dispatching it anyway. And then there's Interrupt of course. A dual-rapier-wielding unarmored Scaramouche ought to Interrupt like a boss, which would make up for the lower damage. And for the tougher enemies, there's always maces... surprising versatility with the Noble WF actually, especially when you take into consideration the quantity of good rapiers available relatively early in the game.

You do need to use buffs/debuffs against high-Deflection/high-DR enemies. That's what they're there for. Standard attack alone won't cut it against them.

They will do a sequel. And yes, it will be a patch nerf/nuke fest for a very long time. As to being a mess, that would only continue a fine high-level D&D cRPG tradition.

Yes, they did. AD&D2 rules are a really mixed bag though. On the one hand, they don't make any kind of mechanical sense, they're full of entirely arbitrary "hard" restrictions, and a lot of the mechanics are unnecessarily complicated and confusing (THAC0 for example -- you can get exactly the same result with much simpler and easier to understand arithmetic). On the other hand, by the time BG2 rolled around, they were immensely rich. All the spells, items, classes, kits, and what have you gave them a depth and breadth that nothing else since has quite managed to achieve.

I've done that, and I agree that the game is too easy. Still don't agree that casters shouldn't be allowed to use ranged weapons. It's enough if non-casters are significantly more effective with them. They are. Try an all-ranger party. You'll faceroll the game with select-all and auto-attack, except for one or two encounters with ogre druids and such.

I really liked/like Pillars too, and from where I'm at it bears comparison with the IE games very well. Among them I'd rank it below PS:T and BG2 but above BG and IWD/2. I still think the medium has potential for so much more though, and hope this mini-revival we've been seeing is here to last and not just a flash in the pan.

Ciphers are murderous with ranged weapons. Very High accuracy + Biting Whip + the rest of the stuff equals a lot of owie. Durance is pretty handy with an arquebus if you take the WF and the Summer Flame special plus supporting talents, but he's too busy casting usually to have time to do all that much damage. Wizards are pretty good with implements if you build them that way. Rangers, though... I've played a bit with them lately, and have warmed up to them a lot. Having that handy no-strategic-cost meat shield can be really useful, and coupled with the consistent high range damage they do, they're not half bad. Built up and played properly I've found them both effective and fun, at least as much as the casters. (Of them, I think the cipher needs most work -- at least I end up just spamming one, two, or three abilities.) Bottom line is, I don't agree. I think the ranger is pretty good as it is now. The rogue and the barbarian OTOH need work. I'd rather take any other class than the rogue, as things currently stand, and I'd rather take on a monk, paladin, or fighter than a barb.

^ What he said. Ideally, they would do to P:E what Chris Avellone did to the IE games when he made Planescape: Torment. I.e., take the mechanics and engine and do something really new and really cool in it and with it. This is the one thing that's been bugging me about the whole "old-skool" revival: everybody's still very caught up in the spiritual ancestors, so that they don't dare to do new stuff with them. I really like to play top-down isometric party-based cRPG's. There's no reason the game content has to be dwarves and elves and swords and sorcery and evil antagonists and deep dungeons and ancient dragons. Not that there's anything wrong with those, mind, but we've seen plenty. So how about something new people? These are relatively low-budget games, there should be scope for a little risk-taking. Who knows, it might even pay off!

Combat can be highly stressful. Maybe it had a heart attack.

You're not. If you do WM 1 early, late game will be sleepwalking. To make it even more so, do the Endless Paths immediately after. This is why I'm not a big fan of drop-in expansions like this. They wreck endgame challenge (or force heavy-handed level scaling).

Could be any of several reasons for this: * Not enough armour-penetration -> use Penetrating Shot, Vulnerable Attack, armour-penetrating weapons like estoc, mace, stiletto, pistol, arquebus etc., or attacks that do Raw damage * Not enough base damage -> buff Might, use higher-damage two-handed weapons, use talents which boost raw damage, use higher-quality weapons (Damaging, Fine, Exceptional, with Lashes etc.) * Not enough Accuracy against Deflection, resulting in Grazes rather than Hits or Crits -> buff Accuracy directly (Zealous Focus, priest buffs etc.) or through Perception (items, buffs), use Accurate, Fine, or Exceptional weapons, use spells/damage to debuff enemy Deflection Bottom line is, you won't get far just by select-all and auto-attack, you need to understand what defences you're attacking, and then buff your attack, debuff the defence, and use attacks which actively counter the defences.

Perhaps it was natural causes?