Epsilon Rose
-
Posts
160 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Epsilon Rose
-
-
Give both Flames of Devotion and Lay on Hands at level 1.
Merge Flames of Devotion and Lay on Hands under a 1/encounter umbrella. (Using Flames of Devotion will eat into the usage of Lay on Hands and vice versa.)
Call the umbrella "Zealous Flames". (This isn't needed, but think about renaming Lay on Hands to something else befitting the name of the umbrella, like Flames of Perserverance. "Lay on Hands" is more of a religious phrase that seems out of place for PoE's martial zealots)
Increase Flames of Devotion to +100% Burn Damage as a baseline. (Because of the nerf from 2 per encounter to 1 per encounter)
Remove Greater Lay on Hands talent.
Remove Intense Flames talent.
Add a new talent that increases Zealous Flames by an additional +1/encounter.
This is minor buff, a major buff, or a horizontal change depending on how you look at it, but the most important thing is that it increases the amount of thought put into utilizing a Paladin as early as level 1.
You would have to think about bursting an enemy down at the start of a fight (that may not hit at all), or saving it for an emergency heal (that will hit).
Given their dearth of active abilities, I'm not sure combining two of their primary actives and then reducing them to once per encounter (or twice with a talent) is a good idea. When the flames/hands are out, the paladin loses a lot of its flavor and even a large boost to attack will lose it's relevance, at later levels, when compared to abilities that can be used more frequently and/or against more targets.
-
Which is why it can't be generalized to other parts of game play. All you have shown is that you can kill an ogre without being hit when using interrupts. You have not shown what happens without interrupts, though you have asserted it many times, nor have you shown what it likely to happen in other situations.It wasn't a "test", it was actual gameplay.
No I/they wouldn't. We're talking about wolves here. They'd disintegrate on first contact and, even if they didn't, most of the classes have plenty of per encounter abilities I'd use long before spells.The difference in your "wolves" example is that in one of them, someone from your party will be taking damage. Or someone in your party would have spent one of their limited spell allotments to produce the same result that interrupts will give you for free.
That was the second set of tests from AFTER you complained about him using cheats to hold the other stats constant and demanded "normalized" stats. So, yeah, at this point you're a liar and a troll.From the same post you quoted:
"This first screenshot shows a stat spread of 19 might, 19 dexterity, and 10s in everything else:"
"This next screenshot shows a stat spread of 19 dexterity, 19 perception, and 10s in everything else:"
In other words, Perception was not the only stat he was modifying. That's twice you've accused me of being a liar. You are now on my ignore list. Don't bother replying.
-
We already know from ruminate's testing and general experience that the 100% won't hold up. Your incredibly brief "test" does nothing to show otherwise.Because they are both number that you pulled out of thin air. 100% of 6 possible hit or 100% of 600 possible hit = my squad taking 0 damage because interrupts. I have no idea how many swings that ogre could have *theoretically* taken. I have no idea how many of those *theoretical* swings could have been *theoretical* hits. I probably have some idea of how much damage those hit would have *theoretically* done, but none of that matters because none of those swings...ever happened.
You have yet to produce a single screenshot that shows what you need to and that is a comparison of situations, not you simply killing a single enemy. I could kill a pair of wolves and show there's absolutely no difference between interrupts or no interrupts and that wouldn't be compelling either, but it would be the exact same as what you're doing.No, that's all you care about and I can't figure out why. Like, I've said, it doesn't matter. And I've posted 3 screen shots tonight showing that it does work in practice. Are you not seeing them?
Because *he said* he was changing all the stats. He named the stats changed and provided values. Did you not read the post? Might want to know what you're talking about before you accuse people of lying.
I have 3 might, 18 constitution, 100 perception, 100 resolve on one screenshot.
I have 3 might, 18 constitution, 3 perception, and 100 resolve in the other.
Actually, not only did I read them, but I double checked them before posting last time. Don't worry, this time I've actually quoted the posts and helpfully color coded and emphasized the stats. He did change the stats between sets of trials, but he wasn't directly comparing results from different sets, so that's not actually a problem. So, are you being incompetent or purposely lying?You do realize there is a 97 point stat difference between 3 might, 19 dex, 18 con, 100 perception, and 100 resolve vs. 3 might, 19 dex, 18 con, 3 perception, and 100 resolve, right?
You do realize that letting a fight run its course with those stats is meaningless, right?
-
How does going from 100% to 17% not matter?A) I'm not comprehending it because it isn't important. Like, at all. You are fixated on a number that doesn't matter.
First, none of those effect attack speed, which is not d100 based, and that's all we care about. Second, if you run enough tests random variables smooth out. That's basic statistics. Third, the quote is cute, but not terribly relevant seeing that you have yet to prove it works in practice.B) Everything is random. d100, baby. You cannot reproduce results between runs. You have attacks, and all the messy ancillary things that go along with it (i.e. miss/graze/hit/crit, additional effects, saves, etc) going on for 7 different different actors. Economist have a saying, "yeah, it works in practice, but does it work in theory". That's you in this conversation. I've shown that it does happen. You're debating it as though it's up for discussion.
A large enough stat change will easily override the d100. If any result, from 1 to 100, results in an interrupt than the d100 doesn't matter. Also, I'm not sure where you got that he was changing all of his stats, but it's patently false. He listed the stats he used on the previous page and the only one he changed was per. At this point, either you aren't reading what's been written or you're purposely lying. Regardless, even if he was changing all of the stats, that wouldn't force you to change all of the stats in your tests.C) Yes, you can use cheat code to juice one stat, but that still isn't going to change that each encounter is going to be random (see B). Side note: this was the flaw with what's-his-name's thing: he wasn't changing one stat to see how it would effect outcomes, he was changing all the stats. No controls. Too many changes in variable to determine causality.
You have yet to show this in an even moderately convincing fashion and you have consitently dismissed all evidence to the contrary without even addressing it properly, except for the instance where you addressed it in a blatantly incorrect and possibly dishonest manner.Hey, if you don't think that being able to lock down an enemy without wasting spells is a big deal, that's fine. I don't think you gain much by trying to argue that it doesn't happen when it clearly does.
-
@Epsilon Rose, you keep repeating the obvious while somehow missing it at the same time.
Yes, it's a delay. It has always been a delay. The screenshot shows that you can...DELAY...enemy attacks until they are dead. It can't move until it's action timer has run down. It can't attack until it's action timer has run down. Interrupts keep adding time to that action timer. I call that lock down. You call that whatever you want.
@Kaigen42, 1) I don't have video recording software 2) even if I did, a video wouldn't satisfy what he's looking for: a view of an alternate reality where the interrupts didn't happen. I can't show how many attacks didn't happen because they never happened. You can't prove a negative. Lastly, you can't force interrupts. You can only create an environment is which they are more likely to happen.
A) Showing that you can interrupt something and kill it before it gets an attack is not useful because it doesn't give us information on how many attacks it would get without that interrupt. This is incredibly important information that you don't seem capable of comprehending. Allow me to illustrate: Lets say, without you interrupting, an enemy can normally get in 1 attack for every 5 of yours. With constant interrupts it gets 1 attack for every 6 of yours. That's an improvement, but over the course of a long fight it's only ~17% less incoming damage. However, if you can kill your test monster in only 6 hits then what you'll see is 1 incoming attack in the first case and 0 in the second. Now your test reads a whopping 100% reduction, far more than that piddling 17% a longer fight would yield.
Now, if you could guarantee every fight would be over in 6 hits or less, this would be accurate enough and your hypothesis that interrupts==lock-down would be a good approximation. Unfortunately, stronger enemies and bad rolls exist, so you won't always be able to guarantee a kill between 5 and 6 hits (at <=4 hits or 7 hits interrupting and non-interrupting will look exactly the same), which means your results won't accurately describe many situations and interrupts won't act as lock-down.
B) Seeing as this is a video game, it's actually very easy to generate a "Parallel" world where something different happened. A quick save/load before your test would be more than sufficient, particularly if you ran more than two trials.
C) Similarly, it is also trivial to force interrupts/non!interrupts. Interrupts can be forced by using the cheat console to massively increase your per, as it has no other effects on your attacks. Non!interrupts can be forced by either using the console to drop your per to zero or simply standing there and doing nothing (if you're measuring enemy attacks in a time frame, rather than enemy attacks per your attacks).
-
That would be a good test. You'd need to be able to ensure that you don't die in the first test or kill it in the second and both trials would need to go on for a substantial amount of time.Look, this is a case where you're either going to need to record a video, or Epsilon Rose is going to need to test it personally to satisfy. Achilles has shown that you can use interrupts to keep an enemy from getting an attack off before you kill it. Epsilon Rose seems to want to quantify that in terms of how many attacks you prevented with interrupts in the time it took to kill the enemy. Since the combat log doesn't have time stamps, the only way to demonstrate that is to record video showing how many times the ogre can attack over a certain period of time if you stand there and do nothing, then quickloading and showing how many attacks it gets over the same period of time while under a barrage of interrupts.
-
Interrupt isn't lock down. That's not how it works in this game. It just adds a very small delay to attacks. That is what it is, a delay and you posted screenshots of it acting as a delay. They key detail is how much of a delay it is. It could be that you only prevented one attack from the ogre, you'd have seen just as many interrupt messages either way, but a single extra attack probably wouldn't have been a terrible drain on your resources. For someone who was railing on about the scientific method and controlled variables, you are doing a terrible job of constructing your proofs. A single set of screenshots has no persuasive power and cannot prove anything, because any combination, even a single interrupt, could support your case equally well, regardless of if a single interrupt actually does anything of merit.lol
"Interrupt isn't lockdown"
*Posts screen shots of interrupt acting as lockdown*
"Doesn't count because I don't know what would have happened had interrupt not been acting as lockdown*
le sigh
Get off your high horse and conduct a proper experiment or stop debating in bad faith and bow out. Right now, you are arguing, very poorly, in the face of much more persuasive evidence without doing anything to counter that evidence beyond loudly exclaiming how little you like it.
-
Last part of a party vs ogre fight. Ogre gets off one hit and then is interrupted 6 times (by 5 different party members) before it dies. Aloth's spell book is still full for the upcoming boss fight. No one has any enchanted items that boost interrupt and even if anyone had Interrupting Blows it wouldn't have done any good.
The only "helper" present is Kana's chant which is dropping the ogre's concentration by 16.
EDIT: Maybe this is more persuasive
Ok? That doesn't really tell us anything though, because we can't see what would have happened if you didn't interrupt him. All you've shown is that you can somewhat reliably interrupt an ogre. If interrupts represented a full reset or cancellation of actions (where you would have stopped 6 attacks), that would be pretty impressive, but that's not how interrupts work in this game, so it's not at all persuasive.
-
Uh? He wasn't interrupting the bear indefinitely in either of those scenarios. It was still getting in hits, it was just missing.Yes, it absolutely does for reasons I've been consistently providing for pages now. Happy?
Long enough timeline matters because...as you've clearly shown...you can (despite your claim) tie up an enemy until it is dead. It doesn't matter where or not it resets: indefinite delay is the same. damn. thing.
"This game doesn't do precisely the thing I'm showing it do in this screenshot". Really?!
EDIT: Oh, btw, I'm not sure what you're doing with the cheat codes to keep the bear from hitting you, but turn it off and post scenario number 2 again.
Designing Experiments for Dummies
Scroll down to the section on variables.
Read about dependent variables and independent variables.
Have a revelation about how your poorly designed "experiment" is a complete mess because you build 97 point stat swings into your test runs.
Stop posting in this thread.
Doesn't the 97-point swing favor the half of the experiment you support? Also, in this experiment the 97-point swing IS the independent variable (i.e. the variable you change for the experiment) and the only effect it would have in this encounter is changing the rate of interrupts.
-
I've been asking myself why they dont use a similar system as the one they created with Endurance and Health?
Like you have a certain amount of Mana/Energy or however u wanna call it that u can use per Battle and that restores itself every Battle and using it drains from a Base pool ...
While it would be probably not that easy to balance out (for example the cost of low tier spells vs higher tier spells) i think it would be a huge improvement!
Not sure how much the community would like such a drastic differenciation from the old DnD rules, but i feel they way mages worked in DnD has allways been one if not the weakest part of the whole ruleset.
Not exactly "On topic" but i just wanted to get this thought out of my Head ...
That would likely help to make the amount of power a mage can bring to bear in a single fight more predictable. That said, I'd think it would be REALLY hard to balance properly, to the point that you'd be better off losing the "HP" portion of it and just making it a per encounter limiter.
-
I know. You'll find I've stated both points several times, possibly in this thread.trading out-of game frustration for in-game power
This is precisely the type of trade-off that must be avoided in a well-designed game, in line with what I mentioned above. With the current game design, players are being put in a lose-lose situation, while developers are unable to balance encounters properly due to their inability to anticipate how rested the party is.
-
So maybe system where after rest you are full-ability-possibility (FAP), and after hard fight where you used all abilities (USELESS), you can get back one point of each type (level) ability (NOTSOUSELESS).
This solution offer something from need to rest before hard battle, and smooth transition in practice/non-practice whit use of skills that have small number of uses per rest.
Actually, I don't think that addresses any of the problems with rest. You still have a rest mechanic that has you trading out-of game frustration for in-game power, still does not actually constrain you, still discourages using many of your more interesting abilities, still asks you to plan on the per rest timescale but doesn't give you anything to effect that scale, and still doesn't really have the wide breadth of powerful abilities that can pretend to warrant it.
-
Hmm. I've heard Monks attack really quickly and barbs hit everything around them. I wonder how a monk+barb team-up focused on interrupts would work out. Maybe throw in a a rogue with an arbalist to support them.
-
I don't think this will give you much information beyond "Who does auto attack better if that's all they're doing", because it ignores all of their other abilities and ignores how they interact with the rest of the party, both of which are incredibly important.
-
1
-
-
I agree with most of your points, but I have a problem with this one. Death and dismemberment should never be the domain of the RNG. What you are describing is not an RPG, but a simple slot machine: Put adventure in and out comes riches... or you've wasted your buy-in. Either way, there's no strategy involved on your end.the adventures are awesome but the rewards arent that great. BUT its a reward with no risk. add some risk... death and dismemberment, NOW weve got some RPG going
-
The transition from per-rest to per-encounter usage of spells is probably too sharp. In other words, one level all of your spells of a certain level are restricted per-rest, and then the next level they are suddenly all per-encounter. There wouldn't be such a dramatic jump in caster power level if the transition was more gradual. After all, when you first gain the abilities to cast spells of a certain level you don't also gain the ability to cast four of them per-rest at the same time.
Here's an example of what I mean:
Current Wizard Spell Progression Modified Wizard Spell Progression Spell uses per Spell Level Spell uses per Spell Level Level 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th Level 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 1 2/r - - - - - 1 2/r - - - - - 2 3/r - - - - - 2 3/r - - - - - 3 4/r 2/r - - - - 3 4/r 2/r - - - - 4 4/r 3/r - - - - 4 4/r 3/r - - - - 5 4/r 4/r 2/r - - - 5 4/r 4/r 2/r - - - 6 4/r 4/r 3/r - - - 6 4/r 4/r 3/r - - - 7 4/r 4/r 4/r 2/r - - 7 1/e + 3/r 4/r 4/r 2/r - - 8 4/r 4/r 4/r 3/r - - 8 2/e + 2/r 4/r 4/r 3/r - - 9 4/e 4/r 4/r 4/r 2/r - 9 3/e + 1/r 1/e + 3/r 4/r 4/r 2/r - 10 4/e 4/r 4/r 4/r 3/r - 10 4/e 2/e + 2/r 4/r 4/r 3/r - 11 4/e 4/e 4/r 4/r 4/r 2/r 11 4/e 3/e + 1/r 1/e + 3/r 4/r 4/r 2/r 12 4/e 4/e 4/r 4/r 4/r 3/r 12 4/e 4/e 2/e + 2/r 4/r 4/r 3/rThe idea would be that just as you are gradually introduced to casting spells of a certain level, the ability to cast spells of that level per-encounter would develop over the course of several levels. In my example I chose to start the transition 6 levels after the ability to cast spells of that level was first acquired, but exactly when it starts is not as important as the gradual nature of the transition.
This would introduce an added layer of complexity for spell casters, who would need to be able to understand from the UI how many spells of each level can be cast per-encounter, and whether casting a spell of a certain level is going to count against their per-rest limit. There is a potential for confusion, but I don't think that it is beyond the limits of the UI, and I expect that the average player will be able to come to an understanding of how the system works with a reasonable amount of experience.
I think the suggested table is still too sharp, and in some regards it's even worse from a balance, for example, you actually end up even crazier than now (with 2/e of 3rd Rank spells).
But the idea of it starting earlier is good, I just think it should be much, much slower, and certainly not at the point of having two full spell ranks at level 12 at 4/e (and definitely not three and a half spell ranks).
I also want it to work differently between the spellcasting classes, where their "extra progressions" work differently. Per-Encounter spell slots for wizards, Deity-specific spells for Priests, and added Spiritshifts/Wildshapes or similar for Druids. This isn't just because there's a marked difference between Wizards and Priests/Druids (Wizards can only fit 4 spells in their Grimoires; when Priests and Druids get to level 9, entire spell ranks gets unlocked), but because spellcasters are just too same-y.
Given how long combat lasts, or doesn't, I'm not sure there's a significant difference between having 2 spells of a level be per encounter and having all the spells of that level be per encounter, particularly if you also have spells of another level as per encounter.
-
If you don't want chants fading in and out, you can just set your chant to be made of only one phrase, then it will be a constant modal buff, like a paladin's, but with bigger range and more varied effects. Also, most of the paladin's abilities are not at will and the few that are are either the modal buffs or on-kill effects that can be difficult to actually trigger when you need them.
we noted earlier about stacking of paladin aura. is good to see you have finally come around... if belatedly so.Zealous Focus isn't replaceable by the Priest's Inspiring Radiance. They stack. You can't use Holy Radiance before combat either.... not unless you're not patched to 1.03 for some reason. And even though Blessing's accuracy modifier doesn't stack with Zealous Focus, its 1.1 damage modifier does. Blessing + Zealous Focus gives you 6 accuracy, 1.1x damage, and 5% hits to crits (this isn't suppressed by Dire Blessing's hits to crits either).
The only aura thats questionable is Zealous Endurance because its completely suppressed by Armor of Faith.
Interesting, thank you for that information. I also thought you couldn't use Holy Radiance out of combat anymore since the 1.03 patchnotes, but someone brought it up earlier and I thought I was therefor mistaken. Oh well, thanks again for rectifying this.
other support classes do it differently, not better. depends on playstyle. we already observed how chanters have cycling chants which mean that their buffs and debuffs fade in and out, frequently at inopportune times. the chanter invocations are also nice, but they cannot be used at will as most paladin abilities can. the advantages o' the paladin is exact why we dump the chanter joinable at our first opportunity 'pon reaching defiance bay. particular for our play style, the predictability o' the paladin and its synergy o' aura with various priest spells makes it a no-brainer to choose paladin (aside: we will once again note that 2 chanters is a fabulous support configuration as you can layer the chants so that your "essential" chants is always active.) most priest spells have relative short ranges, which for a squishy character is a serious disadvantage. the paladin, on the other hand, has excellent defenses-- am not having worries when utilizing the paladin adjacent to tanks and other front-liners. also, as has been noted ad nauseum and echoed by longknife, the paladin does not require the same degree o' micromanagement as numerous other classes. for players, many players, who has complained o' frenetic and overwhelming combat, a paladin is a welcome party addition.
That might have been their goal, but it doesn't make it a good one. The paladin's chassis just isn't set up to be good at support. You have to burn to many talents to get the support abilities set up properly and the other support classes still do it better. The chanter even fills the passive aura support niche already. Paladins need to find their own niche or a niche that's worth doubling up on.the wiki is not much o' a source.
again, for the third time...
http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/63968-update-56-paladins-and-wild-orlans/?hl=paladin
"We also wanted their mechanics to be distinctive from the other classes while reinforcing their role in the world. Area designer Bobby Null has always liked the marshal class from D&D 3.5, which is conceptually similar to the warlord in 4E: combat leaders who are at their best when they are augmenting their teammates. This is the approach that I took when developing Project Eternity's paladins. They have persistent modal auras, strong single-target healing and buff abilities (contrasting the broad AoE effects of clerics), and can passively grant bonuses to teammates in close proximity."
you can also look for updates which identify which classes is tanky and front-liners, and the paladin ain't 'mongst those.
poe paladins is a low-maintenance support class with impressive defensive characteristics. they fill the support role different from chanters and priests, but that is their role.
http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/66195-update-78-the-leaders-of-the-band-chanters-and-priests/
euba hates repetition, but he still ain't responded to the essential question: if you honestly don't believe that paladins is equal to priests and chanters in a support role, then how does giving them better dps and tank abilities make 'em better in support?
HA! Good Fun!
find a niche? it already has one. that being said, it is a low-maintenance niche (boring) that will not appeal to the kinda folks that typical post in these threads. you folks is not the casual poe player, yes? even so, Gromnir would also be in favor o' adding a few more options for active abilities that we would actual wish to use. the paladin, particular for boss battles, has wonderful debuffs and buffs, but far too often we do very little with our paladin save wait for an opponent to get to death's door so that we can activate flames o' devotion... which hopeful in turn triggers inspiring triumph or some other per-kill effect. is an underappreciated support class, but it is boring... boring for Gromnir.
HA! Good Fun!
-
Tbh I quite like the per rest mechanic. It has a lot of balancing issues, but there are plenty of games that do not use it, so it is nice to play one that does for a change. It is much better than let's say Dragon Age Inquisition MMOified crap. I do see a potential snowball problem with per encounter spells once the level cap is raised though.
Also, with this system resting should not be free as it is now. There should be zones you can't backtrack from, and 0 cp inns should not exist (or should give you big penalties after rest). Right now it's too exploitable.
What people seem to miss is that in PoE all classes have a per rest resource - health. So spending your spells is much more straightforward than hypothesising about the next encounters you might face - you spend spells to make encounters easier and minimise health loss. If your health is low you MUST rest. So if you're running with full spells and your tanks have red health you're doing it wrong. If you're running empty and your tanks are at full health you are also probably doing it wrong, although it depends. Rationing spells requires you to properly access the difficulty of each encounter (with stealth it's possible even before jumping into combat), which is a skill a lot of players don't seem to have, hence the complaints.
Health as a per rest resource gets brought up in nearly every game with a per rest mechanic, but it's not really the same. For starters, health is a single value, rather than a collection of abilities with different effects. Second, health has a very clear optimization strategy: lose as little health as possible.
Also, the idea that you can use Stealth to gauge the difficulty of a battle before it begins and, thus, properly plan out your spell uses is somewhat erogenous. You can figure out the difficulty of the next battle, sure, but you also need to know the difficulty and number of every other battle you'll encounter before you rest. Maybe you'll face a really hard battle soon, so you should stockpile for it. Maybe you'll just face a bunch of small battles, so you should toss a few spells at each. Maybe this is the hard battle, despite it being easier than other hard battles. You have no way of knowing and that makes proper planning impossible. What you are doing is gambling.
-
2
-
-
In rpg parlance, a spell that requires you to use a resurrection scroll is save or lose or save or die. The difference is whether it kills you instantly or gives you know way to stop the enemy from killing you in short order.Its not save or lose, resurrection scrolls are available everywhere and you can even craft them. When one or two of your chars die, its not the end of the game.
maybe you just need to adapt to the thought that fort is that much more important then everything else and maximize it. i e take paladin class, take the talents, at least two of which improve fort and fort vs petrification. max con/might. improved faith talent etc
-
That might have been their goal, but it doesn't make it a good one. The paladin's chassis just isn't set up to be good at support. You have to burn to many talents to get the support abilities set up properly and the other support classes still do it better. The chanter even fills the passive aura support niche already. Paladins need to find their own niche or a niche that's worth doubling up on.the wiki is not much o' a source.
again, for the third time...
http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/63968-update-56-paladins-and-wild-orlans/?hl=paladin
"We also wanted their mechanics to be distinctive from the other classes while reinforcing their role in the world. Area designer Bobby Null has always liked the marshal class from D&D 3.5, which is conceptually similar to the warlord in 4E: combat leaders who are at their best when they are augmenting their teammates. This is the approach that I took when developing Project Eternity's paladins. They have persistent modal auras, strong single-target healing and buff abilities (contrasting the broad AoE effects of clerics), and can passively grant bonuses to teammates in close proximity."
you can also look for updates which identify which classes is tanky and front-liners, and the paladin ain't 'mongst those.
poe paladins is a low-maintenance support class with impressive defensive characteristics. they fill the support role different from chanters and priests, but that is their role.
http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/66195-update-78-the-leaders-of-the-band-chanters-and-priests/
euba hates repetition, but he still ain't responded to the essential question: if you honestly don't believe that paladins is equal to priests and chanters in a support role, then how does giving them better dps and tank abilities make 'em better in support?
HA! Good Fun!
-
Leaving aside any IE game bagage, because I've never played one, I think designating the paladin a buff class is a bit silly, largely because there are already several classes that can fill that roll better. There's the priest, the Chanter, the wizard would do an excellent job if a few of his buffs could actually target useful characters.The chanter even does the always on aura buffs better, since they can just pick a single chant to always keep up and it'll have a bigger range (I think, the paladin's buff doesn't seem to show a range circle for some dev forsaken reason) and larger effects at higher levels. They can even do the tanking thing and have spike damage in the form of their incantations (It's just that their spikes come towards the end of fights and the paladin's come at the beginning).
...our most recent paladin is a gun build that uses flames o' devotion to guarantee killing blows. it is very good support build.
Are the on-kill procs for Paladins' affected areas still centered around the Paladin or are they centered around the kill event that procced it?
I was a little disappointed that The Sword And The Shepherd worked like that, made it hard to maintain 4m from the enemies (for Wood Elf Accuracy boost) and remain within range of my front line so they could benefit properly from the heal.inspiring triumph, at the very least, centers on the paladin. just checked and killed a far distant skeleton ranger archer with a gun and still got a full party hit.
more good news for paladins:
http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/77493-elemental-talents-bug/
at least one obsidian qa guy believes that scion of flame not modifying flames o' devotion is a bug... but you will likely need to wait til 1.05 to see that fixed.
HA! Good Fun!
ps although liberating exhortation is currently bugged, it has a fast cast time (as opposed to average), 2x the range o' suppress affliction and 4x the duration o' the aforemetioned priest spell and is a per encounter ability as opposed to those archaic quasi-vancian spells that reset per rest. better? is different.
Really, that would be rather unfortunate for my gun toting bleak walker. That fear burst on kill looked tempting, but if it's going to trigger on my paladin it's not going to hit anything of value.
-
2
-
-
You can respec characters using console commands and the IE mod.
If you don't want to do that because it's not "official", then you're just being your own worst enemy. Why do you feel like you need the developer's permission to play a single-player game whichever way you feel like? Rhetorical question.
I don't want to install a mod, or use console commands that probably lock achievements, to get basic functionality? Because it would be a fun thing to have in game and would provide a better use for the stronghold than some of it's current functions? Because I should have to go out of my way to correct basic flaws in a game I payed for? Should I go on?
-
1
-
-
Verifying the game files seems to have fixed this.
-
It would be nice if someone official would at least drop in to comment on this and let people know it's actually been seen and is being worked on.
-
1
-
What exactly is a stronghold "turn" ?
in Pillars of Eternity: Characters Builds, Strategies & the Unity Engine (Spoiler Warning!)
Posted
I just wish the defense things didn't feel so pointless. You get nothing from them, not even loot, since the scene resets right after you beat them.