Seari

...the worst thing about MotB IMO, thank god for mods. We'll see how this system holds up when there are harder fights/better AI.

You have to rest more the higher the difficulty it is, but with the limited supplies... You get where I'm going with this? The system ****s itself in the ass. And don't say in higher difficulties you should preserve resting supplies, you have to rest more because your health will be lower obviously. I'm open to you changing my mind, I have a limited experience with the beta(don't want to "corrupt" my view of this game with a ****ty beta build), but just by looking at this system it seems bad to me.

Rest supplies helps with resting. It's my understanding from Sawyers comment that the regenerating stamina and health mechanic was to reduce rest spamming because your stamina regenerated after each battle (which it didn't in the IE games) and you had a health reserve to keep you going and continuing your adventures. In theory, you would still adventure and keep going and wouldn't need to rest. But as we've seen in the beta, this isn't working as intended as after a couple of battles, you may need to rest - especially if you're new to the game. TBH, the whole stamina/health mechanic is a flawed design, another theoretical paper design that doesn't work in practice imo. And we've seen many theoretical paper designs over the last two years. But as I said, this topic is probably best in the healing thread. Hahaha, now we are in agreement. But who knows, maybe if they tweak the ratios. All I know is that this system works worse the higher the difficulty is, kind of hard to balance IMO.

Do you? How so? What are you gonna do when someone gets poisoned? Oh wait, you can just let them take a power nap, you're right. LOL

The reasoning is something like this: in the IE games, how deep you could go was (often) limited by your party's priest's (or druid's) reservoir of healing spells. This had two implications: (1) every party "needed" a priest or druid, and (2) the priest or druid spent most of her juice on heals rather than all the other cool spells (unless you had more than one). So Josh's solution is to get rid of the mandatory party healing battery and give each character one instead, thereby freeing the priest and druid to use their other spells, or players to go without a priest or druid altogether, without gimping their party more than they would by foregoing any other core class. The reasoning is sound IMO and does make for potentially more interesting gameplay. It just falls down somewhat ATM because the priest's spell selection is a little dull, so she's been turned from a heal-o-mat into a buff-o-mat. That's easy to address just by giving her more and more interesting spells. I do know I often played with multiple priests/druids for this very reason. Not so much more healing capacity (I'd be out of other spells etc. by the time that ran out), but to get access to all the cool divine magic while still retaining the healing capacity. (I don't think rest-spamming has anything much to do with this mechanic BTW. It doesn't really affect it one way or the other; in both cases you need to rest when your strategic healing runs out.) And basically he achieved the same thing. You still need priests in your party for heals(hard difficulty). Actually it's worse right now, since priests are mandatory and can't be replaced.

No. It was to mitigate degenerative gameplay like rest spamming and save scumming. By taking health healing out of the game, it would make players play strategically by not rest spamming with a regenerating stamina mechanic. With regenerating stamina, this would mitigate rest spamming. That's funny, everyone would "rest scum" in this game if they didn't add resting supplies, because you can't heal health+ the ridiculous sustained damage(almost all attacks are hits). More so than in the IE games or even NwN2.

No, to mitigate rest spamming they limited resting, i.e. resting supplies.

Fatigue is completely different from injuries. I think it's a lot to do with "feels" and roleplay. But also to give a cap to an adventuring day. edit: Health and stamina system was implemented because in PoE's world/lore you can't heal injuries, so they added stamina(endurance), an excuse for healing spells. They had to add a system to extend the adventuring days without healing health. In dnd games you extend the adventuring day with healing spells.

Just because they made it possible, doesn't mean it was designed with it in mind. You can play that way, the experience levels will even out eventually. You are however severely gimping your party in the early levels of the game, not that it matters if you play without SCS. Just pointing out that leveling wasn't designed to be as slow as you think it is. You start solo, then you add companions, companions are the same level as you are when you pick them up. By the time you have a whole party you're probably lvl 4 or at least lvl 3. If you start with 6 characters all the xp is divided from the start and the leveling in the early levels at least is painstakingly slow. You lose xp in a sense. edit: Actually companions are based on the average level of your party, but they may not be the same level as your party when you get them. I think there are level ranges, but it's all kind of ****ed. Your average party level could be 3, but you might get a lvl 2 companion or a lvl 4, it's really confusing. Not 100% sure how it works. Maybe I'm even confusing tutu with enhanced edition, but I don't think so. edit2: Fatigue is based on CON, in case your manual doesn't say.

I'll be able to play a Jack Bauer like paladin, HYPE. Bleak Walkers?

BG 1 wasn't made with 6 characters in mind from the get go LOL, you broke the game. That's why you have low level characters for so long. Well you can play it normally I guess, but you seriously gimped yourself. I advise you play with SCS if you want a challenge, both vanilla BG1 and 2 are rly boring without it IMO. Regarding topic: How do you know party members will have the same xp when you pick them up? How do you know there won't be character specific xp like in BG2? But I don't really care about any of that, just give me more talents per level and all is forgiven!

^ Seriously tho, I am gonna play without that bar thingy! Muh immershun.

BG2 style! 1. Human Paladin + 2hander 2. Dwarf Fighter + dual wielding 3. Human Priest + shield and 1h 4. Orlan Rogue + 1h 5. Aumaua Cipher + bow 6. Elf Wizard

I can't say I like either of those most recent suggestions because IMO there is really no way for AoE to carry an attribute on its own. It's simply not going to be universally applicable enough or strong enough to meet either of those two primary design goals we're shooting for (no dump stats and every stat worthwhile for every class in some way). The second one is basically Sawyer's idea for attribute changes, if I understood his posts right. Well apart from the removal of double defense stats, that's just me, but I think it needs to happen. Double defense stats just seem silly to me and hard to balance. By double defense stats I mean fortitude, reflexes and will saves on 2 different attributes. I don't disagree with you, but I think it could be made to work.

@Matt Might: no defenses (+2% damage/healing) Constitution: +1 Fortitude (+2% health/stamina) Dexterity: +1 Reflexes (+2% action speed) Intellect: +1 Will (+5% AoE) Perception: +1 Deflection (+1 Accuracy) Resolve: no defenses (+1% Concentration,+5% Duration) They would have to make AoE more significant, like discussed before. Perception still feels too strong. More in line with Sawyer's ideas: Might: no defenses (+2% damage/healing) Constitution: +1 Fortitude (+2% health/stamina) Dexterity: +1 Reflexes (+2% action speed) Intellect: +1 Deflection (+5% AoE) Perception: no defenses (+1 Accuracy, +X% Range of Spells) Resolve: +1 Will (+1% Concentration, +5% Duration) Range of spells seems kind of meh to me. I really think it's important to not split the defense stats between attributes. edit: Stacking defenses(will/fort/ref) seems stupid to me.

Only interrupt, because it's too dependent on accuracy, and hard to balance.

I thought having deflection and accuracy on the same attribute was too OP.

Kind of off-topic: Let's not forget to have our pitchforks at the ready if they don't increase the impact of Attributes. Don't want them to just be an illusion.

It's p. simple IMO, you just need to get used to it. It's not so much about all stats having the same weight for every class, but every stat doing something for every class. Basically having viable alternatives.

In my second revision I will be removing Interrupt. The reason we did not suggest removing interrupt is we were not sure that the devs OR the backers wanted it gone. Deflection is still a very good combat stat to have in the attribute system, because you need *something* else in there other than what's in there now. It's a strong 'main' combat stat along with Damage, Accuracy, Stamina/Health (which to me are the same), Durations and now IAS. There is nothing else in the game that could be used without creating a new mechanic. Yeah I'm all for deflection, I was confused when it was missing from the attributes when I first saw the beta. They may need to add another mechanic with interrupt being removed from attributes, no idea what that mechanic could be. Or they could just have PER only affect accuracy, kind of dull. I'm still adamant about RES. It doesn't sit well with me from a role-playing or design perspective. Def+conc is a no go IMO. edit: I kind of like Sawyer's attribute changes after reading Ganrich's posts , not sure if they're the best tho.

We did this to balance Resolve against Perception, Resolve technically does almost the inverse of Perception. I believe they should go together to preserve the symmetry, and I think what they offer goes together well. I don't think removing Interrupt changes that - we need to make the attribute have roughly equal efficacy as Constitution for the purposes of survival time in combat. Now you're also forgetting that Deflection on it's own contributes incoming DPS reduction, while Concentration contributes outgoing DPS loss prevention. Two completely different things. Deflection does increase effective Interrupt against Deflection attacks but so does Fortitude, Reflex and Will Defense - and you get equal points in them because they are spread across the attributes evenly. Interrupt is bad without accuracy, correct? Hence interrupt is a bad stat, coupling it with accuracy to make it better is just silly, and I 100% agree with Sawyer to have it removed from attributes. You based your attributes around the notion that interrupt won't be removed. With perception only affecting accuracy, what reason is there to have both deflection and concentration on RES? Before the reason was to counter accuracy+interrupt, right? So yes, I think def and conc on the same stat is a bad idea, because they both influence the same thing, the chance of an interrupt happening.

@Sensuki Now that I've thought about it more, I don't think I like your version of RES.You're putting 2 stats together, that basically contribute to the same thing. Both deflection and concentration decrease the chance of an interrupt, I don't think putting them together is a good idea. I'm glad they're removing interrupt, because interrupt+accuracy is basically the same deal as conc+def.

I want combat xp, nao!

Not the same thing, it reduces your effective DPS if you're doing damaging actions and effective durations on non-damaging actions But are you taking into account the length of combat when comparing it to other stats?

I don't understand how concentration is mostly regarded as a dps increase. What about having spells interrupted, i.e. not just damage spells. I mostly have BG2 in mind here and insect plague, but I'm guessing that it doesn't work like that in PoE. As in there's no spell failure, but just casting/action is delayed? Maybe that should be changed.