Tartantyco

Need a speed between scout and running speed.

I believe the devs are trying to avoid making class specific attributes, so an attribute specifically for casting classes isn't something I think they'd consider.

The debate was over long before this thread even started.

I wonder if anyone on the pro-kill-XP side actually think they're making any persuasive arguments.

Either whoever comes into their line of sight first, or whoever hits them first. If you use the Wizard to fireball enemies from out of engagement range, any enemy hit by it will go directly for the Wizard. Same goes for Rogue archer attack, and so on.

Which would be great if almost every talent/ability/spell wasn't geared towards combat effectiveness. I made a 'pacifist' Rogue earlier this morning to see if you could complete the quests in the beta without combat. Kitted an Orlan Rogue out with Stealth and Mechanics for skills, and pumped Intellect, Resolve, and Perception all to 15. However, every single one of the class abilities I was able to choose from when leveling were combat-oriented. Even the bloody class and race extras at character creation were geared toward combat. Honestly, I don't mind the idea of quest XP only, but for the love of the deities why is every single ability/perk/talent/class special ability/spell all geared toward combat effectiveness? It isn't. You have yet to answer why combat must be rewarded with XP simply because it is a substantial part of the game.

You can turn on/off anything Expert mode removes individually in the options menu.

You're right, I don't want to kill everything. But I don't want combat to be a pointless chore either. And happily it won't.

Don't be disingenuous, Helm. You don't want this to be Diablo.

No, that makes sense in the game world because it's a quest you receive in the game world. In the end, the developers have to put in XP somewhere if they want to have an XP-based leveling system in the game. Quest-XP is the place where it has the least unintended consequences, because quests are pretty much the base concept of a roleplaying game. Ok, cool. So can we have a quest to murder everything and reward it with a bunch of XP? It's a quest, so it must be ok. Do you think that would be a good quest?

No, that makes sense in the game world because it's a quest you receive in the game world. In the end, the developers have to put in XP somewhere if they want to have an XP-based leveling system in the game. Quest-XP is the place where it has the least unintended consequences, because quests are pretty much the base concept of a roleplaying game.

I guess you're right. Still not a fan, though.

It doesn't positively promote it. Certain behaviors will necessarily be promoted through the mechanical function of the game. That is entirely different from the developers putting something into the game specifically to promote it. To make it perfectly clear, the game does passively promote certain playstyles. The way it promotes them is through them being the rational choices to make in the game world. If you see a dragon and you think "I'll get a ton of XP for killing it", that is not a rational game world decision. Why are you endangering your life and those of your party members in this situation? If you see a dragon and you think "Dragons guard vast treasure, I'll kill it for money", that is a rational game world decision. You and your party are risking your lives for a tangible game world reward.

Having significant bonuses or penalties based on race, culture, and background choices will simply mean that people start picking those options based on the class they wish to play as. It'll just end up like in the IE games, where any archer character will be an Elf. Race, culture, and background should ideally only affect how your character interacts with the gameworld(In the form of dialogue options, NPC reaction, alternate quest solutions, alternate quests).

I know. I was responding to your post... which was claiming that individual XP value rewards will never happen. (like picking a lock and getting XP for it.) That is not what I said in my post. Why is it so hard for you not to misrepresent the comments of others? What I specifically said, and as you may confirm by actually reading my discussion with Helm, is this: Obsidian implementing a system where you directly improve your lockpicking skills solely through the act of lockpicking will not happen.

There are two differences here: First of all, it's not a system that positively promotes a playstyle. Secondly, you are now avoiding combat because it makes sense in the game world. There is nothing to admit, as I have never stated otherwise. I am simply maintaining my position.

...is something none of us knows yet. Not even the developers know. Josh Sawyer came to these boards just yesterday to remind us in several various ways, that PoE is still a work in progress and stuff like setting Numerical values to things (like XP rewards for successful use of the Athletics skill) is so very much something that is not yet set in stone. But the XP system is not a simple matter of a few numerical values. Direct individual XP rewards where lockpicking only improves your lockpicking skills, require a completely different framework than the pool-based XP system. Do note that Helm and I am not discussing simply adding XP values to kills.

So you're saying that improving your lockpick skill by talking to an ogre is ok, but improving your lockpick skill by stabbing a beetle isn't? Why? Is the former less abstract than the latter or something? I'm saying that you're trying to argue for logic where there is none to be found. Neither is more "ok" than the other, but XP must be rewarded in some manner. Kill XP has been decided against because it promotes one playstyle over another and incentivizes certain behavior, not because this XP solution is more or less logical than that XP solution.

An XP pool means XP from various sources is stored in it, an XP "pool" for lockpicking that you add to by lockpicking is not a pool. The PoE system does not work on direct individual XP rewards, and it will not be altered to do so. What you're talking about is irrelevant.

I love it when individuals constantly talk in first person plural. I use "we" because most people on this forum are perfectly aware of a game series that spans two decades.

We are perfectly aware of the TES leveling system, Helm. It has its own issues, and there is no way in which it would be implemented in PoE, so there is no point in discussing it. Your arguments actually have to depend on the current XP system.

Good God make this stop already. Quake II is a 1st person shooter. The point is to kill things. The missions are about killing things. The game play is about killing things. Stop pretending that just because you can "run past stuff" that suddenly this means the game is centered around choice, and therefore serves as an example to how to do ANTHING in Pillars of Eternity. Just don't. I'm not forcing you to engage in this discussion. If it is beyond you, then simply do not involve yourself. How does one become better at lockpicking by stabbing beetles? It doesn't make sense anyway, so the argument isn't really valid. I agree. It doesn't any sense at all that you can improve your lockpick skill by stabbing beetles. Obsidian should reward the player with lockpick XP for picking locks so that he can improve his lockpicking skill. Thank you for pointing out how ridiculous quest only XP is, Tartanyco. Your support of our cause is greatly appreciated. So, where were we? Ahh, yes, how does one become a more potent combatant if they never engage in combat? In that case, the XP from lockpicking would have to go directly towards improving your lockpicking. However, XP is a pool. Invalid argument.

I'm sorry, but the answer to your question is in the post you quoted. There are no alternate paths other than combat. Please read my posts if you are to reply to them. Aah, I see. So your argument is that XP is not needed if there are multiple paths other than combat. Ok. And if there isn't? No, my argument is that the Mortal Kombat example is irrelevant because it doesn't have alternate paths. The point of the Quake II example is to see if not having rewards for killing results in different behavior. You can't judge whether behavior changes if there is nothing to change to.

I'm sorry, but the answer to your question is in the post you quoted. There are no alternate paths other than combat. Please read my posts if you are to reply to them.

How does one become better at lockpicking by stabbing beetles? It doesn't make sense anyway, so the argument isn't really valid.