Tartantyco

My Eder has 4 engagement limit and the secondary melee easily takes care of what is left. This is not a solution. Why should your tanks not be able to deal with the amount of enemies that their engagement limit allows them? I mean, if your tank has an engagement limit of 5, then him being in combat with 5 enemies shouldn't be an issue. The issue with tanks is not them tanking a lot of enemies, it's them tanking all the enemies. It also makes mob enemies more dangerous.

A simple fix for the "lone tank" syndrome, and one I've suggested before, is to add penalties for each enemy attacking a character that exceeds their engagement limit. So, if your tank has an engagement limit of 3, he'll get penalized if 4 enemies are attacking him, and it will increase exponentially as more enemies attack. This would be in addition to the current flanking system.

Slash is the damage type the most non-human enemies have a high resistance to, while Crush is the damage type the most non-human enemies have a low resistance to.

k.

I dunno... I don't think this is really a valid argument to make. Anything that the game mechanics allow or tacitly encourage you to do is fair game for criticism. It doesn't make sense to criticise PoE for having abusable mechanics (like engagement in some cases) but give the IE games a pass. You're never "supposed" to do abusable things, that's why we label them abusable. Now you're just creating a narrative and selectively ignoring post content, Matt. /s

You have to finish Act II. Keep doing the Main Quest line.

Nope. You probably just rest spam. ...it wasn't a question. You keep talking about how inferior PoE is to the IE games in terms of combat, but any examples you use are just you abusing a mechanic or handicapping yourself so that your example fits that narrative.

More wilderness/side-quest areas. And bigger areas. People always complain about the "empty" wilderness areas in BG, but they allow you to breathe and move during encounters without stumbling onto another encounter. More unique lore- and world-building encounters(Icharyd, Gnoll Stronghold, Gibberling Mountains, Drienne and the cat, Carsa and Kahrk etc.). More varied encounters in general(Also improving current encounters). On that note, more enemy variety. Of course, it takes time to build the kind of bestiary that DnD-based IE games could build on, but too many enemies aren't very distinctive. Random encounters. Areas should re-populate over time, just to make the world feel more alive. If there's a Xaurip camp somewhere, they should return. Established camp sites should randomly have neutral caravans staying there, the occasional bandits, etc.

You're just using examples where you handicap yourself in IE games vs. examples where you don't handicap yourself in PoE, while talking about cheesing and abusing because you shouldn't cheese and abuse while cheesing and abusing, Sensuki. I can only describe your argumentation for this thread as schizophrenic.

lol

No well-designed game should require self-policing.

You should probably start adding all of this stuff to the Official Wiki.

What are you talking about? You can go pretty much anywhere you want. I can't think of a single place where an area wasn't available to me if I went there on foot.

The real issue is that there are 3(6) races that have portraits with no visual overlap(Aumaua, Orlan, Godlike). If you take Baldur's Gate, for instance, you could use a lot of portraits interchangably between most races. Dwarves kind of required beards and Elves had pointy ears(And many portraits obscure ears), but that was about it. In terms of pure quantity, PoE wins hands down. However, because of the visual distinctiveness of 3(6) races, and the fact that existing portraits are too revealing(Showing pointy ears, for instance), the selection is drastically reduced for all races, and pretty much singular in some instances. For the Aumaua, the Orlans, and the Godlikes, there's no real fix. They need more race- and subrace-specific portraits. With the rest, overlap is possible if they're made properly. Humans are interchangeable with Elves and Dwarves, Elves with Humans, and Dwarves with Humans. Just keep the visual distinctions(Ears, beards) ambiguous.

Then use a custom wizard, Odd Hermit. All the companions are perfectly viable in the game, if you want to min-max you have custom adventurers for that. Companions are there for story and character, and their attributes reflect their character, not your play style.

It's so damn easy to troll you people... Stop replying to these troll posts.

NITPICKER!!!!!!! (Have you ever considered that maybe it's the people of Eora who have **** grammar?)

Noin, you're fired.

If you have less than 6 characters in your party, you get a percentile bonus to your XP gain. The percentile bonus has been increased to 10% for each character under the limit. That means if you have 4 characters in your party, you gain +20% XP.

Parsong just wants to cheat without calling it cheating.

The game isn't supposed to be balanced around solo play. This thread is stupid.

It also buffs duration and AoE of Invocations. Having enemies charmed for a few more seconds is worth a lot.

If phrase length was affected, that would basically be a debuff. It would take way longer for a high Int character to have access to invocations, than a low Int character.

Depends on the spell. In general, the idea is that spells shouldn't become obsolete as your level increases. Because of this, they have to stay somewhat competitive in terms of function and damage. Fan of Flames is a special case due to the circumstances required to use it(Unless friendly fire is okay with you). There's still plenty to balance when it comes to Wizard spells(And the other caster classes, for that matter), but FoF and Fireball are two spells that are balanced by their utility. One is a fast, long range, large AoE spell, while the other is slower and has a conical AoE from the caster's base.

Because the hype IS REAL!