PK htiw klaw eriF

Yes westling....oh **** wrong sock puppet.

Conspiracy theories huh?

Well damn, I guess I should test a ranger out. Pets could still use some more beefing up, and IMO the Ranger modals should be moved to the general talent pool.

Use the IE mod's tactics component and the game gets a bit more challenging. Still will steamroll stuff if you are a good level though, with the exception of the Dank Spores, which are the only difficult enemy I've ran into so far.

I ran into all of those on my first playthrough. Thinking of firing it up again as a BGT-BWP, going to do either a F/M/C or F/M/T(possibly with a kit cuz I'm a cheater). A bit put off by the time it takes to do a BWP install, but perhaps I'll find the time when I'm done with PoE.

I don't care if engagement is realistic or not, it's an awful mechanic that adds tedium rather than tactics.

Better encounters.

The moon landing was faked to save face after the USSR beat the US in the space race.

PoE starts out promising...but a lot of the writing is dry and combat gets tedious. The IE mod now has an AI component, but the only trouble I've had is with those mushroom things that confuse the party. I hope the expansion improves things, but I'm not getting too optimistic. And the companions are terribly built. Part of me wonders if that was intentional to push hirelings. To be honest, I didn't get much out of the EEs. It's nice to have more info in the character sheet, but it isn't worth the extra money.

Small nit-pick; the Ranger doesn't have ranged combat as one of it's gimmicks. Actually, most of it's Abilities (all?) work with melee weapons as well. I do agree with the sentiment that if a class has a gimmick that is supposed to be part of it's core concept (so, in essence, a major ability or class feature that is considered integral to the class) then the class should be focused upon that, and gameplay revolve around that in some major capacity. Otherwise, it's just going to be "something something plus". In essence, the Ranger is a combatant like the Fighter or the Rogue... plus the pet. And with the pet as a tacked-on feature, not the focus of the class, it will be judged in relation to those other classes, the pet notwithstanding. It becomes very hard to balance and the class becomes unfocused, the choices unintuitive. Aren't the modals ranged exclusive? Admittedly I've only used Sagani(respecd for War Bow), but I was under the impression that they are ranged exclusive.

https://mobile.twitter.com/hashtag/stopwebh8?src=hash Tag was crashed with no survivors. Absolutely beautiful.

PotD is easy when you get the hang of things. Honestly, using the badly built NPCs contributes more to difficulty than the enemies.

I'm sure segregationists are kicking themselves over that they could've gotten their way if they sugar coated "separate but equal" with safe spaces. Any news on the FBI investigation? Have they found the dank memes?

Yes. Talents are mostly bad, with class ability boosts, weapon focus, weapon style, and modal being all you really need in most cases. A lot of the defensive talents are too situational and the utility talents are largely convenience that you wouldn't waste a valuable resource on. Add to that the extremely limited class abilities and you have very little viable build diversity. You can make a warrior-wizard, but a Cipher will beat it because Wizard buffs suck and the Wizard has **** base stats.

They'll take my memes from my cold dead hands.

I'd say that "ideological racism" and "sociological racism" would be better in terms of clarity. But yes, I find that acceptable. Of course I would think such of you, based on your posts denying systemic sexism and generally downplaying the sexist shirt worn by the Nasa scientist, while repeatedly claiming that SJWs have "demolished" him and "bullied him into crying," without a shred of irony when you constantly tell SJWs to stop being such insensitive babies. This is while you're simultaneously hurl invectives towards SJWs as being "ignorant, pathethic, soulless, vindictive, delusional and violent little ****lords by choice." Your bias clearly shows. So yes, I would be EXTREMELY surprised if you were not a heterosexual male, but that's not what disqualifies your points as moot to me -- it's your complete lack of awareness of your privilege. I'm sorry that you are somewhat offended by whatever I may think of your views, but know that I don't actually think you're a bad person. On the contrary, I believe you are a better person than most in the gaming community, as I genuinely believe you mean well towards oppressed groups. It's just that I believe you to be an apologist for a discriminatory culture, and that you maintain the status quo as a result. Assuming one's gender, orientation, or race by their political opinions is reaching. You may not like Luckman's opinions, but assuming anything about the individual other than they like Eldoth is reaching. In fact Luckman's opinions resemble Christina Hoff Summers, who while I am sure you disagree with is certainly not a male. Also take note of Luckman's signature: "This signature goes out to Osvir, who is the sole and only reason I can actually play Pillars of Eternity anywhere near release by a factor of months, or most likely years. In my poverty, he gifted me the game. I may still be destitute and nearing homelessness, but at least I'll have Pillars of Eternity. " I'm sure someone destitute to being close to homelessness is a very privileged individual, more so than the black lesbian business major who was in the same economics class as me a few semesters back despite her coming from an upper middle-class family and not having to take a loan out or work to pay for classes at any rate. Please educate yourself on class issues before telling someone living in poverty(even the western kind) that they are privileged. Start with Parenti and then try some Zizek. http://youtu.be/jKyX7GNHYkQ

A lot of classes need an overhaul to be honest. For a game striving for balance, PoE failed pretty badly at it with the release version. As to Rangers...I think the problem is that they've split between two gimmicks, archery(I haven't used a Ranger with an implement or gun) and the companion, when it should have just been one. I believe that ranged abilities should be put into the general talent pool and that the class abilities should be focused solely on the companion and teamwork with the companion(the selling point of the class). IMO a melee ranger who flanks with the companion is a cool idea, but the current mechanics don't support it as well as they could. And Sagani's fox is awful. Needs a CON and Deflection boost.

I just want encounters that are more interesting. So far the only things that have given me much trouble are the mushroom things.

Sounds like a terrible place. It was RPGnet wasn't it?

Why 15? Because the current level cap can be reached too easily. That's a bit over the top.

Aside from the initial definition I already posted?Alternative word. Surely you agree that the definition I posted defines a concept? If you don't want to use the word 'racism' for that concept, I'm asking you for some other word you do want to use for it. One that is in the dictionary, naturally, since you insist on that. We need a word for the concept to be able to discuss it, you know. Is a collection of words acceptable? If so, "Systematic disadvantages of (insert preferred racial/ethnic group here) in (insert state/society here)" is a far more precise term that accurately conveys what you're talking about at the cost of being long-winded. If you're looking for a single word, then no. Complex concepts such as the systematic disadvantages faced by blacks in the United States can not be condensed into a single word without eroding some measure of nuance. I'm only one man.

Aside from the initial definition I already posted? My problem with this is the motte and bailey discussions. I personally prefer stating exactly what I mean, such as "institutional problems black proletariat/lumpen-proletariat faces under US society" rather than racism to avoid connotations of a KKK actively going after blacks because of bigotry. I understand that some may find that approach a bit pedantic, but it's just the way I think and speak/write. No, my motive is to steer this thread into a discussion about the failure of capitalism and the glory of socialism.

Interesting read, although I tend to question it's own bias considering that virtually all, if not every example given seemed aimed at portraying white people as guilty of some form of racism. ... Still, even so I don't really see why I should accept your "dictionary definition" over the one that KaineParker offered. Hells, I think I'd argue that if someone had bothered to prune the one you offered of it's rather obnoxious racial overtones the two don't really seem that much at odds, if at all. Although I did give this a "like" because I tend to agree with the sentiment in general; at the same time words do have meanings and in this very thread we've been told things like ... "You can't be a bigot if you defend gay rights.", which is something that I do take umbrage towards in addition to simply being flat out silly and wrong. The reason I gravitate towards using only dictionary definitions is twofold. 1. They provide a unified source of common knowledge, and as such can be used to ensure communication is understood. 2. When using words with multiple meanings(or changed meanings), it is easy to find yourself arguing against a motte and bailey( see here for a better understanding: http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2014/09/motte-and-bailey-doctrines/). For example, Socialism is defined as collective ownership of the means of production in most dictionaries. But socialism has also come to mean "government spending on welfare programs" in US politics. This leads to problems identifying someone as a socialist, as by one usage of the term implies that everyone in favor of some form of welfare is a socialist, while another requires the belief in collective ownership of the means of production. While there certainly can be some overlap here, they are certainly not mutually inclusive positions and it can cause confusion in communication.

Ohhhh... One of those "only the dictionary matters" people. How adorable. I think doctors and various other specialists will be disappointed to know that all that useful jargon they've created is actually meaningless babble. People redefine words all the time. The inability of some people to accept this, but only when it's something they disagree with, is very amusing. So you don't actually have an argument. Can't say I'm surprised. Cute. Social justice advocates often use definitions of racism that include power in some fashion. What is there to argue? Then they're using "racism" incorrectly in the same manner teabagers incorrectly use "socialism" to describe government welfare programs. If you're going to use a word bother to use it correctly.