Mr. Magniloquent

Now that I have actually played the Beta, I do have some remarks on the attribute system. Might It doesn't feel overpowered to me on a general basis with most abilities, but I understand on a technical basis how it is a preferential stat. Spells with high ranges like Fireball demonstrate increased potency when comparing Might values of 10 vs 19.Suggestions Perhaps removing or diminishing the Fortitude bonus if might is thought of as too powerful. Dexterity Serves its purpose and is logically consistent per its description. I haven't noticed a great deal of difference between a Dex of 10 and 19. Dexterity feels only marginally important, particularly in light of leveling increases to Accuracy.Suggestions While I may be underestimating the value of Accuracy because I do not yet fully understand the game mechanics, increasing the Deflection bonus may help. Constitution Logically consistent. High constitution values feel significant. Incremental increases feel worthwhile.Suggestions None. Well defined and implemented. Intellect Useful within dialogue. Significant for Wizards and Priests. Using a control type wizard, the results were tremendous when having an intellect of 19 vs 10. Marginal value for non-casters. While it appeared that the Hobbled condition did persist longer from the Rogue's Crippling Strike ability, other abilities like Knockdown and various chants were less discernible. Large AoE are as often problematic as beneficial for Wizards. Indiscriminate spells can be at many times detrimental because the AoE is so large, that they are render useless once melee occurs. Smaller AoEs allow my Wizard to target in between combatants, rendering it ultimately superior (for the Wizard at least) to have a reduced AoE, rather than cripple my own party. AoEs were frequently so large, that my Wizard sometimes had no choice but to be subject to the spell's effects due to limited casting distance. Very problematic.Suggestions In combat, intellect is a double edged sword that cuts slightly more towards the wielder. If possible, allow for some mechanism to control the size of the AoE or mitigate the harmful effects of indiscriminate spells on allies. Perception Useful in dialogue Irrelevant elsewhere. Even when maximized, I couldn't detect any increase in interrupting enemy actions. This observation is inclusive to spells like Thrust of Tattering Veils.Suggestions Consider increasing maximum range of spells/abilities/weapons. Consider increasing native critical chance (weapon & spell alike) in a non-trivial manner. Consider (in conjunction with the Lore skill) being used to identify enemy HP, Deflection, Accuracy, etc. when the cursor is hovering over them. Consider increasing fog of war distance, and/or "light radius" within darkened conditions. Resolve Useful within dialogue. Limited combat use. It may be due to enemy type, but I did not feel like Will was attacked often. Interruption of player character actions has gone unnoticed in my sessions.Suggestions I personally feel that resolve is a better candidate for increasing effect duration in respect to magical/supernatural abilities. The will to resist is coincident with the will to compel. In a world of soul magic, resolve intuitively satisfies this. If intellect were to screen/mitigate friendly-fire, intellect would still be worthwhile attribute, while granting Resolve a tremendously useful bonus regardless of class. Overall, I felt that the attributes were fairly balanced. Some have more profound influence, but never did any character feel worthless in the absence of having those statistics elevated. Furthermore, some attributes will always be more useful to certain classes, but I do not feel that this is a negative.

When reading the Beta responses, I at first thought that the static vegetation was going to be awful. After marching around the areas though, I was very surprised that I didn't mind, or even really notice that they were static. The constant bodies to hack through kept my attention, for sure, but the aesthetic purely unto itself did not suffer. Do I think that having dynamic vegetation would provide a serious ambiance enhancement? Absolutely. Will static vegetation ruin the atmosphere? Not really, say I.

I haven't yet made up my mind on the issue. Playing within the Beta, I found myself constantly weighing my curiosity against my desire not to waste resources or risk injury. In the past I would have unquestionably generated as many corpses as possible in an environment, because there was no incentive to do otherwise. I now found myself fighting things when a chest or path was obstructed--and then only if my characters couldn't resolve it with stealth first. I will admit that the lack of combat experience in a game which focuses so heavily on combat does feel contradictory and irksome. Ultimately, I didn't feel it that detrimental though. I realized that I was now exploring purely out of curiosity than an experience-driven-blood-haze. The part which might make it irrelevant, is that the need for XP may just be replaced by the desire for loot. Many chests have been inaccessible without killing something, and then enemies themselves hold items I would not have had otherwise. I suppose the blood for gold is its own reward. Being that I am a completionist, I very much doubt my experience will be impacted one way or the other.

After an extended absence, I've been lurking the Beta forums for the last day or two, and I have a question for some of the...responses about the attribute system. While it is clear that (theoretically), some attributes may have comparatively diminished usefulness, can this be attributed to scenario exposure? I see numerous complaints about the uselessness of Resolve and Constitution to many characters. Are there enemies in the Beta which have sufficient attacks (ranged, magical, or otherwise) which can target these attributes? Are there instances within the Beta where attributes have significance beyond combat such as dialogue, crafting, "cut-scene" choices?, etc?

Very intriguing. This is one instance where I would pay first and ask questions latter. I do wonder if they would be skirting the legal hindrances with something as simple as using 3d6 or a more dramatic departure. Color me interested.

I apologize if there is a Kickstarter thread, but I don't frequent the forums much these days. However, check out Hard West. It's self described as a western X-COM with a gritty psychological horror flair. It looks promising, and will likely meet its funding goals.

I don't foresee ability inflation from level-based attribute improvements. It's one way in which their "no bad build" approach may shine. Attributes increases should only effect the style of play, rather than min/maxing due to only one or two "useful" stats.

I think that tiny villages should be abandoned if the scope of the game is beyond them. It's natural for an adventurer to exceed the little hamlet, otherwise they wouldn't be adventuring. Hamlet/village would be self-defining as a small place of humdrum and little importance. Leave the hubs to major cities which can keep pace with the development of adventurers. Small villages should be a foil for whatever substance it provides. By having it be narrowly defined, it can excel at one thing rather than be mediocre at many.

For PoE's complex, relativistic, and ambiguous moral approach, I imagine that "aligned" weapons will fall closer to "Sword of Ogre Slaying" than the Holy Avenger/Excalibur archetype. This does amount to more than semantics.

Multiplayer is enjoyable when narrative and scripted plot are not pertinent nor central. It's that simple. Any time where PC's actions effect scripted plot and thereby reflect on the PC either through dialogue or other channels, multiplayer is a hindrance. It's not exactly a science.

Aah, but that's the thing. In PoE's system Stamina does not = Fatigue. You do not incur stamina loss from casting a fireball or activating your Barbarian charge, for example. Instead, you lose stamina when you get whacked in combat. When someone hits you with something. And when your stamina bar drops to zero, you fall to the ground.... maimed. That means that the stamina bar is literally just a second health bar. Thus I'm still trying to figure out why it's needed. Or why it's even called a stamina bar, when it could more accurately be called: "The-Flesh-Wound-Bar" or "The-Blood-Loss-Bar" or "Immediate-Combat-Trauma-Incurred-Bar". It's just a rose by another name. Whereas slain companions would arise on in NWN2 and most other modern games so long as just one PC survived, thus is the Stamina/Health mechanic. It hints of attempting to bake the cheese into the bread, instead of just spreading it over top. Obsidian isn't immune to changing with the times. Once, there were a generation or two of gamers honed on coin-operated games which had incentive to be difficult. Those design habits carried over into PC and console gaming well throughout the 1990s. This is no longer the case, and expectations of what games are have changed. Mastering mechanics to triumph over rules or systems has given way to guaranteeing delivery an emotional experience. I'll just leave it at that. That turned out to be more curmudgeonly and "grognar" that I had intended.

I found the centrally located Nashkel and Beregost very useful as hubs for my fores into the surrounding areas. I think it would be better to have larger cities positioned like this rather than be a an end location--as they often are. In having your largest cities be the focal point of your game, you don't have to worry about PCs out-scaling the location's quests or merchants. Smaller villages can then be wholly designed as foils for whatever purpose desired, and are ideal for not being revisited. Baldur's Gate II did this very well. Athkatla was without question where your party was based out of. Almost all of the high end vendors were located there. The other surrounding areas had a major quest path, but were peppered with minor quests which interlaced through multiple surrounding areas to organically draw the player into the wider world. Areas were multi-purposed, but did not out-live their usefulness. Given that PoE shall have two major cities, I am confident they will follow similar suit.

Pros: Intricate tactical party combat--particularly as applies to melee. All aspects written by Obsidian. Dialogue and reputation systems. "Genuine" multiple "equivalent" approaches to quest completion. Beautiful art style. Potential Cons: Untested spell system which I am...somewhat dubious about. Class archetype limitations. I would have preferred classless, though I am aware of what I funded. Curious status effects and damage types. Subduing my child-like exuberance and nostalgia to objectively appraise the game. Still unknown soundtrack? Overall, my cons list was very difficult to create. I'm mostly concerned about the magic system being mundane, and how strong the emphasis are placed on the class archetypes. They seem to want certain classes to be only support, AoE, DPS, etc. They seem to be providing mechanisms to change how you wish to satisfy that role, but are otherwise restricted to that role through the classes abilities. Aside from that...I'm very excited about most everything else.

This forum seems to be exhibiting a negative feedback loop where I care less and less about what's being discussed here. I'm hoping that it's merely with everything having been speculated to death and completion on the horizon, that there is nothing to do here but gnaw on the bones of whatever press release occurs, or even....hasn't occurred. I think I'll stick to checking in every couple of weeks and then just enjoy the game when it is released...whenever that might be.

I believe Mr. Sawyer shares your concerns. I recalled that daggers would possess bonuses to penetrating armor. I believe this was attributed to their ability to slide between plates and mail into weak points, like joints. I took a look at the Pillars of Eternity Wiki Weapons page, and found that Stilettos (a specialized form of dagger) will indeed negate various degrees of damage threshold. This effect is compounded by the user's Perception statistic, which feels proper.

Wow. I feel like I'm the only one in this thread that likes bold spell effects. That's half of the fun of casting a spell! Your caster is commanding the fabric of reality and reshaping it to its will--not pulling a pigeon out of his or her sleeve. They are performing a cosmically phenomenal act, and it should look like it. The spell effects from the trailer and update are excellent. They convey power and mystery while being efficient in their timing. They are in no way overdone, cumbersome, or obstructive. I guess my opinion is just in extreme dissent within this thread, but I feel like everyone where is just nit-picking and begging for boring and generic spell effects.

It would appear that this is no longer the case, which I suppose makes sense since differentiating the priests of various gods to such a degree would be about as much work as creating a whole bunch of new classes, and $4.5 million only goes so far. But will there be any difference in the spells and abilities of different priests beyond just the effectiveness of the Holy Radiance ability? I would really like it if either: each priesthood had a few exclusive spells that were thematically appropriate, or the spell list stayed the same, but each priesthood had a few spells that increased in power alongside Holy Radiance. So for example everyone would have access to fire spells like Cleansing Flame, but priests of Magran would gain a more powerful version for being good Magranites. Personally, I always thought that clerical spell casting should be just like a sorcerer's, but with a spell list restricted exclusively to spells within their dietie's domain.

The only costs I can truly see Obsidian incurring here are opportunity costs. They are not risking much of their own capital--if any. The only thing they are losing is money which could have been made producing content for other people's IP. That potential cash is surely missed, but that all it was, a possibility. With Pillars of Eternity, they are waging a gambit of love with other people's money and their own reputation. It's an investment in the most conventional and textbook sense. Consumption is forgone in the present to create capital goods (intellectual property, game creation tools, etc.) with the aims of greater further goods produced. Investing is an inherently risky proposition for any industry. Ultimately, the only true risk from a business perspective that Obsidian is exposing itself to are smirches on its reputation. Nobody will forgive them if the game is buggy, or lack-luster. Nobody will over-look the restrictions of their budget, because Obsidian's woes have always been about control. I'm optimistic though. I believe that they love what they are doing foremost, while having enough terror looming over the horizon to keep them hyper vigilant. The game will initially be played by people who are receptive to what this type of game is and has to offer. Critics holding the reigns of industry were weened on these games as kids and adolescents. All Obsidian has to do is not trip, and a combinations of encouraging reviews, nostalgia, curiosity, and an enticing entrance price will do the rest. Tint my glasses rose-colored, but I see champagne in Obsidian's future.

While I am invested and sensitive to the spell casting elements of PoE, I do feel that this thread might be somewhat overly critical. From what I have seen both within this recent update and the game-play teaser trailer, the nature of the spell effects are consistent with the IE feel, visually satisfying, and differentiable. The over-head status effect symbols were well done in BG, and it would feel natural to have them reintroduced here. For player controlled characters though, portrait icons should suffice for ultimately determining what is active. My best suggestion, would be that there be some sort of "Spellcraft" type ability where my spell caster can attempt to identify all of the effects/spells active on a target creature.

I'm in agreement with Stun. The other thing that irks me about boss fights, would be how they are typically immune to almost all normal abilities. You just have to hit them for damage until the timer runs out. Right now I'm playing Bloodlines: The Masquerade for the first time (finally), and it's so irritating to me how the only foes I can stealth kill or decimate with my character's abilities are the creatures which pose absolutely no threat to me. I could death spell Firkraag, back-stab Daeveron, and sunray the Shade Lich. It's understandable when some of your abilities may not be effective due to a stituational/tactical circumstance; IE: being a fire oriented mage on the Shadow Plane. However, throwing out just about all of the abilities and tactics your character uses just because this enemy is "special" is very poor design.

Baldur's Gate most certainly did level scale. Kjaamor is entirely correct. Personally, I've never had a significant problem with level scaling. Then again, I've never played Oblivion. I didn't really notice it in Dragon Age: Origins, though I've only played through the full game once--so I'm sure that I'm lacking perspective. Like many things, I liked the way BG handled it. Dungeons were largely the same with a select few encounters being significantly "elevated".

I prefer the Wizard's bonus feats to the Sorcerer's spontaneous casting. Given the nature of the beast, I always preferred my sparse spells to work without question when needed, rather than just be a kind of grenade launcher. The level of slower progression for Sorcerers can really hurt sometimes as well. That I tend to specialize (almost always Illusion) in a school that provides versatility...I never found myself hurting. I wouldn't say Sorcerer's are superior as much as I would say that they are more convenient. Getting caught off-guard doesn't happen enough for me to need to true benefit of spontaneous casting. Between specialization bonuses, bonus feats, faster progression, and the use of meta-magic like Extend Spell, I'll take the Wizard every time. That's D&D though. Pathfinder makes the Sorcerer argument significantly more persuasive. Very much agreed.

Many moons ago I was given a rather common assignment of scripting an AI that would be able to path through a "field of pit-falls". The object wasn't merely to have the AI memorize where it had fallen in, but begin to proactively predict where pits may exist and navigate around any potential harm. Everyone is given a procedurally generated "map", and then the class saw who's program could get the furthest in the fewest attempts. Challenging, indeed. I imagine that scripting an AI to avoid engagement/disengagement penalties would be very similar, but slightly easier. Knowing explicitly where the hazards are and what each hazard is capable of will make evaluating the least harmful outcome to the stated goal much easier. This is where the emergent AI that Endroz was mentioning would come into play. With today's computing power, it should be rather feasible. Execution is always more difficult than theory though. Having the AI NPCs perform these actions in such a manner that would not be easily exploited would be quite a task.

Ooh! What if... instead of simply having to prepare the appropriate counter-spell spell, you simply had to "spend" one of your spell slots to counter a spell? As in, you have 3 high-level spells prepared, buy you get hit with some horrible equivalent-level spell from an enemy (something that's just an effect, and not damage). And you get your Spell Craft check, as per your example (I've always loved that whole spell identification aspect in combat). And, if you succeed in identifying the spell, you have the option of spending a spell to counter-act that spell (not always to 100% counter-effect.). The result would be the same (having to use a spell slot to counterspell something), but it would be a lot less rock-paper scissors. Plus, if you'd already cast all your spells of the appropriate level, you wouldn't be able to do it. I know a lot of times when you first get Level X spells, you only have like 1 per day. So, if you get to a combat with something like Petrify, do you wait it out in case you need that spell to counter the Petrify? Or do you just cast that spell in the hopes that you won't need to counter Petrify? Opportunity cost. *shrug*. Just a thought. To clarify, I meant "counter" in all senses of the term. Either to nullify their spell directly, or simply cast a spell in response to it. That being said, I always wished in 3rd Edition D&D that someone could expend and equivalent or greater level spell to counter another. Needing to have a just the exact spell to use as a counter, or having Dispel Magic hog up a major portion of your spell slots just was not practical. I'm in general agreement with your suggestion for those reasons an more. I feel counter-spelling would be a nice function to have in PoE, since pre-buffing will not exist and the prevalence of hard-counters is...questionable/tenuous/unknown. It would make a great Wizard class ability. *Edited for grammar.

I hope they implement some sort of reaction system (One thing 4E got right) with a complimentary "Spell Craft" checks were one can attempt to recognize a spell as it is being cast, and seek to counter it.