Mr. Magniloquent

Check your facts. Baldur's Gate (1998) was resoundingly voted RPG of the year by every award, magazine, and rating system out there at the time. It single-handedly revived the RPG genre. It was noted at the time for its excellent aesthetic, expansive adventure, and enthralling combat. The critical path was considered fairly linear, but the game was so open-ended (for the time), that it wasn't considered a problem. The writing and story telling were also considered top-notch for their day, which included how NPCs were fleshed out with distinctive personalities and conflicts of their own. The other thing, is that it had multiplayer. This is considered a failing for the IE games, but it was a huge deal at the time, because very few other RPGs even had the capability. Baldur's Gate I, pre-Tales of the Sword Coast, was a massive success. Baldur's gate 2 only expanded on that durable foundation. The entire genre has been living in the shadow of its legacy, never quite measuring up. The enhanced editions and kickstarters are self-evident of this.

Eight pages in. Wow. If you truely want to know what to call Bruce Jenner, then I have the answer. He is male, but possesses organs from another being.That makes him a.....Chimera! This is more common than you think though. For starters, every pregnant woman you've ever met is one throughout a major portion of their pregnancy. Bonus fun fact: People with pace-makers are technically cyborgs. My patients always got a kick out of that when I'd tell them. The future is now!

Anyone have any idea why multi-dice systems are eschewed? Bueller......Bueller?

Only if you assume that they would got as much money without offering them. Because those feature didn't eat all the money they brought not even close. I made no such assumption. Obsidian would have had to focus on their core. It would have been a much smaller and simpler game, but the core of their system would have been better honed as a result. A more modest game would have had lower ambitions and less expectations, which would have (I believe), led to less questionable design choices and a better experience.

There are a few items which grant Suppress Affliction, the most important Priest spell. This can make the priest superfluous, but no more than any other class really. Once they get to level 9, spamming Halt with a high Int/Dex build can be quite useful though. As far as Durance goes, I didn't care for his arrogant antagonism, but I took him along given how obvious his significance to the region's events are.

Per turn systems are easy to balance, but are often unimpressive due to their guaranteed occurrence. Mana systems can be arranged such that they operate on the same power curve as a memorization system. Replenishment can come exclusively through resting like a vancian style system, or it can be augmented with regeneration and potions. Mana systems generally make things very convenient for both the player and the developer. The problem with mana systems, is that it often results in generic, unimaginative, and mediocre spells. Before the Altar of Balance, developers sacrifice any spell concept with any wonder due to how easily mana systems can be taken advantage of by the player. This is my main argument for advocating memorization mechanics. Being able to cast it only once per adventuring day means that your spells need to matter. They should turn tides and overcome otherwise impossible obstacles. Memorization systems allows magic to be magical. This has been forgotten in the modern age. The Altar of Balance has crushed this, and reduced it to glorified ranged DPS. Flip through an old D&D (particularly pre-3.0 Edition) manual and see the incredible, imaginative, and useful spells those books had. Baldur's Gate 2 came closer than anyone to capturing the magic. My hopes that PoE would rebirth that legacy were dashed very early in development unfortunately.

Outside of the music (one of PoEs best points), it would be better off for it. Next to none of these things were worth-while. The core of the game would have been greatly strengthened without these distractions.

While that look isn't terrible, it certainly gives the impression that is what The Joker would look like if he were a hipster.

I can't support that statement. They sold this game on being the best of the IE games. Explicitly, terms of combat, PoE is supposed to be like Icewind Dale. Combat in PoE is only superficially like Icewind Dale. When dealing with things like class design, soft-counter philosophy, engagement, spell design, item usage, combat states, etc.....combat is nothing like Icewind Dale, let alone the IE game that people were actually clamoring for.

Why don't more games utilize multiple dice systems where a series of dice are rolled, and the highest retained (like in Deadlands)? It seems to me that it would solve a great many problems where hp/damage bloat, RNG volatility/disparity, level scaling, weapon/ability obsolescence become an issue as character progress in power. It seems far more logical to me that character improvements would be better represented through reliability (roll 3d6, take the highest roll) rather than chasing ever higher numbers. Power levels can still be represented with different dice ranges (*d6 vs. *d10) and other integer bonuses, so that's not a concern either. With all of this being done via computer, the dice are not cumbersome and non-traditional or arbitrary dice can be used as well (d72, d33, etc). This way, rather than copious tables, a character dice range would increase at milestones (power), while steadily rolling more dice (reliability). This would also have the added benefit of assuaging RNG tantrums. Power levels would also likely have a more natural kind of bounded accuracy where a seasoned warrior will have no trouble with say...three goblins, but no longer be able to swat an entire tribe simultaneously without flaw. Obviously scale does still matter, and a balance between the range of the dice and number rolled will have to be taken into account. I feel that this would be far easier to balance though. I'm not sure if I have explained this concept clearly, so let me know if not. Otherwise, does anyone know of a reason why cRPGs do no use multi-dice systems like I have described?

I still don't understand why we want to discourage movement at all. I've been slowly replaying BGTutu over the past couple of weeks, and movement ends up being one of the more dynamic and interesting parts of combat (and the loss of movement or control of movement is a huge risk). Engagement strikes me as ever more pointless. It has to do with two inter-related fears: kiting and autonomous characters. Kiting is to Mr. Sawyer like fire is to Frankenstein. Bad. Avoid at all costs. Engagement probably the foremost among the major symptoms of this terror. There were some others that were toned down (enemy hyper movement speeds, movement recovery, etc), but engagement was never touched. It was inviolable despite its significant impact on gameplay and incredible opportunity for exploitation. Engagement is also supposed to function as an excuse for many class and feature designs. Anything that is not a designated tank shall not be able to do what a tank can do--even temporarily or through use of per-rest resources. No non-tank shall ever be able to possess high defenses. The End. Mind you, the biggest problem with Engagement is its implementation. Let's go down the list: Instantaneous Free (No recovery) Guaranteed-to-interrupt Accuracy bonused Damage bonused Ignores weapon reach That's not providing an obstacle to your back-row, that's punishing movement. That's what everyone has been complaining about since the beta began. It throws out all of the combat mechanics that are supposedly good, and does this. Frankly, the circumstances of a disengagement attack need to be exactly the opposite of what it currently bestows. Disengagement attacks need: Respect weapon speed Respect attack recovery Respect weapon reach Possess an accuracy penalty Remove any damage bonus I do think the interrupt is important to have until non-tank defenses get fixed (if ever). I also think having engagement occur only when toggled (IE: Defender mode) would be best, as a player may sometimes wish their melee classes to be offensive.

Not that I can think of. Though, unless he has somehow shed all Y chromosomes he is still male. An intensely ugly abomination of a male.

Level by level, all Cipher spells have greater damage ranges than wizard spells. Most durations are close to double the base of wizard spells. The base durations for the wizards confusion spells are like 6 seconds on a hit. That's awful. Other offensive durations are equally unimpressive. Even their spell which reduces DR only reduces it by 5, whereas the Cipher can steal 10 DR. The base duration is also far longer. Most wizard spells posses AoE, but I find the circumference of these spells to be sorely lacking. They are often too small to risk casting at a moving target, and rarely fit more than 2 enemies within them without risking friendly-fire. Several Cipher spells posses AoE and most do not have any sort of friendly-fire involved. Those that do are more easily managed than the wizards spells at the very least. The one aspect where there might be a deficiency, is that some of the cipher spells have gimmicks, like the requirements of being cast on a friendly target. Unless you are soloing, this is rarely a problem. Essentially the only thing the Wizard has as being noteworthy over the Cipher is Gaze of the Adragon, and possibly Essential Phantom if soloing. Else, the Wizard loses. Inferior potency, inferior accuracy, inferior duration, inferior ease of use. When you couple this with how large a percentage a wizard's spells will be lost to grazes and even misses, the wizard falls even further behind.

Cipher is without doubt, far more powerful in all situations than a Wizard or Druid. Regardless of how many spells per day the wizard/druids have remaining, this is just as true for trash as it is for boss fights--even more so for boss fights. The durations of their spells are significantly longer and their damage ranges far greater. Couple these with their ability to do things like reduce DR, reliably paralyze, while not suffering from the inevitable miss/grazes, their superiority to the wizard is unquestionable.

PoE does not need more classes, it needs fewer. It was an incredible mistake to push for stretch goals with all of these classes. With a new game attempting to pioneer new concepts and game mechanics, they needed to get their basics of walking before attempt to sprint.

Well, I'm glad you've discovered that everything needs to be brought up to the cipher's level, rather than have it dragged downward like so many here have been declaring necessary. For all of the terror that gripped Mr. Sawyer about wizards and class redundancy in general, the Cipher can actually do a bit of everything and do those things (relatively) well. Imagine that. The class is enjoyable because it's the least restrained of them all. Imagine that. I do not like the notion of giving every class the focus type resource. Frankly your suggestions sound very Diablo 3 to me. The solution isn't to make all the classes like the cipher, it's to radically redesign all of them--permitting broader roles and greater overlap of abilities. Classes should be robust unto themselves, yet distinctive. They should not be fractured MMO derivatives or one/two trick ponies.

I don't think that's an acceptable defense. The game was sold as having the best qualities of all of those name-dropped games. They climbed up on that cross, it was theirs to carry. The templates were all but literally there, they merely needed to stitch them together and iron out some kinks. PoE resembles none of them beyond the art and music. The Sawyer departures are glaring and contrary to many of the most poignant strengths that the IE games possessed.

Her dispositions should be Diplomatic & Rational. She even has an interjection about using words to solve problems as to reserve strength for fights that matter. All of her motives with politics are rational, while all of her means are diplomatic. This is an easy call.

Wasted potential. Firmly 3/5. Not terrible, but supremely wasted potential. Unfortunately, the potential was wasted or missed where it mattered most. Terrible "soft-counter" philosophy, design, and implementation. An extraordinary amount of ramifications are felt from this. Lives firmly within the shadow of D&D. There is no reason for this. Arcanum had no such faults. Terrible fragmented class design. A symptom of both of the above. With PoE's attribute system and inclusion of talents, this was screaming to be classes. Engagement handled in the exact opposite manner that it should have been (free attack, bonuses,etc.). The quality of the plot, writing, and companions can be argued, but these are not what mattered. We've had games deliver quality in these departments. It was combat and its recovery from the MMO scourge that was in such dire need. Unfortunately, MMO scourge is what PoE epitomized. At least the art, music, and "choose-your-adventure" bits were nice.

Perhaps slightly harsher wording and different emphasis than I would have chosen, but I cannot disagree with any of that review. QFT. I've long asserted that PoE's greatest fault is its attempts to not be D&D despite shadowing its every step. The RPG Codex reviewer took the same notice.

Hilarious. After all, we know that Obsidian's gaming forums are the pulse of Geo-politics and harbingers of the political zeitgeist.

This is a fun idea! Good suggestion. I agree that it's a disappointment about the spell list access. Particularly in that no spells are sponsored, they should have let all of the classes have access to the same pool, just cast through their different mechanisms. Good post.

I did them all except the ogres (haven't done that yet) back to back on hard at level 6. The Dweller and Xaurips were no problem, but Sly was a rough battle for me. The AI went berserk on my Ciphers and I think even KOed one of them.

... you can't use Liberating Exhortation/Suppress Affliction against Dominate/Confuse/Charm. Those abilities can only target allies, and the ailments in question turn your allies into hostiles. I'm not sure about that. I can distinctly remember using these for such a case. I seem to recall the AI using it to counter my charm/dominates as well. I'll have to test this. I suppose they could be used pro-actively when combat begins against opponents notorious for charm though. I'll have to test this.