Heresiarch

I have returned to Deadfire after almost a year-old hiatus and tried to revive the very first build I tried. A Soulblade/Assassin with Whispers of the Endless Paths who specialized in removing enemies even before the battle starts in earnest. As fun as this "backstab them with a ballista" build was, I wanted to do things differently (and less RNG dependent) and add more control and survivability to the build. So, I made a Soulblade/Trickster with a single weapon to make my Backstabs and Soul Annihilations more reliable. I was also planning to take plenty of CC and defensive abilities, as well as a few shreds for long range and AoE damage. However, I soon found out that single weapon accuracy buff really doesn't compensate for the drop in damage compared to a two-hander. It takes considerable time for me to build back focus after a Soul Annihilation. In the end (just a few levels in) I started thinking that maybe my Mindstalker build wasn't the best or that Beguiler didn't really fit the bill or taking one-handed weapons was a mistake. Any pointers on building that type of Mindstalker (any working Soulblade) are very welcome. Saying that this build takes off at later level is welcome too, provided that it does take off, of course.

Yep. It's not a conversion per se, the bonus changes the ranges on the hit table. So your 10% to hit conversion + 10% to crit conversion nets you 10% of misses converted into crits ceteris paribus.

Don't get me wrong, I dislike Skyrim as much as the next guy. I think there's hasn't been a decent TES game since Morrowind (which was absolutely awesome) and I know that plenty of die-hard TES fans would wholeheartedly agree with me. The quests just don't cut it. Morrowind had good writing and interesting story lines, Oblivion had Dark Brotherhood quest line and Skyrim... well, Skyrim had a nice character creation screen and an engaging crafting system. Still I don't understand how you can even compare Skyrim to PoE. It's like comparing Alien Shooter to CoD. They have almost nothing in common. And let's face it cRPGs could never boast a terribly wide audience, so the fact that PoE wouldn't sell a million copies shouldn't come as a great surprise to anyone, let alone Obsidian themselves.

I have two words for you, OP... Heavy Rain

Your total inability to read and comprehend whatever it is I am saying is almost funny. Except it is not. No one has been able to provide absolutely indisputable peer-reviewed studies by even handed people on those issues with resorting to some form of fallacy or relying on non-absolute disputable information that can't be 100% confirmed. Thus all things are likely false. Duh. EDIT: I think looking for or asking proof on an internet forum is silly for something as complex as many of these social issues are. We don't prove people wrong/right here as much as spout our opinions at each other. Congratulations. Here is your intellectual dishonesty of the month award. I am sure no one else has put so many lies in so few words so far.

You are not reading. You quoted the very post where I demonstrated that wording is not the reason for my disbelief in their scientific method. Your argument is subject to confirmation bias, just as the article in question. You want to prove me wrong and cling to whatever shred of phrasing I sue in a futile attempt to undermine the whole argument without addressing its core. Ironically enough, you are the one in denial here.

Oh, I know what Modern Racism Scale is. But I have no idea what "ambivalence concept was used to demonstrate the construct validity of a relatively nonreactive scale of racial prejudice-the Modern Racism Scale" means. How exactly did they "demonstrate construct validity"? By showing that there is prejudice in 81 white student from their university without proper control groups to account for other contributing factors? Are you having a laugh? Trying to obscure that your conclusions are meaningless behind obscure terms doesn't work with me or with any other person who studied natural or formal sciences. Also I like how you ignore the bulk of my post because you cannot refute it. Their scientific research techniques are absolute trash, that's the main reason why I disregard their findings. Their inability to formulate their conclusions in a way that actually makes sense only adds to my skepticism. The fact that they have been cited a lot only means that sociologists are bad at critical thinking and understanding scientific method. If you think that my preference for facts is a demonstration of bias, well, it's not really my problem, is it? I am no expert on global warming, but I know there are several contributing factors. Frankly, I am yet to see a study that proves that the bulk of gradual increase in the average temperature of the Earth atmosphere is largely attributable to greenhouse gases. Why do you ask?

Well, I guess if you really just stick your head in the sand and not pay attention to what's going on in Ferguson and South Carolina, I suppose this can get you started, assuming that you're acting in good faith and want to learn something and not asking for scholarly articles for the sake of asking for scholarly articles, and that you will actually read at least the abstract, and respond accordingly about whether actual, peer-reviewed literature is a high-enough bar to meet your standards of "evidence." Institutional racism against black people in the process of hiring, cited 317 times (unfortunately it's not free to view the whole paper). Systemic racism (a book, not a paper), cited 489 times. Institutional racism against black children through labeling language sets as "pathological," cited 549 times. I will be very curious to see how you will respond. I don't care so much about the book, but I will be very curious to read the contents of the articles. To bad they are behind paywalls, right? If you'd be so kind as to provide me the text or to summarize their approach to scientific research, I would be able to tell you much more. You did read them yourself, I assume. From the abstracts I can tell you that the Harvard article sounds like cryptic BS, but I'd love to know what they mean by "existing genetic inferiority and social pathology models". I would love to know where they exist and how exactly their existence reflects on the contemporary society. The abstract of the article on SAGE is riddled with weasel words. Let's take for instance, "ambivalence concept was used to demonstrate the construct validity of a relatively nonreactive scale of racial prejudice-the Modern Racism Scale". The only thing I can tell the author is this. Aside from that their biased and non-representative sample is way too small to draw conclusions about the behaviour of the whole population of the US. But most importantly they lack a control group to control for the fact the white and black people, indeed, belong to different races. They should have conducted an identical experiment to demonstrate that black people harbor no similar prejudice against white people. Otherwise they cannon claim systemic oppression, can they? Last but not least, without the actual text I have no way of telling if they haven't gone into logical fallacies and non sequiturs, which many sociologists love these days. Are you eager to hear more?

Wait a darn minute, youre trying to trick me aren't you? If theres one thing this thread has revealed through peering deeply into our navels is that its totally ok to discriminate if you are part of an oppressed group. And that you can shut the hell up if not from said group. Are you trying to tell me that's a moronic position? You're purposely trying to act like a retard, aren't you? I never said it was ok. Never. But bringing up black on white racism as some sort of retort towards institutionalized racism, as happens time and time again in every discussion, is a laughable tactic to diminish systemic racism. It's just a tactic to avoid having to discuss the systemic racism. Nothing more, nothing less. And it's pathetic. Say, since you're so well-versed on the subject, maybe you can link me a scholarly article with empirical evidence that supports the existance of nationwide institutionalized racism in any country of the Western World? You know, to prove that such a thing even exists.

While I am a bit disappointed with how Pillars turned out, I don't regret a cent I spent to back PE. Moreover I would certainly do it in the future if Obsidian decides to crowdfund again.

I dunno if you're trying to be funny, but that is exactly what Christianity has done for centuries. Exactly my point! And theres absolutely nothing wrong with that as they were once themselves discriminated against. Its so simple. I am sorry to tell you that, but the irony of your words is lost on some folks. They believe that if you call your own way of discrimination "affirmative action", it suddenly stops being bad. All hail the allmighty doublethink!

Jeebus. This is so elementary it's in introductory textbooks. It's like you're asking me to link to a peer-reviewed article demonstrating that the Earth goes around the Sun. But here you go, about 800,000 references: [ https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=racism&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp= ] First, let me fix that link for you:https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2011&q=racism&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 See a pattern there now? Secondly, I see you have blatantly left out my point about hard evidence and facts and absense of baseless assumptions and logical fallacies. Well played, mate, well played! Thirdly, I find it hilarious that at first you quote a book on me and than, when asked to be more specific, you quote google search (sic!). Next time if you want to troll someone you should include an additional step - a reference to a national archive! That's bound to give folks a hearty laugh.

You do realize that you're asking me to prove an entire academic discipline to you in a forum post? You do realize that's exactly like the young-earth creationist asking you to prove general relativity to him in a forum post? Please, do not compare sociology with physics. I am STEM graduate and it insults my STEM-graduate feelings. Just kidding. Actually I have a wide educational background. I am not asking the impossible, I don't expect you to prove sociology right. It would be dumb. All I want is a single article from a peer-reviewed source that contains evidence of existing nation-wide institutionalized oppression based on race (or even sex, I am not picky) in any of the Western-world countries. I mean, if the problem is so widespread and grave there must be tons of evidence (and scientific studies) out there to prove its existence. Don't you agree?

I find it extremely hard to believe that someone can make this statement without being ironical. SJWs get to define "systemic oppression", find the group they consider the most oppressed and let only them talk. All the while they advise others to **** off and don't mess in their racism discussion, because they do not belong to the proper race. Truly that's comedy gold, mate. You are making stuff up.Give me a coherent definition of systemic oppression and I'll be more than willing to debate that. Problem is, people like you are usually solely interested in disparaging those who are having constructive conversations about these issues. You don't actually have a definition in mind because you are talking out of your ass. Prove me wrong. EDIT: I forgot to mention that the bit about only letting the most oppressed talk is an outright lie. In this and other threads about the limerick I have personally told people off for transphobia, homophobia, racism and ableism. I'm willing to listen to all of those groups because they have serious issues worth talking about. I'm not interested in hearing about how affirmative action is really just oppression of white people, because that is utter bull****. So you want me to prove to you that I know what I'm taking about, because you assume I'm talking out of my ass. Because you supposedly know a lot about "people like me", the group which, I assume, includes everyone who doesn't share your opinion. And then you say that you are all for having a constructive conversation. I get it, you are a natural born comedian! I'm sure the irony of your own words would be lost on you again. Just let me state in no unclear terms that I have no desire to converse with people like you or to provide definitions for the terms you operate with. Moreover, I find the whole notion utterly preposterous. That is not true. The sociological definition of racism is in broad use among academics who study society, i.e., sociologists. You'll find it or something like it in any introductory sociology textbook. This one, for example. It is based on broad and extensive research going back more than 50 years or so. It is also in use among a large group of non-academics interested in social issues. All that is fact. That you believe the sociologists are wrong is neither here nor there. The definition is still in broad use and asserting that it's not won't change that. You will also need to do a good deal more work to demonstrate that they're wrong than simply asserting that it's "pure sophistry." Edit: Added citation. You think I have to prove them wrong and I think they have to prove themselves right in the first place. That's how science operates. But wait, antipositivist sociologists don't believe that. Well, too bad for them and their theories. Don't cite the whole book on me, mate, give me some original research! Something crunchy with hard evidence, statistics, facts, and irrefutable logic. Without fallacies and affirmations based on nothing at all. That's what I mean by "citation needed". Until such evidence comes to existence academics who study sociology can study it all they want. But I'm not taking their theories on faith, nor am I taking any advice from them on how I should behave. If I feel an urge to listen and believe I'll go to a Sarkeesian seminar.

@PrimeJunta Read my post. What I am trying to say is extremely clear in the context. But in case you are lazy, let me reiterate. That sociological definition of racism is pure sophistry. It does not cite any reliable sources and as such only reflects author's fantasies on the subject.

I find it extremely hard to believe that someone can make this statement without being ironical. SJWs get to define "systemic oppression", find the group they consider the most oppressed and let only them talk. All the while they advise others to **** off and don't mess in their racism discussion, because they do not belong to the proper race. Truly that's comedy gold, mate. That's not the concept. It's simply one aspect of racism (sociological), namely systemic racism. There was a whole list of ways in which racism (sociological) manifests. What's more, the definition of 'racism' I linked to is also an established one in common usage. It's the standard usage in sociology, and it is in broad use among non-academics who are actively interested in the concept -- activitsts, politicians, and what have you. Citation needed. The only people who use the so-called "sociological" definition of racism are social marxists claiming the existence of a system of privilege and power, which is supported by some invisible and unspecified evil force (e.g. The Patriarchy™). Incidentally, they are also unashamedly racist and sexist in their opinions about the members of "privileged" group. But, guess what, according to their own definition of sexism and racism they are not being sexist or racist, because they do not possess the power to systematically oppress the members of those "privileged" groups! So it's only racism if it's someone else doing it. This is quite a neat coincidence, am I right?

bioware seems to agree because there are nipples in dragon age 3 It almost made me forgive them for SWTOR and the endings in ME3. Almost.

I feel embarrassed when I see other people doing or saying silly things. I believe, they call it empathy.

I am sorry, but if you are okay with your video game character killing people and not okay with them swearing, you really should reconsider your values, OP. On the bright side, now I know that there can be mods less useful than nude mods. Quite a shocker.

Personally, I couldn't care less if the joke was in or out. The joke about having regrets after sex in intoxicated state are older than dirt. It doesn't really matter if it was an exceptionally ugly person, a transgender person or a relative. Adding suicide to the mix gives the joke a touch of black humor, but either way it certainly would not make anyone's day. But Obsidian's (and Feargus Urquhart's in particular) reaction to this is appalling. On one hand, they say they get the backer's feedback on the issue and the permission to remove it from the game, while on the other they call the limerick not just controversial (which it is not), but promoting hate! Really, is that how it's going to be now? You are willing to let Tumblr nonsense, made-up statistics, and SJW bigotry rule supreme?

But look at the bright side, you can mug the tax collector and take all that hard-earned adventurer money for yourself. Most likely people would even feel that you did the right thing, netting you positive karma. Tax collectors were never a popular bunch.

It would be fun to see a tax collector standing next to a dungeon entrance, claiming 25% of all the loot from adventurers for the government. Then the Church (or whatever temples are called in PE) claims 10% more, 20% go to pay off Raiding Inc. sponsorship, another 5% for the adventurer trade union, 50% customs fee for epic items... To make a long story short the adventurers simply need to give away all their stuff and also transfer a small amount of gold from their bank account to pay the remaining debt.

For my optional boss I'd like the following: some motivation, not just "yeah, sure, I'll just crawl down the Watcher's Keep and slay a mighty demon, because that's my idea of a nice vacation, thank you"; a fun quest that leads me to the boss and not a billboard saying, "Red Dragon's Top Secret Lair 200 km"; unique loot, something with a back story and a unique special effect. In the end if I have to work hard to slay the bastard, there's no reason devs shouldn't work hard on the reward. Not to mention that getting a weapon from an epic fight that will be outclassed at some point in game by semi-rare loot feels extremely lame; a consequence... I mean, surely if no one killed the boss before there was some reason for it apart from him being imbalanced. Maybe someone wanted things to stay that way or maybe he had bossy relatives, who would take terrible revenge on his murderers. But a bunch of grateful peasant girls​ peasants offering me fiefdom over their settlement is fine too.

Well, yeah, I suppose I'm trolling you a bit here and there. Not really my intention, I apologize for that. Actually I do realize that people can roleplay whatever they want, but I don't agree that artificial limitations help diversify gameplay. That is my point. You brought up VtMB and you have to agree that being a classless system it allowed characters of different clans to take a similar approach to problems. Both Nosferatu and Malkavian could be sneaky to the extreme with Obfuscate maxed out. Brujah and Gangrel both were paragons of melee, bit Toreador also allowed for a combat build by maxing out Celerity and sporting a good gun. Tremere could kick serious ass in combat with Thamaturgy and Dominate. I wouldn't say any of those four clans was more effective than others. On the other hand, both Malkavian and Ventru could be awesome with the social approach with their disciplines. So in the end VtMB allowed for a lot of customization of your playstyle even within a single clan, which I think is awesome and totally conforming to the spirit of Vampire the Masquerade. What really set some clans apart was not some specific skill. It was Malkavian's madness, Nosferatu's ugliness, Toreador's outlook and Tremere's... well, tremerity? Anyway, the game did not make Nosferatu the only clan good with the locks or Brujah the only ones good at CQC. So I would say that VtMB speaks in my defence.

You hear a GM which cares to provide a spotlight for every player, by whatever means are neccesary or preferable to that session or player. If one player has four dots in Lockpicking, while the other has four in Chemistry, I will provide metaphorical "locks" which can be opened with only one way or another. As for what you concider "fun", it's just what you personally concider fun, nothing more. Some people don't like to garrote anyone, but enjoy tinkering with mechanisms or breaking into houses, or whatever. I believe that their idea of fun is quite different from my idea of fun, but there is no way they will ever be satisfied with trivial solutions to challenges you suggest. Has it ever occurred to you, that a player with 4 dots in alchemy can brew a corrosive acid that could burn through a lock and, thus, open the door? Or that a rogue with 4 dots in lockpicking can break into a pharmacy and steal a potion instead of having to brew it? If you think it's wrong, because it steals the other player's spotlight, I kinda feel sorry for your players. It can't be very exciting playing the Captain Obvious all the time. He wears the heaviest, most expensive armor and feels good about being the most badass tank around. As an example. Paladin and Cleric with all their buffs, plate armor, and healing abilities beg to differ. I am arguing that depending on your class, skills, race, unique content should be generated to provide unique experience you could't get other way around. Class, skills, race - these things can, and should, be used for that purpose, as you tell the game how you want your character be treated right from the character generation screen. As for your "true and virtous" "actual roleplay" without "boring dungeon crawling", but with "synergy and interactions", well, it has been nothing but loud statements and pompous theorising so far, and it really has nothing to do with mechanics in CRPG's. Oh, but do tell me about that "actual roleplay" and what it is, and how one "roleplay" can be more "actual" than another "roleplay". That would be most enlightening. Just name me a cRPG where your race matters. And no, an occasional one-liner "you're a elf! boo!" does not count. Same goes for class. I think there is nothing that shows how little your race and class do for the gameplay like NWN 2. Since you've asked, let me tell you about the actual roleplay. As you may judge from the name roleplay is about playing a role. You change your own behaviour to be in someone else's metaphorical shoes. You think like them and act like them. You get most intimate with the role when the action of the character shock you, when you learn something about him that you haven't known beforehand. That kind of experience requires choice, non-standard situations, and moral dilemmas, not picking locks or doing dungeon crawling. Of course, you may consider dungeon crawling and using your character's special abilities roleplay, but then you have to call walking, drinking, and relieving yourself roleplay as well. In that case we don't really have much to talk about. I hope that was enlightening enough.