CottonWolf

I think that would be the way you'd have to do it. Through feats granting +1 level X spells per encounter which can only be taken once for each spell level, otherwise Sensuki's right, it would get ridiculous. Maybe get access to the level 1 talent at level 9, the level 2 at 11 and so on through the expansion and sequels.

Assuming that they up the level cap in the expansion, the first level spells might begin to convert to per encounter there.

Or Rymrgand, because RPG protagonists are nothing if not the heralds of death on a massive scale.

Don't pirates wield sabres rather than rapiers?

The reviewers are (presumably, I'm assuming Obsidian are going to want a glut of day 1 reviews) going to get the game before the day 1 patch, so they'll all be playing a more buggy game than any consumer. What I'm saying is that any pre-release reviews that complain about bugs (in almost any game) at this point are invalid. You can only ascertain how buggy the game is for the consumer on day 1 after release. Which, I'll admit, puts game reviewers in a bit of a bind.

It's the only way to be sure. But no, I'll be in there day 1. The latest beta is eminently playable, I just hope that there aren't any broken quests.

Yeah, I'm not exactly clear how this fixes that problem either. I guess we'll have to wait and see the actual implementation.

Presumably you're immediately screwed if anything that naturally targets fortitude gets to you though?

You'd be surprised. Build an average MIG/CON barbarian, take greater frenzy, max INT -> have long buff +6 to MIG/CON spend the remaining points elsewhere.

Not that it overly matters, but I got the maths wrong. With heavy weapons it would be 86 vs 86. With light it would be 51.6 vs 86. Assuming that Interrupting blows is also relative, with 20 PER (the maximum available at chargen), interrupting blows and a standard heavy weapon that gives you 87.5, and with light weapons it would be 52.5 and with a morningstar (60 standard interrupt) a ridiculous base interrupt of 105.

It's not required really. Say, hypothetically, you go on an expedition to the Living Lands, you could easily have the stronghold still be standing. It makes very little difference if you have a castle thousands of kilometres away. Depending on the context in which you get the stronghold in PoE people might consider your character part of the aristocracy or something, but the fact that it exists wouldn't be able to interfere in those circumstances outside of how it makes people think about you. If they wanted a new stronghold in PoE2/PoEX, you could easily be setting up a frontier town or equivalent.

Base Concentration is 50 for all units AFAIK. So it's 50 * (1 + [{(Resolve - 10) * 6}/100]) 15 Resolve - 10 = 5. 5 * 6 = 30% 30% of 50 = 15 Concentration = 65 correct. then we end up with an equal bad situation if we use 68.8 for a 22 perception archer when needing counter the 86 concentration for 22 resolve. *shrug* we see what you is saying. 72% o' 40 is 28.8. unfortunately, based on the new calculation for resolve, would that result in a marked improvement for interrupts compared to old formula? perhaps it would be too obvious to make an average weapon have a base value o' 50 instead o' 40 and adjust everything else accordingly? HA! Good Fun! The base interrupt of 'heavy weapons' is 50, so you should get 68 vs 68 if you with 22 perception take on a high (22) resolve enemy with a greatsword or something. But you'll be attacking less often. The base is 30 on things like daggers, so you'd get 40.8 vs 68 if you were attacking with them, but you'd attack so much more often it isn't clear without simulation to me which way would grant you more interrupts in the long run. Plus there's always the talent Interrupting Blows which grants an extra +15% interrupt chance. Though whether that's relative or absolute, I've not checked.

Greater Frenzy is supposed to provide an extra +2 might and +2 constitution while frenzy-ing. It currently doesn't and the natural +4 to each is added whether or not you have the talent, according to the UI.

As a Mac peasant, has the interrupt bug been fixed in the second upload?

I'm trying to pick between an orlan or elf barbarian. My heart is telling me pale elf, but my head is telling me that the hearth orlan bonus is too good not to get.

Barbarians are pretty good if you play them nothing like their underlying concept. Use them as an off-rogue, running in behind groups when they're all already engaged by the rest of your frontline and you can tear them apart with carnage attacks - high DEX, MIG, INT. I couldn't find a way to build a good classical 'fight everyone in melee when they're looking at you' one though.

I'm sure it's far too late to change the way that it works, but this is a genuinely great idea.

Yeah, I was about to say that. I'm pretty sure I tried it once or twice, the enemies went hostile and I just never tried it again.

It doesn't seem from the little lore we have on them that any of the species are systematically more intelligent than any of the others. Adding +Int probably wouldn't make sense given that.

Definitely an Aumaua Godlike cipher the first time through, then either a druid or a chanter after that.

I'm missing it too. Cheers.

Oh, is that something we should be contacting them about? I mean, I don't particularly care either way, unless I'm actively missing out on stuff because of it. If it's just a kickstarter badge, I won't worry about it.

Yeah, I agree with everyone else. Just throwing this out there with no context doesn't really give us much in the way of information. I appreciate Josh's clarifications, but without actual costs and knowledge of how the extra content will affect what's already being developed it's difficult to have an opinion. Presumably if they do decide to go this route, there'll be a full update with all the details, and we'll have a better idea of what it'll actually entail then. And hell, if Sawyer thinks he can manage it without leading to feature creep and with the content being of the same quality of the rest of the game, I'm happy to take his word for it. There's still the question of where the money's going to come from though...

I actually voted no, out of worry of what would happen to scheduling. But if it did happen, I'd only want more content if the money was found from somewhere else, pledge increases through the backer site or something, rather than getting less of what was already going to be there. As Sensuki points out, this stuff ain't free. If they did find the money and thought they could do it practically, more wilderness content rather than more companions would probably be my choice. Presumably they've already written the story, no point writing new companions then struggling (and potentially failing) to tie them into the main plot somehow. EDIT: Sawyer addressed the companion point on Something Awful, in short. It wouldn't be a problem. They've not written any of the companions yet beyond basic designs, to allow them to be more reactive. I'd still probably rather more wilderness content though.

Yeah, I'd love some Malazan style gods/goddesses. Preferably some totally crazy stuff as well though, like worshipping the luminiferous aether or something (though I guess that moves dangerously close to the realm of druidry).