Valci

i expect that some companions will be with you from the start... specifically Edor, Aloth and Pallegina who might well have traveled with you on the boat having accompanied you since PoE1...

Anyone that has ever fired a gun is familiar with recoil... Basically it's the momentum of the gun which discharges through the body and is equal to the momentum of the bullet. It gives us funny videos such as this too: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RjBe5jK6SMg Sure, it has very little to do with the damage the bullet actually does but as an abstraction of the "adequacy" of the gun wielder it's workable. Personally I preferred the old school system where strength affected melee damage, carrying capacity and there were strength restrictions on equipment, where dexterity affected aim virtually as well as ability to parry/dodge (which translated into AC back then as the system was simple but still), intellect affected number of spells for mages and so on and so forth... I know some didn't like it but I found it more realistic to what we have in PoE... But as long as the suspension of disbelief isn't too great I can live with it...

@illathid - Dragonball Z ... Really?! Come on you can do better mate. Personally I never got into it but from the bits that I saw of the super-super-duper-ultra-super-duper super saiyan it's not something I'd want similarities to... But ofc that's just me ...lol

I never min-max. In fact I never drop any star below 10 which for me is the average. However I only play on PoTD these days and it's entirely viable even with regular NPC companions (I also never create custom one cause the lack of interaction doesn't suit me). The only case in which min-maxing makes sense for me is for PoTD solo runs where you need to squeeze every ounce of performance from your character. In a full party virtually anything is viable...

That's very subjective... I enjoy my chanters quite a bit. Ofc they shine on higher difficulties where fights last longer but either way they are hardly more boring that the martial classes...

@Gromnir - One of the many reasons why I never dump stats... Besides the RP aspect ofc. Some players (the loudest often enough) want to have their cake and eat it too which unfortunately affects everyone...

No more muscle wizard is a plus for me. Had myself a really tough time roleplaying that... I understood very well how people were rationalizing it and I tried to but at the end of the day it was a struggle to make it hold water. Either way for me there SHOULD be a clear cut difference between physical strength and mental strength and spiritual strength... Like one being portrayed by strength one by intellect and the other by resolve for instance. Either way, it seems like a step in the right direction for me mechanics be damned... You can always alter those while testing or in future patches.

@Barleypaper i disagree personally. I think its a step in the right direction and i do agree with Sawyer that large power-gaps are undesirable especially if you consider the point of view of the designer (though i dislike them even as a player). You go to all this trouble to design 12 classes and you end up with 80% of the playerbase playing 3 or them... how is that good design? Might as well only have those 3 OP classes and be done with it. Moreover, without previous knowledge of which classes are super powerful and which are sub-par you punish the players (especially those that are just starting with the game) for a choice they made at the start if/when they end up being stuck due to a sub-par choice. In BG1's expansion (SoD) there was an encounter where the "good" choice was to have a one on one duel with some celestial lieutenant of Caelar Argent... the difficulty varied greatly based on which class the protagonist chose. A new player who chose the "wrong" class would get stuck there or alternatively would be obligated to make a choice that may not be in character for his protagonist... or ofc he could downgrade the difficulty (if possible) which would enhance the feeling that his character is weak even further ... either way you detract from their fun and punish them for what is essentially bad design (imho). Going further from this idea, there is a potential consequence even for a seasoned player who for instance would want to complete the game on PotD in that he might be/feel pigeonholed into selecting from a very limited class pool which again hurts his enjoyment of the game...

He made me curious too but sadly I was disappointed... No tentacles

hehehehe... havent seen that before... quality. TY!

@Morty & Lephys ... I agree with that as previously discussed... ignoring logic (ex. allowing a character who dumped str to 3 to wield a great sword for the sake of "diversity") is a whole other ballgame though. it has nothing to do with "tradition" and everything to do with common sense...

whichever way you look at it imho it is only viable if the monsters start the fight buffed as well so that the playing field is even. Why would the game put you at a distinct advantage by design? Or are the monsters supposed to be stupid? what about the humanoid ones? ... see where im going with this? But then if you allow the monsters to start the fights buffed you make player buffing a requirement and also you end up in a situation where both sides are buffed and cancel each other out which is the same as if neither were buffed pre combat to begin with.

In principle i agree with an approach in the vein of what you're describing in that we would have diversity and options for "builds" while keeping a distinct feel for each class. And i think PoE did a relatively good job in this though ofc it can always be improved. I do think that having different deflection values for classes for instance does make sense and such but as a general point i doint disagree with you. Where i do take issue is the ability of any character being able to use any item... i just dont see that as realistic as mentioned above... Though i dont think item usage should be linked to classes but with stats as per the example i gave. If you have enough strength to wield a large two-hander you can if you dont you cant... same with heavy armor. If you dont have a certain level of intellect you cant read a scroll for instance (lore doesnt really do it for me as that is different then knowing how to read which would be intellect related for me). Dont have enough dexterity... you get a penalty to ranged accuracy... and so on and so forth. Imho this would allow a variety of different builds but would make your choice of attributes matter so that you could build a character able to do almost anything but not at the same time... if that makes sense

@Lephys I take your point... I was simply stating my preference. I prefer systems where the classes are as different as possible from each other and I don't believe ask classes should be able to fill all roles. For instance, no, I don't think a mage should be a tank. I prefer systems more rooted in lore but also in realism... By that I mean that for me it makes sense that you should need higher strength to wield a large two hander or wear heavy, bulky armor... Conversely, it makes sense that you should have higher intelligence in order to learn and cast spells. That is why I think it makes sense for each class to have a main stat. A warrior with crap strength (so he can't hit hard) and also crap dexterity (if we're taking a rapier wielder for instance) SHOULD BE a crap warrior as far as I am concerned no matter of he had maxed intellect. I'm over simplifying it a bit but anyway, the gist of it is that for my part I prefer distinct roles for classes (with some overlap ofc between certain classes) and stats that logically affect the performance of those classes. Would I trade that just for added flexibility and more viable builds even if it goes against logic as well as the lore of the setting? No.

See but that right there is the point of disagreement. Many of us don't think pre-buffing would make things better... Quite the contrary in fact. And have explained why more then once. Ofc the fact of the matter is that it boils down to the preference of play style. As previously stated I prefer it when there is an even playing field between the heroes and the monsters and I don't much line one-shot kills from either side (like petrification or on the other side finger of death for instance). Casting something like greater malison followed by finger of death can make short work of even the toughest opponent like a dragon (or even a disintegrate spell)... And that defeats the purpose of the epic enemy that requires team work to defeat etc. I prefer less powerful magical effects that can turn a battle if used smartly and in combinations... One-shot skills/spells just aren't my thing. But I do acknowledge that some may like them... But for me, no argument will change my mind in that sense. And I'm mostly happy with how PoE has approached this aspect of the game... Could they add other interesting mechanics? Ofc. But for my part i'd prefer them to be in line with the strategy they've shown thus far...

@Lephys - well said mate... I agree with that 100%. @Goddard - that was precisely my point, that you can't beat a lot of harder encounters on the first try SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE METAGAME KNOWLEDGE which is flawed for me as a system. The status effects thing I kind of agree with... I would like to have certain status effects be permanent and difficult to cure as long as they weren't all over the place and were connected to some interesting side-quests maybe. The fact of the matter is that in BG you only had to worry about them in theory. In practice you'd use a berserk ability to get immunity to everything including level drain and presto you're good. Or cast negative plane protection... BAM! as long as you had metagame knowledge you could avoid everything that was remotely nasty in the game... Which makes it lose it's purpose for me. Now if they implemented certain special (preferably random from special boss-type mobs maybe) permanent conditions that neither resting nor your magic could cure in PoE and they tied them in with side quests where you had to hunt down rare components for a cure etc. that I would be all for it and if even make it timed like you have x amount of time to do it or the character dies permanently. But it should be part of the story not just something I cast restoration on, then rest and yay, I'm good as new!

Sorry but if youre playing an RPG ... and you role-play... since, well, its in the name of the genre... then dead is dead. You play Trial of Iron or such... no reload or do-over. That is if you want something punishing. Also, like i mentioned, that type of system only requires you to beat the game ONCE. I think challenging (and having situations be dynamic and unpredictable) is a far better system then something static and punishing... and given the way gaming has evolved i'd say the market by and large agrees with that.

So all the text adventures revolving around dead ends and trial and error were bad? I never played text adventures. Depends what type of game you're talking about. In an RPG where failure to beat an encounter = death... yes. If you get to play on then trail and error is fine i guess. Like for puzzles etc. but if it requires "me" to "die" in order to learn how to beat an encounter (in an RPG no less) then yes, its bad design.

BG1 is very different from BG2 though. You don‘t prebuff before each battle in BG2, when you do then you don‘t use always the same spells but specific ones for the specific encounter. Those spells aren‘t applied to outright win you the battle but to prevent you from being oneshot and enable you to take on the enemy (you still face the wings of tanar-ri or dragon for example), usually those creatues also have allies with them. It creates the impression for the player that he‘s going up against creatures that have deadly abilities, i sorely miss that in modern games. For me, any system that necessitates previous knowledge to beat an encounter is far from ideal. If you play the game for the first time, that implies that you would have to run into the dragon first in order to see what he casts, he kicks your arse and then you can load and cast the buffs. Meaning that its highly unlikely (almost impossible) that you will be beating one of those difficult encounters on the first try... which for me is poor design.

fair enough mate but for me the result is that we have a system that has detracted from the importance of stats altogether. Personally for role-playing purposes i prefer a system where the class is very much tied to a "main stat"... like back in BG where classes had a higher minimum value in their main stats. And then depending on how you want to build you can play with the OTHER stats (non-class specific). I understand what they tried to do with it and it's akin to what they did with gear that has no requirement of STR for instance - which ofc was to let players create more diverse characters. That doesnt really make sense for me because in the real world, in order to use a big two-hander you would indeed require a certain amount of strength... similarly, your physical build would have to support a heavy plate armor and so on. That is a part of the game i dont particularly like since i can play around it i've accepted it. For me personally... i will never make a mage in heavy armor for instance, or a mage wielding a big two-hander because it ruins the role-playing for me. Others like it, thats fine... Similarly, i think stats should be tied in with classes much more then they are rather then having the sort of universal effects that we got in PoE. I am a traditionalist in that sense simply because it makes sense lore wise and RP wise. I wasnt so much a fan of class related gear restrictions (like only mages being able to equip robes) but i do think gear should have STAT restrictions and as previously stated that classes should have a "main stat". Then, if you went mage and say he had a min. intellect requirement of 16 (just as an example) and wanted to create a heavy armor wearing mage you'd go with strength as a secondary stat... if you wanted a light armor wearing mage you'd have no reason to max strength and might go for another stat ,etc. Ofc this would require a rework of what stats do in the Pillars Universe which is unlikely. I'm just describing what would make the most sense for me...

I still fail to understand why exactly having certain stats be more relevant for certain classes is such a bad thing. Personally I prefer each class be as different as possible from the next. And I very much prefer a class based system to a classless one... Besides it makes sense for wizards to be more brainy and less brawny. You know, all those years spent in the Academy of Almighty Laws-of-physics Defying Magic of Godlyhood didn't leave much time for martial training... It's a matter of class flavor and role-playing. I don't see what is so wrong with it. In a d20 type system having a str of 10 is smack average. Nobody is saying mages should have a str score of 3... And if you dump the stat that's entirely up to you. I always make well rounded characters and never drop ANY stat below the average 10 even if the stat isn't much worth to a particular class. Sure I focus on int on casters, str on warriors but that's part and parcel of the system and it makes sense... What's so wrong about it?

Well thats not true Goddard and i think its disingenuous to claim it. I explained at length why i think pre buffing is bad for combat (in my opinion) several pages ago. I'll keep it brief this time around: 1. No surprise element in combat. You are guaranteed to get your buffs off since there is nobody to interrupt you... if you are forced to do it in combat theres always a chance you'll get interrupted and you have to adapt on the fly => more dynamic combat situations. 2. Makes certain fights ridiculously easy (see basilisks and prot. from petrification, prot. from fear with mages and dragons, etc.) 3. Makes it incredibly easy to metagame. Once you've done the content once you know exactly what buffs you need and exactly in what situations you need them to beat the content with ease. 4. No pre-combat buffs forces you to chose whether your priest or druid (or other classes) should spend their first few rounds buffing or dealing damage which leads to more tactically diverse choices in combat situations. As to claiming that Dispel magic or Detect evil (who uses that anyway?) become redundant... well no they arent. You simply cast Dispell after you see a monster has cast a buff. The monsters dont start the battles buffed either (unlike certain fights in BG where they were pre-buffed or had instant contingencies) so its an even playing field. All in all it makes choices more important them metagame knowledge imho... but as stated, ive said this all before and probably more... im just too lazy to go back and look for those particular posts...

maybe in your society but certainly not in mine mate... In my experience there are very few people that help you "just because". Most either have an ulterior motive or they get something out of it themselves. That depends on the level of bad you go to. But either way in real-life (which is silly to compare to because of the difference in the level of civilization anyway) you become "infamous" at the least. People learn to fear you if nothing else. I dont see that reflected... (or very rarely reflected) in a game like BG. Disliked/Despised dont cover that at all... just like shopkeepers charging you more is stupid. How about a discount for me not chopping your head of eh?!

I think people that haven't seen evil don't understand it. It isn't childish. I've worked in a prison and grew up poor in the city. It is easy to tell the difference between the evil, the unlawful, and the neutral and good. I don't think it is childish at all. It actually provides a good way to think of things. I remember walking around the city and thinking this guy acts like Aran Linvail. I think people understand it just fine. Its just the poor implementation that throws a spanner in their logic... which like i said has more to do with the reputation system in BG then the alignments themselves. It's stupid difficult to play an evil party because the game assumes that if you for ex. saved the slaves in the cloakwood mine (didnt let them drown) you did it out of the goodness of your hart instead of maybe letting you exploit them... as in make them work for you as payment for their lives for example. Simply raising my Rep. by 2 points is stupid in the context of the game... and it will put off my evil companions... plus it ruins my role-playing. My character can have a very self-serving reason for not letting the slaves die... the game doesnt account for that though...

I agree with Sedrefilos... the alignment and more specifically reputation system is laughable. The choices you are given in the BG series are laughable... either you are a goody-goody or you have the option of being a psychotic murderer. There is no grey area... or hardly any at best. Also, there are quests that force reputation on me from the get go.... Like the Nashkel mines right at the start. The Cloakwood Mines are even worse... even if you play an evil charname... why would you chose not to free the slaves? Maybe as chaotic evil, but anything outside that makes no sense... but i want the option to profit from saving them rather then get Rep. from that (potentially upsetting my evil party members)... I literally had to resort to "getting caught stealing" repeatedly for the -1Rep and use Wand of Paralysis on the Flaming Fist guys (because my character wouldnt just kill people for sport) in order to keep my Rep. average or below. The gist of it is that you can't play a "smart" evil character. A mastermind type that always sees 3 steps ahead and has ulterior motives for helping people when he does do that... Its all black and white.