-
Posts
637 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Everything posted by Ineth
-
Don't play dumb Alu. That "philosopher" is endorsing some pretty stupid and illiberal ideas, all the while showing zero awareness of all the suffering and injustice which putting those ideas into practice in the past (e.g. by communist regimes) has already caused. The fact that he doesn't have the guts to come straight out with his demands, and instead hides behind weasel words, hamfisted hypothetical scenarios, and duplicitous quotes, should make him more suspect, not less.
-
The Druid's and Wizard's spells-per-day limit does not really reduce their "powerfulness" much in practice, especially considering that they also get at least one per-encounter ability at level 1, and a whole bunch of per-encounter spells at level 9 (several of them better than the corresponding Cipher powers). I don't think I ever rested due to empty spell slots after chapter 2; but rather due to fatigue or to regain special per-day abilities (not spells). Cipher is a lot more comparable to martial classes than you think. Ciphers smack things with their weapon to build focus and use powers to complement their ability to smack things with their weapon. Rogues smack things with their weapon using specific positions and debilitating affects to complement their ability to smack things with their weapon. Rangers smack things with their weapon and coordinate with their pet to complement their ability to smack things with their weapon. Monks smack things with their weapon and build wounds to use abilities to complement their ability to smack things with their weapon. Barbarians smack things with their weapon and uhhh... smack things with their weapon. The big thing that really sets them apart is the fact their selection of powers is as diverse as a caster. They're kinda the middle of the road type class in a sense. Casting 'powers' is the main activity of a Cipher; attacking with weapons is a secondary thing for them, unlike the other classes you listed.
-
I think I should have phrased the poll option "still overpowered compared to other caster classes". Comparing casters with non-caster classes is much less meaningful, since they perform fundamentally different roles. If a tank and a ranged caster work together to obliterate enemies quickly without getting much damage themselves, why should the caster be counted as the "more powerful" one, just 'cause he's the one dealing the damage? After all, the tactic only works with both characters together. So IMO it's better to focus on power comparison between the three offensive caster classes (Druid, Wizard, Cipher), and to a lesser extent with the two support caster classes (Chanter, Priest).
-
Update #95: Patch 1.05 - New Features
Ineth replied to BAdler's topic in Pillars of Eternity: Announcements & News
Are Ciphers garbage now? -
The 1.05 patch nerfs Ciphers in at least two ways: "Ciphers now start with 1/4 max Focus instead of 1/2" "Draining Whip is now working as intended" If I understand correctly, the second line means that you'll no longer be able to regenerate focus quickly with a Blunderbuss. So not only will your Cipher enter each battle with insufficient focus to cast a level-appropriate power, but it'll also take them quite a while to generate that focus. Will this mean that they now suffer from the same problem as Chanters (not being able to use invocations because most battles are over before they unlock) - except without benefiting from passive chants like Chanters do? In other words, do Ciphers simply suck after installing this patch? Now I realize that it has become sort of a meme on this forum (and elsewhere) to call the pre-1.05 Ciphers "overpowered" or even "the most powerful class", which was probably what motivated Obsidian to nerf them. But as I've explained before, this meme probably arose from people confusing "most powerful" with "easiest to play". IMO the power spectrum of caster classes in the game version 1.04 went like this (from most to least powerful): well-played Druid well-played Wizard ---significant gap--- Cipher (play style doesn't make much difference, since their combat resources are so care-free) naively or impatiently played Druid/Wizard According to this theory of mine, the comparison between (4) and (5) is what led people to call ciphers "overpowered", and nerfing Ciphers now makes them fall even further below (1) and (2)... Do note that in addition to nerfing ciphers, the 1.05 patch also buffed Wizards somewhat, and didn't change much at all about Druids (the most powerful caster class, and the one that would have deserved nerfing the most IMO). Am I alone in seeing things this way?
-
"The Reds"? It seems you don't realize that the harshest critics of fractional reserve banking, are Austrian School libertarians. They believe that it's fraud and that it could not exist in a society with a minimalist government that respects property rights. So yeah, abolishing it is not exactly the hallmark of Communism.
-
"Representing people" Well, union bosses anyway.
-
I'm pretty sure Islam just absorbed that rule from Judaism (like many other things), rather than inventing it independently.
-
I wonder if these tumblr/twitter feminists realize that their actions give filmmakers (and similarly, game developers) an incentive to not try to include strong female characters in their stories. Think about it from the perspective of the creators: Choice A: Do not include strong female major characters.Consequence: Some minor grumbling and sighing on social media, mostly by people who were looking for an excuse to (re-)tweet about the Bechdel test anyway. But they move on quickly - there's no harassment or significant bad publicity. Choice B: Do include strong female major characters. Consequence: 65% chance (completely unpredictable) of a huge bat-sh*t crazy sh*tstorm exploding based on some minor detail of the character being allegedly "offensive" under some (usually ridiculous) interpretation. It's clear which one is the safer choice.
-
Both. 1) It was tasteless. 2) It was, and should be, protected by free speech.
-
The Weird, Random, and Interesting things that Fit Nowhere Else Thread..
Ineth replied to Raithe's topic in Way Off-Topic
Why do Korean and Japanese artists/cartoonists so often choose to make their characters look white/Caucasian? Honest question. (This is, after all, the "weird & random" thread )- 488 replies
-
- miscellaneous
- weird stuff
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
This should sound obvious to every sane person, but beware that a growing movement on the political left demands just that: Making special exceptions for Islam. Just look at the recent idiotic manifesto of 145 "PEN America" authors protesting against Charlie Hebdo being given a "Courage in Free Speech" award. Aside from truly disgusting attempts to downplay/erase the murder using verbal sleigh-of-hand, you know what the core argument of their statement was? That Charlie Hebdo's work was bad because it criticized all religions equally harshly. I'm not making this up. That's really what their criticism boiled down to. In their opinion, proper "progressive" cartoonists worthy of an award would have cut Islam a lot more slack than the other religions. Because reasons1. So yeah, it may be obvious to you and me that a liberal democratic society should have the same rules for all religions, but unfortunately it's a position that is very much in need of being defended against political and social campaigns by moronic progressives. ----- 1) involving silly progressive "oppression olympics"
-
It is not up to "us" (a.k.a. society) to decide which art is necessary or worthwhile. Artists can make whatever art they want for their own reasons; it's called freedom of expression.
-
The "x1.2 damage against against proned, stunned and flanked enemies" option makes it a great weapon for rogues, since they'll usually be attacking enemies with one of those afflictions anyway. Though I suppose "+4 Accuracy and x1.25 damage when attacking the same enemy as an ally" works just as well. The "Exceptional: +8 Accuracy and x1.3 damage" option is a total ripoff, since you could easily add that yourself.
-
1. I know we've explained this before repeatedly and you do not know what censorship or free speech is, but i'll explain again: This is not censorship, nor is it trying to stifle their free speech, it is a consumer protest aimed at making the target fit for purpose Well... I'd say it's a gray area. It's certainly not First Amendment applicable, but then again nor are a lot of other instances of censorship and attacks on Free Speech that I take issue with. It's sad that 'progressive liberals' have abandoned the classical liberal idea of "Free Speech as a matter of principle!" and instead lowered the bar to "Any suppression of speech that doesn't technically violate the law or constitution, is totally moral if we do it!". Lets not follow in their path by using the same rationalization against them.
-
They need the absolute minimal amount of elevated privileges necessary to arrest offenders and act on court orders. Which is far from the current situation. No, I think when deadly force is permissibly should be decided by he same standard as for normal citizens: Namely, self-defense (incl. self-defense by proxy). Officers should not be allowed to use deadly force against someone who is merely making their job more difficult (e.g. by running away).
-
Yeah. Contrary to what one might expect if Patriarchy Theory were true, Western society treats violence against men as socially acceptable, but violence against women as a cardinal sin. That's why a murdered female character is a much more powerful plot device than a murdered male character, and thus unsurprisingly more compelling to authors.
-
I hope you realize that you'll be committing sexual assault against the (female) election worker. At least according to the definition advocated by modern college feminism...
-
You assume wrong. By acknowledging that it's a problem of a police force first and foremost serving itself (rather than the people), aided by laws and regulations that give officers far too high of a special status and legal privileges above "normal" citizens, the political left might find themselves faced with inconvenient questions about why they don't rally for (and where they are in power, enact) political change in that regard (which they don't want to, because it would conflict with their long-term dream of an all-powerful government apparatus centrally managing the lives and livelihoods of a submissive citizenry stripped of individual power). On the other hand if they can spin the issue as "systemic racism by white people (except of course themselves)", they can feel all good and heroic about themselves and engage in symbolic action and moral grandstanding ("raising awareness", "addressing issues") without actually having to enact any political and legal change (because there's nothing that laws could change). So that's exactly how they're gonna keep spinning it.