Helm

So you're saying that improving your lockpick skill by talking to an ogre is ok, but improving your lockpick skill by stabbing a beetle isn't? Why? Is the former less abstract than the latter or something?

I guess the core activity of the game is just questing, that is why you don't get XP for anything else <shrug> Maybe they should rename the game to Josh Sawyer's Quest: The Quest for Quests

You must have missed it when I wrote that the game can have an XP pool for lockpicking skills. You pick a lock, you get lockpick XP. Good. Now we need an XP pool for combat skills too. You kill a beetle, you get combat XP, because you become a more potent combatant.

There isn't a good build or a bad build in this game, there simply is no build.

How does one become better at lockpicking by stabbing beetles? It doesn't make sense anyway, so the argument isn't really valid. I agree. It doesn't any sense at all that you can improve your lockpick skill by stabbing beetles. Obsidian should reward the player with lockpick XP for picking locks so that he can improve his lockpicking skill. Thank you for pointing out how ridiculous quest only XP is, Tartanyco. Your support of our cause is greatly appreciated. So, where were we? Ahh, yes, how does one become a more potent combatant if they never engage in combat? In that case, the XP from lockpicking would have to go directly towards improving your lockpicking. However, XP is a pool. Invalid argument. You can have separate XP pools for lockpicking and combat. Skyrim does something similiar actually. So, who says that you can't have an XP pool solely for lockpicking skills and a separate XP pool for combat skills? Back to our very valid argument: How does one become a more potent combatant if they never engage in combat?

How does one become better at lockpicking by stabbing beetles? It doesn't make sense anyway, so the argument isn't really valid. I agree. It doesn't any sense at all that you can improve your lockpick skill by stabbing beetles. Obsidian should reward the player with lockpick XP for picking locks so that he can improve his lockpicking skill. Thank you for pointing out how ridiculous quest only XP is, Tartanyco. Your support of our cause is greatly appreciated. So, where were we? Ahh, yes, how does one become a more potent combatant if they never engage in combat?

Yep. Fallout: New Vegas is a gem with a turd at its core. Fallout 3 is just a turd.

You like Fallout 3? Well, that explains quite a bit actually.

"This stat isn't strength, it's POWER" "That stat isn't intelligence, it's POWER" "That stat isn't dexterity, it's POWER" Just make one attribute called POWER and give it an awesome button that the player can click on to make their "build" more POWERful. Wouldn't be much different from what we already have anyway.

<_< How about you cite your sources on that? Both on Sawyer thinking its perfect and that being cause of why it will never be changed?... Does it even matter? There will never be an official vote and Sawyer will never change the xp system either. I hope you enjoyed my hyperbole though. I would be very surprised if he will. There is a reason, after all, why some people are now calling PoE Josh's Dream RPG. There are too many things 'out of place' (for a lack of better term) in this game to be called 'a spiritual successor to the IE games'. I will reaffirm this concept again: the lack of combat XP alone doesn't make or break this game... but it's just the tip of the iceberg. Yeah, I noticed. The RPG codex was especially harsh. It seems to be true though.

Here is my kick-ass low-intelligence and low-strength grandmaster wizard with his familiar, kittyona wizcat! The dumbass has problems holding his wand correctly, but he can still cast some bad ass fireballs I tell you. He can dodge magic missles real well because of his high perception and dexterity. He is very determined because of his high resolve, which always gets him into to trouble because he is so fukking stupid.

<_< How about you cite your sources on that? Both on Sawyer thinking its perfect and that being cause of why it will never be changed?... Does it even matter? There will never be an official vote and Sawyer will never change the xp system either. I hope you enjoyed my hyperbole though.

You could also read that as ~89% of participants aren't happy with only quest xp. Problem is that this poll isn't representative. Mind, this doesn't just mean number of participants, but also criteria for how they are selected(which for this poll, isn't happening at all). Even if every backer voted for "something other than quest only XP" it still wouldn't change anything, because Sawyer thinks this system is perfect.

Are you implying that I am not a backer because I don't have a badge? Just because I haven't linked my backer account to my forum account doesn't mean I am not a backer. I have also played Pillars of Eternity Baby's first RPG.

What you were expecting was something like AD&D because thats the system what baldurs gate used. The system in PoE is way more complex than AD&D which is basicaly as simple as it can get. Sawyer is/was gloating about how he is the messiah of RPG mechanics. I was expecting something better than AD&D actually, not necessarily even similar, just better. Or at least just as good. All I am seeing now though is a system that has less depth than the system in Dragon Age: Inquisition.

Pillars of Eternity = Baby's first RPG. Even Dragon Age has more depth. This is just so sad, they might as well deprecate these placebo attributes.

Plenty of people would have still backed the game, and seriously it was obvious they were never going to do an exact replica of the BG games and systems. After all they don't have a D&D licensee and as such it would probably be risky to imitate the the BG games to closely. Thus they needed to create there own system which they have and it works the story style, the game play, the graphics and the feel of the game are similar to BG but the exact mechanics vary in what appears to be an improved way. If you are a D&D/AD&D fanatic who was expecting a reimplementation of those rule sets with a new story you should know the D&D/Wotc well enough to know that a licensee is needed for an exact copy of those rules and that Obsidian does not have that licensee. Note it's only in the last couple of months they have finally gotten a Pathfinder licensee... I am talking about the core mechanics, not about AD&D. We knew from day one that this game would not use AD&D.

Thanks for this. It shows that the system is a bunch of overly complex horse****. Who thought it would be a good idea to combine crits, hits, missing and grazing into one stat? they might as well have just made it a simple damage modifer like might. That stats have two simple damage modifiers and everybody can use every weapon. Great. Deprecate it. To be honest, I don't mind this system at all. You could make a similar plot for any similar system in an RPG - THAC0, for example. The only major difference is that this system includes a 4th category - "graze" - in addition to the traditional "hit/miss/crit". There's really nothing particularly odd about this system lol - and it's not super complex. As for making Accuracy a simple damage modifier, that wouldn't really be the same thing (and wouldn't be nearly as interesting). It is still an individual roll for every attack, which means that on the small scale (i.e. individual battles) you'll still see things like lucky crits, unlucky misses, all the things we love (and sometimes hate) about any general RPG "roll-to-hit" system. What my plot does is weigh the different possible outcomes by probability to obtain an equivalent simple damage modifier that will hold when you average a lot of attacks together. So you see - making it a simple damage modifier (a suggestion that could be applied to literally any game that includes a "roll-to-hit" system btw) wouldn't really be the same thing. Rolling to hit and miss adds more of a simulation aspect, as well as some RNG. I like having the flavor of simple damage modifiers and modifiers "to-hit" as well. You had similar complaints in a few of the other threads as well, if I recall correctly. I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're (generally) so negative on these forums because you really really want the game to be good (as opposed to just trolling). If that's true, then we share a common interest - to make the game as good as can be. In the interest of helping the game be better and in fostering productive discussion that can actually potentially change the game for the better - please don't let this thread descend into another negative spiral of arguing and complaining. I've presented the math here and you don't like how they've done it. Fair enough. Do you have any suggestions for how they could improve it? I don't agree. It doesn't make sense to have two attributes that do nothing else than multiply the damage output of all weapons for all classes for all builds for all everything. There is no such thing as a high crit or high accuracy build for specific classes who have specialized in specifc weapons, or anything of the sort, in this game. You just pump up might and/or dexterity and watch the DPS of all weapons rise. I'm not impressed. And I am just scratching the surface of what is wrong with this system and its placebo attributes. What I meant when I wrote that it is overly complex: The system is indeed not super complex at all, it is one of the simplest systems I have ever seen, just more complex than it needs to be. For example, it doesn't make sense that there is a graze category. You either hit and cause high damage/low damage or you miss. I am indeed very critical, because what we were promised was flushed straight down the ****ter by a game designer who hates Baldur's Gate, has really no idea what he is doing and obviously dislikes good game design (which Sawyer would proclaim is something only for grognards). Even Dragon Age: Inquisition will have more complex gameplay mechanics than Pillars of Eternity... those "damn Bioware grognards".

Like the PoE system, you mean? No, I meant with something that isn't complete crap.

God, you're dumb. D&D has nothing to do with the core mechanics. The IE game used AD&D, but you could replace it with something else and still have a very familiar game. Now now, not all of us are people that live in the past. I pretty much got what I wanted from Obsidian (bar bugs and unfinished stuff), and I applaud them to the change they made on those outdated/turn-based rules. The feels are right where they should be (BG style of setting) but its definitely new and fresh on many aspects. Something different is fine, no rounds and stuff is great, but they promised us something better and gave us horse**** instead.

Thanks for this. It shows that the system is a bunch of overly complex horse****. Who thought it would be a good idea to combine crits, hits, missing and grazing into one stat? they might as well have just made it a simple damage modifer like might. That stats have two simple damage modifiers and everybody can use every weapon. Great. Deprecate it.

So they repeat every 3 word titles of game based on D&D and how they will make a new game that take everything that was good with those titles made with D&D and incredible people are pissed when said game doesn't share basicaly nothing with those games made with D&D , ****ING A INCREDIBLE. I was making a post if someone could ask to that **** of Sawyer why they put baldur's gate,icewind dale and torment on the ks page if they thought the core mechanic that moved those game sucked but we all know the answer, they wanted money they got it. They should have been honest and added that they think that the core mechanics of the IE games suck: "Project Eternity (working title) pays homage to the great Infinity Engine games of years past: Baldur’s Gate, Icewind Dale, and Planescape: Torment." "Project Eternity will take the central hero, memorable companions and the epic exploration of Baldur’s Gate, add in the fun, intense combat and dungeon diving of Icewind Dale, and tie it all together with the emotional writing and mature thematic exploration of Planescape: Torment. We will remove the ****ty core mechanics that everyone hates and replace it with something better." Nobody would have backed the game then, but then they could have made what they wanted and nobody would have cared.

Hmmm, Arcanum.......

The maps are also freaking small. I hope there are larger ones in the game.

It's hard to implement UI changes like that without it being on for everybody all the time, so anything that only half the people will use won't be put there I mean, for the last 3 years I primarily built UI as my job. So unless their UI system is really terrible I can confidently say that this would be very easy to do. Also, like I say there's something similar currently in the over-head HUD, just less explicit (it doesn't show the exact spell, I think). I just think it's largely useless there and would be more useful near the character portraits so you can see at a glance what exactly people are doing. They should remove this overcomplicated HP mechanic to simplify the UI. If you get knocked out in battle, then you are injured. Get injured too much, then you die. Resting heals injuries. Same thing as what we already have, just much less complicated.