Fearabbit

How about Mask of the Betrayer? I haven't played that, but screenshots of it look a bit like this, and since it's from Obsidian as well it might have been the same designer (or simply a piece of inspiration).

"I just killed your whole tribe, but you were sick, so I found a cure for you! Now if you would please raise your spear... ready when you are."

Yeah but that's because you lack feelings, Volourn! The "forced on you" part is actually what I said as well, and "it's dumb" is a different argument that we're not discussing here.

I have the feeling some people here really don't know what we're talking about. Guys, just to make it clear: This isn't a thread about XP in general. There was a big discussion about whether killing creatures/NPCs should give you XP, instead of only getting XP from quests. There were people who argued thusly: 1. There is sneaking, so we can simply avoid combat. 2. If there is no XP for combat and only XP for quests, there is no need to do combat. 3. Which means that nobody will go into combat anymore because avoiding it is the most efficient strategy. 4. And that sucks and Obsidian should burn in hell for even considering such an option. This point of view was extremely short-sighted, as many have tried to explain, but back then it was a lot of what-ifs because the game wasn't out yet. Hassat Hunter simply pointed out that so far there was nobody who completed the game without killing over 175 enemies. You know, "0%" instead of the "100%" that people claimed it would be. Basically, the number could be as high as 10% or 20% and it would still mean that a large majority of people actually goes into combat, so the whole argument people used in the discussion way back when has now been debunked. The two big holes in the argument were, of course, that combat will not simply be avoidable, and that XP is not the only incentive people need to engage in it, because "it's fun" secretely enters the equation at some point. Whether there will be pacifist runs or how representative the Steam statistics are has nothing to do with all that in any way. Just saying.

Haha, I did chuckle a bit when I realized that it was practically impossible or very undesirable to avoid the majority of enemies. "We'll all just sneak past them without combat XP, the game is totally ruined"... yeah right. I mean, personally my opinion was that if you can avoid combat and aren't "forced" to do it, then that's a great plus. I would actually like it if it was possible to create a stealth party that sneaks right past enemies if your skill is high. But it was obvious that the fears of the pro-combat-xp crowd were pretty ridiculous.

Okay, correction: I totally did not get the reference for Companion 3. I thought you were dreaming up a League of Extraordinary Gentlemen type of group with main characters from different fantasy/sci-fi books.

A godlike with reality warping power could be anybody. Completely lost here. Companion 2 reminds me of The Incrementalists, which probably isn't what you're referring to. Companion 3... I got that reference, yay! Companion 4 sounds like R. Daneel Olivaw but he would probably be a Cipher instead of a wizard, so... again, probably not what you're referring to. (So what are the references? I'm curious now.) As for a normal protagonist - yes, please! There are too many CRPGs where your main character is somehow special. The worst ones are those where you're special because you're the reincarnation of someone special. That basically just lessens anything you do in the game, it makes me feel less special actually. (Haven't finished PoE yet, so no spoilers please. If it turns out that this reincarnation thing is part of the protagonist's story in PoE, I'll definitely furrow my brow a bit. But so far my main character is defined by his actions and not by his soul, and that is something I like.)

You're hoping for shenanigans in the game so that your friend is punished for torrenting the game, but that seems a bit complicated to me. Just punish him yourself? Like, every time he asks you for help in the game, give him wrong information. "Ciphers and Chanters are rubbish, don't bother with them. Only way to go is with a Rogue-only party, really, because they do the most damage with their daggers." Or "definitely complete the Endless Dungeons before heading to Defiance Bay, the game will become too difficult otherwise!" You know, stuff like that. (Or put sawdust in his cereals. I don't know. It doesn't have to be related to the game really.)

The people who complain are those who compare this to Baldur's Gate 2 and expected it to be just like that game, as far as I can see. There are many "problems" with the game that can actually be translated to "something is different". If you weren't a hardcore fan of BG2 when it came out, you'll likely enjoy this game very much. It's certainly worth its price. And if you'll allow me to address some of your points: - The story is better than that of BG2 - The classes are diverse and interesting and comparatively balanced which is a good thing - The characters are more realistic than the ones from BG2 and I like them very much - The writing is very good - The system is fun and rewarding All in all, the reception of the game was very positive. Even the people who complain about the game mostly do say that they overall enjoyed the experience.

Is it just me, or is this quest very weird and a little bit disappointing? 1. The letter that describes the plan is signed "AD". That's not enough to make you, the player, guess who the sender might be. Yet entering House Doemenel, you can tell the servant right away that there's a letter that might interest him. (At that point I was just looking around and very confused which letter this is all about!) 2. As far as I know, there isn't any way to actually find out what "AD" stands for other than giving the letter to Lord Reymont, which makes it impossible to choose the Doemenel side in this quest? Which means that there's no logical chain of events that brings you to House Doemenel in order to offer your services to that guy. 3. If you inform Lord Reymont, he thanks you and the quest is completed. But he also silently takes the Heart of the White Marsh away from you. If you went through the trouble of breaking in and finding the diamond, that's really frustrating. He never says anything to explain this, not even something like "and I suspect you're the thief who stole it a while ago, hand it over!" I could have accepted that. It would have been cooler if there was a way to keep the diamond while still getting the reward, but at least there would have been an explanation for losing the diamond. So the logical way this quest proceeds is this one: You stumble upon some thieves and find a letter about a heist. You don't know what "AD" stands for so you assume it will be revealed at a later stage of the quest. First option: You tell Lord Reymont about it, find out what AD stands for, but the quest is now completed. A little bit boring. Second option: You do have all the information about the heist, so why not simply do it yourself and sell the item to the highest bidder? You break in, sneak around, try not to attack the guards, find the diamond and quickly leave. Now you can still only inform Lord Reymont, but at least you have the diamond, so you might be able to put some pressure on the guy. At the very least you can inform him, get his thanks and reward, and then sell the diamond to AD, the Dozens or the Crucible Knights! ...well, none of that happens though, because without warning and without any mention of it in the dialogue, the diamond gets removed from your inventory. The quest is completed and all your cool plans of double-crossing rich people are destroyed. This is extremely frustrating. And as far as I can see, there's no logical third option that has you find out the name of AD and then offer your services to him. So... yeah, good idea for a quest, but a very sloppy execution, I think.

The six-stat system isn't the problem. I don't see the argument for that at all. You can always make a build that excels at one thing and fails at another. It's literally impossible to avoid that and it wasn't a design goal to avoid that. The design goal was to make several different builds viable for one class and in combination with a certain party setup. The fact that you can separate the attributes into 3 DPS and 3 tank stats that are always the same no matter what class you play as means that a design goal was reached: Make it clear which attribute does what, keep it generic, keep it simple. I don't see anything bad about this.* The real question you have to answer is: Is, for example, a high-INT high-CON frontline warrior always worse than the high-CON high-RES tank build? Or are there party setups and/or combat situations where it might be the superior choice? I feel like there are a lot of assumptions hidden in this. One of the more important ones is that minmaxing is bad because it makes better characters and therefore the game is unbalanced. But how good a character is depends on how you use him, and I feel like we haven't really figured out all the different synergies within all the different party setups to really make such a claim. (Especially if we can't even tell conclusively whether the Fighter or the Paladin is the better tank!) A Fighter who is not a tank build, but who also has high INT and MIG might be superior in situations you haven't thought of. For example in a completely different party setup where all other characters are Chanters or something. I don't know, it feels too early to say, which is why your "the stat system has failed" verdict rubs me the wrong way somehow. Also, if you ask me: I believe that the real problem is the fact that classes change the derived attributes. That's a major flaw that undermines the whole idea of an attribute-based system. This is what's unintuitive, and this is what makes certain classes better for certain builds. The six stats are supposed to represent your character's physical and mental capabilities, while the classes are supposed to represent the character's way of fighting. In the current system, it's completely muddled. If I make a ranged Chanter, my first instinct is to lower CON because he doesn't need health as much. But then I realize that the class itself lowers health. So now the clear and simple system where I choose based on "does this character need X?" turns into "does this character need X, and how much of X does he already have based on their class?", which is unintuitive and makes the attributes as a whole less impactful. These are large criticisms you have against the six-stat system, and I blame the classes to 100% for these. The six stats aren't the problem at all. *) Except that I personally dislike the system because it screws with the idea of attributes and uses them in non-intuitive ways. I still think that a system with dedicated physical and mental attributes that are still useful for both warriors and wizards would have been more interesting. For example having a Willpower stat that affects "standing your ground" and keeping enemies engaged, while also affecting the strength of spells - so that it does something completely different for different types of characters, but is still generic.

Sucker that I am, I actually thought about this and answered it seriously. Sex: Male Because I'm male. :> Race: Wood Elf Because I'm a bit intellectually inclined and because I focus a lot on emotions, which seems like an Elvish thing. Wood Elves are also described as isolationist, which kind of fits. Also I used to be a Boy Scout? Class: Chanter Because I'm also singing all the time while doing other stuff. And because the class speaks to me, as it regards our lives as interweaving storylines and sees the beauty in that. Of course, I also study physics, so the Wizard class was a close second (I always translate real-life science to arcane studies in fantasy RPGs). But I think I'm really more of a Chanter. I love stories. Attributes: MIG 12, CON 9, DEX 12, PER 17, INT 17, RES 11 (or, with less of the "I'm a hero" bonus: MIG 10, CON 8, DEX 10, PER 13, INT 14, RES 10) Unfortunately, my attributes would be pretty rubbish for a Chanter! I'm good at noticing details and at interpreting other people's reactions correctly, and I'm quite intelligent. But I'm not very muscular and a bit clumsy sometimes. And while I can be good at debates and arguments, I really have to care about something if I want to convince people of it. And even then I often go "oh what the hell". So... not a lot of resolve there. Culture: Aedyr - Drifter I'm from Germany, and Aedyr resembles this the most. Kinda important, a little bit disliked and not mediterranean. And drifter is pretty accurate, as I've moved to different cities a couple of times now and always have the urge to go somewhere else. This is actually fun to think about. Maybe I'll create this character for my next run, egomaniac that I am.

Wouldn't it be possible to change the stealth animations to walking animations and turn stealth into normal walking? After all, we *mostly* use stealth for looking for traps and secrets, and you don't need to crouch when you do that. A more complex mod could switch to the sneaking animation as soon as a character enters the detection radius of an enemy. That would actually be something I'd love to have.

There aren't too many Godlike in Gilded Vale. It makes sense that there are hordes of strangers in Gilded Vale, because Lord Raedric made that offer of a free home and everything. I really didn't think they were very distracting. And I thought it was pretty clear that they are just there for flavor. And bad prose? I thought most of them were pretty excellent. Maybe a little bit cliché (which is probably because backers wanted some awesome background story) but well-written (because Obsidian). The only one I really disliked so far was The Vulture, like I said. I wish they'd have added a dialogue option "I know what you did" which would cause these NPCs to attack you if they did do something bad. (Maybe an idea for a mod.)

I really wanted to kill The Vulture. But he's right in the middle of the Goose and Duck, and I can't do anything about this bastard without starting a massacre. BTW I had no idea those were backers. I just thought they were random flavor NPCs. I really liked reading those little character backgrounds so far!