Jump to content
  • Sign Up


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Eingradd

  • Rank
    (1) Prestidigitator

Profile Information

  • Location
    United States
  • Interests
    Video Games, Tabletop Role-Playing, Science Fiction, Sword and Sorcery Fiction, and Role-Playing Video Games.

    Project Eternity


  • Pillars of Eternity Backer Badge
  • Deadfire Backer Badge
  • Deadfire Fig Backer
  1. That's the thing; my character didn't permanantly die. In the Game Options menu, the death option says "characters die permanately when their health reaches zero (Normal: characters are only Maimed at zero health.", and this game over was experience with the death option not checked. Is the PC the exception to this rule? If so, shouldn't that be listed on the option for clarity's sake?
  2. Binding multiple commands to the same key/button will have both activate 1: Say you want to bind the camera to WASD. 2: If you do so by just modifying the camera bindings, the A key will both move the camera to the left AND toggle attack mode, since attack mode is, by default, bound to A. 3: In order to prevent this, you'll need to manually unbind keys if you want to put a command in it's place. I'm of the mind that if you assign a key binding, if the key was already bound, its previous binding should be "deleted", preventing you from binding multiple different commands to a single key. Main character "death" causes game over 1: Turn off "death" in the options menu if it's on 2: Go fight some stuff 3: Let your main charcter die, but keep the other members alive 4: You should get a game over screen, claiming that "the party has died." Since I have death turned off in the options menu, I would think I shouldn't be getting this game over. If the intention is for the player to lose if their main character dies, regardless of whether "death" is turned on or not, I believe the wording should be changed to reflect that. "The party has died" is kind of a silly message to get when my character is the only one on the field that fell.
  3. Are you sure it was the newest restoration mod and was fully installed correctly? To get Serroco to attack the Exchange, you need to have talked to the refuge leader and exhausted his dialogue options concerning the Serroco and Exchange (specifically the ones pertaining to how the Serroco and Exchange deal with one another). Also be sure you've told the leader you'll deal with both problems. Go talk to the Serroco leader and mention to him the Exchange and that you'd like to help with the problem. You'll have to have a decent persuade, but you'll be able to get him to attack the Exchange.
  4. Whatever happens, please just don't make the persuasion/dialog system be class/alignment restricted. I absolutely hate that in video games as it too easily kills a character possibility before it's born. Just because I'm a claymore wielding warrior I'm not allowed to be a master diplomat either? Or because I'm an evil dastard I can't also be charming, I'm forced to be intimidating?
  5. I encourage the move away from the Infinity Engine's melee limitations, however, I'm curious as to how Obsidian will avoid exploitation of the AI with the engagement system. I would think if you could force an enemy to disengage a warrior (from either a ranged attack or fear spell perhaps) it would cause an (in)finite loop of engaging, forcing a disengage, and reaping the benfits of a free attack.
  • Create New...