Hamenaglar

Yes, I've taken Psychovampiric Shield, also Mindblades. So, I need to choose a lvl 3 power. edit: I ended up taking phantom foes, but it's bugged and enemies lose flanked debuff. Grrrr. Now I'll have to reload and pick something else, probably mental binding.

Okay I started with a wood elf cipher. Attributes: 17, 12, 15, 10, 10, 14. I've just reached level 4 and need to choose a power. I can't decide between: 1) Phantom foes (aoe enemies flanked) 2) Mental binding (used to be great, but now circumstancial, average casting time, short duration) 3) Amplified thrust (good damage) 4) Whisper of treason (slow casting, but long duration). 5) Soul shock (aoe decent damage) Mental binding used to be such a great spell but now it's kinda meh, but I can see it being useful against single enemies that deal heavy damage. I'm leaning kind of towards phantom foes, because it's a unique debuff and aoe.

Hi, I would like to make a swordspell build. I'm using 2.03 version but not white march. I will be using a high elf (sub-optimal choice I know). I'm planning to use either a single sword (no shield) or a two-handed sword (no weapon summoning spells). I can't decide between cipher or wizard so any advice is appreciated. I would like to make a build that is a front liner. Ideally he would get hit rarely. So basically I'm wondering about attribute spread (I don't want to dump stats) and which class to use. I was thinking of (for roleplaying purposes) 14 Might, 8 Con, 15 Dex, 15 Per, 10 Int, 15 Res, The idea is that decent Perception and Resolve offset low accuracy and deflection. However if I will be using a single sword, I'll have a buff to accuracy. So perception could be lowered for intellect. Is 8 Con to squishy? Should I increas Con and potentially lower Might? I'd like to keep high Dex for roleplaying purposes. Thank you. But basically my questions are. Should I offensively favour Dex or Might? Resolve vs Constitution? Single sword vs Two handed sword.

How would one go about building a gish char in Pillars of Eternity. Wizards have poor accuracy and deflection and all the buffs seem short duration, also there is no pre buffing. Ciphers seem kinda gishy, but they have really low endurance and no way to buff their defences. Any advice? Which class to take, which attributes?

How are keys being distributed? E-mail? I haven't received anything. Thanks. edit: Nevermind, found my way on backer portal.

They don't just seem identical when the next map has the remains of the skeleton I killed in the previous one. Didn't think of using wilderness lore though, even if I have it on one character. It's a skill I actually need to actively use? Lol, I'd give it a go but already cheated my way through. there is typical 3 paths leading out from most maps. some exits will send you backwards. is simple breadcrumbs solution. use fallen skeletons garbage gear to mark which entrances/exists is dead ends and which is not, and have one other bit o' dropped gear to identify if you is on map 1-4 (or whatever) o' the identical seeming maps. is plenty o' dead skeletons for just such a purpose. is annoying and a bit time consuming, but is not complex or difficult. am suspecting folks get frustrated and quit before trying to figure out the puzzle. If I remember correctly, you can also use map notes (on the map screen) instead of dropping trash. But yeah, it was a pretty annoying puzzle because it was so long and repetitive. I don't know why you all hate Fellwood, I loved it, in fact it's one of my most favourite memories from IWD2. And you didn't even need to have the wilderness skill, if you listened to the directions of one NPC before entering fellwood.

In my opinion, the term degenerative gameplay hasn't become so vilified (spellling?) here because it's a bad term, but because of the way Josh goes around creating convoluted fixes that create different opportunities for degenerative gameplay. So let's take the rest spamming. Obviously the issue was that you could rest after every little fight and constantly be in optimal shape. No resource management in terms of HP or Spells. So how does Josh goes around fixing it? Let's create a complicated health system, one being a long term resource and another an encounter system. He also comes up with an idea that missing is not fun (I have to say that opponents not being able to hit me is fun) and designs the system so that there are a lot of hits. This results in a situation where your fighter/tank is the first guy that needs to rest. Usually after every fight, because he takes so much hits. How would I go around fixing it? Well resting is a choice, like every choice there should be a consequence. 1. You want to rest in a hostile dungeon. Try it. See what happens. You'll likely get attacked. Okay, you might get decide to reload and rest again, but look at that! You get attacked again (that's because random seed for resting is saved along with game - no save scumming for you). 2. You want to go back to the inn and rest. There are two consequences. One, it's a drag. What would happen if you attacked someone then went home to rest before you attack again. They would prepare themselves. They know you are coming (respawning enemies on already cleared levels, or adding extra enemies to uncleared levels). 3. Resting takes time. There is not a worse thing in RPG when they tell you to hurry, you need to do this really quickly or someone will day. But you can spend 5 in game days before anything happens, because the whole world is waiting on you. Ofcourse, what I say isn't really perfect, because now there is maybe not enough incentive for resting. It seems very punishing. Perhaps there could be some safe locations on maps where you could rest. There would be a higher chance of successfully resting in wilderness areas, as opposed in enemy dungeons/castles. Hell perhaps instead of saving a random seed to see if an encounter is triggered, let's think about it this way. What would happen if a player decided to rest here. A)It's a forest, so he might get attacked by wolves. Maybe, maybe not. B) It's Lord Badman of Eviland's Castle. Resting here before clearing it out would be bad idea. Lord Badman would try to launch a counter attack with his remaining. Okay, there should be a scripted event that happens in such a case. If a player survives that attack, he killed a lot of the bad guys so the rest of the dungeon should be clearer. Perhaps Lord Badman himself would die. Maybe player finds a safe location to rest, but Lord Badman is prepared and expects him. Maybe, player can trick Lord Badman into thinking the party is gone for good and therefor weakening his defense, before coming back. Summary: My point in short is. I think Josh goes the wrong way about this, bottoms up, rather than top down. He thinks in terms of gameplay mechanics and then designing roleplaying around them. I would prefer if he was thinking of roleplay mechanics and design gameplay around them.

It's a Role Playing Game. The attribute system is supposed to allow and enhance that. Allow people to play the roles. It's supposed to be grounded in realism. They allow people to use the in game mechanics to describe their characters. It allows the game world to recognize that character. Forget about combat. If I want to build a strong character, game world should recognize me as strong. An NPC would say, hey dude you are really strong, help me move this cart. Or a mutant challenges you to arm wrestling and you beat him because you are stronger (and pumped with stims). I want to be an intelligent character, game should recognize it and offer me possibilities that lower intelligence characters can't do. Otherwise, let's just go with the following attributes: Damage Hit points Dialogue options Spell saves.

In IE games I loved to issue commands at the start of the fights and only tweak as fights progressed. For tougher fights, I would micromanage much more. It was a good design/system with lots of fights that didn't require micromanagement (but still reguired you to use your wits) and those that did to break the pace. One thing I disliked about Dragon age: Origins, was the amount of micromanaging I had to do (tactics were useless), even on easy fights (particularly during later games).

Nope. Never had that problem in IE games. Quite the contrary. Also I don't see anything wrong with enemies trying to bypass the front line to get to the squishies. It's quite common military strategy (breaching through flanks or center to attack targets behind enemy lines). Hell it's the whole point of the defensive line in American Football. Not to mention that I was always looking to attack enemy spellcasters first, and only then melees. But no I never had an issue with an opposition melee guy targeting my wizard if I positioned my party correctly. More options. Apparently all that fighter can do is hold the line. In BG1 you could at least have them specialize for defense and Armor class, offense and damage or ranged combat. BG2 with kits is on a whole different level. And we shouldn't even be comparing BG1 with PoE. Let's compare BG2 and NWN games. Josh could have decided to build on those games, instead he decided he "knows better" (this is purely my impression, but this is how it looks like to me).

True. But there is a good argument to be made that PoE isn't improving, but actually regressing. I don't consider myself a fanboy of AD&D (actually I prefer 3.5 significantly), but a lot of the changes that OE is making from IE games I don't like.

There is nothing wrong with might except maybe the name. I bet if they renamed it power or potency then less people whould whine about muscle wizards. No I wouldn't because strength is would still be missing, you can not have a bow that requires a strength to pull it back or a proper ecumbrance system, and kills role play. This game is supposed to be a spiritral successor to the BG series but the might attribute is more akin to a tribute to world of Warcraft. There could never be a way to allow bashing in of doors or chests. Its flawed. It allows the most powerful or mighty wizard to hit someone with a two handed sword as it does a fighter. That's wrong. Two things: 1. BG didnt have a very good encumbrance system either. In fact, its inventory system was a mess that was only remedied by potion bags, bags of holding, ammo bags, and gem bags (which all effectively negated the need for inventory slots or a strength score). 2. You are looking at it all wrong. Who is to say that magical power CAN'T make you swing a sword better? Hell, worked pretty good for this guy... You do understand that Gandalf is a demi-god/angelic creature?

Okay, so how do I make a buffy muscle wizard? Or a weakling barbarian? How will the world know if I'm a weakling or a powerhouse physically? Not to mention, according to your explanation a massive 2m tall guy pounding you with his fists will actually do less damage than a weakling wizards hitting you with his fists. According to you, a stat that has been a core stat for almost all cRPGs in the last decade and a half (since I remember), doesn't have a representation in this game, meaning it doesn't exist. Oh, and where does it say that Might is actually Soul Strength? I've never ever read something like this from devs or from game. If Might is Soul Strength, why isn't it named that way. Soul power would be far more intuitive and clear name than a Might, don't you think so?

Standard D20 attribute names, actually. Not D&D. Those are freely available for anybody to use. The issue is that PoE would edge dangerously close to being mistaken for a D&D setting(especially with the BG/IWD/PST connection), while Star Wars clearly is not one. Also, legal troubles doesn't equal that their legal opponent actually has a valid case. Lawyers don't work for free, after all. And you didn't just ask for the names, you basically asked for the entire core attribute system to be used. There's actually D20 rulebooks for Star Wars, though they don't fully fit in with KotOR. D20 is under OGL, and should be able to be used (an indie game Knights of the Chalice uses it, I believe). Not to mention, Dragon Age origins uses almost identical attributes, except Magic is Charisma, Willpower is Wisdom, Cunning is Intelligence. The names are a bit different, but the similarities are obvious. The issues with Might is (IMO), we don't know what it represents. Can anybode give me a definition of what it is? Physical prowess, soul power? How to roleplay a mage that is physically weak, but has destructive spells? Should he have high or low might? Is that concept even possible in the world of PoE.

Sword and spell - You sacrifice one or multiple spells for a bonus to Attack and Damage (maybe also deflection). Duration is affected by resolve. Requires free hand to be activated (or free hand halves the activation time). Improved version does not require free hand. Game implementation would be something like a metamagic from NWN games. You choose the ability and then you choose spells to sacrifice. Another option: Offensive spelldance - same as above, affecting only Attack and Damage. Defensive Spelldance - defensive version. Affecting Deflection and other defenses (unnecessary due to Arcane veil?) Combat style bonuses (dual wielding, two handed, single handed, sword and shield)

Give the wizard are talent thats called something like "arcane focus" and reads: Every buff on you gives you +X accuracy. I would like to see a talent like "spell & sword". Basically you convert your spells into buffs (both offensive and defensive?). Lvl 1 spell provides a small buff, Lvl 2 provides a bigger. Perhaps you could combine multiple spells to get stacking bonuses? Initially the talent would require free hand to be activated (Magus/Bladesinger fluff) and the buffs would have a very short casting time. Improved version of the talent would not require a free hand. Duration of the buff/effect would depend on your resolve ofcourse. If the resolve is high effect might for a significant chunk of battle. If it is low, you it would only be a couple of attacks.

So everybody is making suggestions, I will make one too. This is going to be a looong post. Let's divide character stats into Ability Scored and Derived Attributes. Ability Scores: Strength/Might, Dexterity, Constitution/Endurance, Intellect, Resolve, Perception Derived Attributes - ability scores modifying them: Deflection defense - Dexterity (and Perception?) Reflex defense- Dexterity and Perception equally (perhaps unify deflection and reflex) Will defense - Intellect and Resolve equally Fortitude defense - Strength and Endurance equally Interrupt defense - Resolve (and Stamina?) Health - Strength and Endurance equally Stamina - Endurance (and Resolve?) Melee damage - Strength obviously Melee accuracy - Strength and dexterity equally. Ranged accuracy - Dexterity and perception Critical chance - Perception (you are able to notice better where the holes in enemy's defence are) Critical damage - Intellect (you know where it hurts the most) Spell power - Strength (spells are physically taxing to cast and stronger individuals can channel more energy into spells) Spell duration - Resolve (you are able to focus longer and maintain the effect of your spells) Bonus spells per day - Endurance (if spells are physically taxing, characters with high endurance might squeze that extra spell per day/encounter) Bonus known spells - Intellect (smarter persons would know more spells) So to sum it up: Strength - bonus to spell power (damage), melee damage, melee attack, health and fortitude Dexterity - bonus to melee attack, ranged attack, deflection and reflex Endurance - bonus to health, stamina, fortitude, spells per day, interrupt defense (?) Intellect - bonus to critical damage, known spells, will Resolve - bonus to spell duration, interrupt defense, will, stamina (?), Perception - bonus to critical chance, ranged attack, reflex and deflection (?) So every attribute provides some bonus, it isn't all that different from what we currently have. I've just added two derived attributes: bonus spells per day and bonus known spells (that were in D&D anyway). This provides incentive for spell casters to use Intellect and Endurance. I think something like this makes all attributes useful to all classes and allows for different playstyles. Melee warrior: Strength, Dexterity and Endurance are obviously beneficial because they allow him to consistently deal damage and avoid/absorb it. Typical front line fighter. However a more cerebral fighter might not deal as much damage consistently, but he would crit more often and for more damage, while looking to avoid damage altogether. Dexterity seems like the most important stat not to dump, as it governs both offense and defense. Still you don't have to have it prioritized, because defense can come from Perception and offense from Strength. Ranged warrior: Dexterity and perception look like the most important stats. You could dump everything else and just hope you'll never get targeted with Will/Fortitude spells, or attacked in melee. That would depend a lot on enemy composition and AI. Also strength seems pretty useless right now. Perhaps it should provide some damage bonus for bows and reload speed for crossbows. Or simply be a requirement for heavier bows/crossbows (indirectly affecting damage). Also, I'm not sure if there are throwing weapons (axes, darts etc.) but if there are they should obviously have damage be dependant on strength. There is also a question, how range affects accuracy. This seems the most SAD (single attribute dependant) build. I think it would be cool to prioritize strength and play an axe-thrower. Throwing few axes to cause mayhem and then charging to melee. Ranged caster: You can prioritize strength and endurance, which will allow you to do more damage with spells and cast them more often during the day. However by dumping intellect and resolve you are would have less versatility, making you a kind of a pseudo-sorcerer. You can also prioritize Intellect and Resolve to create a more typical Wizard/Wise priest. He would have a large variety of spells to choose from, his buffs and controlling spells would last for a long time. The problem is Dexterity and Perception seem dumpable for both types of playstyles as it's unlikely that wizard will get under attack because he is behind. If there are some sort of powerful single target ranged touch spells, than those attributes would be useful. Perhaps they might also provide bonus to spell casting speed? Melee caster (Muscle wizard/Gish/Battle cleric): If you opt for strength and endurance, you would again have few spells but could use them often. Playstyle would most likely be suited to charging into combat and using melee touch spells or cone spells for devastating effect. Endurance and Strength would provide decent staying power, but still this kind of build would basically be a Melee Glass cannon. It would be cool if touch spells could crit, then perception would become important as it would allow for crit-fishing for gishes. In that case prioritizing Dexterity and Perception would make a character that would more often avoid damage, deal less damage consistently, but you would burst more often for obscene amounts. Intelligence and Resolve are obviously useful for greater utility. I think that for Melee caster all attributes are useful, but depending on desired playstyle you could prioritze some and dump others and still it would be a viable build. Issues: Ranged warriors depend only on Dexterity/Perception for their offense. Strength might be useful. Intelligence useful for critical damage. Defensive attributes, resolve and endurance are not really useful if the player can stay away from threat (depends on AI). They are useful for a switch-hitter though. Ranged casters can probably dump perception and dexterity if they can stay away from threat. However if there are good ranged touch attack spells and if there is a possibility of spells making critical damage, then those attributes also become useful. Also dexterity might be used to increase casting speed. For anybody claiming this would be a complex system, I would disagree, as I've only introduced two more variables (bonus spells). I also don't think that having different ability scores influencing same derived attributes is complex, it worked pretty well in Fallout 1&2. Plus we already have two ability scores influencing a specific defense. Okay, that's it. Edit: OMG this is a wall of text. Nobody will probably read it. Eh...

I said it before, will again. This is the biggest problem people have with this game, they want to play it like it is 2nd edition D&D but it isn't any edition of D&D. I'd be quite happy if it played like 3rd edition of DnD (IWD2 or NWN2). :D I do think you have a point.

I think we need an explanation of what Might is. Is it the power of your soul? Is the physical strength? Is it the size of your toe? It's too abstract right now. The second issue is the effects of most attributes don't make sense. Why does an intelligence increases the AoE for barbarian's attacks? Perception increase the chance of critical chance? Why is there no attribute governing deflection? I would like that stuff to be explained in terms of in-world consistency.

Not even a competition for me. One game has realistic art direction the other is a color-fest (some people like it, I don't). One game has an interesting protagonist with personal quest, the other has a worn-out "chosen one" that has to save the world because he is the "chosen one" (some people like that, I don't anymore). One game explores interesting themes, such as racism, terrorism vs. freedom fighting, morality of lesser evils... the other just glosses over these themes. Developers of one game offer free "dlc", constantly patch the game, listen to the community, the others nickel-and-dime their customers. Despite the fact that Witcher is a derivative work (that is based on the novels and pulling a lot of stuff from the books) and Dragon Age offers new setting. CDPR are bursting with creativity and bravery (act 2 in Witcher 2 is one of the bravest decisions ever, brilliant). On the other hand Bioware are just rehashing the same things all over again and look devoid of any creative juices. And to go on a tangent: I love fantasy settings and elves and dwarves and evil necromancers. I'll probably never get bored of that, but I have to admit that Torment: Tides of Numenera looks far more intriguing than PoE or DA:I.

I don't think that we, men, need to be "afraid" that women will overtake us in RPGs as dominant demographic. How many women play p&p rpgs? A lot, probably, but my guess is they are still a significant minority. I would love to see more women passionate about serious gaming. I would love to see more female engineers, particularly in computer science. I would love to see more women interested in sports, and not just watch the games when there is world cup. Unfortunately, it appears most women have different interests.

In my opinion original Witcher had the best loot system. You could collect minor items and money of killed foes, but weapons you could only swap (there were no armors to loot in the game). I really loved that. I hadn't spent gathering all the possible loot from the enemies, you would only take what you needed and what you could carry realistically (kind of, carrying 100s of potions, breads, monster ingredients, booze etc. isn't really realistic, but you get what I mean).

This is brilliant. I actually think I saw a viable build with shield dual-wielding for Patfhinder, some time ago. I don't think this will be in the game, but it did make me laugh :D

It creates a sensible impact of intellect on spellcasting. Why on earth would a fireball of a mage with high intellect have a larger area of impact? In fact, why would any spell? More area really just means: more of the same stuff. Sensibly, putting more energy into a fireball would make a bigger explosion. Why does being smarter make you able to disperse energy over a larger area, but might enables you to create a higher energy density? If might governs the energy of spells, then neither duration nor area make any sense as a result of intellect. Energy = energy density*area or energy=power*time...both should thus be governed by might, if anything. Frankly, the mechanical impact of intellect seems to have no connection to what that attribute is supposed to describe. Also, it creates reasonable restrictions on a muscle wizard as a powerful, but simple wizard. I love the concept of a muscle wizard. I could believe that casting spells might be physically taxing and that physical power is necessary. I could also believe that more intelligent wizards have learned better to control the energy and disperse it over larger area. But as you pointed out, if strength/might/whatever is necessary to produce certain energy, how come that an intelligent wizard can spread this energy over wider area, but can not condense it to a smaller area for more damage. Also considering that the greater the area of effect, the more energy was actually dispensed (in a quadratic growth actually), meaning that probably high intellect wizards/low muscle wizards disperse more energy than high muscle/low intellect wizards. I would really like an explanation for that. In terms of in-world physics, meta-physics and magic-physics.

I kind of feel like I derailed the topic with my comment. I apologize for that. If you do that, please let me (us) know how it feels, as personally I'm very interested in how it would play.