ocelotter

Decay is not on any other Wizard spell, but the current keyword patch adds it to the Priest of Rymrgand version of Death Ring, so it seems like for consistency it should be added to the original version as well. But that's a reasonable argument to exclude Death Ring and Caedebald's Blackbow altogether, which maybe was the developers' original intent despite the corrode damage those abilities cause.

Did any Wizard spell keywords get updated in the keyword portion of the patch? Specifically, the following spells seem to be missing keywords: Concelhaut's Corrosive Siphon: "Acid" Concelhaut's Draining Touch (and the weapon itself): "Acid" Death Ring: "Decay" Caedebald's Blackbow (and the weapon itself): "Decay"

Here's my effort:

Are there any plans to include nerfs to some of the more egregious ability abuses in this patch? The main example floating around seems to be Salvation of Time + Brilliant + X, where X is any suitably powerful buff with a short duration (e.g. Barring Death's Door, Blade Cascade). Maybe the answer is just "don't use abusive ability combinations", and that's fine, but a more elegant solution would be nice. I don't know what's possible, but something like only allowing SoT to extend an ability's duration a single time seems like an appropriate solution.

I thought that might be the case. Oh well, it just looks like a horde of thieves without transparency mischief.

Just to give an idea for the Trickster suggestion... But obviously done with your superior skills and the vector source images.

Some feedback: Barbarian I liked your first version of "Corpse Eater", for what it's worth. Rogue "Assassin" is a little too similar to "Backstab", in my opinion. Perhaps add a target (a person's back?) to the backstab icon? Or remove the dripping poison/blood? "Trickster" looks like it doesn't fit the rest of the rogue icons; I think it needs to mesh both the illusionist and rogue aesthetics together. I would keep the illusion "orbs", ditch the hat and replace it with something else. Or perhaps take the sneak attack icon image and do something similar to mirror image with it? Paladin "Devine Retribution" should be "Divine Retribution". Ranger "Distracting Training": perhaps an image of an animal's paw/hoof stamping down on a sword? Druid Wildstrike icons: I would remove the "dripping" from the claws of the first and second levels of Wildstrike, and then add it back in for Wildstrike Frenzy. So e.g. the current icon for "Greater Wildstrike Burn" would be the new icon for "Wildstrike Frenzy - Burn". Wizard In general, I think these subclass icons look too much like individual abilities, and could do with more abstracting. I think the change you made to "Transmuter" is the right direction. "Blood Mage": I do like this icon, but perhaps flip the pentagram? Edit: Sorry, posted before I meant to. One minute! Edit2: Done. Apparently certain hotkeys autopost...

Although certainly a step down from automatically learning all spells at level-up, Priests and Druids do still get the advantage of a free spell at each level, somewhat of their choice due to deity selection. But I take your point, Wizards certainly have the edge in flexibility via Grimoires. But isn't that the crux of the class? If the problem is overall class power, I'm sure there are other ways to make Priests and Druids stronger without giving every caster access to all class spells at most points in the game. It certainly feels bad to choose spells over passives, for obvious reasons, but that seems like the choice the developers wanted players to make. Flexibility versus strength.

I'm surprised there's so much unanimity behind the suggestion to add trinkets for Priests and Druids. I understand the motivation, but Grimoires feel like the Wizards' differentiating characteristic: if that becomes shared then they're quite a bland class relative to the others. My perspective would be to enhance the unique aspect Priests (free spells from other classes based on deity) and Druids (shapeshifting) already get rather than simply sharing the Wizards' aspect.

So is it safe to say the last stable release of Deadfire was 4.0.1.0041? I haven't played the game yet, because I didn't feel like beta testing on "release", but if things are heading in the wrong direction maybe I'll just accept a mostly okay version. Thankfully GoG has incremental patches for each major version (version 4 at present).

Perhaps allowing players to "fail" dungeons would creating an interesting dynamic within the constraints of the current resting system? Let me explain. Suppose entry into some (all?) dungeons was gated with a scripted interaction, warning of the dangers inside (come prepared!). Once inside, the dungeon would behave as a gauntlet: do the best you can with the limited resources available to you, e.g. camping supplies. If your party is unable to continue, there's always the load feature if you would like to try again. Alternatively, you can admit defeat and leave the dungeon, but in that case the scripted interaction would warn you that doing so will provoke a fail scenario. \ tFor example, perhaps in the Drowned Barrows Dungeon featured on Fulvano's Voyage, the fighting in the depths has caused instability in the structure, and leaving would flood the dungeon and render further progress impossible. Or maybe upon your attempted return, the inhabitants sealed the entrance shut behind you. Or maybe they left once they found dozens of their comrades slaughtered on the dungeon floor (in PoE1, would Raedric really not notice what was going on while you returned to the Gilded Vale to rest and gather supplies?). Or maybe previously banished spirits were reanimated upon reentry, cursed to remain until the dungeon finale takes place (full dungeon respawn). This is certainly not a new concept, but I feel like it provides certain gameplay and immersion advantages. Dedicated players can partake in strategic resource management scenarios that many enjoy. Others can reload and come back later when they are stronger, or simply reduce the difficulty for these sections of the game. Perhaps in critical path dungeons, a failure such as the example above could still allow progress, e.g. an important quest item floats out of the flooded dungeon to allow the protagonist's quest to continue. There could still be plenty of content that does not behave in the gauntlet fashion. But I think part of the problem with the PoE1 system is in the absence of forced strategic resource management; any individual encounters that do not challenge the party to its utmost feel lackluster. So maybe non-dungeon content could focus on interesting individual encounters, while dungeon content could focus on extended adventuring situations that require resource management due to the risk of failure. I personally feel a sense of failure already if I do not complete a dungeon without having to return to town for more supplies. Why not consider enforcing it in some areas of the game, sort of like Spellhold in BG2? This would give trash encounters meaning in some contexts, without forcing them on players who do not enjoy the resource management aspect of CRPGs. Furthermore, if many of the dungeons are gauntlets, players would come to anticipate these situations, and not feel antagonized when they come to realize that retreat is no longer an optimal decision. Thoughts?

Is it possible to get an update on the status of the patch? I have the base game via GoG, and would like to purchase the expansions and start a new run with all of the patch fixes and new content, but the 3.02 bugs seem potentially game breaking. Is there hope for this being released in the near future, or should I look at other games? Thanks.

Isn't... isn't that how it works presently? I presumed "inventory" in Sawyer's post referred to player "packs", not equipped items/quick items, with Strength providing similar utility to what it did in the IE games. Packs are not accessible in combat.

If the inventory impact of Strength was applied to in-combat factors, I suspect it would be more tactically relevant. Since weapon sets/quick items are the only items usable in combat, what if Strength determined how many weapon sets and quick items you could have? For instance, the burly fighter could have four different sets of weapons ready for use and 10 different potions hanging from his belt, while the wimpy wizard could hardly lift his single grimoire and carry a single potion on his belt.

It's true that we will have to tune whatever values we wind up using for money you get and money you spend, but my higher-level concern is systemic. If there aren't core systemic drains, many players will simply wind up with a lot of money toward the end of the game. Many of you don't seem to care about this, but as I said earlier, I've heard complaints about it on every game I've shipped. I think the problem is that purchased items tend to be a luxury for most of the game: useful, but not necessary to progress. As a result, people tend to hoard gold to purchase luxury goods. Just like with consumables: if the game is balanced in such a way that they are not needed in critical fights (which should be roughly equally difficult throughout the game), then gold will not be strictly useful for most of the game. This leads to hoarding, which means gold loses its scarcity, which is almost by definition what makes it interesting (cf. skill points: if you had enough skill points to get everything you wanted, choice is eliminated and interest fades). To ensure that gold feels scarce and important, it should be a commodity that is critical to progressing in the game. There are a variety of ways to achieve this goal: for example, exhaust the resource by other means (e.g. Dark Souls), or make purchased items an important component for winning fights. Often gold feels important early on in an RPG, but less important later; one reason for this is that early on characters are still searching for particular types of gear critical to their being useful in a fight (e.g. plate mail for a tank), and vendors typically have a variety of items that can be used to fill in such gaps. Once your whole party has a complete set of gear (due to found items or obtaining enough gold to buy them), the small vendor upgrades become less impactful, becoming a luxury instead of a necessity for progression. The solution? Purchased items need to be important in progression to deplete gold. Whether it be due to gear that breaks, such that new gear needs to be bought frequently to keep characters relevant, or through the frequent necessary use of consumables in winning battles, it should actually be useful. Why don't people use consumables? They don't need to. Why don't people use gold? They don't need to. Make them need to! This can easily be extended to other goods purchased with gold. Strongholds are also a luxury good; why not make them give real bonuses towards fights? Give the player an interesting choice to make: spend scarce gold on stronghold upgrades, which enables you to e.g. train skills to higher levels than previously possible due to discovering an ancient library or gymnasium, or spend the gold on consumables/food/crafting/repairs. If gold is scarce, these choices will be meaningful and interesting, because you can't have everything you want. If gold is not, they won't be.