Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6 Neutral

About Lucidbro

  • Rank
    (1) Prestidigitator


  • Pillars of Eternity Backer Badge
  • Pillars of Eternity Kickstarter Badge

Recent Profile Visitors

159 profile views
  1. Can someone explain to me in a bit more detail how to change the pose of companions? I've tried replacing the "PersonalityID" numbers in characters.gamedatabundle with the ones I want, but that alone doesn't seem to work. Would be much appreciated.
  2. I seem to have run into a bug where Maneha doesn't trigger the conversation upon entering the Salt well. I've done this quest before a couple of times and this is the first time I've run into this issue. Is there a workaround for this?
  3. I tend go for ZE, simply because I find that usually someone in my party will run out of useful talents and Gallant focus begins to look very attractive. And since ZF and Gallants do not stack, I find I get more use out of ZE + Gallants than simply the ZF.
  4. Nvm, I found it. It's "quest_item_rh_disguise", in case anyone will need it.
  5. Does anyone know the item code for Berathian priest robes? I'm trying to change its appearance with unity but can't find it.
  6. A game based on Vampire: The Masquerade, with Brian Mitsoda as a stretch goal.
  7. Well you're really only bringing that same old argument we've been bouncing around for a few pages now. I don't believe anyone here is saying that the suggested system was perfect but the crux of the issue I have is that now, that system is gone entirely. And the reasoning for doing so hasn't in my opinion been sufficiently justified. Mostly I've read how it's been a minor inconvenience for some while others feel it doesn't add anything to the game. But it seems this was enough for the community to rally a big enough of an outcry that Sawyer saw it fit to remove the entire system. You k
  8. There's a few things here that I have differing opinions on but I don't want to seem like I'm out to nail you to a cross, so I'll just leave it at that. It's enough for me that you don't outright dismiss the system out of some unreasonable, assumed personal inconvenience.
  9. Well, there's a pretty good idea actually. Keeping a sharp sword versus the increased innate durability of blunt weapons. I like it (more of a reliable static damage versus a higher damage but deteriorating performance, then you add in the encounter specific weaknesses to further increase the layers of choosing your speciality). So here, you yourself gave a suggestion that would add gameplay depth and choice. But then you proceed to belittle that fact by stating that durability is only there to help with the gold issue.. About breaking multiple shields and such, I think I already stated
  10. I won't bother going through every single quotation. But the jist here is that you assume that there won't be any fine tuning of the durability system. I'll concur on there being little reason to break your equipment on the same enemy numerous times in a single fight, I think it's safe to say none of us want that. But you can make it sensible, by carrying a more durable weapon, adjusting durability rates or adding a 'breaking threshold' so if Satan crits you, your weapon/shield is in tatters, just from the top of my head. And a specific ruleset for magical weapons if need be. Also you shou
  11. They could still implement the rough equivalent by allowing disarm-type attacks, along with damaged loot capability. But I suppose that would be "punishing" the player. We want no part of that here, sir.
  12. Well, what you're referring to here is something quite different. The reason you dislike the system still hasn't changed, in fact, you don't even mention it. Now, lets say you don't think it adds to the game, fine. Others think it does, no skin off of your back. Same for it being the best solution to whatever problem you perceive, what does it mean in practice? You don't like it because it helps keeps player wealth in check? So, the in-game reason for your disapproval of the system would translate to "I want to have a great amount of money"? So, your justification for depriving a potentially
  13. Well, I understand what you're saying but you're not taking the fantasy setting into account. It's not at all unreasonable to think you might come across something that could shatter and break your common weapons, much less armor or shields, something that you did not touch on. After all, it was not uncommon to go through shields even back in the Medieval period.
  14. Initial claim was that Durability will add to the gameplay. When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed" And please, no cheap demagogy, "At first, they took our durability, then, they'll take our inventory! Adn then our Party, our children and our wives! STAHP!" It is ironic that you set DA2 as example. Because BioWare acted exactly like durability apologists wanted - "Ignore all feedback, stick with that idea of hack'
  • Create New...