Yonjuro

Would you mind linking the source for that? I don't think I can link to it, but here's a copy of the posts:

That is not the conventional definition. The strategy for a campaign, battle, chess game or whatever is the plan, including contingencies based on what your opponent does, the weather etc. Tactics are what you execute to carry out the plan. Which tactics you execute will depend on the contingencies. In my earlier example, Alexander's goal was to avoid getting overrun by the Persians who outnumbered him. His strategy was to route the weakest part of their line in hopes of starting a general rout (and presumably with contingency plans to avoid charging into a a position where he was surrounded if the rout didn't happen etc.). His first tactic was to charge with his cavalry followed up by his phalanx and finally his other troops to the left flank where he had prior knowledge that the enemy was weakest. If you program computers, the strategy is the program; the tactics are the statements that actually get executed at run time for a particular set of circumstances. (If you aren't a programmer, ignore the useless analogy).

Paladin + Rogue = Commando (dedication to a cause and capable of covert operations)

Yeah really. My man Xan hated life, and bitched up a storm.... but he never ran in the middle of the fight like a crazy sissy pants. What's the use of running? We're all doomed.

What Alexander the Great did by attacking that flank was a tactic. Strategies are long term plans, tactics are what you do to resolve the current issue. In a RPG video game, your strategy is how you build your characters, your party composition and the decision of keeping or not stuff. A tactic is whatever you do to win a fight. Fair enough. I have always thought of Alexander's first battle with Darius as an example of strategic decision making because it relied on knowledge gained from prescouting the enemy, but it isn't really central to my point. Surely, deciding not to use Empower is only a strategy if you have scouted ahead and realized that you will need it later, yes? If you consider it a strategic decision because it is prudent to save resources when you don't know what is coming next, fine, but it isn't an interesting strategic decision. I agree completely. That was exactly my point. A strategic decision is an informed choice based on whatever knowledge you have gathered and how you interpret it. Either you are gaining information and planning ahead strategically or you are not. Saving things for later is not a strategy (or, at least, it isn't an example of interesting strategic thinking) unless you have looked ahead and made an informed prediction rather than saving things out pf prudence. Well, ok, but on a single map you may be able to learn the positions, types and numbers of enemies through stealth/scouting and, over multiple maps, from talking to knowledgeable NPCs; strategy without meta-gaming.

Can you explain to me how it's strategic? I've never understood this claim. It seems to me that the choice you refer to as tedious is the only choice you're making. It's convenience rather tactical. You ration your magic because the game gives you mind-numbing boredom if you don't, not because rationing it gives you a tactical edge anywhere because in practice, resting before every encounter always gives you the tactical edge. It's a punishment mechanic, not a tactics mechanic. Yes, exactly. I have the same question: How is it strategic? It looks more like rationing spells due to perceived probability of needing them later (or due to metagaming knowledge after the first play through). It might be a good policy decision, but it doesn't strike me as a strategic one (more like logistics). I think of strategy more in the sense of scouting, pre-combat positioning, attempting to divide enemies etc. For example, Alexander the Great attacking Darius' army on their left flank because he saw archers there (protecting the weaker troops) would be strategy. Alexander saying "Yo Ptolemy, we're running out of salt." is logistics. No?

I liked PoE a lot more after the release of WM. It really opened up the game world and added possibilities and a sense of agency. My preference would be to have it available during the game with the option of continuing to play after the main quest so that people who don't want to break up the story have that option.

Nothing about this so far. Now that I think a bit more about this, it could have the undesirable side effect of causing your class abilities to become weaker after a level up. E.g. 17/0 leveling up to 17/1 can cause your primary class (the class you have 17 levels in) abilities to become weaker. Can anybody think of a scheme that doesn't do that? I suppose it would require a steep power curve where an extra level in one class is as good as several lower levels in a second class or treating a max level single class in a special way. Josh, if you read this, how will you prevent a 17/1 multi-class from being strictly better than a level 18 single class? Boss Talents with level restrictions might do it. That way the level 18 gets something that is specifically better. This wouldn't be unlike Epic Feats in 3.5. If the level cap is raised to 20, and I think someone was saying they saw it instead of doubling VO earlier when they did the update, then those feats could require level 20 instead. Basically put the talent at the level cap, and have one (or a few if they can manage it) for each class. That's all I got. Edit: I mean class level restrictions vs PC level. It could use the power source: Discipline, or whatever. That could work. It might restrict the leveling of future games (e.g. if happens at 20, then a future game with a level cap of 21 has the same 17/1 vs. 18 issue), assuming that having a consistent system across games is a goal.

Cipher + Chanter = Soul Singer See what you started, Ganrich?

Nothing about this so far. Now that I think a bit more about this, it could have the undesirable side effect of causing your class abilities to become weaker after a level up. E.g. 17/0 leveling up to 17/1 can cause your primary class (the class you have 17 levels in) abilities to become weaker. Can anybody think of a scheme that doesn't do that? I suppose it would require a steep power curve where an extra level in one class is as good as several lower levels in a second class or treating a max level single class in a special way. Josh, if you read this, how will you prevent a 17/1 multi-class from being strictly better than a level 18 single class?

Unless there will be some epic feats or specializations, or we'll be getting access to next tier spells at even levels, 17/1 is indeed likely to be better than 18/0 in majority of cases. Also there is one more sweet spot at 14+10 power_level, which corresponds to 12/6 lvl split Although it's also very important: - at what levels exactly will we be getting some key spells and abilities (think Dragon Thrashed, Sacred Immolation, Shining Beacon, Minor Avatar, Kalakoth's Minor Blights, etc) - and how the damage will scale with source_points. Agreed! Thanks for pointing it out, but I saw the bonus of the 12/6 lvl split, I just thought the ratio is somehow really strange and doesn't look appealing for builds. E.g. 9/9 seems to give the broadest access to abilities, while 17/1 and 15/3 are relatively low sacrifices in the first class compared to what you get in the second. 12/6 seems like a bad trade-off - looks like you should focus on the first class, but you are only a bit better than the second one. Dunno. You're right about the key spells and abilities though, they will certainly be the deciding factor. And in case they decided for DnD2 multiclassing, this whole table is moot anyway, since this would imply we end up with 9/9. Josh may come up with some kind of bonus for unused virtual points in order to not disadvantage pure classes and to avoid sweet spots. We'll learn more soon.

One way to do it would be to have two options, continue a game or use a save for convenience. That is: 1. Import a character from a save - name, appearance, gender race, class not changeable or 2. Import the decisions from a save and make a new character (strictly for convenience, to set your old decisions as defaults).

Back or back not. There is no but. If they want me to back, there'd better be some butt. Big butts, I like. Deny, you other brothers can't. Back, baby got. -- Sir Yodalot Want none, my anaconda does. Unless buns, you have. I never realized that I wanted to hear Yoda rap 'Baby Got Back' until today.

Back or back not. There is no but. If they want me to back, there'd better be some butt. Big butts, I like. Deny, you other brothers can't. Back, baby got. -- Sir Yodalot

We still need the details, but I think the idea is more like the power source being used to buy class abilities, e.g. number of spell slots for a wizard. Having more arcane power gives more spell slots but damage, area of effect etc. are still controlled by the stats. I agree that we need details, but from what has been posted so far, I understand the system to work differently than you describe it. From what josh said, there are two things for each class, ressource and power level, where the later is a function of the former: The strength of abilities will be influenced by both attributes and class advancement. Thus the wizard would get both more spell slots and increased effect of their spells. I think that's right. I really meant to say that attributes still matter. If I understand you, I think it's (17,6) and (6,17) inclusive or else 18,0 (for a single class)? Essentially, a single level at the end would need to be worth approximately 6 levels in a second class for single classes to be competitive with grabbing a level in a second class.

We still need the details, but I think the idea is more like the power source being used to buy class abilities, e.g. number of spell slots for a wizard. Having more arcane power gives more spell slots but damage, area of effect etc. are still controlled by the stats.

Yes, I agree completely. As an aside, I hope the art team doesn't die a little inside when they see a suggestion like this. My first choice would be to have a beautifully painted portrait by one of Obsidian's amazing artists for each possible character I might want to play. However, there are too many of them, so ...

It would be nice to see that as an option. You can do it in PoE by taking a screenshot, pasting it into an image processing program .... Having it as a one button option in game would be nice. There aren't enough portraits to cover the majority of appearances you can give to your characters.

Yes. I just got one.

You get a second beta key for a friend.

Will people please stop molesting Eder! That's like asking Eder to stop petting any animal that gets within range! Yeah, about that. I think you would need to be a druid to romance Eder. The shape shifting ability is the key. Not that there's anything wrong with that....

The companions should have their own personalities. The PC needs to have lines to deal with each character in whatever way the player would like. You should be able to tell Durance that he needs to stop living in the past and get less of a lore dump from him. The OP mentions the codex article, which I read and, though it was a rant, it had a good point about the value of a good editor. The idea was that writers with deadlines are going to get things wrong sometimes and a good editor can fix that (make sure backstory is consistent, fix the tone, balance out vomiting of backstory/lore onto screen with advancing the story etc.) Ideally, an editor will not be one of the writers and will act as a gatekeeper (in the software development sense - someone with the power to stop a release until problems get fixed). In addition, a good editor can make sure that the player is able to give the PC a consistent personality. My point about being able to tell Durance to shut the hell up about the past means that Durance needs to have lines that aren't pure lore dump. Potentially, it would mitigate the dichotomy in question (whether true or false - I think it's a false one in general but it becomes true when you add budgets and deadlines).

That is not true. You will be able to get beta access on Steam and then the full game on Gog just as you could with PoE1. Somebody asked this in the Fig comments and Feargus confirmed it.

That's a very interesting idea. I think you and I want exactly the opposite thing from a game, but you have stated what the things are very well.

Yeah exactly. It's happening "off screen". And that what happens off screen is what I would like to see on screen. That's exactly what I would wish for. At the moment you have to assume or imagine that a friendship between certain characters must have been developed. But I would like to see at least parts of this development on screen. Maybe, but it might be possible to overdo details in the game. My memory of BG (the first game with its minimal character development) is a lot more vivid than what happened on the screen and through the speakers. I think a lot of that is due to how much was left to the imagination.