Yonjuro

If I hadn't seen the earlier attribute definitions I would have assumed that Might/Power affects damage. I don't object to it affecting all damage and healing. It isn't obvious from the name that it has anything to do with healing - I guess power could include healing power. If that means that intellect affects health and number of inventory slots, I don't know if that's more intuitive than the old definitions. In that case, I think I would call intellect 'health'. Of course, an attribute called health that doesn't affect healing is a little strange too, so maybe a different name. 'Robustness' ? 'Hardiness'? 'Moxie'?? (Edited because forum ate my post).

Hi All, We've seen a lot of post comparing the attribute system to real life (or perceptions of it), but (I think) the goal was not to simulate RL - at all. A better way to give constructive feedback to the developers might be to describe a character build that is important to you but that isn't supported by the attribute system. For example, maybe you want the Minsc build - dumb as a bag of hammers but hits like a truck. Do the atrributes support that? I think the closest you can get is either the Rocky Balboa build - dumb but can soak up enough damage to win by attrition or the Sarevok build - really smart and hits like a truck. I think I'm ok with those options if there is a wider variety of builds overall(, but maybe you have a different opinion). So, what build do you want that doesn't seem to be supported?

This is a fair point, but it depends (entirely) on the scale. E.g. if strength ranges from: 1 - person of mass X can do a full squat with a bar weighing X (a.k.a. weak as a kitten) to 100 - person of mass X can do a full squat with a bar weighing 3X (a.k.a. a strength athlete) (with 50 being say, 2X, a reasonable strength for a non-strength athlete) that's very different than if the scale is: 1 - person isn't strong enough to raise a firearm (or, you know, breathe when it's humid) to 100 - person can lift the city of Cleveland In the first case, a 1 vs. a 100 would have been a plausible fight except that the character with 1 STR is going to die due to the health deficit (which, of course, will also depend on the scale, but I'm making an assumption here). In the second case, clearly a 1 can't fight a 100 (or anyone else who is strong enough to move under their own power). I guess what we need to know is how many inventory slots each character will get. If the range is a factor of 2 or 3 that's different than if it is a factor of 100 or 1000. (edited for a typo)

It's only basic physics if you think about weapons like swords and maces. .... Digression ahead. Putting on my martial arts hat (with the physics and biomechanics plumes jauntily affixed): Even for melee weapons (or even fists), in real life, raw strength is not the 'primary stat' for damage. Even discounting technique (which shouldn't be discounted and is arguably intellect plus dexterity for the most part, maybe resolve to some degree), the purely physical stat is effective strength, the number of muscle fibers that are recruited in a very short time (at most a few hundred milliseconds, typically) - raw strength is one contributor to that, but not really the main one - it's more due to (plyometric) training to get muscle fibers to respond faster - more skill than strength (but yes, strength helps). My takeaway point is: Q:Which stat contributes to real life physical damage? A:Probably all of them, so pick one. Intellect seems as good as any.

Oh, epicness is good, very good. Especially for a trailer. Some of the songs in Mass Effect 2 were very epic. I thought the score in that game was fantastic (kudos to Jack Wall for a great soundtrack). IMO the PoE trailer is much better if you watch it with music from Mass Effect 2 running in the background. I know it sounds funny, but it is true. Just ignore the fact that in some parts of the song synthesizers are used. Yes, these are nice, but now that you mention it, given what Mass Effect must have cost to make, the synthesizers are a bit surprising. Maybe they were trying for a futuristic sound?

just not for all songs. Bombastic music isn't always the right tone for the setting. Not that I'm telling you anything you don;t know. Sure, I don't think you want a choir in the background when you get a room at the inn (well, maybe if it was a really really nice inn).

Put me down as someone who loved the music. I hope to hear more of it in the finished game. The epicness (err, epicality?) is not something to be shy about. Go nuts with that. Take it to 11.

Yes, if you catch your neighbor mowing his lawn on a Saturday, it is very important to get everyone to throw rocks at him until he's dead. How else can we maintain a civil society? Whoops, sorry. /tangent

It sounds like 'troll' was sometimes being used to describe communities of pagans. Hmmm, I guess troll == druid.

Oh, I see. So by 'tea time with Minsc' you mean something that takes up too much time and isn't optional - sure, I don't want that either (especially on the nth play through). I would like to be able to talk to a recruitable NPC, especially one who used to be in the party, and have something more than: 'Do you want me back in the party?' 1. Yes 2. No Maybe you would get some useful info, something for flavor or character development or ... (and, presumably, it would depend on what quests you have completed etc. and maybe your PCs charisma: 'Minsc, did you talk to Lord Jierdan Firkraag? Is there something odd about him or is it just my imagination?').

We agree on that. (And this is a major difference between BG and IWD.) These don't need to be strictly 'flavor' elements; it could work like this: Since you brought up Minsc, as it is now, when you get to the gov't district, if Minsc is in your party, the messenger from the Umar Hills will approach him and give him the quest (otherwise, you approach the messenger to get the quest). If Minsc were not in your party, and you bump into him in the Copper Coronet, he could tell you about the Umar Hills quest there. Or, maybe he tells you about a completely new quest (that you only hear about if you traveled with him at some point in the game). It just seems really strange that you can talk to just about any character on any map and get an interesting interaction (e.g. in Imnesvale/Umar Hills everybody has an opinion about what is going on; all of them wrong but some that point you in the right direction), but someone that you know and have traveled with tells you nothing except: 'do you want me to join you again?' so there is no point in doing anything but ignoring them. And, if you think about it, you totally want to have tea time with Minsc, admit it

Another example that the BG series didn't do well was when you bumped into someone who used to be in your party. The only dialog option was to recruit the person back. There was no option to, say, buy the person a drink and talk about what you've done since then. That would have made the games better, if done well.

This seems like the kind of thing that the P:E team will get right, but I agree that it is important. Tolkien struck a good balance - enough detail to make his world seem real without drowning the reader in it. I think the IE games mostly did this well too - partly by putting lore into books that could be read (or ignored) at the players leisure. In BG1, there was simple quest to find a book for Firebead after which he hands the player a (very relevant) book in return. What didn't work so well in BG were the cameo appearances by Elminster etc.

Yes. I think you're right. My earlier question about 'why do people like the combat in this game?' was off base. The combat is fine; I just didn't care about it, for the reasons you stated, and so it seemed more like chore than a challenge.

I haven't gotten around to playing IWD2, but I did quite like IWD combat (in general). It made great use of the environment. In many cases, there were multiple tactical approaches. There was tactical variety. It justified otherwise-annoying tropes like teleporting-in enemies (they're ghosts, duh.) It rewarded a methodical approach, e.g. to sneak forward with your rogue to scout positions and disarm traps, hold defensive lines, effective use of missile and indirect fire (also from enemies!), a big variety of different types of enemies to face off against; there were battles where the best tactic was to find a defensible spot and stay put, and there were battles where the best tactic was to strike deep and take out the most dangerous enemy first, and so on. You had mob fights, you had boss fights, you had really tough melee, you had magic-using enemies, the works. Yeah, I suppose there is quite a variety, now that you mention it, and I never played it without making heavy use of stealth and dividing the enemies etc. I should explain that comment. I didn't mean that the combat was easy like the Xvart village. I meant that too many of the maps had lots of enemies that tended to mob you. I always play on core difficulty. See my previous post about playing as a solo monk using the IWD_in_BG2 mod. TLDR; that wasn't fun either. Anyway, I see what you mean about the tactical combat. I think the BG series had more strategic combat, but really it probably mostly just comes down to the story. BG feels like that time when my alter ego went adventuring on the sword coast and IWD kind of feels like that time I played a computer game.

What you where expecting a replay? I don't know, you stated a very subjective opinion, so there wasn't really much to say. My question wasn't rhetorical. It could be that we just don't like the same things, but I was genuinely curious if I missed something about the combat in IWD. I thought at one point that making IWD1 more challenging would make it more interesting so Installed the IWD_in_BG2 mod and started a run with a solo monk. That ended up just exaggerating the problem. Things just took too long. I don't think that the combat was too easy, it's more that the game felt (to me) like: Go grind up some orcs. Ok, now go grind up some skeletons. Finished, great. go grind up some .... There was a sameness to the fights that I found tedious. On the plus side, I can now sympathize more with Sarevok - all those summoned monsters I hurled at him in one of my BG playthroughs must have been really boring for him. No wonder he was so angry Hmm, I spent more time on IWD1 and I'm lumpimg IWD1&2 together, but that's probably not the right thing to do. Yes, I see what you mean. Maybe I'll give IWD2 another try to see if there is something I like about the combat.

As for IWD2, that's why i said hard counters and not encounters. IWD2 in general is more difficult that BG2, but they are different kinds of difficult. Take a fight like Kangaax the Demi-lich. There is no way to beat him using conventional tactics. No matter what level you are, no mater if you have mages-fighters whatever, it doesn't matter. He imprisons you anyway. Unless you find a way to counter his attack you are dead.No middle ground. There are many ways to counter it but you have to find them. That way the battle becomes some kind of puzzle. Imposible to beat until you find the way, but then a cakewalk. Most fights in BG were that way, if not in so extreme way. Yes, I guess I would like to challenge the idea the IWD1&2 had better combat. I found them both to be very tedious. You got mobbed by hard enemies all the time and I found them utterly boring (though I didn't spend enough time on IWD2 to know whether it gets better later in the game (I think stopped on the third map); I know that IWD1 is tedious all the way through (almost) to the end (when I decided not to bother with the rest of it)). I thought the combat might only seem tedious because I never got drawn into either story, but now that you mention it, combat in BG (1&2, 2 moreso than 1) both had more of a feeling of solving a puzzle. The IWD's, to me, both felt like the Xvart village in BG1, lots of enemies mob you and you grind through them (except that they hit harder than xvarts so, when you take too much damage run away (the enemies will never think to follow me through this door) and heal (yet again, ::yawn: ). I don't know what anybody saw in either IWD game that was interesting. Of course, maybe I just didn't spend enough time with them to learn how to play them well. So, those of you that like the combat in IWD, what am I missing? ( ::Tries not to be mesmerized by the deafening silence:: ). Anyone? Several people (in this topic) have had a contrary opinion. What is it about the IWDs that you like? They must be doing something right. Or, if you would rather, what is it about BG (1 or 2) combat that you thought didn't work as a well as IWD? Do you agree with the 'puzzle' comment by @Malekith quoted above?

As for IWD2, that's why i said hard counters and not encounters. IWD2 in general is more difficult that BG2, but they are different kinds of difficult. Take a fight like Kangaax the Demi-lich. There is no way to beat him using conventional tactics. No matter what level you are, no mater if you have mages-fighters whatever, it doesn't matter. He imprisons you anyway. Unless you find a way to counter his attack you are dead.No middle ground. There are many ways to counter it but you have to find them. That way the battle becomes some kind of puzzle. Imposible to beat until you find the way, but then a cakewalk. Most fights in BG were that way, if not in so extreme way. Yes, I guess I would like to challenge the idea the IWD1&2 had better combat. I found them both to be very tedious. You got mobbed by hard enemies all the time and I found them utterly boring (though I didn't spend enough time on IWD2 to know whether it gets better later in the game (I think stopped on the third map); I know that IWD1 is tedious all the way through (almost) to the end (when I decided not to bother with the rest of it)). I thought the combat might only seem tedious because I never got drawn into either story, but now that you mention it, combat in BG (1&2, 2 moreso than 1) both had more of a feeling of solving a puzzle. The IWD's, to me, both felt like the Xvart village in BG1, lots of enemies mob you and you grind through them (except that they hit harder than xvarts so, when you take too much damage run away (the enemies will never think to follow me through this door) and heal (yet again, ::yawn:). I don't know what anybody saw in either IWD game that was interesting. Of course, maybe I just didn't spend enough time with them to learn how to play them well. So, those of you that like the combat in IWD, what am I missing?

Oh, but thief traps bypass magic resistance (i.e. it is even easier with an assassin ). Anyway, as you pointed out, there are a lot of ways to take the danger out of that fight. As we all learned in Durlag's Tower (or in the Tomb of King Strohm, in Firkraag's dungeon), between the items you find in the dungeon and spells/scrolls/potions any fighter type can be healed by Firkraag's breath weapon by getting magical fire resistance above 100%. I think this was intended by the designers (capping resistances at 100% is easy enough if it was the intention). Any cleric can cast Resist Magic on Firkraag which lowers his MR and the lower level your party is, the better it works. Any mage can cast Strength on him which lowers his strength to 18/00, probably lower than at least one party member if you found or purchased any strength enhancing items. Both of these effects are stated in the spell descriptions. The fight is really more a test of reading comprehension than anything else. Why fight him without every available buff/debuff in place, any available traps set, creatures summoned etc.; you would get your ass handed to you as your party ran around terrified The game shouldn't even give you XP for that if you did win in the end by pure luck.

In one game where I rolled the whole party, I had a jester. The jester song confuses enemies who fail the saving throw -- combine with invisibility and just about everyone will fail the save eventually. Plus they can use wands; in BG1 that makes any character brokenly powerful by the end of the game - even Garrick, I suppose.

Are you kidding? I hacked the game, just so I could have a full party of nothing but Garrick. Yes, even the main character was replaced with Garrick. Wow, six times the awesomeness. Yes, that's right, he's with Silke. He is useful for one of the maps directly on the coast (the lighthouse map or the one to the north of it).

So, you had Garrick in your party in BG1?

I just wanted to point out that 'oversouled' is the best word I've heard in a long time.

Nope. I like it better too. The 3rd edition seemed to me to give the illusion of more flexibility, but the XP progression was exponential, so, if you were a level 10 fighter you could become a level 11 fighter or spend the (exponentially high number of) points to be a fighter10/<someotherclass>1 which is a relatively weaker character considering the cost. Using 2ed. dual classing, you pay once in decreased abilities while you regain your old class using the point progression of the new class (that is, paying fewer points per level), or, using multiclassing divide points by 2 (or three for a triple class) and use the progressions from all of your classes (division by a constant over an exponentially increasing series = 'good' ). You never pay a giant number of points for a tiny increase. That said, I have approximately no experience actually using 3rd ed. so maybe it doesn't turn out bad in practice. I prefer the atmosphere to 2nd ed, it just felt more colourful and had more defined roles in it's classes while not getting stupid with the multi-classing, but taking another level in a class you already had actually wasn't better than taking a level in another class no matter how high. This was because although the levels increased in xp needed to get to a higher one the actual benefits you gained per level did not increase much if at all whereas the first level in a class often gave you more stuff. People often switched from fighter after level 12 for instance because at that level you unlocked the last weapon specialisation level and then only got fighter feats after that (many multiclassed before it as well depending on the type of class they were going for, some even only took one level in fighter to get all the armour and weapon proficiencies and then moved to another class). Hmm, that makes sense. I guess my mental model of 3rd edition was leaving a lot of things out. It sounds like I should reword my post to say, I liked 2nd edition (including the limitations on class combinations) but don't know enough about 3rd edition to have an opinion.

Nope. I like it better too. The 3rd edition seemed to me to give the illusion of more flexibility, but the XP progression was exponential, so, if you were a level 10 fighter you could become a level 11 fighter or spend the (exponentially high number of) points to be a fighter10/<someotherclass>1 which is a relatively weaker character considering the cost. Using 2ed. dual classing, you pay once in decreased abilities while you regain your old class using the point progression of the new class (that is, paying fewer points per level), or, using multiclassing divide points by 2 (or three for a triple class) and use the progressions from all of your classes (division by a constant over an exponentially increasing series = 'good' ). You never pay a giant number of points for a tiny increase. That said, I have approximately no experience actually using 3rd ed. so maybe it doesn't turn out bad in practice.