oaktownbrown

I think a slider would be a good addition to the game options. Preferably one that you can change in game. But I don't have a problem with gaining XP too quickly bc I don't level up when I can. No one forces you to level up. E.g., if you want to do 50% gain, don't level up to level 2 until you have 2000 XP., don't level up to 3 until you have 6000 XP, etc. I don't level up until it's too hard (i.e., not fun) to do what I want to do, whether that's combat, sneaking, or whatever. My goal is 50%. I usually do better than that but sometimes I level up before I have twice the required XP. It's a bit of a pain but I like the flexibility and I never have to worry about leveling too quickly.

There's nothing that the class system forbids me to do. But I always get this awkward feeling that what I do with a class can also be done by another. I cannot be unique. There's a lack of proper roles. It's a hybrid... If you do a game with a class system, then stick to it. Don't make wizards experts in disarming traps! (they start with 1 in it) It's rogues' stuff! This way I get the feeling that with 6 fighters I can beat the game just right... as a fighter can scout, beat, disarm, be stealthy, talk, and with proper lore even cast spells.. By the way... I'd be more than happy if anyone can prove me I'm wrong and comes out with something unique, for I haven't found anything to date. You're right that six fighters can beat the game, or six rogues, six wizards, or six whatever. But so can one, though soloing is definitely easier with some classes than others. You don't NEED a party at all, much less a mixed party. Ppl play with a party because they think it's more fun, not because they have to. And they play with "party X" because they think it's more fun, whether party X is a party of six rangers or a party that tries to use all the companions about equally and tries to make sure that there are different combos throughout the game (i.e., try to make sure that Grieving Mother is in pretty much every possible party composition, same with Pallengina, Durance, Aloth, Sagani, Hiravias, Kana, Eder, Devil, Maneha, and Zahua and try to make the amount of time in the various compositions roughly equal). The latter is how I'm playing PoE because I want to play around with lots of combos rather than maximizing, e.g., Maneha's stats and equpment, to play with a certain party composition. I'd rather build characters who work well with lots of combos and doing that forces me to be flexible, adapting to other party member as well as various equipment and foes. But YMMV and probably does. I agree that if you build two characters the same way, they will be able to do pretty much the same things out of combat, regardless of class. E.g., if you max mechanics for a fighter, s/he will be able to disarm traps almost as well as a rogue. The rogue, with +2 in mechanics, will always be somewhat better (assuming that you invest an equal amount of points for each) at it because it will always be cheaper for her/him to get to the next level in mechanics than it will be for the fighter. But you can't max every skill (or even most of them) so a fighter who is good at lore but dabbles in mechanics will never be as good at picking locks as a character who is good at mechanics. So, if I want, my druid can be better at picking locks than using scrolls. That, to me, is one thing that is appealing about a well-made classless system. It sounds like that bothers you. Why do you like a classless system if you think that you have to build characters a certain way? I do wish that I could customize my druid more and decide at the beginning if I'd rather have longer/stronger spiritshift but no/few spells (or maybe only charm beast, talk to beast, etc spells), lots of spells but no/limited spiritshift or, e.g., maybe specialize in healing/buffing spells and get more of those (and stronger spells and fewer elemental spells and CC, etc. or vice-versa). Or maybe that I could learn X number of scrolls at level up (priest, wizard, or druid), kind of like a wizard. I do wish that there was more flexibility because I like a classless system but, to me, the problems with a class system in PoE relate to combat limitations, not role-playing ones. I guess I don't understand because we seem to like classless systems for different reasons. I like them because of their flexibility but you seem to dislike the flexibility you get with PoE's skills. Would you like it better if the same thing were used in a classless system? If so ,why?

I'm not following because I don't understand how the classes restrict your ability to be a leader, talk, or scout. They give starting bonuses to skills (e.g., stealth) and determine what talents you can take but not much else (except for combat things like starting deflection and accuracy and what you can do in combat). Rogues and Ciphers are good because they both give a starting bonus to both stealth and mechanics (rogue gets +2 to mechanics) but you can have any player be a scout or trap monkey. I used Durance because mechanics (traps) makes his seal spells stronger. Here is a list of classes and backgrounds that give bonuses to stealth: http://pillarsofeternity.gamepedia.com/Stealth Mechanics: http://pillarsofeternity.gamepedia.com/Mechanics I like classless systems too but I don't feel restricted with respect to making someone who is a leader, good in conversations, good at stealth, or good at traps because of PoE's class system. (Parenthetically, IMO you don't need a character to have a particularly high stealth in order to make a good scout but YMMV.) I feel like it's a much bigger restriction in combat. What would you like to do that you can't bc of PoE's system?

You can be physically strong and intelligent. High might and intelligence is practically a requirement for non-CC focused casters. Then you can add dex if you want to focus on speed or perception if you want to focus on accuracy. I would not want to be able to increase attributes at level up. Then the devs would have to make encounters (and maybe CYOAs and conversations) harder to compensate and that would make the game more linear bc ppl would generally want to play the hardest parts last, either becuase they need to or to make the game more fun. I prefer non-linear games. Use the IE Mod or Eternity Keeper if you want to edit attributes.

Here are the dialog checks in 1.x. It doesn't count the White March but maybe someone will have those. Barbarian: 2 Chanter: 1 Cipher: 12 Druid: 1 Fighter: 4 Monk: 2 Paladin: 1 + Order Priest: 6 (3 unique - without equivalent "Clergyman" background check) + Deity Ranger: 2 Rogue: 2 Wizard: 3 Kind Wayfarers: 7 Bleak Walkers: 6 Shieldbearers: 3 Goldpact: 2 Darcozzi: 3 Berath: 3 Skaen: 7 Magran: 5 Wael: 5 Eothas: 7 Aristocrat: 8 Artist: 4 Clergyman: 7 (4 unique) Colonist: 9 Dissident: 6 Drifter: 4 Explorer: 9 Hunter: 10 Laborer: 8 Mercenary: 8 Merchant: 11 Mystic: 5 Philosopher: 11 Raider: 11 Scholar: 13 Scientist: 6 Slave: 7 Aedyr: 12 (5 of them with Aloth) Deadfire: 9 Ixamitl Plains: 1 Old Vailia: 4 Rauatai: 9 (8 with Kana) The Living Lands: 9 White That Wends: 14 Aumaua: 7 Coastal Aumaua: 1 Dwarf: 0 Boreal Dwarf: 1 Elf: 1 Snow Elf: 7 (3 with Glaswal) Godlike: 10 Fire Godlike: 4 Nature Godlike: 2 Moon Godlike: 2 Death Godlike: 3 Human: 1 Orlan: 14 (5 with Captain Aldmar) Hearth Orlan: 1 Wild Orlan: 1 Male: 7 Female: 12 First number shows amount of conversations where the stat is checked, numbers in brackets include multiple checks per conversation (can be slightly inaccurate): Might: 38 (42) Constitution: 12 (12) Dexterity: 19 (21) Perception: 42 (47) Intellect: 40 (55) Resolve: 55 (81) Stealth: 4 (5) Athletics: 22 (30+) (only checked once outside of text adventures, by the Glanfathan Leader) Lore: 18 (25) Mechanics: 4 (7) Survival: 14 (16) Highest amount checked: Stealth: 6 (Falanroed/Maw) Athletics: ? (possibly 11 on Burial Isle) Lore: 10 (lots) Mechanics: 8 (Durance) Survival: 12 (Sagani) Disposition checks: Aggressive 39 Benevolent 40 Clever 27 Cruel 52 Deceptive 30 Diplomatic 25 Honest 26 Passionate 33 Rational 30 Stoic 28 Highest unlocks are for Rank 3; Rank 4 is only used to lock options. http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/raw-numbers-for-poes-dialogue-checks.98722/ So it looks like a Priest or Cipher would be the best class for dialog. For races, you'd want to pick one that unlocks options and gives high resolve and either intelligence, perception, or might. Orlans and Humans give +1 to resolve and either perception or might. Orlans also unlocks some conversation options (and sometimes innskeepers, guards, and others have things to say to you because you're an Orlan). I think it's a good race to play. Aedyr and Ixamitl Plains give +1 to resolve too. Philosopher is a good background for unlocking conversation; you need to be from Ixamitl Plains to choose a philosopher background. Downside is that it gives you +2 to Lore, not Mechanics, which you need for traps. Lore is good for unlocking options in conversations, though, and sometimes letting you talk your way out of a fight. Drifter is a good background bc it gives +1 to Mechanics and +1 to Stealth. It may not fit in with your fairly rigid concepts about characters, though. Laborer, merchant, and scientist also give +1 to Mechanics. As others have said, you won't be able to unlock all the conversation options because many of them are tied to reputation and if you pick, e.g., the benevolent option, you aren't going to be able to pick the aggressive or rational one there. You can have both benevolent and aggressive reputations but it's hard to have high scores in more than a few, which you'd need (and need them early) to unlock all the conversation options. As others have said, you can use your companions to unlock options in the CYOAs, which is nice, but not in the conversations. However, you can buff your stats to some degree by using potions, food, resting bonuses, equipment, etc. Here is a thread: https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/86038-metagaming-boosting-resolve-for-dialogue-checks/

1. PST 2. Morrowind Those are always my top two. I love lore and world building done right. In Morrowind, I also like how it subverts the "Chosen One" trope even you do end up being the Chosen One in the end only bc you were such a dumb frick that you let others manipulate you for their own ends. (Or you can never figure that out if you just follow the main quest instead of exploring. The game makes sense either way, which I appreciate.) 3. Too many to list and the order of these games changes all the time so I'll just call this my Tier 2 games. I love them all. Betrayal at Krondor, the Gothics (or 2 if I have to pick one), Realms of Arkania (the whole series but 2 if I have to pick one), the Ultimas (VII esp), Arcanum 4. Next tier would be games like Fallout 1 and F:NV, Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines, Daggerfall, Baldur's Gates, Darklands, Wizardry, and many others that I'm forgetting ATM.

IMO whether or not you should min-max stats depends on why you are min-maxing stats. I would only do it if I enjoyed trying out different builds and making the most X build I could. I use X there bc what is the best build for a class (or even a good build) is going to vary from person to person, playstyle to playstyle and even what role you want party member Y to have in your party (so from game to game for the same person). IOW you are using the game mainly as a testing ground for your build and not so much playing for the story, exploring the world, playing a role, etc. Some ppl love doing that and I've done it with other games. It can be a lot of fun and, with some games (looking at you NWN OCs), you'll probably have more fun doing that than you will playing the game. It's also fun after you've played the whole game and want to still play it with a different twist. I would not min-max stats, talents, abilities, etc. in order to beat the game unless I were playing POTD solo. That's kinda the point of POTD solo IMO. (Well, that and using lots of cheese without the guilt you'd have using so much of it in a party run.) You can if you like that but then I don't understand why you'd use someone else guide except to get good ideas for your own build that does what you want it to do, not what the person who wrote the guide wants that class to do. You have a whole party and with 3.0 you can build the rest of the party pretty much how you want anyway. If you don't like the way you've built them or you get tired playing them that way (e.g., a tank instead of a multi-target damage dealer, CC pro or support character), you can pay a bit of gold and build them again from level 1. If you have a certain playstyle or character type in mind (e.g., a glass cannon wizard), read up on build guides to see what they do and, more importantly, why they do certain things. Then build your own character, taking talents, etc. that sound fun to you. If you don't like the way it plays, you can re-level it in an inn for some gold. Or, if it's early enough, you can start again. As others have said, most build guides don't consider dialogs or CYOAs, which you may want to do bc IMO they add a lot, especially the CYOAs. I think they're fun and help the player feel more like they are actually role playing instead of just playing a combat game.

Thanks. I have played before but it was the 1.x build, which seems pretty different. I'm currently using my first party that I abandoned in Defiance Bay because I got bored even though I wasn't leveling up in order to make the combat more challenging. I started doing solo POTD runs on 1.x. That was fun but real life intervened so I ended up only doing about 2 and 2/3 runs. I got interested again because of the Deadfire campaign. I'm playing WM with an under-leveled party (the one I'd abandoned in DF) and it's pretty fun so far. Sometimes it's hard and I can't always tell if it's bc I'm not used to the changes and don't remember how to fight or if I'm intentionally under-leveled (i.e., I have enough XP to be many levels higher than I am). I'm pretty sure it's some of both. My unusual playstyle is one reason I try to preface my remarks: I don't have the experience others have with higher level talents, abilities, spells, etc. (e.g., when I played at higher levels it was solo with a druid, wizard or chanter under 1.x and you had lower level spells as per encounter for the druid and wizard) or nearly as much experience with party play or the 3.x build as many ppl here. I do use ancient memory and Eder has the recovery talent. I use Consecrated Ground too. It's hard bc I don't get many talents and have to be very selective (and I don't like to camp out so I can't use spells freely). I recently leveled up (to make combat easier) and re-leveled my party members (except Aloth bc I'm too lazy to relearn all his spells). Before that, none of my characters had any of the new talents bc I was playing with a party that was built under 1.x. I think I put Acolyte's Recovery on someone and took Gallant's Focus on my main. I did have a nice surprise when my main (a druid), who is wearing Sanguine Plate, had frenzy. It's fun to use frenzy while spiritshifted. One of my characters also has the Shod in Faith boots so that helps too. I agree that it's more fun if you don't have to manage health/endurance so carefully. That's one reason I just leveled up a bit: I don't know if it's bc I'm still relearning PoE or if WM is a lot harder than DF (or Act 2) but I needed the extra levels to make playing fun. I need to learn the stacking rules. Some of the ppl here are very helpful with that. Another thing I have to re-learn is the equipment. PoE isn't as equipment dependent as some other games but it is important. That's one reason I like to read the build suggestions. Reading how others have taken advantage of equipment - playstyle - build - party synergies is very helpful for me. E.g., using weapons with overbearing in order to inflict prone and have frontliners help with CC. Using equipment to help with CC is something that might help OP as well. Thank you for all the tips you provide here.

There are a lot of good tips in the posts above. I've only played a bit on 3.x (and only up to level 6) so someone please correct me if things have changed. Expanding on the debuffs, I like to use players to work together with debuffs. E.g., have Aloth cast Chill Fog or Curse of the Blackened Sight then Hiravias cast Sunbeam. If Chill Fog hits (and, as explained above, it usually will for at least 1.5 seconds), it reduces reflex, which Sunbeam targets. Then have other party members target reflex because Sunbeam also blinds (for 15 seconds, longer than Chill Fog), which reduces the opponents' reflex saves. Get in other debuffs when this one is close to ending. Or you could go the other way with Hiravias casting, e.g., Vile Thorns or Grieving Mother casting Whispers of Treason (both target Will) then Aloth casting Curse of the Blackened Sight. It might take a bit to learn how to time multi-debuffs (e.g., Aloth, Hiravias, and GM here) that but after you play a while, you get a feel for how long fast, average, and long spells take. I found this list to be extremely useful in planning attacks http://pillarsofeternity.gamepedia.com/Status_Effects I like PoE because so many party members can help debuff opponents. Use auto pause if you don't have enough time to act before debuffs expire. The other thing is that when I'm struggling, I like to have two healers. They aren't pure healers but that is their first priority, especially making sure that the other healer does not go down. I make sure that they both have plenty of heal and revive scrolls and that they stay at the back. It can make the fights take longer but I don't have to worry about losing a fight. It's a good way to test how well various tactics front line tactics, weapons, etc. work.

FWIW, I disagree with the Steam guide. You don't need to minmax, even on PotD unless you're soloing PotD. Then you should minmax and will probably need at least some cheese (which I enjoy in moderate amounts but some ppl hate). I think trying to minmax everyone takes the fun out of the game. But other ppl enjoy it. My advice is only worry about it if you enjoy the challenge of minmaxing more than playing the game. I agree that it's easiest if you have at least two tanks or semi-tanks. Eder is a natural. Any of the next three (Aloth, Durance, Kana) can be decent semi-tanks if you pick tankish talents and abilities for them. You also need a damage dealer. More damage dealers are better. Decide if you want to mainly do melee, ranged, or mixed. A healer or two is nice, especially in the early game when potions are expensive. You won't need to rest as often, which is very convenient (and IMO more fun but that's me). A scout is great IMO but if you like to read wikis and already know what enemies are ahead (and how many, where, and what their attacks and defenses are), not that important. Crowd control is really good too. It's the most important thing for me but you can do without it. (And if you have really good crowd control, you can do without a tank. So back to you deciding what way is the most fun for you.) I base my builds on my playstyle. E.g., sometimes I will want to sneak a lot and avoid combat (or at least delay it until I'm relatively OP'd). I'd recommend playing around for at least an hour or so using sneak builds and pulling foes to good combat locations just to get the hang of it and so you can see if you like that style or if you'd rather barge in full-force and engage most of your foes at once. Do a hard save before you mess with your characters so that you can go back to it after you've played around. I do like using a scout if I'm using a party so I will always have one member with high sneak. The scout can find out what's ahead so I can plan debuffs and attacks, finding good "battle" locations, and pulling enemies (preferably one or two at a time) to the main group. Try using crowd control vs tanks and buffs vs debuffs. You'll fail but you'll learn what each can and can't do. (And if you hate using buffs and debuffs, don't have Eder take a couple of levels of lore bc he won't be using scrolls.) Do you rest a lot? If so, you don't need to be all that concerned about running out of per rest abilities and it will be easier to play Vancian casters. If you're resting every couple of fights, the casters will all be very strong and you can either build them to be tanks or else buff up their offense so that they are high damage dealers. Strongly consider putting points in survival; at least a few levels for everyone. If you don't rest often, you need to think about how the character will hold his/her own and help the party in other ways. Don't choose survival bc it's a waste since you'll very rarely be camping. You might put one or three points in it (for one or two levels) but even that is questionable (depending on how often you camp). Some of the casting talents are still good but you may opt instead for offensive or defensive talents (and, e.g., lore for scroll use) since you'll generally only be using their spells in big fights (until you get per encounter spells). That brings up whether you want to build mainly to quickly dispatch trash mobs or to have an easier time in big fights. I always build for big fights but some ppl are more bothered by trash mobs because you run into so many. (If you build a sneak party, you will be concerned about big fights bc the main advantage is that you can avoid most trash mobs but you also miss out on their loot.) IMO you need one character to do traps. Since you're a rogue, no need to build Durance for that (though he does a good job). Unlike the steam guide, I didn't think that Durance was particularly squishy but a lot depends on your playstyle, which is why it's hard to write a build guide for RPGs. Most should be called: "if you play the game like I do, here are some good builds." (NB: I appreciate ppl who post builds and recommendations. I often learn things and it gives me a window into how others play. I'm saying this bc I think far too many newbies take build recommendations - or guidelines like the one on Steam - as gospel when they should be seen as suggestions that are based in large part on the playstyle of the person making the recommendation, which experienced players realize and adjust for but inexperienced players don't.) Depending on what else you might take for Durance and the role you want him to play, you might still consider mechanics in order to boost his seal spells which were quite good the last time I played (except the ogre trash mob in Stalwart). IMO the main thing is to play around and find out if you prefer melee, ranged, or a combo. Do you like Vancian casters, non-casters, hybrids, or a mixture? Sneak or rush into battle? Carefully plan buffs and debuffs (and coordinate with other members of the party) or don't bother much until after the battle? Rest a lot or hardly ever? Cheese and how much/in which situations? Those all should affect your build and party composition but, more importantly, you should find out what's the most fun for you.

I don't think there is a right way to do it. You should play in the way that's the most fun for you. I only used the camping supplies that I found on the map a few times when I first started playing. Since then, I wait to get the buffs at inns (which some people would probably consider its own form of cheat). You can think of them as a suggestion by Obsidian for how often you should need to rest and gauge whether the game is too hard for you or too easy based on that but that's just a guideline. If you prefer being underleveled and needing to rest more, camping supplies are cheap and freely available. If you prefer never needing to rest, that's fun too. Obviously, they knew it was possible to use far less than the supplies available on the map because there's an achievement "No Rest For the Pro" (or something like that. I got it on PotD so it's definitely possible to play through with only a few rests. That was a long time ago, though. Probably 1.04 or 1.05. I haven't played since then and am playing because of PoE2. I'll see how it goes now.

I've always saved levels. It does not kill immersion for me bc the whole leveling up process is so abstracted that it's not immersive. E.g., it's silly that you now have new spells, abilities, more HP etc when an hour ago you didn't. How do you suddenly know a spell you didn't know at all before? Learning is analog but levels are discrete. Plus, I view leveling decisions as player decisions, not as my in-game character decisions so choosing to have a higher number of XP needed to advance a level is exactly the same as choosing not to level except that I (as a player) have more control over it if I choose not to level up (so long as I can do it a level at a time and don't have to spend all my extra XP at once). E.g., I have stayed at level 4 in PoE for a long time. I generally do that until I run into a fight or other obstacle I can't overcome, then I level up. The downside is that I don't get to try some interesting abilities, skills, spells, etc. The upside is that the game remains challenging even if I take a full party. My question is: I am playing White March for the first time. As I understand it, I can choose to have the area leveled when I first enter. If I do, will it be leveled to my XP (almost lvl 10 ) or my current level (level 4)? What is the level if I don't choose to have it leveled? If White March is leveled based on my XP, will it make a full level's difference if I reach over 45k xp (i.e., enough to hit level 10) before I go to White March or will the enemies there continue to gain abilities, etc. so that they reach/exceed level 10 while I'm there (as I would)? I'd like it to be challenging and I'd also like to rotate my companions so that I can have more interactions with them (and also see how they work together in combat). Thanks for any information.

The issue for me is that taunts would be asymmetrical. You could give enemies that ability but I am very skeptical that they'd use it well. If the devs actually implemented enemy AI that used taunts intelligently, I think taunts would be probably be fine and might make combat more interesting and tactical. E.g., your tank, who was previously engaging a few enemies, would get pulled away and you'd need to figure out how to deal with that. Or your wizard, who was positioning to cast an AoE, suddenly finds him or herself standing in front of an ogre. That could be fun. "As I stated already face smashing the AI so it locks on to the nearest target is just a sloppy version of what I am saying." For me, taunts are different than engaging enemies in melee bc you have to move your characters around to do that. It often means you can't engage an enemy you'd like to without breaking engagement yourself (and then leaving those enemies unguarded). Or, even if you aren't engaged currently, you might have to position your meleer in a sub-optimal manner to engage a particular enemy. E.g., you might need to leave one part of the battle area that you'd like to protect in order to engage a particular enemy. So currently, its a trade-off. You can engage a particular enemy but at the cost of leaving other areas unprotected. I agree that the AI around obstacles is frustrating. It's tolerable to me bc the enemy AI has similar problems when trying to attack your party. As an aside, I'm replaying Darklands bc Serpent in the Staglands was inspired by that game. I didn't remember how bad Darklands' AI was. I'll order party member A, B, and C to attack enemy X and often at least one of them will either just stand there and do nothing or walk in the opposite direction. So I pause, issue a new attack order, and unpause. The party member then starts walking in another direction away from the enemy group. But the enemy does the same thing so it all works out in the end. It's given me a new appreciation of AI in more recent games.

I would like an AI like you describe. I don't think we will get anything close to it but I'd prefer better AI to taunts. I don't understand why good AI would require every party member to take defensive talents. I've soloed (pre-2.0) with a wizard and a druid and didn't take any defensive talents, tanking talents, or melee talents. I'd guess that they'd be less necessary with a party than when soloing, even with good AI. I'm not sure what you mean by "armor". I think you're probably right if you mean some type of armor and wrong if you mean heavy armor. I think it would be a good thing if backrow characters needed to wear some armor, though, so I'd count that as an advantage, not a disadvantage. When I soloed as a caster, I wore armor (hide armor most of the time IIRC bc it usually seemed like the best balance between protection and offense for my playstyle). I wear at least robes in my party play bc it's pretty cheesy to have most of your party wear clothing IMO, though I played around with that for a bit and understand why people would choose to do that all the time. I agree with KDubya who said that there needs to be more trade-offs for the various types of armor. I agree with those who said that there are many other tactics than chokepoints. I understand why people use them: they're easy, they're effective, and they take advantage of dumb AI, which, ultimately, all of us who play single player games do in pretty much every battle. But, for me, they usually aren't fun so I try not to use them. I'd usually rather figure out another way to win bc that's more fun for me. I don't want taunts bc they're asymmetrical and give the player an advantage against an AI that already has too few advantages IMO. Maybe if the AI were a lot better, I'd want them in the game.

I agree that games don't always have to be realistic and never are in many respects. E.g., I've never seen a cRPG where, if you are injured, you need to rest for at least days and maybe months. Maybe you never recover your previous strength, dexterity, etc. I liked the aspect of Realms of Arkania where you would become sick or, e.g., have a wound get infected and you needed to either have someone in your party who could heal that type of disease/injury or find a doctor in a town, which might take a while to reach especially in winter. And some of the doctors were quacks who could make you sicker. I like mods that require you to eat, drink, sleep, etc. That is fun for me bc it makes the game more challenging, especially in conjunction with weight mods, if needed, so that you need to balance the need to carry food, water, and a bedroll against extra weapons, etc. I almost always use them in Bethesda games, e.g., Fallout: New Vegas, Morrowind, Skyrim. It was weird playing PoE right after FO:NV and getting the fatigue icon. I worried that my characters would die. My PC in FO:NV had just died bc I entered a conversation with mid-level hunger or thirst and was dead by the end of the long conversation. Once I found out that nothing really bad would happen in PoE if my party became fatigued, I generally ignored it. That made gameplay less fun and challenging for me. But I think that things like that should be in mods or else an optional hardcore mode (which I would love, in case any devs are reading). It's fine with me if games don't have those things or if you have, e.g., unlimited inventory, especially like in PoE where you have the option to make the unlimited inventory inaccessible. I think that's a good compromise. You can always not put anything into the "trunk" inventory if you want that type of realism.

That's a good suggestion. However, I don't think you need the IE Mod to do area transitions but it may require "iroll20s", which will disable Steam achievements, if you don't have the IE Mod. http://pillarsofeternity.gamepedia.com/Console_command I just checked my ironman save which was right before the final fight. My party was in combat mode when I loaded so I had to complete the fight. I then used "AreaTransition AR_0604_Stronghold_Great_Hall 1" to get to the stronghold. It worked for me. I'm not sure if it will cause glitches later but I don't see why it would. It's doing the same thing a teleporter (or other means of transporting you to a different map) would do.

saapientnode, it sounds like we're very different in what we prefer. I hate cooldowns and disliked that about the combat in D:OS and Dragon Age. I guess that cooldowns could work in a game with really difficult combat but, so far, I haven't played one that combined good, wearing combat with cooldowns. I'd have to try it to see if I thought if cooldowns were ok in that context. I enjoy micromanaging my party. I like utility spells that let you walk through walls, levitate, etc., which teleportation can be (and was outside of combat in D:OS). I've liked them since Wizardry 4 and Daggerfall. I hated all the corridors of D:OS and really wished I had a levitation spell that let me fly over them. I prefer that to the teleports like in D:OS but both are fine if they fit the setting. E.g., undisguised teleports only work in a high magic setting IMO. But you can disguise teleports by tying them to a mundane transportation system like boats, trains, silt riders, etc. I agree that games should change but we seem to disagree about the way in which they should change. I'd strongly prefer more strategic elements in cRPGs, not fewer. I wouldn't mind an option to disable per encounter spells but I'd want my casters to get something at level ups bc I like that they get stronger in their core skills as they level. They could have something where maybe you could disable per encounters but increase the number of spells. It would be great if that could happen automatically, e.g., instead of level 1 spells becoming per encounter at level 9, casters automatically get 1 or 2 extra level 1 spells or something like that. But I could do it manually with a mod that let me do that. I hate to rely on mods, though, bc I play games for years after they've been released and, in my experience, mods can become impossible to track down after many years or, e.g, the mod gets abandoned but the game gets updated so the mod no longer works well. Also, if my game gets wonky, I'm never sure if it's the mod or the game itself. But something like that probably is the most realistic solution. I realize that players are going to disagree about what is fun in any given game (and in general with crpgs). It sounds like the per encounter system works well for you. I only replied bc your initial post made it seem like that's how it works for everyone and that convenience was the only important factor wrt per encouters when that isn't the case. I think we'll probably have to agree to disagree about cooldowns vs per encounter vs per rest spells. I agree that more options are better. But options come at a cost of developer time so, obviously, there are limits on which options make sense to include. It sounded like the devs might be interested in this particular issue so maybe we'll get some options in this case.

I agree that it changes the dynamic of fights for traditional casters. I like your suggestion of tying number of spells to intelligence (or resolve or constitution, which has the bonus of giving casters a reason to boost constitution). I think this is the crux of the disagreement: "The only thing they do is eliminate the need to either camp your group or run back to town and rest at an inn. What else is the real difference?" For some players, that is all the per rest restrictions do. For those players, there is no downside to lower level spells becoming per encounter. For other players, per rest restrictions are an important element of strategic gameplay that is otherwise missing in PoE. I would never consider resting after every fight. If I wanted to do that, I'd console code "god" (which can be fun for a short time IMO but would take the fun out of most of the game) and, if you need to, the command that gives you unlimited spells. (I've never used godmode in PoE so I'm not sure what it gives you.) For players who like the strategic element of per-rest spells, there is a significant downside to those spells becoming per encounter. There is also the class balance issue, which is an important consideration for some players (but not others). For me that's the big sticking point. The time you spend walking back to the inn once you run out of supplies is boring, and I don't have as much time as I used to for playing games to being with. The cost for recharging my spells in that scenario isn't really paid by in-game currency, it's paid in my free time. I CAN spend time going back to the inn, but that's an unattractive option to me so I'd rather just plow through until I absolutely need to stop, which means I get the added fun of resource management to the game (weird way to have fun I know, but there you go). I like having the option to replenish my spells at any point as a fallback at the cost of my free time, but with low-level spells being so effective having them regenerate after every encounter almost feels like I have cheat codes on. It almost completely destroys the need to worry about conserving your spells since you can rely solely on per-encounter spells in 80% of fights. That isn't to say people that enjoy powering through things with their per-encounter spells are wrong for liking them. If I didn't enjoy the dilemma of whether using a spell was a cost-effective trade I'd probably agree with them, but that's my feelings on the subject. I think this is a good summary. The time cost of resting will also vary by player. For players who rarely rest, it's a small benefit (and if they like the strategic element of per rest, a fairly high cost). For players who rest more often, it's a bigger consideration. For the players who struggled on easy (with 6 camping supplies) and had to trudge back to an inn, this would be a big factor. But how many fights do you rest for? I think the answer to that question may have a lot to do with how you feel about per rest/per encounter. Because if you rest frequently, you probably are not losing that much on the strategic management side and you probably are gaining quite a bit on the convenience side. If you rarely rest, you are probably losing quite a bit on the strategic side and not gaining much on the convenience side. For me, having per encounters significantly changed the game. It was fun at first to only use per encounters and nothing else but, for me, that got old quickly. I missed having to manage my spells. It also greatly affected class balance, which is important to me in a single player game, especially if I'm using a party. I want each party member to shine at what s/he does. I want my fighter or paladin tank to out-tank my tank chanter, shape-shifted druid, or buffed wizard. I want my chanter summoner to out-summon my level 11 druid who can spam lesser blights. If I'm going to play a party, I want to have to think about which members I take to specific areas, not just automatically take 5 casters.

I don't think I've used spiritshift since 2.0. I don't have White March and the only time I've played PoE since the 2.0 patch was with a sneak party (low kill) on normal difficulty. SInce Hiravias didn't have high sneak, I didn't use him much. In my pre-2.0 party play, IMO shapeshifting was much worse than either Arcane Attack or Interdiction/Holy Radiance. You have to be in melee, which is a significant disadvantage over either AA or I/HR, and it was single target (unless stag but even that AoE was small and centered near the attacker), unlike AA or I/HR. IMO it was essentially a damage over time spell that was single target, exposed your druid to damage, and (unless bear) didn't inflict status effects. Then, on top of that, it didn't scale well. It's ok but nowhere near strong enough to carry the druid's class-specific talents. I invested in wildstrike corrode in my early game and regretted it pretty much the whole game. (My only combat-oriented party run with the game is my first party, which uses a druid and the recruitable companions. They are now almost at the end of Defiance Bay, have done all the bounties they can do at that point, and have enough points to be at level 8 or 9.) I'll try a druid in 2.0 combat (on PotD) but unless they've added things like an automatic affliction from attacks (and the affliction should be longer or more debilitating than normal AA or Interdiction IMO since the druid is restricted to using wildstrike in melee and against a single target, which are significant disadvantages IMO) or "druid is indestructible while spirit-shifted"/armor and spiritshift's DR stack, which might cause balance problems with fighters and other tanks, or "spiritshift's damage is a bit lower than using a series of single target touch range spells of a comparable level to the druid's level", my guess is that spiritshift is still going to suck as a class talent. I'll try it. I may need to wait until I get to Act III, though, bc I'm pretty sure in my current save, I've completed all the challenging fights in Act II. I rarely used spiritshift even at low levels, whether in party or solo play. It was helpful a few times but was more of a way to end very early fights quickly. Even then, it wasn't as helpful as Arcane Attack IMO. It could have been useful at low levels if the duration had been signficantly longer.

I like being able to house rule gameplay. I don't think it's more fun to try to figure out how to beat the system. I'd far rather the devs focus on giving players tools so that they can decide how much and what kind of challenge that they want (e.g., by self-imposed restrictions). I don't think it's possible for a dev to get the challenge level right when a game has many players with a wide variety of skill levels (and each of them being good at different kinds of challenges), many different playstyles, and a variety of preferred challenges in a game. E.g., from other posts, you like to know where the good equipment is and plan your character based on that. You like that type of challenge. I prefer to have to deal with random drops, although it's good if at least some of them have equipment that is interesting and are useful for everyone. Some people here seem to like to rest before somewhat difficult encounters and might try to never have a party member knocked out. I prefer to fight on and have the challenge of dealing with fewer resources (per rest) as well as possible fatigue. Some players may want to get through tough fights without needing to camp immediately afterward or, e.g., complete a full level (or two levels, three levels, etc.) of the Endless Paths (or any map(s)) without resting. Neither way is right or wrong but a game dev can't tailor a game's challenges to all these preferences. Sometimes it's possible for a game dev to give the player tools to do that, though, and I am for as much of that in a game as practicable (e.g., through game menu options, in game options like player control over when to level up, etc.). I really don't care at all about beating the game's official system; for me, house ruling (i.e., customizing) a game in a way that makes it fun to play for me is tuning the game in a way that gets the most out of it. I wouldn't mind this if casters continued to get more per rests of lower level spells when they leveled up. Right now, casters get 4 first level spells at level 3. That doesn't increase until level 9, when they get their level 1 spells per encounter. If the number of per rest spells increased gradually, I think that would work very well without the per encounter spells. It probably doesn't help that my main in my party playthrough is a druid and IMO spiritshift is not a good ability, especially at mid to high levels. Therefore, IMO the druid's class talents suck except those that increase the number of spells at each level but those are available to all traditional caster classes. I'd like a way for my druid to feel more powerful as a druid as I level up. Higher level spells help but when all the other casters (except chanters, which also need love in terms of class talents IMO) can get several talents that help them as casters, it feels like my druid is stagnating to me. I want some increase in lower level spells as I level up.

The problem here is not enough pointers in-game. Even if you've fulfilled the resting requirement and are just waiting til the main plot to trigger it, the game gives you no such information. It just says you need to travel with them. I didn't want to spoil my game so I didn't check the guides. And I kept thinking I need to travel with them --> doing the opposite of what's required (traveling some more and do more side quests and even the White March). I would MUCH rather spend those time with other companions. By the time I realized this there's virtually nothing left to do even if I switched in the others. @Infinitron post, This was a big problem for me. In my party playthrough, where I'm almost done with Act II but quit because of boredom, I think I only rested outdoors twice. The first time was with Durance because it was in the small cabin on that map. From a roleplaying perspective, it seemed like a good resting spot for the party and there were camping supplies right there so I replaced the one I used. That may have been too early to advance his quest, though. I also rested once in the Stronghold. I rested in the Defiance Bay inns, probably more often for roleplaying reasons than bc the party actually needed to rest. (I like to run the party into the yellow or red fatigue states to add more challenge to the combat. None of them have high athletics, though.) Until I saw this thread, I had no idea that I needed to rest to advance Durance's quest. I've been trying to talk to Durance and Grieving Mother without much luck. I did have some conversation with GM but none that I recall with Durance. He had comments in the Searing Falls cave (I think that's the name, I call it the Yellowstone map) so I thought that might be what I needed to do but the conversation options stayed the same. I rotate members regularly because I like for all party members to have about the same number of XP and, since it's my first party playthrough, I don't know where I need to take each member for their quest. E.g., I did Cilant Lis without taking Eder. I think that's ok but if not, I hope that I can just go back there with him. @LaSpeakeasi post, I like priests in PoE so I don't mind taking him. He's very useful for buffs and debuffs, along with his trap spell and iconic projection. But I agree that the pointers given for both Durance and Grieving Mother don't tell you much and seem like they point you in the wrong direction. If you need to rest outdoors with Durance, Obsidian should give you that information. Do I need to rest with GM to advance her quest? Unless you really mess up combat or do the Endless Paths early (or probably right before the final fight at the end of the game), I didn't see any gameplay reason to sleep outdoors in PoE, especially if you have a party so you can rotate who takes more damage in particular fights. It can make sense for roleplay or convenience, e.g, in the stronghold before you build Brighthollow, especially when doing the Endless Paths. But, depending on when you do the dungeon, that can be pretty early in the game so it's probably too early to trigger Durance's conversation (and it could be before the road to Dyrford is built so you couldn't have GM). And if it's later, you've probably built Brighthollow and rest there instead of camping. I know that most players will need and want to camp but it seems like Obsidian should have considered that some players won't and need some tips so that they will do so with Durance (and GM?) if they want to advance their quests. They should also let all players know that you don't need to keep Durance and GM in your party all or maybe even most of the time. Until this thread, I wondered if I was keeping Durance or GM around enough to advance their quests. Am I ditching them too often? In the wrong places? Can I ditch them more often? It bothered me bc I didn't want to keep them around as often as I did if I didn't need to. They had more XP than some other party members. OTOH, I'd hate to keep them much more frequently than I wanted to but not keep them around often enough so that I just missed out on completing their quests. The quests and party banter were the primary reasons that I was taking any of the companions.

Thanks for the replies about trimming quotes, Cantousent and Oralaina. I can't seem to quote now but maybe I'll eventually figure it out. "That's why we have such a huge variety of literature, T.V. shows, movies, and music. You might love the complexities of Schoenberg, and I can't deny his genius, but I swear to goodness I would rather listen to a current rendition of the Turkey in the Straw." I was thinking about how I rank cRPGs today. It's interesting bc I think that my top 12 or so cRPGs (counting Wizardry 6 - 8 as one game and Ultima 4 - 7 as one game, even though I know 7 is not part of the second trilogy) are almost interchangable for me. I have favorites among that group but I could honestly make decent arguments for ranking any of them first or last. And that's just me, others would undoubtedly legitimately rank at least some of them significantly lower. FWIW, when I thought about my favorite cRPG series, I somewhat tentatively decided that Realms of Arkania was it but only because I like all three a lot so none of them bring the overall rating down much. Only Star Trail stands out in that group IMO. Zork was before I got into computer games so I'll have to defer to you about it being the best computer game franchise. Stoner, I mostly agree with what you say about PoE. I think that's one reason people disagree about how to rank it. It's competent in pretty much all areas but doesn't really do any of them especially well IMO. So is that better or worse than a game like D:OS which, for me, is subpar in many areas but is brilliant in one (even if that one area is mostly potential because the combat itself wasn't executed well in the game)? Is it better to have a solid game that never shines or a game that shines in one aspect but falls quite short in many others? That's very subjective. Then people are going to disagree about particular aspects of any game (unless it's truly outstanding or one of the worst computer games ever in that aspect) and how important each of those aspects is for them in determining overall quality. I'd rank Fallout: New Vegas quite a bit higher than PoE, at least at this stage of PoE's development, but that was the only recent cRPG that I thought was clearly better than PoE. I thought that the world was deeper and better executed. I liked the companions. I really liked the factions, especially those beyond the required ones (i.e., not Caesar's Legion, the NPC, Mr. House, or Yes Man). I think the reputation systems in PoE and FO:NV were similar. I like that about both games.There were a lot of choice and consequences in FO:NV compared to most cRPGs, although I'm not a fan of having so much of that be tied to the ending slides, as it was in both FO:NV and PoE. The builds in FO:NV were adequately diversified, although I liked the build diversity better in PoE. I don't expect anyone to agree but friendly disagreement is welcome.

Thanks for the replies about trimming quotes, Cantousent and Oraliana. I can't seem to quote now but maybe I'll eventually figure it out. "That's why we have such a huge variety of literature, T.V. shows, movies, and music. You might love the complexities of Schoenberg, and I can't deny his genius, but I swear to goodness I would rather listen to a current rendition of the Turkey in the Straw." I was thinking about how I rank RPGs today. It's interesting bc I think that my top 12 or so RPGs (counting Wizardry 6 - 8 as one game and Ultima 4 - 7 as one game, even though I know 4 is not part of the second trilogy) are almost interchangable for me. I have favorites among that group but I could honestly make decent arguments for ranking any of them first or last. And that's just me, others would undoubtedly legitimately rank at least some of them significantly lower. FWIW, when I thought about my favorite cRPG series, I somewhat tentatively decided that Realms of Arkania was it but only because I like all three a lot so none of them bring the overall rating down much. Only Star Trail stands out in that group IMO. Zork was before I got into computer games so I'll have to defer to you about it being the best computer game franchise. Stoner, I mostly agree with what you say about PoE. I think that's one reason people disagree about how to rank it. It's competent in pretty much all areas but doesn't really do any of them especially well IMO. So is that better or worse than a game like D:OS which, for me, is subpar in many areas but is brilliant in one (even if that one area is mostly potential because the combat itself wasn't executed well in the game)? Is it better to have a solid game that never shines or a game that shines in one aspect but falls quite short in many others? That's very subjective. Then people are going to disagree about particular aspects of any game (unless it's truly outstanding or one of the worst ever in that aspect) and how important each of those aspects is for them in determining overall quality. I'd rank Fallout: New Vegas quite a bit higher than PoE, at least at this stage of PoE's development, but that was the only recent cRPG that I thought was clearly better than PoE. I thought that the world was deeper and better executed. I liked the companions. I really liked the factions, especially those beyond the required ones (i.e., not Caesar's Legion, the NPC, Mr. House, or Yes Man). I think the reputation systems in PoE and FO:NV were similar. I like that about both games.There were a lot of choice and consequences in FO:NV compared to most cRPGs, although I'm not a fan of having so much of that be tied to the ending slides, as it was in both FO:NV and PoE. The builds in FO:NV were adequately diversified, although I liked the build diversity better in PoE. I don't expect anyone to agree but friendly disagreement is welcome.

If you really got your rear kicked, you have three choices: 1. level up more before trying again 2. change your approach strategy (e. g., where you enter, when you sneak, who you talk to or side with) or 3. change your combat strategy or tactics Which one is better in your situation depends partly on how badly you lost, how much you enjoy/hate trying new combat strategies/tactics, whether you want to consult a walkthrough (for 2) or how much you love/hate redoing parts of the castle if you fail. The advantage of 1 is that you will level up and that the extra levels will make other quests easier (which can also be a drawback if you like challenging quests bc Raedric's Hold is more challenging than some areas in Act II so you may be overleveled for them). The advantage of 2 is that it can be quick if it works but it wastes time if it doesn't since what you do won't benefit you later in the game. The advantage of 3 is that you'll be able to use those new tactics/strategies throughout the game. The disadvantage is that learning new strategies/tactics is often trial and error so you might figure out something quickly or you might struggle to find something that works well for a while. I can't tell you which would be best for you. You can put the Hold off indefinitely if you want to since it's optional content.

I think having so many per encounter spells neuters the most interesting strategic element of the game. I tend to agree with curryinahurry that having the spells be available each encounter makes non-trivial encounters easier. I think this may have quite a bit to do with how one plays the game. I don't like to rest much and so generally go to new areas while my health and spells are at least somewhat depleted. Most of the time, I can scout ahead a bit but unless one uses a walkthrough or is replaying the game, it's not unusual to be surprised by a particular encounter or its difficulty. The only ones I can think of in Act III (where I had per encounter spells) are the gods' quests. I went into each of those after other encounters. I was surprised by inadvertently continuing to try to sneak in Rymergand's quest after I'd talked to a guard or something (bc I'd tried to go to the wrong area). I don't really remember what I did, only that the whole place went hostile when I thought I was sneaking to avoid combat (and did not have yellow or red circles). The whole ice palace went hostile, which I'd not planned for. I think the combat was much easier for me because I had level 1 per encounter abilities, which I'd also used frequently in earlier encounters. Berath's quest also seemed significantly easier because of per encounter level 1 spells. I understand that for some people per encounters will not affect the difficulty of non-trivial encounters, or at least not affect it much. I suspect that they rest more often than I do. Maybe they like to play on ironman so try to enter combat that they think will be challenging with (almost) full health and (almost) all their spells. That's one type of challenge but I prefer pushing ahead and not resting even when maybe I should. For me, per encounter spells make all combat easier because it's very unlikely that I'll be entering combat with all my health or spells. So having per encounters not only makes the current fight easier (or at least faster), it makes the next one (and the ones following that) easier as well bc I will have more health and more spells than I otherwise would have. The only exception for me was the battle with Thaos, where I rested before the fight. I don't have a good solution. I understand that many players like the convenience of per encounter spell abilities. Perhaps Infinitron's suggestion to make the per encounters per encounter Vancian or the suggestion to delay (or parcel out) getting them would be good compromises.