Katarack21

That's *awesome*. Time for my *fourth* playthrough.

I'm honestly thinking a rogue/cipher would kick total ass.

That would be a very bad choice because it is counter intuitive design. You bring a guy into a room with five boxes and tell him this is designed for him to only take four boxes, but he can take all five if he wants. He asks is there an advantage in not taking all five? Not really, you just get less stuff, and it is really designed around you taking four, even though you can have all five. Guess how many boxes the guy takes? The point is people will normally take what they are allowed unless there is a clear advantage to not doing so. There is no clear advantage to not taking five party members when the game lets you have five. The people who take less are doing it for some epeen challenge nonsense, which is good for them, but the vast majority of players will take as many people as they can. If people want an easier challenge that be done with difficulty settings, without being counter intuitive at the same time. That's not really how party acquisition in RPG games happens, though. It's more like your on a tour of the facility, and over the course of the tour they *give* you five boxes, but there's more boxes lying around just out of sight and they tell you that you can take another if you wish. Most people just take what's given to them and go on with the tour; only a portion seek out the additional box because they can.

There *is* an argument to be made for balancing around a party size smaller than what is actually allowed, so that the player can either make it more difficult with a smaller party or *easier* with a larger party, thus allowing the player to have more control over their exact experience playing.

"Difficulty level should be the same regardless of size of your party." Strongly disagree. If you *choose* to handicap yourself, the game becomes more difficult. That's just how it works. The game is balanced around a particular party size; a different party size is your choice, and there's a whole group of players that like doing that *just* for the additional challenge.

I'm sure the gameplay will be fine with five. I'm only upset because it'll require a second playthrough simply to get another companions full story.

anecdotal is never particular persuasive. is kinda traditional hereabouts to use singular examples and individual past experience as some kinda proof. is the math which reveals how intelligence at particular levels o' investment dramatic increase carnage efficacy. even boeroer notes "sweet spots" for intelligence investment. 1.5 m radius from the target is the base carnage aoe radius. intelligence and other equipment may expand (or reduce) the radius. a 7 intelligence, unmodified, results in a minus 18% to the base aoe radius. sure, with certain high level equipment and in unique encounters wherein smaller-than-human sized adversaries seem to functional stack, a meager intellect will provided impressive carnage results, but is no way to ignore the math. 1.5m. but yeah, we wouldn't doubt there is somebody who completed a triple-crown solo run with a basement intellect barbarian wielding noting but an unenhanced butter knife and wearing durance's robes. HA! Good Fun! Again, it's the difference between "optimal" and "viable". A 7 int is *viable*--almost any stat arrangement is, actually.

Would be enough if it lessens confusion. But knowledge and skill are typically things that one acquires through experience? Should this be a primary stat then? Anyway, it seems to me that what you say is closer to how things actually work in the game. I would be much less confused if Might was actually called Soul Power and Intellect... maybe Soul Power Channeling? Might is *specifically* confusing because in PoE 1 it reflects both raw physical strength *and* the power of ones soul. That's the source of a lot of confusion; people think a high-might wizard *must* be buff as hell, for example, when really which one is being reflected in the stat--physical power or soul power--is expressed through context. For a Fighter, probably physical with some soul; for a wizard, the other way around; for a paladin probably both equally.

Soul Power has a stat; it's called "Might". Might reflects raw strength both physical and soul; thus damage. Intellect reflects knowledge of and skill with use of that power; thus AoE, etc. They actually all work quite well.

That's by *design*. It integrates with the lore and setting; the abilities in question and spells all use the same power source, ie soul power. Carnage isn't just a representation of tactics or something; it's actually the character having been trained in how to use their soul-power to enlarge and extend the damage of the weapon swing, just as you can knock down 10 foot tall trolls because fighters use their soul-power for a moment of superstrength to do it. Fireball, knockdown, carnage, lay on hands--it's all soul-power being applied in different ways. In a sense, they *are* spells.

The argument seems to be "that's not the best that you could possibly do, so it's gimped trash".

From what I understand, resting in Deadfire is set to be somewhere between PoE 1 and Tyranny in it's limited nature.

Well, the term barbarian implies the human being in question is uncivilized or primitive, and was how the Greeks designated people of non-Greek culture (who they largely saw as inferior, culturally at least). It doesn't necessarily mean barbarians are stupid but it sort of came to existence as a derogatory term that implied them being all of this. Yes, but Conan is the archetype fantasy barbarian--sword&sorcery, all that. What I'm curious about is why the fantasy barbarians that came after Conan are all a bunch of thick-headed idiots when Conan demonstrably was not.

I don't even understand where the "stupid barbarian" originated. Conan the Barbarian spoke (and read, and wrote) like, a dozen languages and often translated ancient runes etc as well as being a master tactician in the Howard books.

I have no problem with it. The "dumb barbarian" archetype is ridiculous and needs changing, not to mention the fact that I enjoy all the attributes being important to all the classes as it creates real trade off's instead of just dumping points.

Yeah the forum rules also said that there is zero tolerance for misogyny or bigoted behavior, but that appears to be lies, as well. So I understand if people are unclear about what's allowed, since you mods only seem to enforce half the rules half the time.

Then why in nine hells are you a backer, if devs opinions don't carry any weight with you?Yeah, see, I have the freedom to back whatever the hell I want, so .... Had no intention to suggest otherwise. Just expressing my astonishment at seeing someone who generously funds a project led by a team he doesn’t have a trust in. I believe having trust and disappointed with certain decisions made by Obsidian are both different things. I'm greatly disappointed with their decision in party size limit reduction but that doesn't mean i don't trust them. Accurate. Trust in this sense isn't an all-or-nothing deal. Just because I dislike a choice made by the dev team doesn't mea I don't trust them to make a good game, and just because I trust them to make a good game doesn't mean I'm not allowed to criticize choices they've made or express frustration with some aspect of the game.

Don't do what, specifically?

Sawyer is a bit of an RPG elitist. He doesn't want to play the normal, typical RPG and if you do, he is frustrated by you and doesn't understand you. "Player inertia" in this context is literally just "people don't want to play that, they want to play this". It helps to make him a really good game designer, as long as he's bound by editors and rules to prevent himself from going to far.

You might have some particular issues as *well*, but it's not just you. That quest journal is a *cluster*****.

Well, "unsuitable for PnP rules" mostly comes from using computer to calculate outcome rather than having players do it. It comes to rolls being determined by 100 rolls, different spells adjusting defences rather than adding bonuses/minuses to rolls. It is easier to understand 76% to hit rather than AC -5 & THAC0 and dealing with abstract dice rolls. Not a great analogy; negative AC values and THACO are generally derided as obtuse crap by today's PNP crowd and there's a reason they were done away with in the 90's.

I also voted for mixed DLC, to be clear.

1) "Well, you can say "As long as it's a good rocking chair, I'm cool with that!". But, are you really betting that a daily-made good was lovingly hand-crafted?" It's not an assumption of his. It's a statement that something being cranked out very quickly and repeatedly is of lesser quality, which is a known effect of mass production on the market. 2) The second paragraph leads from the first, with the assumption that the prior paragraphs statement of quickly and repeatdly=low quality having already been accepted. Again, the common drop in individual quality when regards mass manufacturing is a known quantity is economics. 3) The assumption that smaller DLC's will be cosmetic things such as weapon packs etc. is an assumption, but it's one based on a general knowledge of the industry, not Obsidian. Small DLCs=take less time=easier things to do=weapon packs, recolors, etc. That's purely logical and almost always true. It's like saying that smaller pieces of candy generally contain more corn starch and less chocolate.

I don't think the line between those two groups is nearly as sharp and defined as it once was.