Katarack21

Actually the duration boost from intelligence works with a number of fighter talents I believe--things like Vigorous Defense and Unbending--that serve to make the fighter more tanky. At the expense of your might points for damage, of course.

I am not making a mistake. I am familiar with what they've said about how the world works and what the stat represents. I am saying that I disagree with the way they've designed attributes, both in a mechanical sense and in a fluff sense. You clearly aren't as you thought "soul power" was something to do with will to action. If you don't like their design decisions, that's fine--and if you don't like the mechanics, that's legit. But a cursory understanding of the lore and how the stats effect combat will let you know that it's not "broken" nor does it "not make sense". Their interactive script doesn't demonstrate the non-physical meanings of "might", that's true, but that's pretty much it. Alright. Why does Might make guns do more damage? If Might represents the power of the soul and body, why is the only effect it has on magic to make damaging effects more damaging? Might does nothing to contribute to the AoE, duration, or Accuracy of any of your powers. How does Might contribute to an arm-wrestling contest? Can you throw things farther if you have more Might? Does a weight-lifting regimen make your guns do more damage? If you spend all your time fasting and meditating does that allow you to pick up castles and snap iron chains? In order to be physically strong are you forced to be both physically conditioned and spiritually enlightened, in a holistic sense, or is one or the other enough? The problem is that they have put two very unlike concepts under the umbrella of the same attribute. Hand-eye coordination, reflexes, and speed are similar enough to be grouped together under "Dexterity." Physical strength, skill at intimidation, and "soul power" are so unlike that it seems very jarring to lump them together under the same label.

I am not making a mistake. I am familiar with what they've said about how the world works and what the stat represents. I am saying that I disagree with the way they've designed attributes, both in a mechanical sense and in a fluff sense. You clearly aren't as you thought "soul power" was something to do with will to action. If you don't like their design decisions, that's fine--and if you don't like the mechanics, that's legit. But a cursory understanding of the lore and how the stats effect combat will let you know that it's not "broken" nor does it "not make sense". Their interactive script doesn't demonstrate the non-physical meanings of "might", that's true, but that's pretty much it.

FoF is not the be-all-end-all of spells for a wizard, no matter how much you want to claim it is. Aloth is a very useful and powerful caster in my party and FoF isn't even in his grimoire 90% of the time because it's more trouble than it's worth.

Some of those reviews up within minutes were probably from people who had review copies but didn't have time yet to post a full review on their website. There were 17 user ratings on Metacritic literally an hour after midnight on the 26th--some good, some bad. Trolls and fanboys, and I suspect one or two actual players.

The funny thing is, that's exactly how it is in the *lore*. The background material and such pretty much say that the increased damage from high might for a non-magic fighter is supposed to represent how the martial training has taught them to use the power of their souls to do more damage. It's just not made very clear that that's what is happening, nor do the mechanics seperate it in that way. I do very much like your idea, though--I think that's a really good concept for an attribute system.

3rd edition spells have casting times of one action or one round, excepting maybe a very few spells. Pre 3e spells have casting times of segments. One segment is 6 seconds. This allows for interrupting spells and kept magic users from being gods. In 3e, spells are almost never interrupted because you had to ready an action to do so and you were almost always better to take your normal actions. Don't call me crazy and blame it on house rules until you've actually read the rules. Which is...you know...*not* the same thing as "doing away with casting times". I exclusively play sorcs and various types of wizards in 3rd Edition. Tracking your casting time and manipulating your actions etc. is a very important part of that game--and as a caster you have to pay more attention to it than most. Again, I have read the rules. My PHB is open and in front of me right now. You were wrong. Rather than attack me, just admit that you were wrong and that part of your argument is invalid. I haven't attacked you, and I am not wrong. I just pointed out that in PRE 3e rules (for the reading impaired, that means editions before, um, 3E), casters weren't nearly as powerful. Regardless, I wasn't talking about 3e, but since you asked...one action is not a casting time. It means it takes a standard action to use. Since it's instantaneous, it can't be interrupted without readying an action. There are FULL action spells as well, but they take no time either, they just take your action and your movement, sans a five foot step. There are a very few full round spells that can be interrupted. Mostly summoning spells. That's funny, one standard action is listed right here like this. CASTING TIME: One standard action That's bolded in the book, I didn't do that to make a point or anything. Standard actions aren't instantaneous, they take about half a combat round; you get one standard action and one move action, two move actions, or a full-round action. Free actions are instantaneous, and you get a free 5-foot step (that does not provoke attacks). That's it for instant actions. Some spells are a standard action, some are a full-round action, a few are a move actions and even fewer are free actions (that's pretty much limited to metamagic and I think the ability of clerics to dump spells for heals). I agree that the ready-action mechanic is pretty useless in 3rd Ed, but thankfully that's only one of about a million ways to disrupt a caster. Losing a spell is super easy; being injured in any way, being affected by any spell, moving vigorously (in combat that's more than a 5-foot step; otherwise it means jostling movement), moving violently (on a galloping horse), bad weather (this is why Druids can be really nasty for a sorceror to deal with) etc.

I'm 46 hours in and I have a ton of books in my stash. Whenever I get tired of combat or of mainplot or when I want to sit back and roll a cigarette or something, I just pull up one of the lore books and read it for a few minutes. It's all amazing, and fascinating, and very well done. I think it was Josh Sawyer who did all the writing for that, if I remember correctly, and hats off.

Of course the problem there is that the protagonist is described as having a mighty soul. Meaning that you canonically should have 18+ Might? I must have missed that part. I'm not being a smartass; I literally do not remember where the protaganist is described as having a mighty soul. I'd just say it's narrative description and not in-game attribute information and it wouldn't bother me a bit; gameplay and story segregation are a thing. Kinda like how in KOTOR all the guards that are talking about how they need to find Bastila never comment on her being in your party, in Jedi robes, with a glowing light saber, and walking right past them.

Here's your problem. Might is not strength. Having a high might does not mean you have big, hardcore muscles. But thats not how the game plays it out, like in scripted events such as the one I mentioned above. Despite the appreciated conan referrence above, Physical str is different than mental fortitude and one stat to represent two concepts that are normally diametrically opposed is clunky. The scripting is bad, yes. I'm pretty sure that is just budget and time issues, IMHO. The background is very clear that might measures physical strength and spiritual strength--it's not muscle, it's not mental fortitude, it's a measure of raw *power*. For example, Harry Dresden would have a very high Might. *sigh* Okay. I'll bite. If Might is a measure of "soul power," why don't all of your party members have gobs of it by dint of being the protagonists of the story? If you have a Might of 3, does that mean you are diffuse and ineffectual? Because you're not. You're the only ones besides the villain who ever actually do anything in the story. The kind of power you're talking about is the will to power, the ability to get things done and impose your will upon the universe, which in most stories protagonists and (especially) antagonists possess in droves while everyone else is lacking in it. You are applying an ineffable quality to a stat when the only thing that might be said to accurately represent that quality is your character level: the sum of your experiences and hardships suffered and trials overcome, and the potential you possess to do even more. That is why when characters gain level, they're generally said to become more powerful. Ehh... I don't consider mindflayers to be in the same category as ciphers (or empaths or whatever else). They're inherently magical creatures. When I say psychic, I mean the entirely non-magical kind. You might have a point with psionicist, not sure. Gunpowder isn't the same as guns. LotR had gunpowder, but Frodo definitely wasn't packing heat. The "psychic powers" in Pillars are even less theoretically non-magical than the ones in D&D, since their powers explicitly come from the same source as what everyone else uses. Which is magic. Ah-ha! There is the source of your mistake. In Pillars of Eternity, spells and Cipher powers and such are not psychic and do not come form "magic." When I discuss soul power, I'm not talking about will to power--nor am I talking about some ineffable concept. In Eora, souls are a real, examinable, measurable, quantifiable objects that can be made to do work. Wizards do not use magic to cast spells--each spell is a specific way of using their soul to strike out, which causes certain predictable effects because of the way they are trained to apply that power. Ciphers powers are similar, only instead of striking out with their souls they use their souls to manipulate other souls. All magic, of any time, comes form that basis. Here is the definition of magic in Pillars of Eternity: "Magic is created through accessing the power of people's souls. Different groups or people access these souls in different ways, so there is one source but varied techniques of use." There's a lot that the people of Eora either don't know about souls or are in the process of figuring out; that's what animancy is basically all about. In PoE, you are playing in the time period wherein all of this discovery is being done--and the controversy surrounding it is actually vital to the plot of the game. One of the things about souls that is understood is that, while they do other things as well, they are also a kind of energy source. Again, official lore: "Through a variety of techniques (e.g. martial training, meditation, ritualistic evocation, mortification of the flesh), some individuals are able to draw upon the energy of their soul to accomplish extraordinary feats. These abilities range from the mundanely superhuman to the explosively magical. Having a strong soul seems to make this easier, but sometimes even people with fragmented souls are able to accomplish the extraordinary. The individual's body seems to act as a conduit and battery for this power, drawing in replenishment from seemingly omnipresent "fields" of unbound spiritual energy in the world around them."

Here's your problem. Might is not strength. Having a high might does not mean you have big, hardcore muscles. But thats not how the game plays it out, like in scripted events such as the one I mentioned above. Despite the appreciated conan referrence above, Physical str is different than mental fortitude and one stat to represent two concepts that are normally diametrically opposed is clunky. The scripting is bad, yes. I'm pretty sure that is just budget and time issues, IMHO. The background is very clear that might measures physical strength and spiritual strength--it's not muscle, it's not mental fortitude, it's a measure of raw *power*. For example, Harry Dresden would have a very high Might.

3rd edition spells have casting times of one action or one round, excepting maybe a very few spells. Pre 3e spells have casting times of segments. One segment is 6 seconds. This allows for interrupting spells and kept magic users from being gods. In 3e, spells are almost never interrupted because you had to ready an action to do so and you were almost always better to take your normal actions. Don't call me crazy and blame it on house rules until you've actually read the rules. Which is...you know...*not* the same thing as "doing away with casting times". I exclusively play sorcs and various types of wizards in 3rd Edition. Tracking your casting time and manipulating your actions etc. is a very important part of that game--and as a caster you have to pay more attention to it than most. Again, I have read the rules. My PHB is open and in front of me right now. You were wrong. Rather than attack me, just admit that you were wrong and that part of your argument is invalid.

Here's your problem. Might is not strength. Having a high might does not mean you have big, hardcore muscles.

You have to remember damage isn't the only thing about the spell. I barely ever use Fan of Flames, myself, because it's very high damage output is actually a problem since it's nearly impossible to *not* hit half my party with it. In my game, Aloth mainly uses Rolling Flames and Lightening Bolt--mostly the Rolling Flames for pulling, to be honest. I use Bouncing Missile a lot, and Magic Missile, and Necrotic Lance--and his . I only really use Fan of Flames if I've hit the Godzilla threshold.

In PoE there aren't any undead. Shadows and such are typed as Spirits. Priests get special ability to target Vessels, because that includes the human undead. In PoE undead are corpses that have had souls shoved and locked inside of them in the same way as an animated armor, so therefore fall under vessels.

Gaun's Share. It's Fine, Draining and converts 30% grazes to hits. Very decent weapon. I enchanted it up and am still using it at level 6.

A high lore skill is somewhat useful for *everybody* because scrolls are awesome--non-healing characters casting heals and such, it's pretty elite. I find stealth to be mad useful. I use it constantly--and I don't find my non-stealth characters are any good at stealthing into position, really, they get seen almost instantly.

Sure, but your damage output didn't scale inversely to your ability to TAKE damage. The fighter has always been the best damage dealer, outside of AOE effects. Now my fghter has to just sit there and take it up the ass while some squishy that dies from a spitball gets all the glory. May as well be playing WoW. What? No, that's crazy. Magic (and psionic users) have been out-damaging fighters and barbarians at max level for decades in D&D, both AoE and single target, and it holds true in a large chunk of western RPG's that are based on a Tolkien/D&D style setting. It's actually part of the reason 4th Ed ended up like it did; they were trying to undo decades of screwing the physical combatants and make them actually worthwhile all the way through to level 20. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LinearWarriorsQuadraticWizards Really? A first level fighter with a long sword and an 18 strength in D&D does 1d8+2 damage. A wizard does 1d4+1 with a magic missile. At 7th level, the fighter gets an extra attack, for a possible 2d8+2, the wizard can do 4d4+4, about even, but the wizard can only keep that up a maximum of 4 times a day. The fighter can double that output with a decent dex. You make me laugh. Until 3e, magic users were NEVER king of the hill. Sure, they have meteor swarm, but it took 2 rounds to cast and a three year old with a rock could interrupt it. I've seen that trope, and while it's humorous, it's a spheric cow. In a vacuum, wizard are very powerful, but in reality most of their spells take too long to cast to be that useful in combat. 3e did away with casting times and 4e just turned every one into a magic user. WHAT? No...again, that's crazy. I'm staring at my 3rd Editoin Players Handbook *right now* and there are certainly casting times--from one standard action on up. I think the problem is that you've been playing with a bunch of house rules for so long you don't actually know what the base game *is* any more. Magic Missile, in 3rd edition, was one standard action to cast--Identify took an *hour*.

I'm 48 hours in and it's still Grieving Mother. It actually makes sense with her character, though...the opening scene where you meat her kind of makes it seem like a perfectly natural name, IMHO.

I have a number of ways to pull the enemies to me. One involves Aloth sneaking up front and using Rolling Flames into the room full of enemies, then running back behind the front line while I move Eder and my custom barbarian up. The other involves holding everybody back while those two run forward. Sometimes I place traps or seals and pull with my cipher, too. I've never really had a problem with people bum rushing Aloth, except for those damn shadows.

True facts.

Yeah, that'd be awesome. More depth is always good--but there is a lot of depth there already. What you just pointed out about the Paladins and Priests is one example of how class and reputation interact together with combat in a way that provides realism and great roleplaying. The mechanics themselves--the numbers and charts and such--can be exactly as deep or as shallow as you want. If you want to crunch all the numbers and hoard all the items and work around damage types and elemental types and maximize efficiency and such, you can. If you just want to go through not caring and ignore it--well, it'll be more difficult but I don't think you'll fail because of it. Things are designed so that you can play through it in a lot of different ways and succeed; it's not just the variety of classes and races, but also the number of different ways you can build each class and the different ways you can play each build. My next character will probably be a melee paladin with a big, fat two-hander--a Death Godlike, and as evil as his skin is pale.

There is one side-quest-relevant dungeon key hidden like that, but there's about four other ways into that dungeon, as well. So it's not a big deal.

Rogues get extra damage against all kinds of status effects. A rogue and a cipher, working together, can get some crazy amounts of damage going. Ciphers actually have more than one power that targets an ally, and effects enemies from there--the one that does pierce damage and pushes enemies back is one of my favorite, as I use it to save my priest and mage from enemies that broke engagement all the time so that my fighter and barbarian can re-take it (the fighters Into the Fray works well with this).