Zanos

I don't think game modes or options or tiny little content packets should be DLC. They should just be in the base game. I'm only interested in expansion style DLCs. I appreciate that Obsidian has a good track record in this regard. It seems the AAA industry is going in that direction, especially with the ongoing kerfuffle with Skyrim/Fallout/Shadow of War. I've bought all of Obsidian's DLC except for the Tyranny(still playing PoE) and Dungeon Siege stuff because I don't own either of those games. I wouldn't consider anything I bought to be a poor value, but I did think that Gun Runner's Arsenal for New Vegas was on the weaker side since it was just a bunch of weapons(it was cheaper though), and I thought Honest Hearts was pretty weak from a story perspective in general other than Graham being a cool dude. But none of that even comes close to the ridiculous stuff developers are getting up to these days in single player games with lootboxes and skins and microcurrencies. I liked that the FONV DLCs raised the level cap and added new perks, but I thought it was kind of moot because it didn't really change how the base game was played. There were no more difficult challenges to face with the added levels. As long as Obsidian's DLC continues to be substantial content expansions and not exploitative microtransactions, I'm quite happy to support them.

I don't really have a problem with the XP gain, but I think the level cap is a bit too low. I suppose it would take a lot of resources to extend the class progression for every class, though.

"Here lies Firedorn, a bard, a poet He was also a card, but most didn't know it A poem he wrote in jest was misread They asked for blood, so now he's just dead" I can't complain overly much, then. Would have been better on Obsidian's part to do nothing in my eyes, but this is probably the best realistic outcome.

What's the text of the new limerick?

You're kidding right? I've been playing a Cipher and honestly, she's got focus pouring out of her pointy little ears. Focus is not a problem. If you want endless spell casting, roll a Cipher. This has been my experience, basically. Cipher keeps pace with the wizard in the theoretical 'unlimited rests' scenario, and just ramps harder the fewer rests per campaign you take. I'll throw a third on that. After playing both a cipher and a wizard, cipher seems to be better in nearly every way.

Fireball is a third level spell. It should not be balanced against a first level spell. That is not how balance works. Says who? Your pompous bold italic text? One would imagine that a class feature acquired four levels later with less uses would be balanced to be more powerful than the class feature acquired at level 1.

I think it's a carry over from some other RPGs, where the children were all immortal and then the devs tried their absolute hardest to make them as irritating as possible.

I think it's that other spells are bad, rather than Fan of Flames being overly good. Wizard got the shorter end of the stick this time around, it seems.

I've said this multiple times in this thread, but not wanting to have sex with someone because their genitals are different from what you expected does not make you a bigot. Responding with violence is obviously never appropriate, but having physical relations with someone under false pretenses isn't really a good thing to do.

I'm not angry, but it's disappointing when companies cave to this type of frenzied social pressure. The people who are at the core of it aren't exactly good role models, and it's sad when they can get their way by just being the loudest. This specific type of incident isn't really unique to Obsidian, either. The tumblr "tolerance machine" has done far more damage than good.

Whether or not the joke is bigoted aside, I'd rather Obsidian make that decision themselves, rather than being leaned on by a very vocal minority of folks who use social media outrage to put pressure on all sorts to get their way.

Considering that someone's genitals are a pretty inherent part of sexual attraction, I think comparing not wanting to have slept with someone due to their genitalia is significantly different than not wanting to have slept with someone due to their skin color. Arguing that it's akin to racism to not want to have sex with someone because they have a **** is logically dishonest.

Are people not allowed to be sexually attracted to people who mislead them about their genitalia? The reaction is obviously over-the-top, but there's nothing transphobic about reacting negatively to having sexual relations with someone who's configuration wasn't what you expected.