anfoglia

I think ship supply is going to be a question of balance. I very much doubt Obsidian wants the supply drain to be so rapid that players are constantly stressed when exploring, but it's worth testing to see how much threat you can introduce to ship travel before it becomes cumbersome rather than interesting. I've also suggested that Obsidian could introduce an option to engage in certain scripted events, mid-travel, in order to rapidly replenish certain resources at the expense of others. As for ship combat, I think there is a consensus that quick options to board or (attempt to) escape would be welcome (note: in the scenario you describe, as long as you've got sail, you *can* keep approaching the enemy ship until you're close enough to board). And I agree the system needs work. There are some good suggestions here: https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/95874-ship-to-ship-combat/page-3. FWIW, "I'm terribly sorry if I offend anyone" followed by a deliberately insulting way of framing your (otherwise polite) criticism of the ship combat is...something.

I played through the beta and all ship battles a second time. I do think naval combat could use an additional tactical dimension--whether that's wind or something else.

Bumping because I agree with all of these suggestions.

I like your side quest idea. It would be nice to have options to greatly restore some resource (morale, water, food) at the expense of other resources and the possibility of a negative event. So, for example, if you're down to 1 morale, you could "throw a party" for some huge cost of food/water/drugs, with the risk of a pirate attack. If you're low on repair, you could sacrifice morale to "whip the crew" into cutting timber or whatever. If you're low on medicine, you can send your surgeon onto an island to look for useful herbs.

I agree with these points. I'm not sure why I focused in on the damage type when there are equally important weapon parameters missing. And I'd forgotten that basic class info like HP growth is not yet displayed at character creation.

I apologize if there has already been a thread about this. I tried several searches, but of course it's possible I missed an obvious one. My concern is that, at character creation, it's not clear what damage type (slash/pierce/crush) each weapon does. Some are obvious without a tooltip; some are not (e.g., wands, blunderbusses). And because of the way armor works, players have some reason to pick weapons with different damage types. I know proficiency doesn't lock you in to any weapon choice, but it seems to me that the proficiency select screen is still probably the best place to at least alert players to this important weapon class property. Or have I just (repeatedly) overlooked a giant icon or tooltip somewhere on the proficiency screen?

I had the same issue this morning.

I had the same impression. And I would actually like wind to be a factor.

Reducing the level of affliction seems like a reasonable solution to the hard-CC/graze problem. Another option, which I think might be too dramatic a change, would be to make hard-CC exclusive to long cast abilities. That way the extra significance of the graze (compared to an auto-attack graze) would be paid for by a substantial time investment.

The stat change will have all sorts of knock-on effects, and it may force Obsidian to adjust specific classes that were balanced around Might. But I think panic about the entire change being ruinous should probably wait until we've had our hands on the update for a few weeks. The mere fact that a certain build's numbers won't match its POE numbers doesn't necessarily mean that build won't feel effective or fun in Deadfire.

Pet Pal Just browsing through the Pathfinder feat list for inspiration, I would be interested in the following: NOTE -- bear in mind it's been over a year since I played POE, and I haven't spent *that* much time with the beta, so there's a good chance several of these abilities are already represented in the game and I've just overlooked/forgotten them. Acrobatic spellcaster = in Deadfire it could be an ability that gives you the concentration blessing at the cost of accuracy or something like that (in PF it avoids AOOs) Armor training = in Deadfire, it could reduce recovery penalty from a specific armor type (in PF it lowers armor check, raises DEX bonus). Brutal coup de grace = an ability that, if used for the killing blow, causes fear to enemies within AoE (in PF it's pretty much the same, but derives from coup de grace mechanic) Critical X = PF has feats like "critical bleeding" or "critical staggering" that cause status effects on a critical hit. I vaguely recall some of these existing in POE. Deadfire could stick some of these in the rogue tree or in the general pool. I suppose they could also be mastery skills; i.e., if you put a second proficiency point in the same weapon, you get a special effect on your critical attacks with that weapon. Hold the Blade = Fighter ability where, if you have a free hand, you can take the full damage of the next melee attack but you get an immediate counter w/ a boost to accuracy and pen (in PF it's an AC penalty for a chance to disarm) Technology Adept = bonus resistance to firearms Bouncing Spell = Wizard ability that costs arcane source (in other words, you will pay the source for this ability plus the spell you are casting) but lets you cast a spell and, if it fails, redirect it against another enemy. Quicken Spell = Wizard/priest ability that costs arcane source (see above) but allows instant cast of what would otherwise be a long-cast spell.

I agree with this much. I don't have a problem with Obsidian announcing what they're thinking for the next update. Nor do I in particular object to their proposal (as I share some of the concern about universal talents). But it is true that the meta needs time to breath and to absorb changes to other systems. I wonder if the current class trees/weapon profs. would have felt better with the revised PEN numbers and a few new or buffed class abilities. Granted, balance changes wouldn't help people who want certain talents to be part of their single-class concept for aesthetic reasons. And another month wasn't going to persuade anyone with that sort of objection.

I would prefer if culture and background were purely role-playing choices, with dialogue reactivity but no stat bonuses.

I would rather have the boost to reflex, fortitude, and will. But as I said, there are ways to buff proficiency and/or limit the number of generic passives a character gets to choose. The fact that this particular change doesn't spice up class trees does not mean that the narrow classes will stay that way forever. Obsidian can address them as separate issues (even if one option would have been to some set of passives directly into the trees).

We'll see. There may not be that many passives that are helpful for a given build. If it becomes a problem, Obsidian can limit your choice to every 5th level or add a weapon mastery option (i.e. a second proficiency point in a given weapon for some modest bonus) to make your choice a little harder.

My view, expressed in the initial impressions thread, is that armor penetration is not much fun at the moment. The combination of high thresholds and severe penalties means that combat comes down to lowering enemies' AR and raising your PEN. Although I can see the merit in softening the penalties by scaling the damage reduced for every point of PEN < AR. I worry that would result in a lot of muddy calculations in each encounter (by each enemy type), made significantly worse by the damage reduction using percentages rather than integers. 25% bands might be okay, but get much narrower than that and I would want tables for active weapons sets showing "average damage against AR-n." An alternative would be to leave the penalties alone and adjust the AR and PEN numbers so that, on average, a character in a level-appropriate encounter with reasonable equipment would be able to penetrate with at least one of his/her weapons, before applying buffs/debuffs. You would still switch weapon sets as needed and buff/debuff for particularly tanky foes (or to overpenetrate for bonus damage), but more often you could skate by with your default setup. Penetration would remain both clear (because no sliding scale) and important (because the penalty is severe). It just wouldn't be the primary consideration in most encounters.

I'm ambivalent about injuries. Yes, a single injury may be reason enough to rest. Depending on food supplies, maybe that eliminates some of the incentive for strategic planning. But most of that went out the window with per-rest abilities, and the player's ability to return to town always acted as an escape hatch. I think there is some sense in just conceding the player will rest spam and assessing some light fee on top of the primary punishment (being unconscious for the fight at hand). Some of the obvious alternatives (recovery based on in-game time; making injuries less devastating but food somewhat rare) don't jive well with other game systems or goals. I'm sure there's a better system out there, but I'm not convinced this is currently a big problem with Deadfire.

I finished my first playthrough last night. Some points I did not address in my previous post: + Scripted interactions look even better than before, and I like the way they've been integrated with the world map. + Spell retargeting is neat, and I think with some modifications to the penetration system (so that spells are more likely to do *something*), slower cast times will be interesting. + The character models and animation really do look terrific. + I love the watercolor portraits. + Subclassing is fun. - The level-up screen needs to indicate how many points you have to spend on talents. - Combat speed is too fast for me. - Certain auto-pause conditions seem glitchy at the moment. For example, "pause at end of long cast" triggered for my rogue's crippling strike and my howler's invocations, which may have some boot-up time, but they're hardly in the same category as wizard spells. - I continue to dislike the skill/reputation icons. They're not obvious (multiple icons involve a human head, a dove could just as easily be diplomacy as benevolent, etc.), and the extra second of thought is an unnecessary annoyance. - The mechanics tooltip still suggests it plays a role in spotting traps, but my understanding is that finding traps is a Perception-linked ability now. - Armor Penetration is not much fun at the moment. The combination of high thresholds and severe penalties means that combat comes down to lowering enemies' AR and raising your PEN. The result is that weapons/skill choices aren't especially interesting unless you're already sure you can penetrate. I understand people have suggested softening the penalties by scaling the damage reduced for every point of PEN < AR. I worry that would result in a lot of muddy calculations in each encounter (by each enemy type), made significantly worse by the damage reduction using percentages rather than integers. I personally would need tables for active weapons sets showing "average damage against AR-n." An alternative would be to lower the AR thresholds / raise default penetration so that, on average, a character in a level-appropriate encounter with reasonable equipment would be able to penetrate with at least one of his/her weapons, before applying buffs/debuffs. You would still switch weapon sets as needed and buff/debuff for particularly tanky foes (or to overpenetrate for bonus damage), but more often you could skate by with your default setup. Penetration would remain both clear (because no sliding scale) and important (because the penalty is severe). It just wouldn't be the primary consideration in most encounters. But perhaps I am missing the purpose of the penetration mechanic or some knock-on effects of weakening it.

I agree with each of these points. I'm keeping an open mind about the new distribution of abilities, but I share the concern that choices at level-up are quite narrow. It takes some of the fun out of leveling up, and it pushes more of the decisionmaking into character creation--when you know least about the game or how a particular build is likely to function within a party.

You can pop open an extended dialogue window by clicking the little diamond icon at the top center of the dialogue window. I'm not sure whether this is better than simply being able to scroll from the main dialogue window.

I appreciate your points about legibility and focus. I wasn't sure I could explain why I found the tooltips not just unnecessary but distracting. I think a highlighting toggle would probably work. You replace the current effect, which is like reading a paragraph with an excess of italicized and footnoted words, with something more like an option for the player to call up the glossary. You just have to hope Obsidian didn't write and edit dialogue around the idea that players would rely on the tooltips...

I played through character creation and ~15 minutes of village exploration today. My initial thoughts are: 1. The abilities previews in character creation and at level-up are a great addition. 2. I'm ambivalent about the transparent dialogue window. It works well enough indoors, but against the lighter/busier backdrop of the village, it's a little distracting. 3. I do not like the little icons standing in for various reputations/skills being called into play. It's clearer to have the word [rational]. The dialogue window is cluttered enough without another thing for the player to hover her mouse over. 4. This is not really mechanics or UI feedback, but I am not crazy about the number of foreign-word tooltips. It's great to have foreign words to represent genuinely alien concepts or to help signal cultural background (in a game where the mix of cultures is an important part of the setting and story). But the second kind of signaling doesn't really require exposition (you can do it with translation, syntax, or foreign words that are clear enough in context), and the first practically demands a dialogue option for players to ask what the word means. To give a few examples: In this screenshot, the meaning of "prize-share" is relatively clear from context. But to the extent the concept is either a little stranger than the player might think or one the PC wouldn't recognize, there's a dialogue option to ask about it! There is no reason to add what is effectively a footnote explaining the term. Here, the whole point of this line of dialogue is to give the players a feel for the terms in a relatively natural way. If this were a fantasy book, you would not drop three footnotes in this single sentence. You would trust that the player gets the caste hierarchy here and will pick up further details from other characters. For example, one of the characters near the beach expands on the role of the Mataru. I understand that Pillars 1 got some criticism for bombarding players with exposition. Players don't always want nine dialogue options giving a full rundown on a culture each time they meet a new character. But these tooltips strike me as an inartful workaround. They were useful in Tyranny, where the PC had to know an awful lot more than the player. I think they need to be used much more sparingly here.