dam

Not yet having played the beta, now I am less inclined to believe your opinions on the matter. Well, OP has a point in the fact that injuries get really unforgiving, because your character then becomes that much more likely to sustain another injury. However, it's not very much more brutal than POE 1's , where an injury would nuke 30 of your accuracy at level 2, basically making you unable to hit sleeping sheep.

You're comparing apples and oranges. The base game's price is $35, not $75. Getting beta access (which I did) and the early season pass (which I did as well) are options Besides, it is my own personal opinion that I'd much rather give $75 Obsidian's way, than say $35 EA's or Ubisoft's. Matter of fact, Ubisoft titles have been banned from my purchasing lists since the Watch Dogs massacre (hello E3 graphics, hello at-release graphics, much difference aye ?).

If one creates a custom formation for their party, said formation works for the entirety of the play session. However when one saves the game then exits (crashes :D ) the game, upon loading the save, characters get arranged in a different, non-default formation that doesn't match which that was set by the user. My custom formation : T M R W P With T = Tank, M = Monk PC, R = Rogue, W = Wizard, P = Priest Their formation after I load the game : M T R W P Note that quicksaving/quickloading is not enough to replicate the problem, you need to exit-crash the game.

Yeah I get you man. As opposed to real life, where injured people get stronger and stronger over time, because that's what injuries do, they make you stronger. Man if only the devs could see that, and give buffs for each injury characters sustain... Sarcasm aside though, while I dislike the injury system (like really ? 25% hp off in one go ? DO NOT WANT), your over-exaggerations do not help your point.

One that is resisted by dexterity-related defenses ? (that would be DEX and PER) Or one that affects your dexterity-related attributes (again, that would be DEX and PER anyway)

Haven't played the Beta yet myself but I can already tell that this is something I won't like about the revised system too. How about tying the amount of wounds or injuries a character can sustain before collapsing to his or her constitution instead? Limiting it to 4 for all character builds, completely disregarding different physiques and levels of hardiness/toughness is simplifying things a bit too much for my taste. If the classic endurance/health system won't be given another chance I could at least live with that compromise. It is already tied to a character's constitution. Your 22 CON fighter isn't as likely to drop as your 8 CON rogue (although one might argue the fighter's goal in life IS to get beat on so, their chance of going down increases). You only get an injury if you actually fall during the fight.

Excuse me ? A single health resource which does not regenerate ? I certainly hope you mean "which does not regenerate back to full out of combat, it can still be rejuvenated during a fight". Otherwise what use is that Chanter's Ancient Memory ? That Figther's Recovery ? That priest's whole healing branch ?

Aye +1 Totally not liking the "grants the X affliction". Yeah well, just write that it takes off 5 PER and 10 accuracy ? Thank you very much. Feels like Asterix in the mad house. Get form A -> go 3rd floor -> need form B -> go 1st floor -> no go 4th floor -> no you need form C -> wait go 7th floor -> there's no 7th floor, try 6th floor

It certainly doesn't feel slow... Combat is way too confusing as is. Feels more like Tyranny and less like POE. Are you sure you are at normal speed? I made the mistake to go in fast mode to explore around the village and the first time I got in combat after a text interaction it stayed in fast mode and I get the impression that combat fast mode is faster than out of combat fast mode. I confirm, that's at normal speed. Even then, when you engage 3+ opponents, you get an incomprehensible deluge of spells and skills, with the combat log filling so fast it's hard to track. (loving how you can filter this or that character in the combat log now, by the way) I've tried clicking on the slow button to no avail. Might be because I ticked auto-slow combat in the game pausing options, will check later tonight.

When POE released, people bitched about health/endurance because it detracted from BG/IWD/NWN. For POE2 they're bitching about single health pools, because it detracts from POE. What next, for POE3, people gonna bitch again 'cause devs reintroduce split pools ? People bitch all the time, for whatever tiny reason they chance upon. Besides, you're working under the assumption that anyone getting POE2 will have played POE1. That is, from a business point of view, just not an acceptable premise. A business wishes for people to buy their sequel, who haven't played the original title. That simply means more customers. Otherwise you're going to investors with your sales pitch sounding like : "We hope that, amongst those who played POE, some will follow and buy the sequel; we don't really think anyone else will be interested tho, so, you know... give moneys nao".

"Some people" not getting it, of course. It's always because of a vocal minority that we can't have nice things or get to keep them, like in this case. That does feel like a very denigrating and base point of view. Stating that devs have changed it because of a vocal minority is tantamount to accusing them of taking rash design decisions, on a whim. Given the quality of POE at its release, and further along the years, we may safely say they are nothing like that. I welcome the change for main tank characters, having to rest your warrior/monk/paladin just because he'd gone through one too many fights, although he never went below 10% endurance, felt bad.

Speaking from a main Monk's point of view here, I'm loving that they did away with the health/endurance pools. Your monk could only go so far before being *forced* to rest, for no actual reason. It does feel very different though, aye.

Oh to be fair, one would realize quite early on that their passive-only wizard is kind of... passive... I do not think such stringent checks would be necessary. As for limiting one to, for example, just the one elemental upgrade, do keep in mind that if such passives were available, one would eschew a spell to get the passive so, that'd be a trade-off. Want +fire and +frost damage ? Good on you, you're not taking these 2 spells though then.

We all received the email, regardless of entitlement. Does your backer level allow for closed beta access ? I for one, had to sign in to my account, manage my pledges, and purchase the closed beta access addon. I also took the opportunity to pick up the season pass for $20 , I know I'll be taking those DLCs anyway. Unless you backed at a funding level which explicitly stated you get closed beta access, you'll have to do like me.

The rogue skill upgrade Eliminating Blow's description says : Foe AOE: Shaken for 12s (which is an addition to the tooltip, from the regular skill) The description further says : (Eliminating Blow) - Enemies near the target are Frightened from the attack. Make up your mind, are they Shaken of Frightened ? Shaken: -5 resolve, -3 power levels Frightened: -5 resolve, cannot use hostile spells or abilities

Please, 2k of these hours were spent on loading screens. The atrocious loading times as your savefile grew... The horror...

OK I'm very happy spells have been made per-encounter as opposed to per-rest. It definitely felt unfair that enemies would be able to unload their whole contingent of spells, while I had to be stingy with mine. However, not being able to learn spells from Grimoires anymore feels like I've been denied something, somehow. In BG, BG2 and POE, it was actually an inside mini-game to hunt for the most complete spellbook possible. Llengrath was hard to kill ? Who cares, you could actually learn exclusive spells after the battle ! This feeling of achievement, of having completed your spellbook and become a true spellcaster is now gone. Why would you do that to me Obsidian ? The same goes for passive abilities and talents. In IWD2 you could pick Aqua Mortis to increase your acid damage. In POE you could pick Scion of Flame to increase your fire damage. Where's all that gone in POE2 ? Now getting a level as a Wizard (or a priest) is merely a matter of picking your one new spell. It feels very underwhelming. What feeling one has gained by being able to cast spells every encounter, one has lost by getting a generic spellcaster that won't be different from any other out there. Give us specialization options. I want to be able to pick a talent which increases the duration of my debuffs by 20%, or the area of effect of my damaging spells by 20%, or the damage of my fire/frost/unicorn spells by 20%. Pick something, tune the numbers, but do give us some degree of specialization. Wizards (and priests) feel way too generic. TLDR : + able to cast spells per encounter - no more learning - no specializations (as in, passive talents) To my fellow beta-testers, you're welcome to comment and debate, do please keep in mind that we may agree to disagree, as long as we do it in a civil manner.

To be fair, it doesn't actually make sense that "everyone would be proficient in it". I mean, regular knight who's trained all his life with a greatsword, vs a monk ? Surely the monk is much more proficient at making unarmed attacks. I agree however that if it isn't a design decision, it should be available as a proficiency.

It certainly doesn't feel slow... Combat is way too confusing as is. Feels more like Tyranny and less like POE.

Description: The combat log shows erroneous damage numbers when additional elemental damage is applied to a target. Monk lightning strikes +50% shock damage. Overhead numbers say, for example, 30 damage. Combat log says, for example, 20 crush. Combat log detail says, for example, 20 crush + 10 shock. Steps to Reproduce the Issue: Toggle a Monk's lightning strikes, hit something. Possibly also bugged with Flames of Devotion, or any other buff that applies a Leash-like effect. Important Files: Not quite relevant.

Speaking only for myself, I think this is a mistake by Obsidian to go with just 5. I prefer no party size cap at all, honestly, but that's another design path beyond the scope of this game. Less party members means less flexibility objectively, and in my opinion, will lead to less enjoyable, less tactical combat overall. But, this topic has been discussed to death already though, so at this point I'm just hoping the game is moddable enough to allow for more party members for those that want them. At least Obsidian realized the mistake it was to go with 4 in Tyranny, hopefully they will eventually come to realize 5 is mistake as well, but it's going to be well after the release of Deadfire. *Offtopic: I'm still halfway convinced Obsidian is doing 5 just to drive Baldur's Gate/Icewind Dale fans up the wall. Less stuff accessible at any given time, yes - but less tactical...? I suppose it depends from your definition, but I disagree. I always found tacticts to be about using well what you have at your disposal. Creating effective combinations, good combos - those are tactics. Choosing from more stuff - not so much. I really disliked Tyranny's or DA combat, but it wasn't the amount of characters I could take with me - having two more would just add busywork. It was that the combat in those game was choiceless. You would just fire your abilities whenever they were available and wait for the combat to end. Darkest Dungeon uses 4 character for each run and its always very engaging - both in creating a party and in combat itself. On the other hand, I do prefer a bigger paries in Long War over original XCOM. It all depends on game and character design, not amount of stuff you have. I am more curious about the ability/class/power points changes over party size as those will have more impact on the game. Aye I pretty much agree here (except for the parts where you dislike DAO or Tyranny's combat). Being tactical about a given situation is making do with what you have on hand. While I'm uneasy about having only a 5 man party, I'm sure we'll find ways to deal with it. I for one cannot imagine a single second that Obsidian are pushing this on a whim. Besides, having less characters might yet give us more incentive to replay the game. One has to pray the loading times will be much better than POE's though. Only reason I'm not playing more of it, the horrendous loading times as the game progresses. And I'm running from a SSD...

It depends...If a dragon can one shot your tank, then you need a disabler instead. If enemies can hardly scratch you, then you don't need a (defensive) buffer/healer. If there is a single tough enemy, then instead of AoE you would want singe-target specialist. After the first run, we usually get a good understanding of how to cover all encounters (that we have faced) in the most optimal and comfortable way. Oh god, four is indeed too low.On the other hand... in Tyranny solo'ing might result in even faster progression (in realworld time) than with full party. Right now my duo party is a ranger, and a rogue. I guess the animal companion sort of counts as a third! I'm not sure I could figure out how to go solo. Like this

As a matter of fact and while Tyranny's spell system is really enjoyable, it's nowhere near perfect. Ryzom introduced (much more) customizable spells. Dragon Age Origins introduce spell interactions to create different or more potent effects. If there's ever a Tyranny sequel, I for one certainly hope they expand the spell creation options.

His words might not have been elegant but he is not offending anyone. And he has a point. I don't believe that the game should balanced around/designed around weird ways of playing it. POE is a team RPG and different classes are designed to work within that framework. You CAN run with a party of the same class, you CAN do solo run but how individual class behaves in each scenario is not really a good argument in a discussion of a game mechanics. It's a bit like complaining on XCOM balance when you do 4 soldier run or oh bad all Mercy comp is in overwatch. Which is exactly why I said he made cogent arguments; which they were in my opinion. I'm not trying to say the game should be tailored to what I personally like. I'm merely stating what I dislike about the split health/endurance pools, and why I for one, support the move.

Excuse me ? I never asked him to back down or change his opinion, I asked that he use a more respectful word.