endolex

In PoE, all buffs fade after combat ends, and even if this were to change (because otherwise buffs would probably fade immediately when cast out of combat), inside combat their duration is measured in seconds, not hours. The whole comparison to BG2 is therefore irrelevant. This also applies to the assumption that enemies would have to be pre-buffed as well. Buff durations in PoE are just too short for this to make any sense.

If you haven't seen people argue that Path of the Damned is too easy, which is hardest difficulty currently in the game. And only ways to make game even harder is to gimp yourself like trying to soloing the game, not using foods, not resting, etc. And this is already before any changes in game balance that probably make encounters even easier. So it is not issue that developers can/want ignore even if it don't matter to you. There are a zillion easy ways of making encounters harder at hardest difficulty that do NOT involve taking choice away from players by labeling spells as 'combat only'. When I want 'combat only spells', I play Diablo and the like, not a game that claims to be a successor to IE games. You probably didn't understood what I said in my post. So I would recommend reading it again couple times. I made a reply to your argument that many find the game already too easy at hardest difficulty level. Your "only ways to make game even harder is to gimp yourself" is a statement of the current situation, which does not make suddenly untrue the fact that there are several ways of inreasing difficulty exists, and being able to cast all spells always should put no limit on difficulty design *in general*. So I'm not arguing that you're wrong and the game is not too easy for many, I'm saying there are several ways to remedy this, even if casting of all spells all the time is enabled. I made just before you comment that I quoted first post about issues that Obsidian would need to address to make sure that pre-buffing don't cause issues in the game https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/75811-no-buffing-outside-of-combat-why/page-16?do=findComment&comment=1664853 As you can see I didn't any point say that pre-buffing can't be done or that blocking it prevents adding difficulty in the game, but that those are issues that need addressing if such feature is added in the game. But you post seemed to me implicating that difficulty issue is solved just by rising difficulty level from settings which I commented that some already find hardest difficulty in the game too easy and there aren't currently any other way for players to make game harder than by gimping themselves. My point was only address your claim that players can make game harder for themselves by changing the settings, by pointing out that there are those whom that is not possibility currently and Obsidian needs to take that account when they make feature changes in the game. Yep, and to that post I also added that "if either easy is too hard or hardest is too easy, we have a problem" - so you say we have a problem because of the things you said about PotD, and I see no reason to disagree.

If you haven't seen people argue that Path of the Damned is too easy, which is hardest difficulty currently in the game. And only ways to make game even harder is to gimp yourself like trying to soloing the game, not using foods, not resting, etc. And this is already before any changes in game balance that probably make encounters even easier. So it is not issue that developers can/want ignore even if it don't matter to you. There are a zillion easy ways of making encounters harder at hardest difficulty that do NOT involve taking choice away from players by labeling spells as 'combat only'. When I want 'combat only spells', I play Diablo and the like, not a game that claims to be a successor to IE games. You probably didn't understood what I said in my post. So I would recommend reading it again couple times. I made a reply to your argument that many find the game already too easy at hardest difficulty level. Your "only ways to make game even harder is to gimp yourself" is a statement of the current situation, which does not make suddenly untrue the fact that there are several ways of inreasing difficulty exists, and being able to cast all spells always should put no limit on difficulty design *in general*. So I'm not arguing that you're wrong and the game is not too easy for many, I'm saying there are several ways to remedy this, even if casting of all spells all the time is enabled.

Low = good for one (1) encounter, especially since all buffs fade after combat ends. And spell slots are limited. So if you buff yourself up as much as you can before every fight, your priest will run dry pretty fast.

If you haven't seen people argue that Path of the Damned is too easy, which is hardest difficulty currently in the game. And only ways to make game even harder is to gimp yourself like trying to soloing the game, not using foods, not resting, etc. And this is already before any changes in game balance that probably make encounters even easier. So it is not issue that developers can/want ignore even if it don't matter to you. There are a zillion easy ways of making encounters harder at hardest difficulty that do NOT involve taking choice away from players by labeling spells as 'combat only'. When I want 'combat only spells', I play Diablo and the like, not a game that claims to be a successor to IE games.

Nope. And it has been explained in this thread quite a lot why this is nonsense. Low buff durations, wasting spell slots for encounters that don't need buffs, making ubiquitous buffing quite costly, etc. etc.

'Being able to cast all spells I have whenever the hell I want to would make the game too easy': Use the difficulty slider. The only way there could be a problem is either when easy is too hard for many, or when Path of the Damned / Trial of Iron with all QoL options turned off is still too easy for most. Otherwise: use the difficulty slider. Change some options. They are there for a reason.

I never cease to be amazed by this strange assumption that being able to cast all spells anytime would somehow immediately need to be 'balanced' by having enemies always buff themselves before combat (how would that even work, buff durations being what they are, and the enemy not knowing when you are going to attack them).Nothing needs to be balanced there. It should be a player's choice, much like whether to bother using traps or not, when to use potions and when not, and so on. The whole notion that there is 'one true way of playing the game (even just combat-wise) and doing anything else means gimping yourself' in terms of how much you are going to enjoy the game is ridiculous in general. There is no optimal party composition for a good experiencr. If you don't like buffing much, having a priest in the party is not optimal for you. If you don't like summoning, better get rid of that Chanter. But some people seem to be deadbent on viewing PoE (or maybe any game for that matter) as a 'kill stuff, and kill stuff always in a way you kill stuff the fastest, because this is what this game is all about, killing stuff!'-fest.

There's nothing absurd in the notion that more choice doesn't necessarily = better, as has been argued several times in this thread. It's the same thing as with the narrow doorways. It's just an option to block the corridor with your tank, but the fact that it's clearly the optimal strategy, makes not taking advantage of it, the same as deliberately gimping oneself. The same can be argued with regards to pre-buffing. Exactly. Buffing in general, be it combat only or not, is NOT MANDATORY. You can play a party without Paladins or Priests or Chanter and do fine.

If anyone's main argument against being able to cast all spells anytime is 'I hate buffing' -> just don't take classes in your party whose main strength is all about buffs. Problem solved.

It's probably for the best if it gets moved, thank you.

I don't mind things like these per se. But in this case it's just...I don't know, usually in this case it's spelled out a little better, exactly what you're going to sacrifice. Some clear indication that you won't be able to finish the ritual if you don't have the thingy.

Ah, alright...mistook the 'Spoiler warning' for 'no spoilers'...will do that next time. Well I could easily give the artifact to a party member, no?

I'll try and keep this rather vague and spoiler-free: Let's say there's an item which is needed for a ritual that lets you craft a powerful artifact. But this item is needed by an NPC to survive. You could kill them for no reason and complete the ritual, or you can decide not to do it - and get nothing at all. Having played Paladins and Priests a lot, I know a lot of times you can / should tell people to keep their money or trinkets after having done a good deed. In this case however I feel a little stupefied, especially when seeing that every guide recommends to kill said NPC exactly for the reason stated. The strange thing is that this artifact even allows for different 'personalities' - I would have appreciated if that artefact developed different powers based on your choice with the NPC, or rather, that you cannot give it a certain 'ruthless' property without killing the NPC. But nothing? Meh. Yes, I realize that ethical choice need not always be rewarded by gameplay mechanics. I just find it strange considering that in the rest of the game, keeping your dispositions matter a lot gameplay-wise when playing Priests or Paladins, and no matter how you decide, you usually get *something*...

I really don't know how to reproduce this, but I'm currently at Pearlwood Bluff, just encountered some Wind Blights who did nothing but stand around and let themselves get hit. Then I roped down to that cave, same thing: They do nothing. oO