Gromnir

qft however, we will admit being mystified by the lack o' enervating blows in the aforementioned monk builds. with your high accuracy you are gonna crit frequent as an off-tank monk. enervating blows adds the weakened status effect on a crit. choose to build cladhalíath (a peasant weapon) with the stunning effect on crits ability and equip off-hand for double the fun. heck, the genesis poster has a dps rogue in party, and both weakened and stun is gonna be creating additional sneak attack opportunities for the rogue. HA! Good Fun!

there is no best. the druid is a much more straightforward damage dealer, particularly at low levels. the mage has a more varied selection o' debuffs with options to debilitate will scores that are absent from the druid. the mage, as noted already in this thread, has access to powerful combat buffing spells which, perhaps ironically, means that the mage can be a more capable melee combatant than any druid wildshape build, but that is a late game option for the mage. the druid pairs very well with a rogue as the status effects of many druid spells create sneak attack opportunities. however, with an appropriate spellbook selection, you can have your mage bolster a rogue quite well indeed. the mage pairs well with an offensive-minded priest, as the priest gets considerable mileage from spells that attack will. a monk's enervating blows also deals a considerable and dependable will and fortitude debuff. that will debuff is gonna be less useful to your druid than to a priest, mage and cipher. etc. HA! Good Fun!

am not certain that obsidian ever retroactive fixed a few o' the stacking bugs. we kept waiting for a patch to fix reckless assault but to no avail. we were becoming increasing disappointed with each patch that offered no fix. eventual we gets a fellow boardie tell us o' a workaround provided to him by an obsidian. the workaround involved disabling the modal ability, then saving, followed by a reload... or two... or three. it always struck us as odd that obsidian never made any attempt to give widespread attention to the fix seeing as this were a game killer. if one is genuine curious, we would suggest observing how a save and reload of a paladin with the modal abilities deactivated impacts their radius. we ain't that curious ourself, but... ... http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/76862-i-found-a-new-way-to-fix-the-rogues-reckless-assault-stacking-bug/?p=1651130 HA! Good Fun!

I think that's kind of the point the OP is making.. traps were highly situational at best before 1.05, so nerfing them to make them even less likely to be used seems a bit odd. we use traps all the time. why not? individual traps is situational useful, but trap setting is always useful. we typical got two players with maxed mechanics in the party. so two traps per (difficult) battle is a nice advantage. the damage from traps is often negligible, but a number o' the traps impart debilitating status effects. start off a battle with a few foes already weakened, sickened, hobbled or whatever? the aoe traps can leave 4 or more foes with a debilitating status effect to start a battle. again, why not use traps? also, people is attempting to divorce trap setting from the mechanics skill. that is a mistake. the skills is 'posed to be balanced. trap setting is not a skill. mechanics is a skill. yeah, stealth is a near complete fail. fine. even so, given all the advantages the mechanics skill imparts w/o even considering trap setting, how do you balance mechanics compared to survival or even athletics? mechanics already is a ridiculous useful skill for priests and it uncovers hidden 1007 and secret doors n' such. so, make mechanics no better than stealth. go ahead. as an aside, sunlance does impart secondary burn damage, but much like the druid spell o' the same name, the burn damage range is a mystery. sunlance is a trap we almost never use 'cause it don't add a noteworthy secondary effect to foes, so the -40 penalty is actual meaningless to Gromnir. even so, approx. half o' its potential damage is inexplicable hidden. HA! Good Fun!

this bug has been an issue since release... or 480 (?) actually. pretty much any reload on a map where an aura is already active results in the extension o' the aura. honestly, am thinking the developers should throw in the towel and have paladin auras extend to the entire party regardless o' distance from the paladin. even w/o intelligence impacting aura radius, it is a useful attribute for extending the durations o' exhortations and other paladin abilities, so is not as if our motivation to buff intelligence is decreased in light o' this inexplicably unkillable bug. *shrug* am admitting that we is curious (minimal curious) as to why obsidian can't fix this bug, but am not particular bothered by it neither. paladin class has been maligned since day 1. we believe that the scorn directed at the class is unfair-- based on misrepresentations and a kinda herd mentality. even so, perception is important. if folks don't play paladins, regardless o' whether or not complaints is justified, the class is a fail. have paladin auras affect all party members regardless o' distance makes a perceived weak class stronger. is a bug, but is not a bug we see needing a fix. go figure. HA! Good Fun!

1.05 was supposed to be a major patch insofar as balancing concerns. Gromnir's assumption were that 1.06 were gonna be far more limited and more focused on eradicating some o' the more persistent bugs. and in all honesty, given the absence o' a respec feature, the rebalancing with each patch is actually a bit annoying to us. rebalance is swell and all, but if to take advantage o' such rebalancing we must needs restart the game, we is a bit underwhelmed by such changes. there is more than a few persistent bugs that has lingered for a couple months and we would personal prefer to see at least one patch dedicated to fixes rather than improvements and rebalancing. as for the expansion, it's only been 2 months since the release o' the game. many significant issues have been addressed since late march. in fact, every patch has resulted in at least a few folks complaining that _________ was nerfed. pretending that the obsidians has not made significant changes to the game mechanics in a relative short period o' time is delusional. 'course this is one o' those conflicts wherein perception and reality are at odds. if a particular player does not get his issues addressed, he will fume and rage that obsidian is ignoring the fanbase and/or being lackadaisical in fixing know poe problems. regardless o' how much obsidian does, if those issues of concern to bob or roy or other folks is not addressed, then obsidian is clearly no doing their job, right? *snort* HA! Good Fun!

actually, this bug fail does not result in any kinda Gromnir bafflement. am suspecting that even for the folks testing on hard or potd difficulty (though am not sure if they do have anybody testing potd) most o' the annoyance features such as limited resting/camping supplies is gonna be disabled. is also likely that many obsidian folks testing enable unlimited copper/gold as well. is not difficult to see how this kinda thing could slip past 1.06 testers. obsidian folks focused on mechanics missing a quirky economy bug? no surprise at all. HA! Good Fun! ps 1.06 is beta... 'cause that seems to be ignored.

holy radiance now buffs foes. clarification: vessels, for example, do suffer holy radiance burn damage, but they also get the benefits of the accuracy buff from inspiring radiance and they seem to also get the friendly endurance heal. this seriously limits the usefulness o' holy radiance particular as it is centered on the priest and cannot be easily targeted to exclude foes. HA! Good Fun!

haven't played in a week or so, so am not certain if this is new, but as of this AM (5.0567), applying a debuff to a foe that is already suffering from that debuff can/does/will complete purge the debuff. for example, if a troll is suffering from the paralysis condition and 2 seconds remain on effect, afflicting the troll with mental binding and getting an 8.6 second hit (or whatever is the duration) results in said troll being liberated premature from both paralysis effects. am not certain if this is a 100% kinda thing or what other factors might influence, but have seen this issue multiple times with utilizing knockdown on an already prone foe and overlapping mental bindings from grieving mother. we will need check on similar/differing effects. ty in advance for looking into this. HA! Good Fun!

I ve been accused of being Saywer's alt Good Fun! yeah, that were silly. these boards is full o' silly. HA! Good Fun!

stun is being silly, and hiro is actually worse. our point were not that a thief is unplayable bg2. we noted that there is no reason to play a vanilla thief in bg2. thief is relative underpowered compared to thief combos. the vanilla thief is a dog compared to alternatives with multi and dual. "BG2 incorporates both SoA and Tob." see, that ain't circular. is repetitive. you keep saying w/o supporting. you see as self evident. hiro didn't do homework. again. load bg2 onto your pc sans mods or expansions. is bg2 installed on your computer? yes? well, ok then. and again, in the present context, the distinction is pointless. this is same as the wacky need to distinguish d&d hard counters and insta-kills from ie hard counters. is complete missing the forest for the trees. http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/american/yutz you are gonna get the hang o' this context thing eventually. the reason stun gives for playing a vanilla thief over a multi-class or dual-class or whatever thief combo is HLA... which is awarded at 3mil exp. 1) you can't get those abilities in bg2 as you need have ToB installed. the 7th iteration o' the d&d ie games? in a thread comparing bg to poe, having to resort to the 7th freaking incarnation o' the ie games to make a vanilla thief viable is stun undercutting himself w/o realizing. 2) you get such abilities at 3 million xp, so the multi-class thief/mage or fighter/thief gets at approximate same time anyways. one needs actual reach a full level-up, so the vanilla thief gets a fraction faster from a practical pov, but that is hardly a compelling or rational or reasonable explanation for choosing vanilla. the non vanilla thief also gets access to the pools o' HLAs from BOTH classes, so use HLA argument works considerable against the vanilla thief... again. 3) the vanilla thief is gonna be a dog compared to the multi/dual regardless. beyond the access to multiple pools o' HLA as already noted, the f/t exceeds vanilla thief weapon selection, armour selection, thac0, attacks per round, hps and will still be able to max all thief skills quite easily. the m/t does have fewer hps than a thief, but as with the f/t, she can max all thief skills w/o difficulty and gets access to spells... all the mage spells. but again, this is repetitive. is always repetitive with stun... and hiro is just being a nutter. show us again how our links revealed that we were wrong about being able to purchase bg2 as a standalone product? is a sad commentary on the educational system. HA! Good Fun!

bizarre. stun noted that it were possible to buy bundles that included ToB. lord knows we never disagreed that you could buy ToB in bundles. the soooooo... yet another pointless observation from hiro? 4 in 1 collection? well gosh, that means that they is selling you four Different titles. heck, you included a bundle with totsc. does that mean bg2 = bg2, tob, bg1 and totsc? to be a collection requires more than one, eh? you funny. stun said we would be hard pressed to buy a solitary bg2 product and within a couple minutes we found many examples o' bg2 solo products. yutz. you are hopeless. and again, the attempt to bundle a definition as well as the multiple products fails to have a relevant point. HA! Good Fun!

I'm not surprised. Have you ever passed up an opportunity to deliberately miss a point? again with the hypocrisy. your claim that time has transformed bg2 from the original game to bg2 + ToB is not presenting a point, even if you believe it does. we get what you were trying to say, but that don't mean you had/have a point. past and present not help you. is no sherman and mr. peabody scenario adventure needed to recognize that bg2 and ToB were separate releases. also, and again, poe ain't had an expansion. HA! Good Fun! ps am trying to help you to reach understanding without needing to spell everything out. even so, it may be time to throw in the towel... again. the relevance o' noting tob v. bg2 is not the pointless argument over definition in which you and hiro find yourselves mired. observe that a vanilla thief were UNDERpowered and inferior to multi or duals is magnified by your identification o' tob high level abilities. how many ie games were there before tob? you needs retreat to high level abilities of the Expansion o' baldur's gate 2 as a way to somehow salvage the class and make it useful from underdark/post underdark forward did not help your position regarding vanilla thieves.

am not sure what your point is, but we were not pressed particular hard http://www.amazon.com/Baldurs-Gate-2-Shadows-Amn-PC/dp/B00004KHB7 https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&es_th=1&ie=UTF-8#q=baldur%27s+gate+shadows+of+amn&tbm=shop HA! Good Fun!

complete off-topic, but "LOL" makes you seem far more like vol than Gromnir. roofles? HA! Good Fun!

*sigh* specify. doesn't matter though as you mischaracterize. we typical bring up boardie consensus only to show how reactive the developers is. boardies wanted more durlag's tower and less wilderness exploration. not believe us? ask vol or amentep or others. bioware were reactive. well, fast-forward to poe development and we saw obsidian specific address how the co6 and black isle boardies complained that there weren't enough exploration in bg2. so, obsidian specific observed that they would attempt a middle ground. Gromnir has, many times, complained that the biggest mistake obsidian made in development were listening too much to fans. try and find happy medium is exact where we thinks most obsidian shortfalls arose, so you are clear misrepresenting Gromnir if you believe we is pulling a richard o' gloucester And thus I clothe my naked villainy With odd old ends stolen out of Holy Writ, And seem a saint when most I play the devil. is that what you is thinking? http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/71242-interview-with-josh-sawyer-tomorrow-thursday-the-19th-at-8-pm-est-on-my-twitch-channel/?p=1589870 is no different now than in the past: we, the fans, is idiots. particular taken as a whole, we is irrational and self-contradictory and impossible to please. sensuki didn't pay attention? *snort* no surprise. edit for clarification: am believing that listening to fans is useful to developers. fan feedback can be helpful and may even be essential. what am opposed to is compromise. the middle-ground and half-baked solutions meant to appease, mollify and placate is doomed. is our belief that compromise solutions in game development do not end up with all folks being satisfied but rather we see everybody being mild dissatisfied. is ok when not everybody likes you. HA! Good Fun! ps for hiro, here is your homework: do a clean install o' bg2. don't add fan mods or expansions. ask self: "do i have bg2 loaded on my computer?" is answer yes or no? next, look for high level abilities in your pristine bg2 installation. take your time. we can wait.

the developers clear wanted unique gameplay for different classes. give chanters different themed spells from wizards is not unique gameplay. cipher focus building is intended to play different from other casters. wizards got their grimoires, which adds different tactical concerns. if druid wildshape actual were useful beyond the early stages o' the game, that would also be creating a uniqueness to druidic play. what is out-o'-place, if anything, is that the casting mechanics for priests, druids and wizards is a bit too similar, but that is what the community wanted. for the familiar classes with ie analogues, the fan base insisted/inisits on making the poe versions play more like the ie/d&d versions. can't have a poe paladin that is relative weak on offense 'cause that ain't what bg2 did. weren't any different for the fighter when the beta were initial released. many beta testers wanted to know why the fighter couldn't dps better.... it were wrong that a poe fighter couldn't do damage and absorb damage with equal faculty, in spite o' the fact that many such complaints were coming from folks who had actual applauded the direction o' fighters announced in this thread... with the notable and almost singular exception o' karkarov. http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/66380-update-81-the-front-line-fighters-and-barbarians/?hl=front-liners ciphers and chanters and wizards, oh my. is all 'posed to play different. HA! Good Fun! Not disagreeing, exactly, but what benefit do wizards get for this restriction? Right now, wizard is "druid/priest, but with limited spell selection". I don't know that taking another class and then crippling it is exactly what people mean by "variety". And it's hard to even justify lorewise why Druid wouldn't just be another priest, given that the most druidy in-game culture also is very huge on the gods. You could easily roll the Druid and Priest spells into one superset, then parcel a different subset out for each deity, along with a key power. Galawain followers could get Spiritshape, Magran could get a beefed up Interdiction, others could get Holy Radiance (though it seems more like an Eothas thing), and you could add some new ones as needed. Bah. well, as noted, the spirit shape is 'posed to be far more integral to the gameplay o' the druid. the shape is what makes druids unique, but kinda fails to do. were precise our point that mechanically the druid, priest and wizard play far too similar, but that is what backers actual wanted. given that the poe wizard is similar to the ie/d&d mage, it should be no surprise that the poe wizard is similarly defined by his spell selection. we got considerable use outa boosting aloth's sceptre talent's, but what makes a wizard worth keeping in the party is his spell selection-- a few specific spells as a matter o' fact. what does the wizard get for the grimoire limitation? answer: the most diverse spell catalog. alternatively, you could look at it reversed. given that the poe wizard has such a diverse spell catalog, the grimoire functions as a useful limit to level the playing field with other caster classes. personal opinion: priests don't genuine need beefed-up anything. perhaps they could use more deity-specific stuff, but beef is not what would make a priest more fun to play. priests already get the seal spell advantages, deity weapon focus talents and a few o' the more powerful spells in the game. petrify were absent from the priest repertoire and that gave other casters a major advantage when comparing and contrasting priests v. everything else, but petrify has been nerfed in 1.05. regardless, as we were never in favor o' maintaining the trappings o' d&d/ie in poe, and as we specific were opposed to vancian or per rest spells, coming up with reasons to support the current wizard/priest/druid mechanics is difficult for us. we don't like per rest spells. however, Gromnir were a distinct minority in fighting 'gainst the current mechanic. we got what the backers, as a whole, asked for. HA! Good Fun!

"And you're being both circular and repetitive. Thanks for clearing that up." again with you making statements w/o any kinda support. this is ridiculous. what is the point you were/are even trying to make? did bg2 include have high-level abilities? no, that were an enhancement added in the ToB expansion. ToB were an optional expansion pack for bg2. could one play ToB without bg2? no? could one play bg2 without ToB? yes. when Gromnir observed that the high level abilities were a ToB enhancement and not part o' the original bg2 offering, we were accurate. your complete irrelevant observation adds noting and ain't even true. given the context o' the discussion comparing bg2 to poe, your observation is actual more suspect. it is our perhaps futile belief that you will eventual reach understanding, even if you refuse to admit. HA! Good Fun!

No. Seriously, are you being obtuse on purpose? It's the many foibles you have that you should work on and self improvement will go a long way. My observation was that you said ToB was not BG2. That was all. It wasn't about comparing BG2 with PoE. I know that's a foreign concept for you to understand, but with time and a lot of hand holding, guidance and education, I'm sure I can help you understand these basic fundamental principles. Tis funny, seeing Gromnir talk round in circles on his playground roundabout. Maybe Gromnir continues his circular argument. Maybe Gromnir will get dizzy and eventually get off the roundabout. We'll see. *chuckle* you really don't see the hypocrisy? oh, and you are confusing repetitive with circular. am admitting we is repetitive. hiro repeats, so is genuine nothing for us to add save repetition. and again, as repetition, your observation that bg2 is bg2 + tob is not genuine meaningful and it ain't any kinda argument. is surely not relevant. we noted (above... won't repeat that again) why adding tob enhancements to bg2 in the context o' a bg2 v. poe comparison is manifestly unfair, but you are so utter resistant to reason that you continue to ignore. oh and since we is reduced to following hiro's limited reasoning even a little kid can tell that the left is different from the right. is not the same. the second offering made changes, often significant to the first. share some words o' same name is also hardly meaningful. that is a 1987 buick regal Gromnir owns one o' these: both is 1987 buick regals. performance is very different in spite o' having same words in name. suggest that both is same is foolish. perhaps pictures is what hiro needs? HA! Good Fun!

No Gromnir, BG2 did have high level abilities. BG2 is both SoA and ToB. Also, can you show me where I compared PoE to BG2? No? That's right you can't. A complete manifest error of fact on your part. *groan* your observation that bg2 seeming must needs be discussed with tob enhancements came in response to a Gromnir post wherein we were mentioning that it were unfair to compare poe to bg2 with such enhancements. you cannot be this obtuse. claim that you didn't actual compare is so complete irrelevant given the context o' your "contribution" to the thread. oh, and your observation that "BG2 is both SoA and ToB" is not any kinda a freaking argument. that you believe it is shows why we got so many problems discussing things rational with you and stun. HA! Good Fun!

the developers clear wanted unique gameplay for different classes. give chanters different themed spells from wizards is not unique gameplay. cipher focus building is intended to play different from other casters. wizards got their grimoires, which adds different tactical concerns. if druid wildshape actual were useful beyond the early stages o' the game, that would also be creating a uniqueness to druidic play. what is out-o'-place, if anything, is that the casting mechanics for priests, druids and wizards is a bit too similar, but that is what the community wanted. for the familiar classes with ie analogues, the fan base insisted/inisits on making the poe versions play more like the ie/d&d versions. can't have a poe paladin that is relative weak on offense 'cause that ain't what bg2 did. weren't any different for the fighter when the beta were initial released. many beta testers wanted to know why the fighter couldn't dps better.... it were wrong that a poe fighter couldn't do damage and absorb damage with equal faculty, in spite o' the fact that many such complaints were coming from folks who had actual applauded the direction o' fighters announced in this thread... with the notable and almost singular exception o' karkarov. http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/66380-update-81-the-front-line-fighters-and-barbarians/?hl=front-liners ciphers and chanters and wizards, oh my. is all 'posed to play different. HA! Good Fun!

Oh Gromnir. Dodging, weaving, evading, shifting the goal posts. Try as you might to say ToB is not BG2, doesn't mean it is. BG2 is both SoA and ToB. You've been shown to be incorrect on these forums many times and backpedalling won't work. Perhaps you need to stop being obtuse and accept facts. *snort* *chuckle* yeah, have been wrong many times. not this time. bg2 did not have high level abilities. high level abilities were a ToB feature. again, for the THOUSANDTH time, comparing bg2 to poe is manifestly unfair, but to compare poe to bg2 with ToB enhancements is beyond the pale. oh, and whatever Gromnir's faults, we is dogged consistent. review and see that from the first instance stun brought up ridiculous ToB advantages o' the vanilla thief, we criticized. and as noted already, we are the guy who has been calling the comparison to bg2 unfair for years... and for all the same freaking reasons. wrong? sure, we been wrong before, but "backpedaling" is one o' the more pathetic complaints o' Gromnir... evar. think. before hitting the post button, stop and think. HA! Good Fun!

hmmm. ot is notorious hit-and-miss prospects, and am not sure how many ol have failed in the nfl simply 'cause they could never be taught how to keep their arse down or move their feet correct. ot is such an important position, but the prognostications resulting from even the most detailed and respected scouting efforts is still barely better than vegas odds. we worry about technique for a guard a bit less, and guard is frequent an option for a failed ot prospect. am also a bit cautious when a player's stock improves significant after his playing career has ended. at first blush, it looks like a good pick, but ot fails is just so damned random. jerry jones actual gets our round one Al Davis Award for a relative head scratcher pick that seems based more on combine measurables than production. is ok though 'cause we need an al davis. HA! Good Fun!

Is this a new theory or something you've been suspecting for a while now...regarding a specific alt? There goes my Josh is trolling us with Volo theories... your theory is as valid as Gromnir's... but vol were too visible on the daily bioware development boards for us to seriously consider him as a developer joke alt... not that we thought you were serious. gaider did similar stuff. is never that he denied that rylock or whatever were an alt, but he didn't announce it either. HA! Good Fun!

Is this a new theory or something you've been suspecting for a while now...regarding a specific alt? not new. mentioned to mc a while ago. within days after release we were convinced that a particular non-backer poster with intimate knowledge o' the mechanics o' poe were josh. posting style were recognizable to us as josh from years past-- bit more acerbic than the currently more diplomatic sawyer. also, we recall that josh made a comment in an interview that implied that posting as a non developer offered different insights and opportunities. posting with an alt would be consistent with his observation and with Gromnir's suspicion regarding the poster named ___________. it would also explain josh's unusual absence. HA! Good Fun!