Gromnir

am very disappointed in you. did we not thoroughly and complete exorcise this demon during the past couple years? the ie games, ALL the ie games, were listed as inspirations for poe... along with other unnamed crpgs from the increasing distant past. no "spiritual successor" nonsense from obsidian. evar. and truth-to-tell, even if we did try and shoehorn poe into a "spiritual successor" straightjacket, we don't even know what that means. get a dozen folks to tell you what were best in the ie games, or most integral to ie game appreciation, and you is gonna see as much variation as you see same. the ie games used the same engine, but they were, in many ways, fundamentally different. obsidian never claimed to be making the ultimate evolution, the final distillation, o' the ie experience. Gromnir liked the ie games. the developers (many o' them) liked the ie games. thousands o fans still like the ie games. obsidian were creating a game that would share many common elements with the ie games. but spiritual successor? nope. never said that... and thank goodness, 'cause it don't mean anything... or rather it might mean anything. we do agree that a bg2 comparison would be even more perilous than the spiritual successor hobgoblin. obsidian, or at least josh (as an aside, people who have names that is also verbs is always difficult for Gromnir. technically we is esl) mentioned more than once that poe would not manage bg2 levels o' scope and would almost certainly have less encounter complexity. bg2 were an enormous undertaking and obsidian didn't have the resources to match. nor would they have the benefit o' multiple previous releases from which to build 'pon and refine. bg2 were specific identified as more o' a future goal for the potential poe franchise rather than any kinda reasonable expectation for poe itself. HA! Good Fun!

Priest starts with 10 less accuracy compared to Fighters/Monks/Rogues/Rangers. This talent merely brings the priest's base accuracy up to that of other frontliners, for two weapons only, each covered by a different Weapon Focus. It's pretty good for a caster who wants to melee, but abysmal compared to an actual melee damager. am not sure how you get that the talent benefit is comparative abysmal when the deity weapon focus talent results in you having the same accuracy as the high accuracy characters. is only 2 weapons? *shrug* is only 'bout 10% o' the game that we feel compelled to switch from our prefered ranged and melee weapon for any character in our party. 2 weapon at high accuracy for cost of one talent? is not a terrible burden and surely ain't reducing to level o' abysmal. would it be splendiferous if we could get both weapons covered by a single weapon focus talent? actually, no. priests is already a very strong class. make the priest class not only have the highest possible spell accuracy with at least a handful o' spells, but also make 'em better at melee combat would be criminal negligent on the part o' the developers. heck, the three obvious priest attributes we would focus 'pon, if we genuine were concerned about attributes, would be intelligence, might and dexterity, in that order. so is not as if the typical priest is gimping self if he decides to focus a bit more 'pon doing melee weapon damage. still strikes us as mind blowing that we were the lone priest honk during the beta. HA! Good Fun!

for priests, no amount o' mechanics is ever enough. go figure. HA! Good Fun!

cipher's paralyze can virtual eliminate reflex saves at one go... but mental binding requires a will save. is not as if these status effects work complete insular. HA! Good Fun!

is less true than most folks suggest. no 1st level serious damage spells, but divine mark hits hard for serious burn damage. make sure a wizard casts will draining miasma and/or other will debuffs, and then watch as your level 3-4 priests with non-impressive might scores crit for +80 damage and the -25 accuracy debuff. similarly, the priest o' wael with a quarterstaff will do reliable weapon damage throughout the game, or you could focus on rods. in either case, whether you use rod or quarterstaff as your primary weapon, the other will still give you decent accuracy, so you got a reach weapon, a ranged weapon and you cover crush/pierce/slash. the reach weapon is a serious boon for a squishy priest. and once you get access to level 3 spells... well, is no excuse at that point for failure to do serious offensive damage. our priests always max mechanics and take scion o' flame. scion does not current buff searing seal (a bug according to obsidian), but it does buff the priest's other burn spells, which is considerable in number and devastating in power. the trap accuracy math is far more forgiving than is priest accuracy Plus you get the additional mechanics accuracy boost. a mid level priest routine getting +100 accuracy on seal spells? seems overpowered to us, but am admitting that such has not stopped us from using seal spells. use 2 priests. if you got 1 priest in a party, the priest is gonna spend all his efforts buffing, debuffing healing and cleansing-- you won't notice just how much damage the priest is capable o' doing. our aforementioned priest o' wael, with a 10 might, were doing damage a smidge below grieving mother... could starve on the difference. HA! Good Fun!

no, you expressed yourself perfect. don't need any backsliding. HA! Good Fun!

you can play a rogue and take colonist background. suggestion: choose the adventurer weapon focus talent to get war bows. at that point it becomes difficult to build a bad archer, and you can get 12 survival if you wish. HA! Good Fun!

eh? ok. am fine with that. every attribute in poe is dumpable. if you wanna, you can dump any attribute and still have a viable build. you not see how that invalidates the meaning o' the term, but fine. what do we win? HA! Good Fun!

no doubt the reviewer would agree with you. unfortunately, you clear are suffering from the same disconnect as he is. stun says half the attributes is clear dumps. the reviewer recognizes how little pain is suffered from dumps. the reviewer then laments how little juice he gets for the squeeze from pumping the useful attributes. ... do you folks not see the problem with your beliefs regarding optimum builds and the conflict it creates with your actual reasoning? ... think about it. HA! Good Fun!

is at least arguable that constitution is worthy o' significant investment on a retaliation rogue. *shrug* not everybody needs do things the same way in poe, which is actual much different than the ie games and so many other crpgs. the starting attributes is not make-or-break. is there optimum builds for a melee rogue depending on particular play-style? sure. so what? the attribute mechanics makes a larger range o' options viable. most o' rogue's enormous damage output is not coming from might, so boost perception or con or whatever instead o' might ain't gonna spell doom for your character. yeah, you build non-optimal or non-ordinary and you gotta be much more careful about ability and talent choices if you wanna be efficacious in combat, but that ain't a bad thing neither. the ability to play a vast variety o' builds effectively is precisely why the poe attribute mechanics exist in its current form. HA! Good Fun! ps as we said elsewhere, we believe that the attributes mechanics would still benefit from balancing, but refusing to recognize what the mechanic does and is designed to do is amusing to us.

didn't actual say he wanted it nerfed. change bestiary entry. you likely encounter shadows for the first time 'tween level 3 and level 4. change bestiary entry so it reads as level 3... or 4. is true that shadows is a bit strong compared to other level 1 fodder... not that the label should make a difference. heck, we had folks raging at us recently 'cause we suggested that calling the hard counters and insta-kills from bg2 a d&d & ie game legacy. apparently, claiming that folks wanted more o' an ie feature is ok, but more o' a D&D feature is bad... even if they is the same thing. people is nuts. the bestiary entry is odd, but is harmless. also takes next to nothing to change, eh? HA! Good Fun! ps ok, now he wants nerfed. *shrug*

that is the problem. unless you do something complete different, changing the abilities won't have much impact. the ranger and rogue is heavy-hitters. rogues get sneak attack mechanic and then stuff such as reckless assault and a whole bunch o' other passive and active crit and damage increases. is sneak attack that is the focus o' the rogue and how to exploit sneaks that is the focus o' playing the rogue. a ranger, w/o an animal companion, is a weapon using heavy-hitter w/o sneak attack? the abilities and talents is gonna be familiar and different mostly cosmetic, 'cause they is all gonna magnify the weapon damage o' the ranger. mechanics o' poe only has so many ways to increase weapon damage. sure, call your ranger a vermin warrior who can change into a giant rat... give his "weapons" a corrode effect or some such would make him look different, perhaps, but is gonna play similar to the rogue. still got same weapons and still got same core mechanics. animal companion is what makes ranger different. instead o' sneak attack and maximizing situations in which attacked foes is suffering status effects, our ranger gots the animal companion. remove animal companion? square one. HA! Good Fun!

all completions o' act were post 1.04... we kinda ran a few simultaneous characters. the reckless assault bug stopped us deepish into act 2 with our rogue, so we didn't finish with him until actual after starting our second character. funny aside, the reckless assault bug ain't been fixed, but there is a workaround. am honest not certain what turn we were at for the stronghold runs. and got no idea o' the number o' companion quests. feels like 'tween 6-8? am expecting that such quests were a function o' prestige? our prestige were necessarily borked because o' a few bugs. two o' our strongholds is bugged kinda awful... one example is the "guest" psion who has been dismissed from employ but is still hostile in the main keep and will turn all other npcs in visual range similarly hostile. keep killing him, but to no avail. HA! Good Fun!

the attributes is just not near as important to combat efficacy as folks believe. in spite o' his tank-terrible attributes, eder can tank quite successful in potd. we mentioned our non-optimal priest and rogue, and our paladin is built along almost the same lines as we prefer the dialogue options such attributes afford us: s 10, c 9, d 10, p 14, int 19, r 16. starting attributes for a paladin, which we is told is a sucky class and which we is using more as support than tank. reduce con to an extreme low is gonna result in having to win fights very fast and to protect such characters. we can win such fights without resorting to such tactics and we got characters who can actual pick and choose from the role-play dialogue options we find more intriguing. HA! Good Fun!

update: have made it to act 3 3 times now. never reached level 12 even after having completed all pre act 3 bounties (one initial bounty offer is unavailable til act 3) and finishing the endless paths. however, we can reach level 11, and 10 is not difficult to manage. this does make the critical path quests a bit o' a pushover. HA! Good Fun!

I've been dumping Con for my back line since the beta went live. And I'm not the only one who's been doing that. I'll take experience and the experience of others over your theories any day. In all fairness though, "*shrug* it works on my end" is probably not the answer Prime was looking for. it works because encounter design is a bit wonky and 'cause the higher the difficulty, the more brief is fights. tactics and strategy actual become streamlined as difficulties increase precisely 'cause o' the brevity o' most fights. the goal is to do the most damage possible as quick as possible. there is indeed a cost for lowering constitution. less endurance is a significant price to pay, but in practice it doesn't make much difference if fights is won or lost in 30 seconds or less. folks is confusing mechanics issues with encounter design problems and the way in which difficulty scales. HA! Good Fun! ps as an aside, the dump o' constitution is just one reason why the same folks is so bitter about domination/confusion and other effects. those status effects cannot be complete avoided, so chances are that their basement dwelling con rogue is gonna topple the first time she gets back shot by grieving mother and leadspitter. those status effects prolong fights, and the low con characters wearing nothing but clothes 'stead o' armour is particular vulnerable in such circumstances. 'course they ain't realized that their strategy is part o' their problem.

get rid of animal and give the class a resource called prestige or glory or ego. give prestige points for... whatever: score a crit hit, kill an opponent, receive damage over X points (+some additional amount per level so as to scale), etc. create a finite list o' prestige point possibles. next, create a list o' feats that the musketeer, swashbuckler, whatever could spend those points on in a fight. would work a bit like the cipher, but the range o' possible abilities would likely be closer to what the current paladin has. *shrug* HA! Good Fun!

for the last 1/3 o' the game, we have difficulty coming up with a rational reason to choose fists over equippable weapons. if Gromnir were comparing a monk fist to a superb ________, that would be a bit myopic, no? chances are that our superb weapon has a couple more qualities added that our fists cannot have. monk fists are great, and perhaps better than similar weapons the monk is likely to get for the first 2/3 of the game. unfortunately, the ability to imbue or choose weapons with qualities particular useful to our monk build (tank, striker, hybrid,etc.) makes weapons, weapons that ain't fists, better. "Doesn't really make sense that Intelligence would increase a defense called Will, but resolve wouldn't. So let's rename the defense without really changing it. "INT: Logic" yeah, well, the reverse is just as true. have resolve modify logic is no less nonsensical than intellect modifying will. leave name. HA! Good Fun! ps am not seeing a good reason to make fists a better choice for 2/3 and other stuff for end. if that were the intentional evolution, we need an explanation.

few starting observations: the animal companion has been problematic from the start o' beta. the ranger were envisioned as a ranged heavy-hitter. the rogue and ranger were s'posed to be the weapon-based heavy-hitters (not our label, obsidian's.) so then, remove animal companion from the ranger and you got a class that is very similar to the rogue. is the major obstacle we see. developers consider it important to give the different classes unique gameplay. a rogue that has a few abilities that is a bit more ranged focused is likely not the kinda uniqueness obsidian were envisioning. am agreeing that the animal companion don't work... at least they don't work for Gromnir, but am not seeing an easy solution. we recommended dumping the ranger multiple times during the beta. we also noted that the best way to improve the ranger were to exorcise the animal companions from the class. even so, we can't offer an alternative to the ranger that that is less fundamental than scrapping it and starting over from square one. the animal is what makes the ranger different. the animal is what makes the ranger the only class we have zero interest in playing. HA! Good Fun!

as meaningless as it is, the bestiary indicates that shadows is "Level 1." HA! Good Fun! ps so many changes made to poe has been for no other reason than that people feel that X should be more like Y. if having shadows show up as level 1 in the bestiary emasculates, then simple change number to 3 as a salve to pride would be the absolute easiest fix... evar. edit: removed colon from quote

Gromnir, really, what is the point of coming here... Making hilariously false claims, then then ruthlessly defending those for a dozen pages by posting Starwars clips and calling ALL your opponents stupid, and then just bowing out of the debate with a pointless little nugget of Nostalgia? am trying to think o' another star wars clip we have used... ever. is possible as we have been posting for a few years. am actual not much o' a sw fan. and no, not all folks who disagree with us is stoopid, and is actual rare we make such a claim. is only a very small number o' folks we have dismissed as utterly incapable o' recognizing or utilizing reason. so, congrats? smarty folks can make stoopid arguments. it happens. is few folks who we would call hopeless. is an extreme small club, as hard to believe as you might find that. btw, posting last doesn't = stun wins. am knowing that to you it must feels that way, but... *shrug* for a number o' posts now, we have been adding 0 new-- both of us is repeating. is spam. so, say something new, and Gromnir will happily indulge your need to show folks how obtuse you can be. otherwise, if you wanna post last, again, we oblige. http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/78279-rpgcodex-review-1-hŵrpa-dwrp/?p=1676192 shoulda' ended with the above link...or a bit before. HA! Good Fun!

big as purple and deep as banana. HA! Good Fun!

you need to post more. makes us nostalgic o' the times when tiax were posting at Co6. 'course, given his board handle, we believed he were doing intentional. am almost certain that you are doing accidental. HA! Good Fun!

How so? I'll ask again. Exactly Why is it unfair for a reviewer to not give a **** about the reasons why the developers did what they did? Is a Mass Effect 3 review UNFAIR simply because it bashes the game's ending before researching Casey Hudson's explanation for it? didn't ask for research. and if you need a definition o' fair, we suspect self-help is in order. as we stated already, we have failed to get you to understand basic definitions more than once. am doubting that you are an MBA recipient, yes? a decade or more ago a stanford professor did a study regarding notions o' fairness and discovered, almost as an amusing aside, that MBA recipients were disproportionate in their failure to recognize any concrete notion o' fair. there is actual a pulitzer prize for criticism. film critic, roger ebert, received the award for movie review. perhaps you could start there if you want kinda an accepted standard for fairness in reviews. am not expecting a codexian review to adhere to any kinda accepted standard for reviews, but if you want a definition, pulitzer could be a start. HA! Good Fun!

No, you don't demand agreement with the devs, but with you. You just use the devs as an excuse as to why your opinion is right and everyone disagreeing is "ranting", despite them painstakingly spelling out their reasoning for having the opinion you disagree with. we loathe bad reasoning. enoch has observed that perhaps we are too focused on smiting the bad reason, rational or logic than we is with the issue at hand, and am expecting he is correct. most folks who is reason challenged don't realize just how bass ackwards is their reasoning and it is almost impossible to get'em to recognize their faults. case in point. we not need folks to agree that the poe attribute mechanics is great. after all, we would like to see changes made to that mechanic. doesn't change the flaws in the review to acknowledge that we also see ways to improve the attributes. you not need to agree with us either, but you is gonna need do a better job o' disagreeing with us if you wanna be taken serious. HA! Good Fun!