Gromnir

Blood Legacy quest has less steps than both The Cult of the Unseeing Eye and Mae'Var's Guildhall and the investigation part is completely optional, and mostly for flavor. It is also accompanied by the worst dungeon in the game (thankfully you can almost completely bypass it though) and the dialogue with Wymund also has several issues. Both Unseeing Eye and Mae'Vars had multiple steps and good accompanying content. To complete Blood Legacy, all you need to do is go to the Tanner's shop, take his key, go into the dungeon and go into Wymund's room and resolve it there. Obsidian do improve some aspects of quest design. There's usually a fair bit of choice and often multiple resolutions. They often have 'more' of that than the BG games, although not always 'better'. Personally I care more about actual content associated with the quest than that stuff. *sigh* multiple ways to complete a quest is a good thing, no? for a codexian grognard, the fact that you need not adhere to the narrative rails should be a positive. need gaal's key to open a magically locked door is exact the kinda thing codexians typical rail against, yes? also, we already noted that bg2 had larger scope. oh, and we suspect that the additional steps o' final act slipped your notice. however, it is good you note the consequences o' poe resolutions that is absent in the typical ie games. again, we see lotta opinions... and some hypocrisy. and "worst dungeon" language is exact the kinda empty criticism we is referencing. HA! Good Fun!

he not need our pov, but we will observe that insofar as boardie feedback/interplay, josh has matured considerably over the years. in the past it were extreme easy to goad josh into emotional responses. those outbursts were illuminating. when josh got steamed, he were no longer speaking as a black isle employee, but rather as josh sawyer. we kinda miss those days. one too may iwd2 ranger moments has given josh experience and maturity to weather the worst the boards have to offer. regardless, josh handles criticism with far more maturity and reserve than he did in the past, but am kinda missing the past. HA! Good Fun!

is a lotta very general criticisms, which is ok as is sensuki's opinions. your opinions don't actual require justifications. claim that cult o' the eyeless or bg2 thieves guild quests is superior investigative design to poe final act or blood legacy is opinions. no doubt you will justify your opinions, at least to your self, but am sure you will recognize that the bg2 eyeless and thieves guild quests were having numerous flaws, so folks who wanna illustrate bg2 quest design shortcomings will have plenty o' fodder. we will concede that the scope o' bg2 were bigger and if such scope were vital, then we understand some disappointment with poe. even so, we personal weren't expecting bg2 scope from poe. the obsidian dev-speak regarding the number and size o' maps notwithstanding, we never thought it were possible for poe to have the kinda scale as did bg2. coulda' had a few more larger non critical path quests, but doing so can actual make a game feel even smaller as the amount o' optional quests is functional reduced. development is ultimately a zero sum game after all. make some quests bigger and more involved either necessitates removal o' other quests or the reduction in size o' remaining quests. oh, and narrative mess were kinda an endemic problem for the bg series. our complaints regarding the bg narrative is ferocious. bg2 were less o' a problem for us, but am also recalling when bg2 were first released just how much nerd rage we encountered from the core Co6 followers o' bg2. it may be hard to believe, but the folks who followed bg2 development will be able to chime in and share regarding the initial complaints o' the dedicated boardies regarding story aspects o' bg2. shortly after release, the ardent followers o' that game were the ones most likely to be dismissive o' bg2 story as nothing more than the traditional wizard-gone-mad-with-power schtick. is perhaps amusing to us, given our perspective, to see same old cycle repeat itself. far too often we see folks who got... issues with a game, use narrative as a bit o' a smokescreen. perhaps sensuki is different, but it not seem that way at the moment. "uninteresting" is a valid complaint, but it is not subject to meaningful response, is it? sensuki's opinions o' narrative and encounter/quest design is no less valid than the mob, but his opinion not seem any more valid or well-defined than vol's. as for mechanics issues... we heard sensuki's complaints during the beta. is no need to reexamine as we did not anticipate that he would have some kinda sea change experience playing the full game as opposed to the beta. many o' sensuki's mechanics concerns is at least well-considered. cain and sawyer and the other developers apparent disagreed with sensuki, but that not make sensuki wrong. regardless, anybody who listened to sensuki feedback regarding mechanics leading up to the release has no reason to be surprised at his current perspective. HA! Good Fun!

doesn't matter if combat is over when the endurance penalty hits. *shrug* HA! Good Fun!

So what. PoE uses D&D mechanics. Stop changing the subject. No, Luckmann is right. People asking for More IE Game feel are asking for just that: More IE game feel. D&D was only brought up because YOU brought it up. you are as much a yutz as luckman. again, not only is the ie games use o' hard counters and insta-kills direct attributable to D&D, but focus on the d& d aspect as if that is important is... stoopid. hypothetical, so am gonna use "if" more than once. IF we were seeing folks complain o' poe deflection + dr hybrid and IF numerous people were using the ie games thac0 as an example o' how combat mechanics should be done, then it would be perfect appropriate to identify thac0 from bg2 or iwd as an ie mechanic but as a d&d mechanic as well. yes, thac0 were utilized in the ie games, and heck, there were even some few instances wherein ie game thac0 were slight different than d&d thac0, but it would be idiotic to ignore to pretend that thac0 were not in the ie games Because it were integral to d&d mechanics. the examples o' insta kills and hard counters from ie games is no different. those examples given is direct resultant o' the d&d nature o' the ie games. also, and this is more important, which is why we are absolute certain you and luckman is hopeless to understand, but it don't freaking matter. the d&d nature o' the ie hard counters and insta-kill were never a significant factor. is ie insta-kills good or bad for no reason other than their d&d legacy? 'course not. is the fact that hard counters from the ie games got their origin in d&d pnp rules books important to any reasonable or rational person? we hope not. D&D were never important. label the hard counters as d&d does not transform good to bad, or bad to good. the strengths and weakness o' insta-kills and hard counters is NOT dependent on d&d.... but that should be obvious. unless d&d killed luckman's puppy when he were 5, we can't think o' a plausible reason why he would be so affected by the mention o' d&d. yeah, ie game hard counters and insta-kills is a d&d legacy, but why on earth is that significant to lucky? we were simple letting luckman hang himself til he recognized the irony o' using a logic fallacy to complain 'bout our use o' D&D language. call strawman is particular funny. however, am happy to see you gleeful leap onto the gallows next to lucky. is proof-positive to us that all is right with the world. HA! Good Fun!

there is a tendency to reduce int on paladins as it has such a minimal impact on zealous focus aura area. however, intelligence significantly extends such stuff as liberating exhortation, hastening exhortation and even lay on hands, which effective increases the amount o' healing that ability does. intelligence is our primary attribute for paladins thus far. HA! Good Fun!

I think confusion is actually OP the way it works now. First, it seems that instead of acting randomly (as one would expect from a confused person), confused targets become your allies, for all intents and purposes. And what makes it superior to charm/domination is that they don't snap out of it if you attack them, so you can finish them off with complete impunity. our experience is different. as often as not, the confused will wander aimlessly or stand stationary doing nothing. aside: confusion and domination does make our use o' long duration aoe spells more rare as it can lead to quirky results. our summoned adra beetle gets confused by... whatever. our beetle then walks through our wall of fire. our summoned beetle is no longer confused but is genuinely and open hostile towards us. the graze/hit/crit mechanic is unforgiving and it may lead to oddly anti-climactic encounters. petrify need only be effective for a second or two to make a host o' other spells near guaranteed hits or crits. am understanding why many do not like the approach, but our solution would be to address encounter design rather than the mechanics. "What's that? Nothing? Not a single example? None? Two pages dug into a hole, posed with the request to substantiate, even in part, a single one of your claims, yet nothing? Shocking, Gromnir. Simply shocking!" not need to do so as you still haven't gotten over your logic/reason hurdle yet. am not so generous that we would allow you to ignore your silliness in trying distinguishing ie from d&d insta kill and/or hard counter mechanics, and why on earth you think the difference is significant. HA! Good Fun! Hmm, you might be right about confused enemies acting randomly. Perhaps I got the idea of a full allegiance flip because former allies start attacking them immediately. As for grazes being equivalent to full hits, I still disagree. Most (possibly all) hard stuns target either fort or will, but don't lower it, so successive stunning doesn't become easier. They do lower reflex and deflection, but lowering deflection for a short time is obviously not an insta-kill, and reflex spells are not particularly deadly. in kinda an opposite-but-the-same scenario, it were rather annoying when our auto-targeting party unloaded a fusillade into our sudden dominated wizard... after the third or fourth time aloth died from friendly fire, Gromnir decided it might behove us to make adjustments to our tactics. HA! Good Fun!

didn't read the genesis post, but don't take that as insulting as we didn't get past the second paragraph o' the codex review. somehow seems unfair if we would read the post about the review but not the review. apologies if there is something genuine insightful that we missed. am simply curious why we need a separate thread to comment about the codex review, a review which already has a thread. is no biggie. more threads doesn't bother us, but this thread does have the appearance o' an attention grab... which isn't a big deal either. HA! Good Fun!

I think confusion is actually OP the way it works now. First, it seems that instead of acting randomly (as one would expect from a confused person), confused targets become your allies, for all intents and purposes. And what makes it superior to charm/domination is that they don't snap out of it if you attack them, so you can finish them off with complete impunity. our experience is different. as often as not, the confused will wander aimlessly or stand stationary doing nothing. aside: confusion and domination does make our use o' long duration aoe spells more rare as it can lead to quirky results. our summoned adra beetle gets confused by... whatever. our beetle then walks through our wall of fire. our summoned beetle is no longer confused but is genuinely and open hostile towards us. the graze/hit/crit mechanic is unforgiving and it may lead to oddly anti-climactic encounters. petrify need only be effective for a second or two to make a host o' other spells near guaranteed hits or crits. am understanding why many do not like the approach, but our solution would be to address encounter design rather than the mechanics. "What's that? Nothing? Not a single example? None? Two pages dug into a hole, posed with the request to substantiate, even in part, a single one of your claims, yet nothing? Shocking, Gromnir. Simply shocking!" not need to do so as you still haven't gotten over your logic/reason hurdle yet. am not so generous that we would allow you to ignore your silliness in trying distinguishing ie from d&d insta kill and/or hard counter mechanics, and why on earth you think the difference is significant. HA! Good Fun!

am understanding if you feel pitty for luck, but such empathy is not useful. honestly, luck is actual claiming, reduced to literal spamming no less, that those who advocate the ie games use o' insta-kills and hard counters can be meaningful differentiated from advocating d&d use o' insta-kills and hard counters. ... wacky. HA! Good Fun!

talk of deflection. insta-kills and hard counters is not your ambiguous "most arguments." the ie games used d&d mechanics. the hard counters and insta-kills in the ie games are directly the result o' the use o' d&d mechanics. am admitting that your irrationality on this matter does surprise us. is rare to see somebody so unapologetically obdurate in spite o' a clear error. HA! Good Fun!

Find me one that has been doing that on a serious level. oh, so the ones using ie games as examples is not serious? [...] Strawman. You said D&D. I was not talking about the IE games. You're addressing a question that was not asked. The problem is that you do this *constantly*, in your gibberish-speak, and it comes off as nothing short of smug and pathetic. There's a reason I've stop engaging you, because there's really no point. You just deflect and evade, put up the occasional strawman, and continue to fanboy, like PoE somehow needs you to be it's shield. It doesn't. And you're being a s***ty shield. So again, find me one that is doing that on a serious level, not just "Eh, I wish it was D&D, but whatever". you are being silly. the ie games used d&d mechanics. the insta-kill and hard-counter attributes o' the ie mechanics are directly the result o' the ie game's adoption of d&d. ... being obtuse just to entertain us is sweet and all, but unnecessary. HA! Good Fun! ps our gibberish is intentional. so what is your excuse?

Find me one that has been doing that on a serious level. oh, so the ones using ie games as examples is not serious? *chuckle* am s'posing you were just funning when you used troll example to point out bg2 goodness o'... whatever point you were trying to make at the time. am not gonna try and read minds. is more than a few references to the ie games as an enlightened alternative to poe rejection o' insta-kill. pretending that ain't true is foolish in the extreme. HA! Good Fun!

our paladins is, invariably, high intelligence-- am getting pretty darn close to 25 seconds before the reviving penalty hits. that is a Long time in most poe battles. that being said, paladin revive is not something we do as soon as a party member is knocked out as we must needs guestimate the length o' a battle and how our ~25 seconds is gonna figure into the equation. however, for the high int paladin, the revive ability is powerful. am admitting that we would be discouraged from take paladin revive if we did not have a starting int of 18-20 on paladins. even with the significant extended duration from high intelligence, the ability is of situational use, which is a flaw of many paladin abilities... too many. HA! Good Fun!

have you considered looking for hellboy images? HA! Good Fun!

actually,yeah, there is more than a few folks arguing for more d&d and more ie. so, am thinking there is actual a misunderstanding. *shrug* let's not get all hypocritical, eh? recall that our initial examples were vampires and mind flayers from bg2. those didn't work any better for you than the demi-lich, and they present similar problems to the player absent meta knowledge. however, you are right that the example we gave doesn't exist in poe. the reason why is 'cause the developers avoided such nonsense. luckman, who liked your response, is the guy who came up with the bg2 troll example, no? he noted the consternation that were possible for folks encountering trolls for the first time in bg2. now again, trolls is 'bout the worst example we could contemplate given how pervasive they are in d&d games and recognizing that they existed in ie games previous to bg2, but the fact is that there were no rhyme or reason behind the troll immunities and regeneration and there were no way for a first-time player to puzzle out the mechanics behind troll regeneration save through trial and error or meta-knowledge.... meta-knowledge which am still trying to puzzle out how you could personal be against given your position on hard-counters and "save or else." and "save or else" is still a meaningless bit o' nothing. obsidian specific rejected insta-kills. the so-called "save or else" shtick is little more than misdirection. however, if the graze/hit/critical results for status effects is too unforgiving for you, we get that. is nothing wrong with your preference. HA! Good Fun! ps am not suggesting that those who dislike poe is weak or soft, though am suspecting some will read our response that way. we found poe combat extreme frustrating when faced with some o' the more annoying status effects. however, as we got deeper into the game, we Personally discovered that we enjoyed the differences compared to ie combat. we don't reload 'cause o' a single missed save or a couple bad "rolls." am much more aware o' the inevitability o' fail in poe, and so we must plan acording. the tactical considerations in poe is different. is not better. different.

The IE games also had a solution to the stalemate problem for NON-magic battles. They use the D20 system, where 1 is always a miss and And a 20 is always a hit. Personally, though, I've come to terms with the Miss--Graze---Hit--Crit system that PoE uses. I like it. My only issue with it is how....universal it is. It applies to everything. Which means we'll never see those dramatic high level magic battle moments from BG2 and IWD2 where a heated, intense battle could end suddenly in a nail-biting moment due to, say, a Finger of Death, or a Wail of the Banshee. After all, what's the point of scoring a critical hit with your death spell? or a Graze with your Destruction spell? One thing I'd love to see is for more than just the duration of spell effects to vary with attack resolution. Particularly, CC spells need to apply different status effects based on the attack resolution - so on a hit you might charm, and on a crit you might dominate, but a graze only dazes. (just as an example) This would allow for a bit more counter-play on both the part of the player and the AI against status effects. As it is, you can confuse or paralyze even extremely powerful enemies for a decent amount of time since you can generally get a graze even when their defenses are very high. Extremely powerful status effects like confuse, charm/dominate, paralyze, etc should be difficult to apply and (IMO) should only ever apply on a hit or a crit, with the possible exception of some very powerful and very specialized (possibly single-target) spells. Maybe slicken doesn't inflict prone unless you hit, and just hobbles on a graze? Etc... There's been some serious missed opportunity to do interesting things with spell effects and the attack resolution system. Maybe they'll implement some more interesting stuff in the expansion? I definitely agree. I think the debuffs/soft CCs (hobbled, blind, etc) should cause their effects regardless of whether your graze, hit, or crit. Their duration should be effected based on whether it is a graze, hit, crit. Some single target hard CCs should also remain this way (Fighter Knockdown). However, big CCs like Charmed, Paralyze, and/or big AoEs that cause knockdown should only work when hitting or critting, and should hobble, daze, etc when they graze. Obviously, these abilities/spells should do nothing when they miss. If not, the AoE CCs need to go. They really trivialize the combat too much. Especially the way the AI doggy piles the Tank. @Gromnir - I won't argue for pre-buffing. I never cared for it, and I think it adds a lot of tedium by forcing the habit and then forcing the players to strip those effects from enemies. I understand why some like it, and admittedly have played games like NWN (1 and 2) as a Strength Bard that prebuffs. However, I think that gameplay style not being in PoE is fine. I know others think it needs to be here, but I definitely do not. However, I will stand by "hard counters" and "Save or else" being a good thing. You can call it archaic, obtuse, or what have you. However, it is in those moments where you failed with your spell, or the enemies are resisting your normal strategy, that you have to think up something else. Because of differing party compositions this forces you to do different things from one fight to another and from one play through to another. I see that as a good thing. Otherwise, it is far too easy to open almost every hard fight with Gaze of the Adragan (or some equivalent CC), and pretty much stomp the opponent. I always liken it to a popular quote from Return of the Jedi. "It's a trap!!!" The rebels were hard countered, and then they had to do what they could to come out on top. Or maybe the Empire was Pre-buffed. The effects of these CCs aren't really the problem, nor the consistency of them working, but the fact that a large portion of them are AoE is definitely an issue. Charming/Dominating 1 Ogre among the 7 in combat isn't a huge swing, but Charming/Paralyzing/Proning/etc 2 to 4 of them is a gigantic one. The fact that 1 or 2 buffs to accuracy can make those effects a near certainty (with a hefty duration, I might add) compounds the issue. The annoyance of being under the effects of these CCs would be diminished if we had ways to remove those effects. Reducing the time is ok, but sometimes you have to use a CC to counter the CC. It just isn't great gameplay IMHO, but YMMV. I would rather be able to devote resources to fixing the issue and not using a duct tape solution. EG - I would rather be able to remove the effect vs reduce the duration or casting hold on my Charmed Rogue party member. To each their own. I will say... that as annoying as these CCs can be that their not being removable has forced me to do some odd things to stop my Monk, with full wounds, under the effects of charm from tearing my squishies apart. However, if that kind of variability is ok then why are hard counters a problem? Because the outcomes are the same. The outcomes are " **** happened and now you gotta deal with it". I guess you could argue that the way the system works that it isn't a variability, but all that does is make me (and I would assume many others) metagame it on harder encounters. These Dank Spores are gonna Charm/dominate the party? Open combat with Priest's Prayer Against Treachery. Those Drakes going to drop some AoE frighten/terrify? Open with Prayer Against Fear. So on, and so forth. Anyway, to go on record... I really like the game, and I am really enjoying it, but I won't pretend that all is right in Eora. To use a metaphor, I think that this is a really good base for some amazing soup, but I still want to voice my opinion on what spices would be the best. I expect the Expacs and the Sequels to bring the spice. possible misunderstanding? you like the ie/d&d approach? fine. is nothing wrong with that. personally we see d&d as even more susceptible to the meatgame approach. hell, take demi-liches as an example o' the wacky meta-game silliness d&d were capable o' dumping on us. an astral or ethereal mage casting power word kill can insta-kill a demi-lich? yeah, trial and error or reason your way to figuring that out. sorry, but the meta-game argument is not your friend. regardless, the point were that obsidian ain't the folks who came up with "save or else." obsidian rejected insta-kills and hard counters and that resulted in different gameplay for poe. different. you don't need to like different, but some folks pretending as if obsidian abandoning insta-kills is somehow disingenuous or inconsistent with their message board and interview claims is utter hokum. we like different. the frustration we had to endure with poe combat was a challenge. dominated party members seem invariably to switch to ranged weapons? well then, before fighting dark spores, we make sure our party is armed with crappy ranged weapons to minimize the harm from our own party members. *chuckle* we found an alternative use for the disappointer. that ain't metagame but tactical awareness... and perhaps a bit o' an exploit. HA! Good Fun!

"save or else" is a bit o' nonsense invented by the ignorant or the obtuse. poe developers did not add insta-kill spells and effects to their game. great. am not sure what "save or else" is s'posed to mean to some o' you jokers. paralyze effects is not insta-kill, and neither is domination. you get hit by a powerful enough fireball blast, and don't make your save, you very well could die, but that is a factor o' damage rather than a "die" effect. same were true in bg2 btw. well guess what, all those adverse effects in poe is the same. take damage after getting hit with an effect and you may die... or you may die from the damage resulting from the effect. regardless, is no poe insta-kill effects. oh, and btw, with all the in-combat options for revives, death (knockout actually) is nothing more than another aspect o' combat, and an intriguing one at that. for many battles we plan ahead-- assume we is gonna lose a party member or two, and we tactical plan on when to revive. paladin revive ability bug needs be addressed though. we found all those domination, confusion and stun effects to be mighty annoying for much o' the game, but it ain't as if our characters don't have such stuff. *chuckle* combats can get kinda wacky when more o' the enemies is actually friendly than party members, eh? is different. is not like ie battles. in bg2 once we had the Ultimate Protection against level drain and mental domination/charm, vampires were a laughable foe. once we had the Ultimate Protection (pre-buffed in layers) 'gainst mind flayers, those battles were also cake walks. poe is different. we can't walk into a battle knowing we is immune to everything save melee damage. good. is different and frustrating and good. heck, we didn't think psychic backlash were much o' a talent, and it still isn't, but am thinking we will take it for virtual all our cipher characters henceforth. any help we can get to deal with those mental attacks is a good thing. poe is different and thank goodness for that. regardless, "save or else" were not the crpg/rpg evil obsidian were exorcising from poe... no more than they ever claimed that poe were the "spiritual successor" o' the ie games. HA! Good Fun!

I don't even know what "and legion" means and what is "embrace the PoE concept" supposed to mean? What about my criticisms suggests I'm not "embracing the PoE concept?" Might help to criticize my criticisms directly instead of making vague ambiguous statements like that. *facepalm* To say that your complaints were "legion" in the context above is to say that your complaints were many. Jeez. There's nothing ambiguous about saying that one's complaints are legion. As for embracing the PoE concept, you're on your own on that one. I don't exactly know what the "PoE concept" is, or at least what Gromnir thinks it is. what obsidian stated the paladin role is 'posed to be, not Gromnir. we keep linking obsidian pov, but few read. those few who do read tend to either ignore or imagine that the obsidian goals for the the class is irrelevant. ... am not gonna link again. HA! Good Fun!

don't read too much into it. bad reviews often inspire such reactions. also, the codex is tending to be extreme in ways more than merely their reactionary gaming pretensions. generating controversy is kinda a goal for codex as somehow that is a validation o' their existence. *shrug* also, please note that there has been, for a LONG period o' poe development, a small segment o' malcontents that voiced their concerns that obsidian were doing it wrong. such folks felt increasingly marginalized as their complaints were largely ignored. a review *gasp* is an excuse to resurrect the mouldering corpse o' long dead arguments. a review, oddly enough, is also taken by some as proof that marginalized were right when they complained even though all we got is a review by a random guy. as we noted in our first post in this thread, we don't get the fuss regarding reviews, particularly for games we has already purchased and played our self. HA! Good Fun!

the ability to leisurely explore the game world and complete non critical path quets in whatever order you desire makes the kinda pacing you enjoyed during the intro impossible to maintain. HA! Good Fun!

it's a welsh circumflex, no? shouldn't be too hard to track down the alt code for such... even without the aid o' a wizard. HA! Good Fun!

typically we do not purchase games until they have been available for at least six months. such a wait affords us a chance to buy a game cheaper and get a more stable offering. poe, as a kickstarter, had us pay years in advance, so it don't get our traditional wait-and-see approach. nevertheless, am gonna wait to review poe until after 1.05 as that is 'posed to be an expansive patch that alters many features in ways great and small. HA! Good Fun!

Why in the world would you bring up "unforeseeable immunities and defenses", when discussing trolls in the IE games? ... slow it is. *washes hands* HA! Good Fun! Just as I thought. You have no answer. it's a luckman quote about trolls in an ie game that Gromnir responded to. enough. is too hard helping you. perhaps you are related to vol? that could explain. HA! Good Fun!

I don't even know what "and legion" means and what is "embrace the PoE concept" supposed to mean? What about my criticisms suggests I'm not "embracing the PoE concept?" Might help to criticize my criticisms directly instead of making vague ambiguous statements like that. *groan* is the same freaking situation as maddem, and is the same thing eub complains 'bout but he contributed to. go back and read our previous criticisms o' your misguided paladin rant(s). HA! Good Fun!