Gromnir

paladins have (had) a role and that role is that they are low management support characters with excellent defensive qualities. obsidian did not envision that paladins would contribute much to the damage potential o' a party via their melee (or ranged) attacks. smite is a minimal concession to the fanbase demand for more direct combat efficacy from the paladin. sadly, the more smite is improved, the further we go astray from the new and intriguing obsidian vision for the paladin. improve auras and other support abilities o' the paladin makes sense. improve defensive qualities o' the paladin makes sense. improve smite? our opinion o' paladins started off as less than positive, but as o' 480, paladins are excellent in support, and they extreme durable. am disappointed by the apparent need to make the poe paladin, which is an impressive and intriguing class, into something with more damage potential. am all in favor o' adding to paladin catalog o' abilities, but we woulda' rather seen more diversity o' their support and defensive qualities as 'posed to giving them smite or smite 2.0. HA! Good Fun!

gonna need more input. do you prefer high maintenance or low maintenance characters? is a few classes that is excellent, but they require a great deal of micromanagement. do you have preferences about melee combat? perhaps you like to see your character in full-plate and swinging an anime style weapon o' impossible size? is three extreme broad groupings o' classes that the obsidians to reveal them to us. front-line/tanks is barbarians, monks and fighters. mob-rulers/cc characters were revealed to be wizards and druids.... they can do big damage, but they do it to groups more than single targets. heavy-hitters were the designation obsidian used for weapon-based characters who could, well, hit a single target hard. leader/support characters include the chanter (remote similar to a d&d bard, but not much alike) priests and paladins. ciphers, a caster class, got their own announcement, but they is having a differing role depending on who you ask on this board. they are excellent at doing damage to single targets and groups, but they are less flexible than wizards. they are kinda a sorcerer/psionicist amalgam, to use d&d vernacular. https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/66380-update-81-the-front-line-fighters-and-barbarians/ https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/63765-update-52-monk/ https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/65829-update-74-the-mob-rulers-wizards-and-druids-and-our-partnership-with-paradox/ https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/65025-update-71-the-heavy-hitters-rogues-and-rangers/ https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/66195-update-78-the-leaders-of-the-band-chanters-and-priests/ https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/64452-update-65-ciphers/ however, please note that all o' the tanky classes can do very reliable damage to enemies, as long as you build 'em the right way. paladins, can tank even though they are a support character, though the likely cannot tank as well as the three "front-line" classes. rangers don't currently work very well as the ranged-weapons-with-pet class they is s'posed to be, but there are some melee build s that work okie dokie if you look hard enough for them. also, be advised that some changes were made to many classes during the beta, so info in the links can be a little dated. *shrug* with 11 classes, each one is necessarily distinct and focused. however, particular since the beta started, the classes are flexible enough so that the notion o' the class' role is a bit misleading. you can customize to a significant degree. also, the developers worked hard to avoid the possibility o' overt bad character builds. attribute choices impact your character less in poe than in many games. the differences between weapon choices within the three broad categories o' weapons (yes, we know that is confusing) is almost incidental. choose talents after looking at excel spreadsheets til your eyes bleed, or choose 'cause a talent sounds kewl should not result in a insurmountable obstacle to success in the game. is tough to go terrible wrong. for instance, Gromnir is gonna play either a priest o' eothas or berath, or a rogue that dual-wields spears. regardless, am gonna use attribute allocations that most o' the number crunchers on the board would laugh at. in the beta, we had great success with all our intended builds, even though they ain't anywhere near optimal. so, we advise that you don't sweat the details. HA! Good Fun!

already addressed your query a few times. see our discussions when silent winter brought up the point earlier. though one wonders if the console fix for such issues is less cheating or more? is very confusing when reason and rationality is abandoned. *shrug* done. even Gromnir has a threshold for endless repetition. HA! Good Fun!

^Straw man. You don't know how to argue Gromnir. That much is obvious. Prime Junta was right. *groan* does folks think "strawman" is like abracadabra or hocus pocus? at least we see fewer claims o' ad hominem. that being said, you is getting off-topic. say something relevant. example: respec is a relative simple fix to dealing with the inevitable diminution o' player choice resulting from developer error and/or rules obscurity. is not a perfect solution, but the possibility for exploitation appears minimal. if the arguments against respec is that it feels wrong even to folks who do not use it, we remain unmoved. if the argument is that use o' respec is "cheating," we is equal unmoved. regardless, much like elerond, we see parallels. it is difficult to have a feel or proper role-play discussion without it turning into mindless repetition. there is no rebuttal for feel, when there is a lack o' empathy. HA! Good Fun!

I hate not being able to save freely. I've played plenty of games that don't allow it with no real problem in terms of difficulty, but having to wait for the save point can sometimes be a pain. That's where you get in the habit of leaving your computer on while you do other stuff because you don't want to lose progress but you have other stuff to get done. clearly you two can be dismissed as casual modern gamers. you don't count. HA! Good Fun!

You assume that your opponents here are making an "irrational feeling argument". They aren't. There are bottom line givens here. And that is what we're arguing. Given #1: RPGs are about choice and consequence. Given #2: A respec feature serves no function but to reduce or flat out remove the consequence from the equation. It's Obvious, then, why you'd want a respec feature. You're a casual modern gamer. You want choice but no consequence. You applaud games like Skyrim, where you can build a savage Nord warrior....but still be able to be the Archmage of the College, without having to start over and rebuild yourself a mage. You applaud games Like Dragon Age, where if you find a super powerful Sword with a strength requirement you don't meet, you can simply drink a potion of "we'll-bend-the-rules-for-you", so you can re-allot your stats, so you can meet the strength requirement, so you can use that sword! <gag> You're probably not going to enjoy PoE, my friend. So my advice to you would be to save yourself the "frustration" and "disgruntlement", and focus your attention and energy on.... IDK....Witcher 3? Or some other game coming out soon designed for casual modern gamers who can't stand to face down the consequences of their choices? hate skyrim and calling us a casual gamer is kinda amusing. even so, why do you care? if is an optional feature that you believe allows folks to "cheat," why do you care? don't use it. problem solved. the obsidian developers is very concerned about balance, so the notion o' being able to respec to cheat is kinda a repudiation o' their goals. even so, we agree that there will be loopholes. folks with meta knowledge will be able to use a single respec to game the game. so what? is a single respec, so you is gonna need describe an actual scenario that would 'cause serious game imbalance, particularly, as we already noted, the game is meant to offer equal juice per squeeze as it were. yeah, some guy, somewhere is gonna figure out that it is better to have high athletic skill early and high lore late. so what? a woman in kentucky may find a pivotal point in the game where she sudden needs high resolve and will alter her character to meet that attribute point check. so what? why do you care? and again, to call respec cheating is ridiculous if the player using the respec is fixing developer created problems. the developers, unintentionally o'course, is gonna cheat people outta playing the character they intended. josh recognized that the game still requires work, and changes will continue to be made, but 'cause o' obsidian errors, oversights, and simple lack o' mechanics transparency, many folks will be cheated out o' playing the character they expected to play. take a talent that doesn't work and find out 15 hours into the game that it is having an opposite effect from from what is described? how could any reasonable person suggest that respecing a character to change out that broken talent equals cheating? how on earth is changing that broken talent to one that works reasonably diminishing the choice and consequences o' gameplay? you have gone beyond the pale... again. HA! Good Fun!

I'm genuinely curious about this, though--I was actually surprised how much he emphasized community involvement, more than many of the other devs I've spoken with over the years. It seems like they pay a good deal of attention to feedback--is that not the case? *prepares to bolt if bringing this up is like leaping into the hornet's nest* --Arv http://twitch.tv/arvaneleron one of the greatest strengths of poe will also be one of its greatest weakness. josh did mention in the interview just how much impact the input the community had on the game, which should be reassuring. to know that there is a possibility that features will be changed based on some kinda community consensus, which is 'bout as rare as a unicorn in central park, results in more folks becoming invested in the game, and not just monetarily. fans already see poe as their game, which is a good thing. more than a few things has been changed in poe as a result o' fan requests, and so fans see that they has made a difference. unfortunately, that is a double-edged sword. fans can be idiots. the fact that we can be idiots in large numbers is cause for concern rather than applause. josh, in the interview, made comment about dealing with the feeling requests. sadly, more than a few o' the feeling changes arguably make the game worse rather than better. a fighter that is exceptional at simultaneous exacting and absorbing damage were a given in the ie games, so that is what the fans o' poe expected and clamored to get included into poe even though the poe fighter had a more limited role in poe. similarly, the paladin, were meant as a support character that were excellent in defense. the paladin's role were important to the developers 'cause it helped differentiate the numerous classes they created. got multiple support characters that is all good offensive and defensive and is great with melee weapons? what is point o' making multiple classes f they is all capable o' fulfilling the same role? even so, the fans wanted a poe paladin who could smite the wicked rather than one who were mere able to hold up a shield and defend against such villains and monsters. well, in response to public demand, we received a smite ability. is not that smite is bad, but it don't improve the paladin more than giving folks more o' the paladin feel they expected. wasted resources? perhaps. from the interview we could see that josh saw value in the way 4e differentiated the roles o' classes. rogues and wizards in 4e played very different, they had different roles and each class could excel in that role. unfortunately, 4e rogues didn't feel enough like 3e or ad&d rogues, and 4e wizards didn't feel enough like mordenkainen or tenser to d&d fans. the obsidians ran into the same problem with the poe community. expectations got/get in the way o' obsidian making progress, and their obstacle is the feelings o' the community. is nothing wrong with fulfilling wishes based on nothing save feel, as long as such stuff doesn't measurably impact developer notions o' balance and their ever-shrinking pool o' man-hours. add token bestiary, exploration and traps/lock xp? were easy to add, and so we got such token features included in poe. why? feel. were not a tough fix and it appeased those who wanted some kinda throwback to ie game xp awards. token xp grants didn't fundamentally alter the quest & objective xp mechanic obsidian adopted and were a cheap fix. win-win, eh? Gromir paid money to obsidian to make poe 'cause we trust that they can make a good pc crpg. at some point we gotta step back and let the folks that know what they are doing, do their work. why hire somebody if you aren't gonna trust 'em to do the actual work they were hired to do? Gromnir wants input, but if developers offer a rational and reasonable reason as to why they chose to do A instead o' B, we typical trust 'em. yeah, we want explanations and, from time to time, we will rail and moan like a little kid if we disagree, but for the most part, what we is looking for is transparency more than control. am thinking poe will be a stronger 'cause o' its transparency. at the same time, we believe that the game were somewhat diminished by the obsidian decision to actual listen to us, 'cause as we said already, we are idiots. HA! Good Fun!

on this point we agree... kinda. am not certain why some folks, when considering the damage potential o' the ranger, ignore the animal companion's damage. that is wrong. even so, is becoming obvious that the ranger don't work very well as presented. given the features o' the class, and obsidian commentary, one would expect the ranger role to be a ranged weapon "heavy-hitter." this is not a particular viable build at the moment, and there still appear to be quirks with the animal companions. HA! Good Fun!

for pj, clarification is good, but it brings us full circle. "Ah, but that's not the strawman. That's just dismissing my experience: i.e., that the very presence of respec cheapens the experience for me, whether I make use of it or not. It's the same reason I dislike broken mechanics which lead to easy but boring exploits. This may not bother you, but it bothers me, which is why I'm arguing against it." see, we was ascribing rationality to your argument. you spoke o' choice and consequences being vital. as an optional feature, there is no way you need be concerned with choices and consequences "The very presence of a respec in the game trivializes the character-building choices up to that point, and therefore greatly detracts from the experience for players who consider choice and consequence crucial to the computer role-playing game experience." you were speaking for players and not only yourself. the problem isn't strawman, but your endemic inability to express yourself... which we will return to in a bit. but again, if you is gonna retreat and make this a touchy-feely thing wherein you is claiming that mere presence o' a feature you never intend to use somehow cheapens your gameplay experience, then we is more than happy at the admission, 'cause you ain't using logic at all and any complaint about logic fallacies is complete pointless. "Thing is, those choices and consequences are every bit as central to my experience as role-playing choices and consequences. It's the other side of the coin: the impact I've had on the world, and the character I've become." claiming we misrepresented you is gonna be tough. you may have meant something far different than what you said, but the impact your choices "had" on the world would not be altered at all by respec, and as noted, the only way respec alters your character is if you use the option. but again, we got admission that this is a somewhat irrational and gut-level rejection o' the mere presence o' an optional respec feature. stun similar shows true colors by revealing that he sees as cheating. regardless, is no way to fight an irrational "feeling" argument, which woulda' saved everybody much effort if you had simple admitted. nevertheless, you did finally come around and so am guessing that is a testament to... something. http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/71211-can-you-respec/?p=1587948 quizhang said better than pj and saved much time and effort. we didn't respond to his post either 'cause, well, is no arguing feeling. learn to use your words. HA! Good Fun!

oddly enough, many o' the ranger 3.5 improvements were available much earlier. sure, they weren't official wotc, but given that d20 were ogl that were kinda irrelevant. monte cook, a guy who had worked on d&d 3e, came up with a ranger alternative. 3.0 were 2000. monte cook' released revised ranger earlyish (maybe) in 2001. 3.5 weren't released til 2003. yeah, crpgs is different. am understanding that it takes more for obsidian to make wholesale changes to a poe class than it does for a pnp gm to do something similar. given all the re-balancing and bug fixing that will inevitably require obsidian attention in the coming months, one realizes that there will be a need to allocate resources efficiently, and a substantial re-tool o' the ranger seems unlikely given what one must assume is gonna be an otherwise full workload for the developer. even so, the ranger is currently the one class we got 0 interest in playing, and that is unfortunate. it is the one class we feel is bordering on being broken. we would hope that improvements to the ranger would be a high priority, even if we can't get a monte cook kinda fix in the near future. ... monte cook's ranger may actual be a verboten subject on these boards given the iwd2 issues. HA! Good Fun!

Annnd, there it is again, that strawman. Just can't bear to let it go, can you? You really have lost this debate, haven't you? Weren't you quite supportive of Josh's attempts at eliminating most broken game mechanics resulting in easy but dull exploits? You do realize that "don't use it" is the lazy (and invalid) counter-"argument" against that too. Rest-spamming? "Don't use it." Etc. As to the "but the bugs!" argument, we already addressed that. Bugs should be addressed by patches, and, as an ultimate last resort, the console, not by adding features that make the game worse. Thing is, those choices and consequences are every bit as central to my experience as role-playing choices and consequences. It's the other side of the coin: the impact I've had on the world, and the character I've become. Weak, Gromz. Weak. 1) you clear don't know what strawman is. 2)huh? first, there is no strawman in pointing out that if an OPTIONAL feature destroys your notion o' choice and consequences, you need not use that feature. am not sure what previous non-existent argument Gromnir created and then destroyed as is contained in your quoted material. regardless, it is axiomatic that an optional feature need not be used. duh. as for the second bit o nonsense, we say again, "huh?" you make no sense. respec would not alter any o' the ways in which you impacted the world before the respec. none o' your choices is changed. one motivation for folks to restart a new character instead o' respec is to actual go back to square one and play the game more in-line with how they imagined their character would impact the game world. a shortcoming o' respec, for some folks, is that in spite o' developer error, a player is stuck with all the consequences o' his choices before the respec. nevertheless, is a balancing decision. with respec in the game, a player gotta decide if fixing her character and moving forward is better than restarting-- such a choice is necessitated by the fact that respec does Not alter the choices and consequences o' choices made Before the respec. again, duh. so, pj has now learned that respec is an optional feature, and hopefully that his understanding o' strawman is flawed. hopefully he has also learned that choices and consequences from before the respec is unaltered, in spite o' the fact that many such choices and consequences are not what the player reasonably envisioned when he created his character. because o' bugs, ambiguous feature descriptions and changes to the game after patches, a player may discover after only many hours o' gameplay that their choices were perverted, albeit unintentionally, by developer error. stun's doozies o' the day: "And yet, you have advocated that the mere presence of bugs is reason enough to not even buy this game until a year from now." yes. precisely because bugs is inevitable, it is in a person's best interest to wait six months to a year before playing new software. we has also noted price drops as a reason for waiting. near the end o' one o' josh's recent streaming videos, he noted that his recent play o' the game on hard showed him that many things in the game is still not working correct. he also noted that balancing efforts would be continuing for the foreseeable future. josh knows that stuff will need fixing. for folks who have not bought the game through kickstarter, wait is the best plan. but again, your slippery-slope nonsense has u adding no features to the game 'cause o' fear o' bugs, and that is ridiculous. any feature can be bugged, and is naive and myopic to believe that poe will be bug-free. can respec be bugged? sure, but as an optional feature, the absolute worst that can happen is that it don't work and the player is in the same situation as they woulda' been without respec... so they needs start-over, wait for the next patch, or endure. is actual kinda a no-brainer. "I'm truly sorry for trying to rain on your optimism, but I have bad news for you. A respec feature will not fix broken talent descriptions - painlessly or otherwise. It might, however, allow you to replace one broken talent with another. So rejoice in that! " yeah. that is precisely the point. again, duh. what is with you and pj? *shrug* respec will not fix the broken talent. however, if the player knew the talent were broken, would they have chosen it? a significant % o' folks woulda' chosen different. respec fixes a wrong and returns meaning to the player choice. a choice that would never have been made save for unforeseen developer error can be corrected without needing wait for a patch, restart the game or endure. am baffled by you two. you say ridiculous, and Gromnir is then forced to do nothing save repeat. however, we do note that pj echoes silent winter's observations about the cost v. benefit o' adding such a feature. is nothing insightful seeing as how silent already addressed the issue. 'course Gromnir already replied... so once again we would be repeating self. *shrug* there can be considerable frustration from playing a broke character, from having your character development choices subverted by misleading feature descriptions and hidden aspects o' the mechanics and from simple bugs. am not genuine knowing what is the cost o' adding such a feature, but am certain that the cost to players who suffer frustration is high. pj pointed out to us just how vital choice and consequences is to him, and many folks feel similar-- user error should not invalidate player choice. respec is an imperfect fix for what even josh seems to recognize is the inevitable incomplete nature o' poe at release. HA! Good Fun!

You really love this strawman, don't you? Just can't bear to let it go. So much easier to address than the actual argument. Which is, if I may remind you: "The very presence of a respec in the game trivializes the character-building choices up to that point, and therefore greatly detracts from the experience for players who consider choice and consequence crucial to the computer role-playing game experience." Nothing to do with "upright and pure role-players o' justice," or caring the least bit how somebody else plays the game. Keep going though, you're quite entertaining, especially with the memes and the videos. I guess they work in the courtroom too, "if the glove don't fit, you must acquit" Chewbacca defense and all. am thinking you don't know strawman any better than stun believes he does. but if that is the actual rock upon which you wish to reject a possible respec, that the mere presence o' respec, whether used or not offends, we is happy to oblige. fine. the dangers obsidian needs concern themselves regarding respec is not as has been mentioned in this and other threads that respec can be used to game the game , but rather that, "The very presence of a respec in the game trivializes the character-building choices up to that point, and therefore greatly detracts from the experience for players who consider choice and consequence crucial to the computer role-playing game experience." *chuckle* don't use it. can your game be trivialized by the fact that Gromnir or fenwick or any other player used respec? you are speaking utter nonsense. and we already addressed this point regardless: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/71211-can-you-respec/?p=1586759 you have the problem reversed. developer errors in the form o' bugs and ambiguities is what, "detracts from the experience for players who consider choice and consequence crucial to the computer role-playing game experience." when factors complete out of our control, such as poor written talent descriptions and bugs, invalidate our choices, there should be a way relative painless way to fix the wrong that otherwise made mockery o' those choices. so, stand up for CRPG Justice and demand that developer error should never be an excuse for robbing you o' the meaning o' your crucial choices. HA! you and stun, what a pair? "I'll ask again. How are you coming to the conclusion that a game with broken build mechanics won't also have an equally broken respec mechanic?" nominee for dumbest response o' the day? the mere possibility that a fix or feature could be buggy is hardly a reason to avoid adding a feature. am certain if you genuine reflect for even a few seconds you will realize the utter ridiculousness o' the slippery-slope bound suggestion. HA! Good Fun! ps pj we also forgot to mention pj's obvious naughty. respec, by its very nature, leaves most choices and consequences resulting from player actions and dialogue untouched. skip the fight with Bert the Bucolic, but got labeled as a coward in Kustak Village? respec don't change that. is only the future consequences and choices resulting from altered character-building choices that is gonna be impacted... which is kinda the point.

sure it were insulting. it were a joke. bestiary and exploration and lock and trap xp as implemented is little more than a kinda laugh at the folks demanding such. is the minimum somebody at obsidian thought would be enough to quiet the kill xp folks. the extraordinary thing is, it kinda worked. woody walked out o' ms. howe's office with a smile on his face? is no wonder that new folks to the board and beta is still starting combat xp threads. the folks who didn't buy-in to bestiary recognize that it ain't kill xp, not by a long shot. HA! Good Fun!

... you honestly consider the bestiary to be developer implementation o' what folks were demanding when they asked for combat xp? HA! HAAHHHAAAAHHHHHAAAAAA! you are more amusing or dumber than we thought. ok, that were funny. HA! Good Fun! ps surprised we got to use again... woody. pps since you misunderstood, the imagined dangers we reference is the potential exploitation issues caused by respec. yes, the level o' frustration from playing a broken character is disturbingly likely. what is not significant is the damage a player could do to balance o' the game with a single respec. am not certain why you thought that an unsatisfying respec would amount to a danger, but we apologize for the ambiguity regardless.

we were gonna argue, but you is at least mostly correct. particularly in the last few decades, college basketball has become increasing poor. am suspecting that for most players, college basketball is little more than an extension o' aau/summer leagues. coaches need cater to the players. can watch similar quality o' basketball in gyms and in parks in nyc and chicago and la and all throughout the atlantic coast region. however, we haven't been a particular dedicated basketball fan since the mid 90s. the game don't appeal to us as it once did. HA! Good Fun!

You forgot one. For players who won't be happy until PoE resembles Diablo 3 or Dragon Age inquisition, there's the door -----> funny. for some reason we were just reminded o' some your combat xp protests and other appeals. wonder why, eh? and yes, we suspect that more than a few folks will discover that a single respec is insufficient. even so, the imagined dangers o' a single respec is very slight and the benefits to the inevitably frustrated players, players frustrated through no fault o' their own in many cases, are significant. it's a sp game, so why folks care if others respec is beyond us, but we do understand developer concerns that excessive respec could be exploited to ruin game balance. Gromnir were not pretending a perfect solution that would make everybody happy... is not some kinda modern fairy tale or cheesy anime scenario. a world where nobody has to cry? *snort* folks will be disappointed regardless. however, respec would significantly alleviate frustration and would decrease some o' the inevitable displeasure folks will vent at the developers while they needs wait for obsidian's next patch, or the patch after that, or the one after that. HA! Good Fun!

stun enjoys proving our point. Gromnir: a stun: "after reading (Gromnir's) incessant blatherings, that PoE wasn't a game, so much as a giant mass of broken code trying to pass for a game. Gromnir: A am not certain what is the motivation for being so transparent obtuse. you insisting on telling us what we said and purposeful doing wrong is not nearly as amusing or efficacious as you seem to believe. also, what we will do in absence o' respec is proving our point. we already said what were our options, many times now. is where we pointed out that you have no idea what is false dilemma fallacy, recall? we also noted that depending on the severity o' brokenness o' a character, we would choose different options and that our notion o' broken would be different from many other folks. regardless, we assume that if we genuine is faced with a broken character, a disturbingly likely eventuality, we will need deal with some degree o' wholly unnecessary frustration. but again, here we is repeating self. "eat rude brains." "I just don't really see a large negative to restarting to create a new character and having no respec." is perfectly acceptable. everybody likes different. some folks don't mind restarting after dozens o' hours o' time invested. other folks, understandably, feel frustrated that rules mechanics ambiguities or bugs invalidated a character concept. is perfectly fine to have different pov. respec is completely unnecessary for amentep, yes? no problem. amentep wouldn't ever need use such a feature, so no harm done. HA! Good Fun!

poe is a game. just an observation in case it went unnoticed. HA! Good Fun!

agreed. in point o' fact, we see much merit in the profeshnul reviewers doing at least some minimum testing on an approximate minimum spec machine to see how games perform on such rigs. ... 'course, we don't actual bother to read game reviews, so perhaps we is not the ideal commentator. that being said, likely the only aspects o' reviews that would interest us is whether game X can run on Y rig and other pure technical and objective observations. HA! Good Fun!

change settings and reload is hardly the same as having a live gm... ain't even similar. thank goodness. and am not sure what you think "from a relevance standpoint" actual means, unless you is trying to say that pj were claiming that his tailoring o' encounters and house rules were genuine equivalent to settings and reload... which would be ridiculous. *shrug* discuss with pj and stun invariably becomes a vaudeville act. Gromnir: a pj and stun: Gromnir said, "b." Gromnir: a pj and stun: Gromnir meant c. Gromnir: A pj and stun: ... is a dead end. and yes, we get the irony o' Gromnir playing the straight man in this little comedy bit. even so, all we gets to do is repeat self. HA! Good Fun! ps "Not a big fan of respecing (I usually just restart the game if not happy with my choices and create a new character from scratch)." that, in our estimation, is exact why a single respec is warranted. particularly in the case where is developer errors that ruin a character concept (e.g. dragon age :origin archers) the expedient o' starting from scratch, after potential dozens o' hours o' invested gameplay, is not a solution we embrace cheerfully. weren't Gromnir's mistake, but if we wanna fix we gotta replay potential dozens o' hours, wait for a patch (weeks or months) which might fix the problem, or endure. additional, we look at bb and the confusion 'bout rules mechanics from people who has posted here daily for months and we cannot help but think that more than a few folks who is less invested in poe is gonna be mighty confused by how poorly their character concept actual performs. they read descriptions and invested points reasonable and their character still sux? what possible harm? is a single respec. for folks who believes their character is genuine broken, a respec would, we suspect, be quite welcome. for the folks who somehow manage to find a way to abuse a single respec in a game that is s'posed to be balanced, so what? is a sp game, no? if some joker, who likely needs meta knowledge, finds a way to game the game with a single respec, why should we care? for the upright and pure role-players o' justice who would never use such a filthy feature, respec should be no concern at all, yes?

pj and reply/bs pnp is not irrelevant. your 30 years never respecing players in pnp is irrelevant precisely 'cause you got a live gm to tailor encounters and create house rules. is a reading comprehension issue we s'pose. can't get any further if that is how you start. "Wait... Ok, let me see if I can sum up your argument here." you are as predictable as pj... and as hypocritical. don't sum up. you did that in the romance thread too. didn't turn out well for you then either. HA! Good Fun!

bg combat was horrible. ps:t weren't noticeably better in our estimation. however, as much as we is loathe to admit it, there were a few bg encounters (typical the party v. party battles) that were genuine engaging. ps:t didn't have anything similar. the cranium rats coulda' been fantastic, but they were kinda a let down. coulda had interesting tactics dealing with an enemy that gains/loses power with numbers. have rats seeming flooding into a room as you is trying to keep numbers below threshold where they could incinerate your party? oh well. 'course is ultimately subjective. HA! Good Fun!

Good god. What a presumptuous load of wash. For one, Speak for yourself. Bad/broken builds don't frustrate me, they do the opposite. They challenge me. In PoE, if my fighter isn't 'tanky' enough because I managed to build him wrong or whatever, I'll *will* him to be more tanky...with actual gameplay. I'll scour the game for better armor. I'll pick 'tanky' talents on my next 6 level ups. I'll enchant my gear with 'tanky' enchantments. I'll recruit spell casters who can cast 'tanky buffs" on me. etc. I'm not a weak-minded ADD suffering casual. I don't need a reset button on my RPGs, like you do. what is your problem. we specific addressed this already by noting how subjective brokenness is. it ain't for Gromnir or stun to decide. "our definition o' broken is necessarily subjective. is many character builds we would be content to play even though the rules descriptions don't match the actual gameplay resulting in a disconnect between our role-play choices and the actual character we end up with in poe. our level o' tolerance for such will be different than many other folks. why should we get to decide what is the threshold for broken? why should stun? poe is a single-player game. the goal is for the player to have fun. if the character they is playing ain't fun 'cause o' bugs or poor written descriptions or simple error, why should such folks be forced to replay some potential substantial portion o' the game when respec would be a simple solution?" am freaking stuck repeating self to stun... what a waste. "@Gromnir, I wasn't ranting against you, and I agree with you, that a bad experience as a result of bugs, which cannot simply be adjusted is a serious problem. I do find respec a fix for that. But if they release a game, where they feel it's necessary to put a mechanic in like that, just to deal with buggy content, then the game got bigger problems than bad builds in my opinion." dunno. it seems to be par for the course in our experience. am not able to recall the last crpg we played that didn't have a few major mechanical bugs that were only fixed after a patch that came at least weeks (and more likely months) following the release. wasteland 2 is a recent example. all one needs do is look at the patch notes to see the extent o'' the mechanics blunders that were still being fixed months following release o' wasteland 2. and let's be honest for a sec, obsidian/bis has a rather unfortunate reputation when it comes to stability and bugs in their game releases. that being said, am not seeing a buggy release as a particular problem-- is simply a given. we expect that in a few months, poe will be relatively stable and most major rules mechanics bugs will be eliminated. that doesn't bother us, but we ain't pretending that this release will be different from all other obsidian/bis releases. HA! Good Fun! ps and one need not look very hard in the bb section o' the board to see the numerous folks who is confused about the current rules mechanics in poe. descriptions frequent don't match actual performance or is outdated or is seeming plain wrong. some people who follow these boards daily and have beta experience are unsure about how various mechanics actual work. near as bad as bugs is the seeming impenetrable nature o' poe mechanics. is tough to reasonably punish players for their $#@% choices if those players is not having genuine knowledge o' what they is choosing.

it is, in some ways, an amazingly poor game. combat encounters is having little variation or complexity. many folks familiar with the other ie games would no doubt be shocked by just how poorly the ps:t engaged the player. the game is woeful unbalanced in favor o' mages and a handful o' abilities-- we won't spoil as to which abilities is seeming vital. more than a few women players complained about having to play as a male quasi-corpse, and while we don't/didn't share those sentiments we get that the choice o' protagonist unduly disenfranchised a significant number o' players. as much as we liked the game and the writing, there were a bit o' excessive navel gazing (even for the setting) and the philosophy-for-dummies approach were frequently annoying to us. the game were extreme buggy, even by bis standards. the memory-leak issues were requiring complete restarts after multi-hour gaming sessions. there were more broken quests than we could count. also, and we know many will disagree, but we thought ps:t were the start o' a long succession o' games that ended poorly and/or abruptly. not wanna spoil, but the actual final confrontation were meh. is actual our favorite pc crpg. however, we recognize that ps:t had many amazing flaws. HA! Good Fun!

They're not forced to do any such thing. Hell, forget False Dilemma, this is a straw man. you should stick with false dilemma. honest. you clear don't know straw man. we has observed that the frustrated and disgruntled player has option o' waiting for patches (weeks and months o' waiting) that frequently break the game in new ways, OR they can finish game with the character that they find frustrating OR they can start over. we asked for alternatives. is not a false dilemma unless we offer disingenuous alternatives and force a choice. so, come up with the alternatives we missed. respec is an alternative. as for da:i endless respec... ... thought we made clear that we were suggesting a single respec. am admitting we ain't played da:i, but "endless" sounds like more than one. "Players should be forced to live with their ****ty choices or start the whole game over. Games should not be discouraging, but respec and all the other hand holding features in games are unhealthy for the player. If you want to build a character and just choose ****ty stuff, because you won't bother to research what you're doing, you need to be punished for it. You feel no satisfaction, if you get it easy" am not wholly in agreement, but for the most part, we ain't actual arguing with you. we keep mentioning bugs and poor written talent descriptions as prime reasons for respec. even if you believe that the player should be given the wonderfully stark alternative between restart and endurance, that don't change the fact that frequent what makes the player choice $% is developer error. am not seeing why players need be punished, but if they do, surely they should not be punished for developer mistakes. that strikes us as more than just a bit unfair. HA! Good Fun!