remiel005

I LOVE the ideas they are doing with class design. However, I think they've caused further divides between classes. Non-caster classes are now forced to pick between abilities they already had rather than making meaningful build choices while spell-casters have increased talents on top of all the spells they already had. If this is to be viable, then the non-caster classes need a much larger selection of abilities to choose from and the capacity to select more on level up (the BB characters are still designed with all their abilities). The talents could be sorted a little neater with some categorization. Showing talents that are currently locked out and giving their pre-requisites would be nice so we can make intentional character build decisions. /encounter vs /rest vs renewable resource classes have done nothing to come into balance. I am left still spamming /encounter abilities in order to use them up before battle is over. I love that the skill system was dissolved into talents. Now players have to make discerning choices for a simple skill system rather than point dumping. I think this would be a good route to go for a lot of role playing games - both video and pnp, when a highly complex system is not going to be implemented. Naked hearth orlan rogues with dual stilettos still do insane damage and never seem to pull aggro while they run around the battle field backstabbing everything to death in one or two hits.

I like grazes in two areas. One it allows ability usage to still be potentially viable on tougher enemies, just with shorter duration. It works out well for some spells since the game uses a defense system over a save system - so there is no 'half damage on save' built in otherwise.

I liked some of the changes I have seen so far. Nice not to have two dump stats and feel like I'm cheating some characters by taking negatives. While the game plays better over all, I've had some stability issues I wasn't encountering in the previous build. I'm not real impressed with the additional talent options or their frequency - this is being discussed in other threads, but I'd like to see class talents and general talents separated. General talents being gradual changes you can make to shift your character's focus and class talents less frequent but having a large impact on class abilities and function (doesn't help that there are no numerical values shown with the new talents). Went from hating rogues to building one that was insanely powerful. Orlan rogue with the crit bonus, maxed out perception and dexterity and did dual stilettos with no armor. Throw in a paladin adventurer with the hit-to-crit bonus to the aura and I was hitting with critical sneak attacks almost every time by just taking a few seconds to position - 20-50 damage less than a second apart - no one could match that and I cleared most of the encounters without using any other class' abilities. On the flip side I feel like the barbarian changes either nerfed the class pretty badly or they aren't shaping up as well as the others. Would still like to see significant changes in at least the fighter/wizard classes so they are reflective of more diverse builds. I discussed this further on the General Class Thread.

I don't know where the designers are going on this or what others have suggested, but here are a few ideas I had for health/stamina. Stamina doesn't automatically regenerate after combat. Instead there is a short-term rest (like a 5 minute breather) where stamina restores and /encounter abilities recharge. This would allow for better management of barbarians specifically, since they do increased damage at lower stamina. The stamina to health ratios also influence whether or not damage is applied to health. So most characters must take 4 damage or any multiple of(rounded down) converted to health damage. For a barbarian it would need to be damage by multiple of 8s. So a fighter grazed for 3 points of stamina would receive no wounds, more of a winding experience, but a crit for 43 points of damage would cause 10 health loss. Effects like poison, deep wounds or monk wounds could then tick more frequently at lower values and not significantly hurt adventuring day longevity, while still affecting the flow of combat. Allow healing spells to bring people back from being knocked unconscious. Healing in the game already seems slightly counter-intuitive with the system, don't see why healing classes can't have some specialty in combat.

Proposed Fighter Changes I’m approaching this by making a fighter that is more of a classical build than a niche build defender type. My goal is to keep the defense options still there and as a key role to playing them effectively. The main motivation behind the change is that the AI re-design that has been discussed will make the fighter’s current play design even more boring and bland. This design still keeps the fighter relatively low maintenance but makes it so there is a point to have more than one in the party besides having a solid front line. All number values and names(especially) are adjustable – trying to prove a point in the design rather than making something I would expect to see in game. Level 1 Knockdown – functions very similar, allows for weapon range so reach weapons aren’t reduced in build viability Constant Recovery – functions as is Defend Modal - +10 deflection Assail Modal – x1.25 damage Level 2 Vigorous Defense – functions as is Inescapable Modal – +2 engagements Long-arm Modal – +0.5 reach By level 2 the fighter would be able to change combat roles in battle four different ways. Defend for 1v1 combat (maybe a heavy hitter like the ogre), Assail for when they aren’t the targets of attacks or need to dispatch things quickly, Inescapable for dealing with containing larger groups and Long-arm for when they are wounded( or maybe taking back seat to a monk). Level 3 Armored Grace – functions as is Weapon Specialization – functions as is Level 4 Disrupt Modal – +25% interrupt Versatile Defense Modal – +5 to Fort/Refl/Will Level 5 Unbending Advanced Modals – Allows for 2 simultaneous modals Weapons would serve a two-fold purpose with this design: 1) The different damage types would influence weapon type 2) Weapon speed would work better with some modals. Examples: A 5th level fighter wants to hit the enemy party’s chanter. The chanter has summoned several pets and is continuing to try to do so. The fighter equips two stilettos and uses the Long-arm and Disrupt modals to strike past the summoned creatures and hit the chanter. The chanter dies and the rest of the enemy party want revenge so they focus fire the fighter. The fighter switches to a sword and shield and the Defend and Versatile Defense modals to keep alive while the rest of the party does the damage. A 3rd level fighter is being attacked by a swarm of spiders. He has a pike equipped and uses the Inescapable modal to damage them with engagement attacks as they come in. After many of them are dispatched the rest close in so the fighter switches to double axe and the Assail modal to kill them as quickly as possible before they can affect the fighter with their deadly poison.

I think a way of dealing with repetitive and often non-strategic use of /encounter abilities is to have them all share a common pool. This would mean you earn /encounter universal uses when you level up, rather than for a specific ability. At a level 8 a fighter would have 3/encounter uses between knockdown and vigorous defense. The fighter can use knockdown 2 times and vigorous defense 1 time or any combination of the two (or any other /encounter abilities they earn).

Wizard Rework-up Premise for changes – wizards are currently built around a spectrum of damage spells with some utility built in for as-needed occurrences. As a whole, many of the utility spells are significantly under powered compared to their damage counterparts, other class abilities and the fact they are all /rest abilities. Even other /rest casters are provided with all of their spells by level, further trumping the wizards utilization of spells. These changes keep a large emphasis on the damage spells since this appeared to be their core development, but the spectrum has been broadened. /encounter abilities are sorted out from level one and made so that they are roughly based on power (some number arranging would need to be done, I’m sure). Wizards will still need some reliance on auto-attacking, but this allows them more longevity overall. My approach to damage is the greater the risk involved in the attack, the greater the reward. A spell geared for long range, especially long ranged aoe, should not equal close range (especially touch) in damage or additional effects. Also /encounter spells are designed at every level to meet a certain standard, whereas /rest ones are more fluid or rotate. Some alternatives I provide will bleed over into other class mechanics, but aren’t meant to overpower them (which is why de-buffs are limited <cipher> and group buffs/summons <chanter> are also). The self-buffs are geared in a variety of ways now, so that a wizard could deal higher damage through them, allowing for broader play styles. No idea how the different grimoires would fit into this build outside you can collect enemy ones to get spells, as you currently can. /encounter spells would still be selected on a group of 4 basis to keep them similar. Arcane Veil can still remain as is, but I would recommend be highly modifiable through talents, e.g. damages enemies who try to attack them, boosts all defenses. Essentially, if I had to ask myself ‘why would I actually cast this?’ I dropped it down to a /encounter ability or retooled it. Also, assume buffs only affect party members and everything else affects friend and foe unless otherwise noted (or a centered aoe, which exempts the caster). All spells not based on one currently in the game marked in red. I tried to make everything listed based on fit and as consistent labeling as possible. My minor/medium/heavy damage based on /encounter being weaker than /rest and scales by spell level Spell Level 1 2 /encounter abilities (+1 at character level 2 and 4) – one per encounter (+1 use at character level 5) 3 /rest abilities (+1 at character level 2, 3 and 5)– 2 spell slots (+1 at level 3, +1 at level 6) List of /encounter spells with rough stats Damage Spells /encounter Close-range damage: Sunless Grasp – Medium cast, medium frost damage, -5% speed for 10 seconds Mid-range damage: Lesser fan of flames – Medium cast, medium flame damage, smaller cone Long-range damage: Veil Thrust – Fast cast, minor damage, +50% interrupt Defense Spells /encounter Quick Defense: Wizard’s Double – Fast cast, self only, absorbs next HIT and disappears(remains on GRAZE/MISS, only absorbs half of CRIT) Quick Tactical: Fleet Foot – Fast cast, self only, 5 sec, x2 speed, +20 def engagement attacks Buff Spells /encounter Short Offensive Buff: Eldritch Aim – Fast cast, bonuses as is Summoned Weapon: Lesser Parasitic staff – Slow cast, as is but base 1min De-buff: Dazzling Lights – Medium cast, as is, but cone based List of /rest spells with rough stats Damage Spells /rest Close-range damage: Jolt Touch – Medium cast, heavy shock damage, stun 5 sec Mid-range damage: Fan of flames – Medium cast, heavy fire damage, large cone Long Range damage: Minor Missiles – Fast cast, medium crushing damage, 3 missiles, +10% interrupt Centered AoE damage: Ghost Blades – Fast cast, full circle around caster, heavy piercing damage Targetable AoE damage: Chill Fog – Slow cast, long range, mid-size aoe with speed de-buff and 10 sec duration Defense Spells /rest Long term self: Spirit Shield, Slow cast, lasts 1 game day +5 dt, +10 concentration Large area tactical: Dust cloud – Fast cast, aoe centered on caster, gives everyone in the area +50 deflect to engagement hits, lasts 5 seconds Buff Spells /rest Group offense buff: Battle Momentum – Fast cast, large aoe, +1% CRIT range after every successful HIT, 30 sec duration Group de-buff: Slicken – Fast cast, medium aoe, chance on knockdown ticks every 3 seconds, but knockdown only 2 secs (in attempt to mimic someone trying to navigate standing/falling on ice) Single de-buff: Atrophy – Slow cast, medium penalty to might/con/dex, 1 min duration Spell Level 2 2 /encounter abilities (+1 at character level 4 and 6) – one per encounter (+1 use at character level 8 ) 3 /rest abilities (+1 at character level 4, 5 and 6)– 2 spell slots (+1 at level 5, +1 at level 8 ) List of /encounter spells with rough stats Damage Spells /encounter Close-range damage: Corrosive siphon – Slow cast, medium corrosion damage and minor splash damage to enemies within 1m – caster heals stamina for half damage dealt Mid-range damage: Rolling flame – Slow cast, long range, medium damage, does less damage the further it is from the caster Long-range damage: Necrotic Lance – Fast cast, long range, medium damage in straight line between caster and target Defense Spells /encounter Quick Defense: Mirrored Image – as wizard’s double, but 3 duplicates Quick Tactical: Vitality – Fast cast, wizard’s stamina (current and max) x2 for 10 seconds Buff Spells /encounter Short Offensive: Phantom Strikes- Slow cast, ignores 5 dt of any enemies for 15 seconds Summoned Weapon: Lesser Repeating Hand Cannon – Slow cast, does 50% crush, 50% pierce(does damage like the strongest gun, but with fast speed), 1 min duration De-buff: Bewilder – Medium cast, medium range, 15 sec confusion on one target List of /rest spells with rough stats Damage Spells /rest Close-range damage: Wrathful Diffusion – Medium cast, strips enemy of one beneficial effect and does heavy raw damage Mid-range damage: Fire Ray – Medium cast, beam does minor fire damage between caster and target, lasts for 5 seconds, with damage applied again every second. Long Range damage: Blinding Flash – Fast cast, medium piercing damage with a chance to blind Centered AoE damage: Stench of death – Fast cast, miasmic aoe from caster, minor damage with effect of paralysis for 5 seconds and/or sickened for 30 seconds Targetable AoE damage: Bewildering Blast – Medium cast, long range, large aoe, does medium crushing damage with a chance to confuse enemies Defense Spells /rest Long term self: Elemental Bulwark – Slow cast, +5 dt to all elemental damage for game day Lang term individual party member: Impervious – Fast cast, +5 defense against all status effects for game day Buff Spells /rest Group offense buff: Merciless Gaze – Fast cast, medium range, large aoe, 10% HITs to CRITs, 1 min duration Group de-buff: Web – Fast cast, long range, medium aoe, everyone in area slowed, stuck effect chance ticks every 3 seconds, enemies receive -5 to fire dt while in area, 30 sec duration Aoe centered de-buff: Combustible Wounds – Fast cast, flame damage, damage based on % of remaining life, centered on caster Single de-buff: Dull mind – Slow cast, medium penalty to per/int/res, 1 min duration Spell Level 3 2 /encounter abilities (+1 at character level 6 and 8 )– one per encounter (+1 use at character level 7) 3 /rest abilities (+1 at character level 6, 7 and 9)– 2 spell slots (+1 at level 7, +1 at level 9) List of /encounter spells with rough stats Damage Spells /encounter Close-range damage: Exposing strike – Fast cast, minor damage, but target takes -5 penalty to all defenses for 30 seconds Mid-range damage: Repulsive visage – Medium cast, cone from caster minor damage and leaves targets frightened Long-range damage: Minor blight – Slow cast, random elemental damage ranged attack in place of regular attack for 30 seconds, lost when changing weapons +10 accuracy Defense Spells /encounter Quick Defense: Displace – Fast cast, 50% HITs to GRAZEs for 15 seconds Quick Tactical: Swap – Fast cast, caster and selected party member switch places Buff Spells /encounter Short Offensive: Alacrity – Fast cast, self-buff, 25% speed boost for 15 seconds Summoned Weapon: Parasitic staff – as the lesser version, but has a chance to heal stamina for everyone in the party De-buff: Slow – Fast cast, single target, 25% speed penalty for 15 seconds List of /rest spells with rough stats Damage Spells /rest Close-range damage: Draining Touch – Fast cast, applies a dot to target that heals the caster for the amount of damage dealt, 30 sec duration, ticks on 3 sec Mid-range damage: Lightning Bolt – Fast cast, medium range, medium shock damage, jumps up to 5 targets(based on space) doing less damage each time Long Range damage: Bounding Missile – As minor missiles, but 5 missiles at heavy damage Centered AoE damage: Arcane Dampening – As wrathful diffusion but medium aoe centered on caster Targetable AoE damage: Fireball – Medium cast, long range, large aoe, medium fire damage, 25% fire dot effect Defense Spells /rest Long term self: Hawks’ Eye – Slow cast, +10 accuracy (melee/range), lasts 1 game day Lang term tactical: Unstoppable – Fast cast, self-only, 50% chance not affected by engagements lasts 1 game day Buff Spells /rest Group offense buff: Haste – As alacrity, but medium range, large aoe Group de-buff: Noxious Blast – Fast cast, medium range, medium aoe, anyone in area becomes sick and stuck for 5 seconds, ticks every 3 seconds, lasts 30 seconds Aoe centered de-buff: Sloth Curse – As slow, but aoe centered on caster Related Talent Ideas +1 /encounter ability – by per spell level +1 /rest spell slot – by spell level Elemental specialist – by damage type Enduring Spells – all durations increased by 25% Extended Grimoire - 5 total slots for /encounter abilities Quick hands – Increase in cast speed for touch type spells Deadly focus – Single target damage increased Summoner’s Secrets – several talents that modify summoned weapons (double duration, summoned weapons upped in quality <fine, exceptional>, etc)

You're using the buffs wrong. This isn't DnD where you pre-buff until you're a Christmas tree. Use buffs situationally, and pick the right one for the job. I think that if there is a wrong way to use the buffs than the class is broken - especially when it is the most limited of the current casting classes. I believe there could be optimum ways to do buffs, but by pigeon-holing every wizard into a generalist type is boring and inventive. Between pnp games and even ie games with multiclassing and some kits, you could take a lot of different approaches to spell selection and utilization. I'm not expecting to self buff myself every time with 10 spells and wade into battle. I would like to be able to cast 2 or 3 spells that could shape my wizards play style and wade into battle. From there cast 1 or 2 based on the flow of battle. This might look like the following: Wizard with a blunderbus - day long boost to accuracy, day long boost to armor(so I can not have additional speed penalties by wearing the heavy stuff. While in battle and need the advantage, cast a haste-type spell. When the AI is improved and I get swarmed, cast the character switch spell to pull in a secondary 'tank' class. Wizard with a summoned weapon - day long boost to armor, day long boost to health. Enter battle, summon the specified weapon. Engaged more enemies than intended, so I pump out a mirror image or an aoe spell cenetered on me. Wizard that acts like a glass-cannon - day long boost to might, day long boost to casting speed. Chain cast beam spells from angles and aoes until I get swarmed and get smoked if I don't use the veil power. Right now, if I select a PC wizard and an adventurer wizard and try to set them up with a spell list that is different from the BB wizard, they are either worthless or burn through their spells at a much higher rate to achieve a similar level of accomplishment in battle. The buff wizard I described takes the first several seconds of battle to buff, burning through the /rest spells that won't last until the end of the battle. The debuff wizard between all the aiming problems with aoes and targeting can hardly get a spell off that doesn't affect them AND is out done by other casting classes. What I am proposing would look something like this: The 1st level buff that increases accuracy by 50 and lasts 7.5 seconds would be a /encounter type buff. The 1st level spell that boosts DT by 10 and concentration by 20 would be toned down in numbers and the duration would be a game day and /rest. A similar armor spell could exist that might give higher numbers for a small duration window of 15 seconds and give the same numbers that would be /encounter. For offensive spells you could have minor and major versions. A minor fan of flames might have 1/2 the damage and 3/4 the range and be /encounter. You still select /encounter abilities like you currently do with wizard spells. So you would have 4 per spell level that is fixed during battle unless you want the cooldown to take effect. You still have to select your approach to combat with the character. The /rest abilities would be selected in a traditional manner that would make you select a spell slot earned through leveling - one spot is one spell and not a small list to select. This could be fine tuned to eliminate any ability to OP the game and could even be scaled down so that at low levels you still only have 1 or 2 /encounter spells per level available and have that grow to more significant numbers as you level. My overall issue with the core classes is that they are designed for a specific archetypal build. For the fighter it is being build to be a turtle. For the wizard it is to be a generalist - small spell availability, buffs geared to be for 'oh ****' moments, etc. I can see talents offering SOME ways of getting past this monotony, but the only true way to offer something interesting is to re-envision them. So instead of me just complaining about what I don't like, I want to offer some solutions - even if they aren't feasible. The interesting spells I was referring to were the blights and a summoned weapon. I think the summoned weapons could be flushed out to be their own thing for a melee/ranged wizards (who don't wanna just auto-attack with wands and such), but they would have to have effects unique in the game with the crafting system that is currently in place. There are also some defense spells that are listed as depleting after so many attacks, which I think could be interesting if consistent across the board.

The wizard class, I know has been discussed quite frequently, but I think there are plenty of points that could be noted. As a reference to my earlier post - I believe renewable resource classes and those that use /rest and /encounter abilities are highly out of sync. 1: Compared to other games the spells are very low in number, especially from what spell options you get when leveling up even higher. In the IE games wizards were only competing with clerics(who were heal/buff oriented with a few offensive/debuff flare spells) and druids(who were highly stylized casters) and allowed for a wide spectrum of utility in spell selection. In this game they are competing with the same classes that have all their spells per level available, a chain casting cipher fiend that has insanely long debuffs, a windless bard that has extremely customizable buffs/debuffs that when utilized give it simultaneous access to more powerful spells, and a handful of other class abilities that further augment the game from predecessors. 2: The duration of most buffs are highly limited and mostly restricted to battle. Try playing a buff based melee wizard and this will be incredibly obvious. Even if you select your spells based on duration, by the time you get a decent selection of buffs going for the one battle, you have a)expended about 5 of maybe 15 /rest spells b) expended the length of duration of several spells c) been less effective than just auto-attacking at range for splash damage and shooting missiles. 3: The buffs the wizard does receive are restricted to just them. This, paired to the previous problem, makes most of the buff spells a wasted strategy - which paired to the first issue makes the wizard very streamlined. 4: Almost all of their spells are aoe based. Right now aoe is highly discussed so I don't feel like I need to include that all here. 5: The damage output of wizard spells never appears that impressive to me. By BG 2, most wizards could do 6-60 damage with a fireball, which was even more significant considering the comparable HD of creatures and that weapons dealt usually between 1-8 damage plus modifiers(for a standard longsword). In pillars of eternity my fireballs usually deal maybe twice the damage of the other classes auto-attacking. 6: On the positive side there are a handful of spells unique to PoE. These, when the game is considerably more balanced, could be fun and useful. What I think would help the class from low levels, is for it to start out with the /encounter spells - instead of awarding them much later in the game(still didn't see them by level 8 ). Essentially, this would be creating two tiers of spells per level. The /encounter spells would have the short duration as they are now and the low damage. The /rest spells would be buffs that lasted for entire game days, devastating damage or powerful buffs/debuffs. The /encounter powers could then later be changed into quicker cast or chain cast. Something that I always hated about the IE games was that instead of intelligent caster enemies, they would just automatically start out with 5 buffs in battle so that they were harder to kill. The quick or chain cast of /encounter abilities could simulate this. This approach would require a change to how grimoires function. I really believe the concept of different grimoires for different situations is interesting but the cooldown combined with the current spell limitations would slow down an already slower class.

I wanted to post some of my experiences playing through the different classes. These are my impressions so they are entirely subjective and I understand that bugs/balance issues/talents will influence some of the things I say. I plan on posting as I work through the classes(except ones I know are in plans for overhaul). Some of the suggestions I make might be redundant based on other threads/posts, but some are worth repeating and others I haven't seen because I skim past most of the posts. To premise my experience this is how I play to test classes: Normal difficulty and I never rest - sort of a speed run(takes about an hour). Sell all the extra starter gear and buy grap hook/rope. Buy my adventurer. I do the murderer quest to start, killing both groups. I go to the crossing fighting the one wood beetle and the wolves then go straight to the egg. I kill all of them and collect the egg with the grap hook. - level up health restored. Go to the ogre cave, kill the middle spider group and the ogre. Return to town and turn in quests - level up health restored. Go back to the crossing and go the long way around to the statue. Fight all cultists between me and the easiest mechanics door and accept that they screwed the girl up and leave peacefully - go back the way I came in and turn in. The one I would like to mention currently is the fighter class. I feel like the pnp tradition of fighter is absent from the class in its current state - if anyone is familiar with the movie Gamers 2: Dorkness Rising, the thought process behind the turtle tank seems to be a guiding influence. Guardian or defender would be a more accurate title. In 8 levels you receive 2 offensive oriented abilities and the rest are defense. There are currently 2 modals(3 if you count the stam regen that you can't actually de-activate). The first is for personal defense and engagement and the second is a straight acc/def exchange that is shared with allies, but requires you literally stack the characters on top of one-another to benefit. I played a game with a fighter PC that used an estoc and medium armor, the BB fighter as equipped and an adventurer fighter in light armor and a quarter staff. I selected different talents/modals for each but they were ultimately very similar. The survivability was very close due to most of the damage coming from deep wound and poison ticks rather than direct hits. Spamming knockdown while the other three classes were set to ranged seemed to be the best strategy either by squaring each fighter up with an enemy and focus firing with my ranged or by surrounding solo enemies and taking turns knocking them down. Generally per encounter/renewable resource debuffs outshine direct damage abilities in every class I've played as. The only per rest abilities I used were wizard spells when I encountered the cultists bug where they only took marginal damage per hit. My biggest concern with the class currently is not the fact that it doesn't live up to the tradition, but that when the better AI is implemented that they will lose the only role they currently have, which is holding the front line. I foresee them taking a few engagement hits on most foes, then running around and giving classes that actually hit and do damage a flanking bonus. Knockdown has its own range and is not weapon based. This makes having a reach weapon fairly pointless for a fighter since it is their only activateable offensive ability. I think it would be beneficial to add engagement attacks on approach for reach weapons (if this does happen it is completely lost to me in the combat log), especially considering this would be the only incentive a fighter would have to use them with the current ability set. A fighter should feel unique based on every weapon/shield combination they have. It would be nice to have a weapon/shield set for the stupid AI creatures that attack the first thing that engages them, a pike for enemies like barbarians who will run for the back line by having massive engagement circles and maybe multiple engagement attacks, dual wield speed weapons for high interrupt, etc. This would allow them to be adaptive(and in someways traditional) and give a character a reason to have more than one in the party, not to mention make the class have some flavor beyond cardboard. I see modals, as they are, to differentiate them from barbarians. Right now modals 'sacrifice offense for defense' and barbarian abilities 'sacrifice defense for offense'. The biggest difference is that barbarians are built around carnage and per encounter/rest abilities that last a fraction of the battle. I think to keep the difference between fighters and barbarians still strong, eliminate the sacrificial portion of fighter modals; this would allow some offensive ones to be placed that could still keep them from trumping the barbarians and allow for a flare to fighters.

I do think they need to work on aoe size. If you include in the range/fog of war/zoom/non targetable areas than targeting an aoe can be painful and less effective. An example of this: I was attempting to cast a druid spell(I believe the swarm spell) on the group of bandits attempting to get the egg. This druid has a maxed out intelligence so the aoe was massive. The cliff wall was not target able as a location to cast the spell so I had to constantly shift the aoe around to hit the most enemies without hitting my party. I had to settle for an aoe that only hit the caster and two-handed sword bandit. In the end if the druid had an intelligence of 5 I probably could have landed the aoe at the base of the cliff and hit all the enemies while sparing my people. An increase in duration should always be advantageous in standard battle, but an increased aoe size is highly situational. I don't know how viable it is, but I really think for it to be good to be able to toggle the aoe size from the spell base up to what your characters intelligence allows. Range CAN be a factor in this, but other things influence targeting aoes.

Still some bugs to work through that hamper gameplay and feedback more than I would like. However, this is an overall more satisfying experience. I am actually able to consistently receive experience which is nice to see how classes progress. I played on normal for a complete run through. I had a barbarian and a chanter adventurer among the BB core group. The 2nd level heal over time of the priest combined with the negative effects suppressor was able to hold off multiple stacks of poison on my characters. I encountered two problems which made combat worse, but still manageable - DT seems to grow on enemies. During multiple encounters with humanoid targets people would only take 1 damage or a fraction of damage from every attack with the exception of some spells. Multiple enemies teleported across the screen on me - the spiders were really bad about this. Certain damage over time effects such as deep wounds would continue damaging health after a character was knocked out - I would be ok with this if healing spells would continue to work on characters when they are knocked out. Still plenty of progress to be made, but I'm beginning to feel a level of the IE experience.

Is there enough of a conflict that they can just create an option when creating a new game where you get kill xp and maybe 10% of the normal quest xp? I'm highly neutral on the topic - no combat xp feeling unrewarding based on the current display of creature drops in beta being my biggest argument for. Ultimately when everyone is sitting a the final quest within a few levels of each other(if not capped) and very similar items it really doesn't matter to me how I got there. Not sure how practical a combat xp option would be sitting next to the trial by iron, but I'm looking forward to this debate being put to rest with the least amount of unhappy people around when it comes time to back a second game.

I'd like to start off by thanking Sensuki for all the time and effort he has put into quality feedback for this game. I think it is passion like that driving next generations of classic games. I'll reference the video as much as possible and apologize now if some of the points I'm bringing up are obvious to others or already discussed in other threads. The first thing I'd like to address is weapon/spell speeds and how they affect interrupt. In the IE games each spell and weapon was assigned a number which represented how quickly an item would go in a given round. For example, this allowed me to utilize quick spells such as magic missile to interrupt other casters. I feel like some of the interrupt mechanics would be fixed if they allowed the duration of the interrupt reset to directly correspond with the speed of the weapon. A bow/dagger causing an immediate cycle of the animation where as a greatsword/blunderbus would cause a 2 second delay or such. I think also assigning specific numbers would help instead of listing average as a speed - which is what every weapon I've found in the game has said. I also think the flow of combat speeds and rounds was more intuitive for players. I love the idea of folding deflection into the attributes, specifically under dexterity. I think combining accuracy with interruption in perception might balance out the mathematical weaknesses of both dex and perception. I feel like a lot of classes right now when not set up defensively cannot take any hits. In IE games some classes took hits better than the others based on progression, but I don't recall there being as big a disparity outside of the first few levels. I could see recovery time being an option but only if I had any idea on how the pacing is intended in combat(goes back to weapon/spell speeds for me/no round system). I'm still very lost on what resolve could both reasonably function as in combat and provide a level of balance... maybe player buffs/enemy debuff strengths? I think it is interesting that you referenced Dragon Age at one point. I think that even though it is a different engine, in a lot of ways it is a spiritual successor to the same games. My biggest thing is I feel like the spatial reasoning of enemies in combat was MUCH better. They would move into spaces that would be reasonable to fight in similar to what a lot of pnp games have done with a grid system. I was really hoping the cluster f*** feel of IE games would be fixed in this game with clever use of enemy AI and improved mechanics, but so far beta hasn't shown me this. I very much agree with you on the core classes: The current fighter, both BB and any I have made, is limited to ability sets that make them melee damage takers. Using the current party make-up I have not been able to use the BB fighter any other way without significant resource cost to the rest of the party if not tpk. You're right when you say that IE games let you have the survivability class of the fighter with the different weapon choices of placement. Giving a fighter boots of speed and a dagger could rock a caster with just auto-attack and not feel boring while the sword and shield fighter could use the environment to bottleneck enemies better than what the engagement system offers. I've done some other builds with the wizard that I think could be good. But I run into a lot of targeting issues or the aoe/current state of combat issues. I think a melee wizard would be awesome, but they run into the same issue of most of their spells being combat based. By the time I set up the vampiric staff and defense buffs the battle is almost over. Not to mention these are per/rest abilities that last a minute real time. Many of the defense spells in the IE games lasted entire dungeons real time. The priests I not only think are dull but I think way under-powered. In IE games they added to the survivability of entire dungeon delves and exploration as well as resurrection options. Now they can do heals on a quickly regenerating resource. This makes most of their spells only helpful in combat and even then, trumped by individual class abilities. A barbarian has a HoT that is per/encounter and heals as much as the third level priest ability. A paladin's lay on hands also has a HoT effect that makes it, in many ways, better than priest heals. Their wards can be very nice offensive spells since you can pre-set them where your fighter will be and they don't have friendly fire(unlike the wizard spells). The rogue I would say is lost without the non-combat advantageous of previous games. You felt the lack of a thief in all the other games every time you missed out on a chest or got blasted over and over by traps. They weren't a huge combat staple unless you could buff them correctly but could be decent wherever you put them. Again, it is a class where auto attack wasn't a bad thing. I've straight up not used the rogue in PE battles and not noticed a real difference in damage output. This is another area where I feel like giving the numerical values would help players a lot in knowing how to fully utilize the class. Just saying any status ailment allows a rogue to do more damage isn't very helpful. I was wondering if you could elaborate on your monk experience some. When I played as a monk I found myself just auto-attacking if I was using the BB fighter correctly. This meant all of those wound abilities were lost. You also mentioned playing the cipher a lot, but vague on details. I found the cipher abilities all over the place. Some of the damage dealing abilities are worthless while some of the others do insane amounts of damage. The name eludes me, but the single target 'soul burn' third level ability comes to mind. It did 40 damage a second for 15 seconds - or there about. They just seem to have very few abilities and only a few you use over and over out of what you can select. I understand if you don't mention the classes much since they have stated many of the numeric values, talents, etc are in flux. I was just wondering your opinion on what you've played. Something you didn't mention, that I've wondered what other people of thought about is involving the scout mode. Does it bug anyone else that the enemies perception is circle-based and not cone-based from point of view.

The only reason I don't like this system is because battles consume resources and nothing in the beta suggests that monsters will give out run or exciting items will counter balance the resource expenditure. While this lends to the stealthy people or those who don't want to battle everything on the map to optimize leveling, this actually punishes the people who want their gaming experience to be battle based. So I feel like instead of rewarding people for fighting system it is a make people pay(in gaming resources/player time for town runs to rest) if they want to fight everything system. I can see two things fixing this: one being quests people can to by submitting resources - /10 beetle shells or something like that or or two being a really in depth item creation and maintenance system. Right now MOST things hardly pay out enough cp for you to reset your abilities and health, however, some things drop items worth several of your resources. So if people are going to want to power game(which is what not giving xp out is to avoid, from my understanding) people are going to say "skip that lion, skip that lion, fight that lion so I can get to the feral druids". I don't feel like every play style is possible to reward equally, so this game should stick to its roots and just give experience. In paper and pencil games GMs can give out xp for creative use of player skills and abilities or even give out partial xp rewards to navigating monsters, which I don't see being possible to implement in a video game.

There are dozens of threads like this, but in response to the update 84 feedback requests I am making one for my personal perspective. First, I would like to note that the amount of bugs in the game make it hard to give perspective on a lot of the game balancing issues. When I receive no experience for quests on one character class and only experience rewards on another character with the quests reading as uncompleted I can't give perspective on the none BB characters progression. Classes - They all carry a certain distinct feel, which isn't always a good thing. I haven't spent and equal amount of time on each, but this is what I've seen so far: Barbarian: Works great with other melee classes and as a back-up front liner. The options right now don't seem to lean too offensively or defensively so there isn't much distinction from one ability selection to another. Chanter: Already included in details that this class is over powered. The chanter's invocation cone sizes and summons make them amazing as back liners and the fact they can both do their songs and fire ranged weapons just lends to too much going on with very little management. I think slowing down either their chant speed or their combat speeds while chanting would help balance it out. Their overall need to rest is also nowhere near any other class in the game. Ciphers: There resource management element didn't coincide well with the power of their abilities compared to other caster classes. The current available abilities are very small in number. These two combined meant I spent time spamming just a few moves that didn't seem to make much difference in combat. This was the class I was looking forward to the most, but I feel like they don't fit well anywhere in the party. Druid: Didn't do much with a druid. The fact that most of their abilities are rest based makes them very low on longevity. Fighters: I've only played with the BB fighter and I'll admit I'm not 100% on the engagement mechanics. The fighter appears really good at stopping enemy movement and mitigating a lot of damage. The only thing a fighter lacks that I've seen is the ability to pull aggro(for lack of a better term) from other meleers in the party. Monk: They appear to have a lot of fun passive abilities, but their activated abilities and wounds system are a little lost on me. This has made me spend very little time on the class. The monk is must more streamlined in equipment than any other class. If your party is set up with a melee focus they also don't get to use their abilities as much. Their speed causes them to engage quicker than other classes but they usually easily get stomped before healing can go into effect. I think an ability that allows them to absorb damage from other party members would make them more viable. If I used the BB fighter correctly the monk just sits auto attacking. Paladin: Very low maintenance class. Their auras are so small in area that you have to bunch your characters together for them to be useful and their party buffs don't appear to compare with those of chanters in power or variety. Priests: The priests are a class with limited longevity compared to some other classes. Their healing abilities are sometimes trumped by individual class abilities that are encounter based (barbarians self heal and the fighter's defensive buff). However, their wards are immensely powerful and long lasting. Throwing down either the 2nd or 3rd level ward makes for very quick work of enemies most of them time in ways that trumps druids and wizards, especially considering there appears to be no friendly fire. I would say wards need toned back some and their healing abilities either come with contingencies (heals xstamina at x%of max) and/or offer a ratio of hp repair to balance out per rest use abilities. My issue with their healing is also the amount it heals and how much time it takes vs. how quickly stamina is usually drained. Ranger: With the hit points being broken with the pet, this class is hard to figure out. Just using a weapon with a ranger is boring compared to most other damage dealing classes. Most of the time the shared hit point pool doesn't work so I can send the pet to fight by himself and can't be defeated since it returns to 1 stamina infinitely. Rogue: A decent class if you put a little work into positioning them. I think they need more clarity as to how their abilities and damage work in game than what is given. Most of the information I had to find online. Wizard: Just stuck with the BB wizard on this one so far and exactly what I'd expect from this class. Biggest issue I've found so far is trying to figure out line of sight when targeting with spells. Sometimes I can fire to the far ranges of my vision, other times he will walk right up to where I targeted. Races: Racial attribute bonuses seems insignificant. The racial abilities don't seem that significant either. I could see these being a very large conversation/story element, but I haven't seen that aspect in the beta. Attributes: The biggest difference I've seen so far is in non-combat interactions. Having high or low attributes limit what could be said, but I haven't seen too much of a difference in how the game plays out in beta over what is said in conversations. The story interactions allow you to use companion's to achieve things, which is nice, but could be helpful in conversations too. Perception and resolve stick out the most - we have no idea on the mathematics behind interrupt/concentration and no idea on what bonuses it would give. There is also very little in the way of reference point to another game. Defensively they don't make a difference since their counterpart attribute seems to be generally more useful. It would be helpful if, when reviewing class abilities, it show the difference stats make. Equipment: I like the options for all characters to have all equipment. I don't think the differences in the equipment is very clear or intuitive for IE or paper/pencil experienced players. Also, bonuses will be listed for equipment, for example +2 Damage Threshold for Fine or Exceptional. However it'll read the same on my characters DT as the plain version of the armor. Crafting/Enchanting: I've had so many issues with items bugging I haven't even tried this. Conversations/Quests: I think the conversations provide a lot of options that play into character builds. However, the long-term or even most of the short-term consequences aren't obvious in the beta. Combat: I like combat, however, I don't think it is comparable or intuitive to paper/pencil or IE games. The abilities/class build makes it feel like most mmorpgs; if your front line goes down it usually turns into a tpk. Hit points drain as fast as in IE games, but I haven't seen anything outside of rest that will increase this. I usually have to rest to heal my life rather than to restore some of my class abilities. Having a fixed party doesn't allow me to try a lot of builds to get a different feel to combat overall. User Interface: I understand a classical interface is already planned, so I can skip that. One of my biggest issue is being able to adjust the cursor/tab details and size. The caster bars for the sprites are really small compared to everything else - would be nice to have adjustable size or place a full-sized bard next to the character portrait. The extra information is nice, but obscenely large. Most of the time I don't want to know the full details on everything so instead of a check on/off it would be nice if you could place your cursor over a specific enemy and hit a button that expands the basic name/life status into the full defense details.

This issue appears to be part of an overall new game issue where data transfers over incorrectly unless you leave the game before starting a new one. In this scenario I finished a run through with a chanter and started a new game. The game went straight from the Obsidian Presents screen to Dyrford village where I had a lvl 0 naked barbarian human with the dwarf image.

Update: I have been able to duplicate this with several ranger/companion combinations which are ability/stat builds, race and pet type. The race/class combination of the new game doesn't appear to make a difference. The movement bug I encountered has not been duplicated and is irrelevant to the merging. It only occurs when the stamina cap is hit upon leveling up the ranger (seems to be 101 or 121 depending on the race). Only occurs when I go to the Dyrford Crossing, the BB Rogue (only tested one other companion and it didn't work with the BB fighter) gets knocked out and I close out from there. The stamina regeneration issues for the ranger cap and for the companions healing goes away upon saving and reloading the game. Initially upon the New game all companions and the out of place pet are at the exit I used to reach Dyrford Crossing. Saving and rebooting the game are when the abilities merge into the new game character. The companions being naked only appear when the reloading of the erroneous save.

Description: Upon closing out of a bugged game and creating a new character/class the new character received abilities from the previous game. Details: I created an island aumaua ranger with a bear companion. Upon entering the game and leveling up and my maximum stamina for both my character and pet would not exceed 75% maximum through natural or clerical means. I went to the edge of town and saved. I exited and went to Dyrford Crossing. During battles with beetles the BB rogue was knocked out due to 0 stamina. Even upon clearing the map of enemies she would still not recover. Also, encounter based abilities would not reset. During exploring my abilities to move with my left click disappeared. I could right click to move or left click to select interactable objects(the statue, loot, etc). I quit the game without saving and immediately from the menu created a mountain dwarf barbarian. Upon entering the game, I had no sprites for my companions. While I was leveling up they ran onto my screen in position with their weapons, but no armor. With them was the bear companion from my previous game. I saved the game and attempted to reload it. This attempt crashed my game. Upon reentering the game the saved file would load and my barbarian had the abilities of the ranger as well as his own. I took my bear companion into battle and it had no shared damage pool or link to my character so upon reaching 0 stamina it would immediately raise back up with 1 and keep fighting. I was able to use the abilities for both the barbarian and ranger. Expectation: This would not occur. Other: I have not attempted to duplicate this yet with other classes or the same, but will do so and follow up. Files: This is what I get when I attempt to add the saved game file: c341f4dc5315441d875626b94bc45442 DyrfordVillage 7610273.savegameYou aren't permitted to upload this kind of file DxDiagPEBugSpec1.txt

To be fair I think you are being a touch argumentative, or haven't read my post fully. I also don't propose that this is the "perfect" method or balance simply a suggestion, regardless I'll try and explain my thoughts: Constitution Resolve fairly equal combat relevance for all classes. Dexterity Perception Strength - Geared towards fighters Intellect - Geared towards casters Surely the vast majority of these "broken bridge" moments can be solved with resolve dexterity and perception which again have relevance for all classes. I don't think Sawyer ever stated that Intellect would be the prime conversational attribute, I was merely commenting that if it was then there could be problems, I don't think that by giving perception, resolve (and perhaps also strength through intimidate) greater uses in conversations you are unbalancing constitution and dexterity. Given that dexterity essentially affects your Thac0 which was the most important stat in D&D it shouldn't require much balance. Considering constitution defines your health/stamina and possibly blunt damage received that in itself should be reasonable justification not to dump it, especially if casters have opportunities to get into the mix by conjuring weapons. I truly hope that puzzles are not solved by your chars intellect as opposed to the players themselves therefore I don't understand this point, perhaps I misunderstood. Finally regarding Cyphers I do reckon you have a point here but surely some kind of balance can be achieved within the abilities of the character? Or could a particularly weak cypher with high intellect use a crossbow to replenish his special abilities? (not sure if it needs to be melee). Finally a boxing metaphor, a clever boxer can beat a stronger one through counter punches/points/timing however the "raw" damage he inflicts will always be less, critical hits aside (counter punches). I'm really not trying to be argumentative, just trying to flush out some of these ideas. To be honest, I glanced through most of the posts after Sawyers to get a general idea of what people were saying before responding to his and have just been defending my stance. The restructuring to allow for str and int to serve separate roles has been mentioned a few times, but what we can't be certain on is how any changes will affect the game. I fully concede that two people of the exact same height, using the exact skeletal and muscular alignment, at the exact same speed, striking the exact same area will result in the more muscular person delivering more impact to the same surface area. My argument for intelligence-based damage is this: is it reasonable to assume that an incredibly stupid person and an incredibly smart person(with the same experience and other attributes) to provide the same quality of physical attacks? I suggest for gaming purposes that this would be entirely acceptable, especially if it plays into larger mechanics of game balance. The suggestion about puzzles was me trying to think of the story interactions like the broken bridge where intelligence would play a strong role - there have been no specific mentions of this existing that I'm aware of. I agree that a player should be able to solve large scale puzzles, but to not having intelligence should play into details given to the player about possible resolutions. I feel like not doing this would be the developers building meta-gaming into the mechanics.

Not to discount all the lovely stuff you're saying for what it is -- I honestly believe it's excellent analysis of a realistic basis from which to make abstract conversions, and the effects of doing so, etc. -- but... the segment above is a good example of how your skirting my point. Which doesn't supercede anything you're saying and render it moot or anything. It's simply a matter of my point not actually being addressed by you, is all. You see, every time you set up an example to support your claim of Strength not really mattering that much, you have one control scenario, then compare it to another scenario in which both Strength and some other factor are different. My point is, quite simply, that Strength affects whatever Strength affects, independently from other factors. What you're arguing against is that other factors often have more of an impact on things than Strength. Yet, Strength still has an impact, which is my point. It is not contradictory to yours. Look... here's a good example: Bows. Different bows have different draws. There's a direct strength requirement there. No amount of Intelligence is going to supercede the Strength requirement of the draw. If you can't draw that bow, you can't draw that bow. Now, that being said, if you CAN draw the bow, then you can still fire it stupidly, or intelligently. Thus, Intelligence still matters in its own way. Speaking of draws, your slingshot example works into this. Obviously, a slingshot isn't going to benefit from a D&D Strength rating of 18. Fists. A big brute guy is going to hit harder than a little skilled guy. What I mean by that is, if he just hits you (devoid of any special usage of martial arts), he's going to hit harder. The little skilled guy can probably match the big brute power-for-effectiveness, but that's the difference. If the big, unskilled brute comes upon a little, unskilled guy, he's going to outdamage him. That is my point. Not that strength matters MORE than Intellect. But just that, Intellect doesn't necessarily matter more than strength. Intellect is its own separate thing. An old, frail wizard might know the best way to whirl around and parry and kill you with a greatsword, but he might also have horrible Dexterity/Agility and be incapable of doing so. OR, even insufficient Strength to hold a sword up long enough/effectively enough to actually reach the point at which he can effectively strike you with it in his super-intelligent manner. Also, another aspect is skill (which I've already mentioned a bunch of times). A genius might comprehend the physics and such behind the effectiveness of swordplay more quickly, but he's still going to lose to someone who's dumber, but has mastered swordplay. Intellect does not supercede all other things. Which is my point. It contributes to the effectiveness of attacks, in a given situation. As does Strength, and Dexterity, and Perception, and skill, etc. So, if you're going to measure Strength by itself, as a stat, then use that measurement in the determinance of things it effects. If in situation A, X Strength ends up producing 20 damage, and in situation B, it ends up producing 10 damage, then so be it. I'm not asking for it to supercede anything else. I'm asking for it to do what it does. And yes, it's a system of abstraction, so it's not going to perfectly match reality. If it did, it wouldn't be abstraction. If they could just program in reality, I'm sure they'd do that. But, I don't think we've quite hit that level of technology yet. As for the naming, I understand you, and don't disagree. However, I'm simply more concerned with what is grouped with what else (as represented by a single stat) than I am with what those groupings are called. I'm not trying to skirt the issue of strength, I just don't see how it could be accurately presented in these games. If a human gets a +5 strength damage with a sword because it is more realistic than something like a dragon should get +500 from mass alone. So when you shrink these bonuses down into viable gaming numbers that match a level of realism than strength isn't this end-all melee combat stat that many games present. If there is an added level of highly complex damage reduction than I could see strength becoming more and more of a factor, but I've not read anything about this game referring to that. To put it simply, without having proficiency, hp/stam, classes, skills, talents, races, story, conversation and experience mechanics laid out in front of me I can't make calls on balanced attribute changes in the game. What I wonder is this: is it too hard for people to willing suspend their disbelief when the more intelligent-learned-knowledgeable-tacticallysound-howeveryouwannarefertoit fighter is out damaging(though not out living) the strong-burly-brawny-macho-mighty fighter?

In this rebalancing scenario, how would you deal with the story interactions?(I think they have a specific name for them, though I can't remember) The party comes across the slippery broken bridge and have the options of swimming across, jumping, using a rope, so on. If you want an effective wizard they will be forever locked out of certain ways to play the story. The same could be said of the fighter not being able to solve puzzles. These could be insignificant choices or very important. How would damage output be handled for hybrid classes? Our knowledge of those systems is still limited but we know that Ciphers require melee to restore their ability resource. If this is damage dependent then characters will be forever hampered between having a nuke mind attack once or twice a battle or being able to have a ton of resource available for them to do a lot of fancy weak abilities. If you rebalance perception and resolve to handle the conversation flux, then what would keep those stats in balance with dex and con?

I don’t take offense to a critique of my perspective I’m just saying that a developer asked a question and I was attempting to provide my take. I wouldn’t do so on a public forum if I couldn’t take people disagreeing with me. I’m going under the following assumptions about stats when talking about this. 1: The 6 attribute system is required to reflect the classic games on which this game is based. 2: The stats as they are were divided purely for the sake of balance which was directly stated in an early post by Sawyer on this forum topic. 3: Changing the structuring of these stats puts a serious risk at negatively influencing npc interactions, defenses and exploration choices (maybe talents and skill choices also) What I suppose is instead of people looking at it as abandoning strength is to look at it this way. What names would you apply to the following stats based on what they do? Keep in mind they will double for non-combat choices throughout the game and the terms need to be recognizable to players familiar with these types of games: 1 – affects health and number of inv slots 2 –affects stamina 3 – affects accuracy 4 – affects critical damage 5 – affects damage and healing 6 – affects durations and AoE size My answers would probably look like this: 1 – Physique(broad interpretation of someone’s physical stature): affects health and number of inv slots 2 – Endurance(basically stamina but different term to make applicable to strength: affects stamina 3 – Perception (think this or dex could be interchangeable as far as arguments to hitting and accuracy): affects accuracy 4 – Cunning: affects critical damage 5 – Knowledge: affects damage and healing 6 – Resolve (Because I think anything like determination works): affects durations and AoE size There is a point that I had previously overlooked that I think would be important and that is it being inventory slots, not carrying capacity in relation to strength. I think carrying capacity would serve better to appease opposing points of strength directly influencing combat and not throwing balance - if everyone remembers having Viconia in the party from BG, you had to try to get her a boost to str if you wanted her in melee because she could barely wear her effective armor, shield and weapon, which was very much needed since she couldn’t take hit with low con. You COULD use spells for her armor but those took up valuable spell slots and the first several rounds of combat (unless of course you pre cast them from knowledge of the coming battle, which I don’t think should ever be assumed in a game). If there was a somewhat strict weight system that would make someone force armor and weapon choice combos that would be more realistic. It would mean that you might still have that heavily armored battle mage, but with a strength score that allows him to bear 50 lb plate mail and being able to swing a big sword around. If I am forced to pick one quasi real choice for a stat that affects damage(not to mention healing) it would be one based around knowledge or reasoning skills particularly in the heat of battle. Renaming it something like tactics would be suitable to fit in all roles of combat, but wouldn’t be as applicable to other roles in the game. While it could be reasonable to assume someone with a 10 intelligence (average for a human in D&D) would be able to think out an attack(hit the neck) it doesn’t mean they are particularly good at devising a plan on how to create that opening. It takes some sort of ability to know how a parry and a feint combo would allow for such an opening and then the further stats that would determine whether or not that character could accomplish that I won’t say that strength makes no difference I am simply saying that the numeric values assigned to it in previous games were conceived, not to allow for realistic representation of strength to force, but rather to allow fighter type classes to compete with the potential damage output of other classes – particularly before things like combat maneuvers were allowed. The real damage values I would say are statistically insignificant if proper use of the weapon is not used. In D&D 3.5 terms a dagger used to slash human flesh does a minimum of 5 damage at 18 strength and a person with average strength does 1. There is no explanation for this outside of gameplay reasons. The minor length of a dagger means the force attributed to the tip would be almost identical to the hilt from the energy that is coming from the person and the damage would be the speed and path the dagger has taken before making contact. In classic gaming terms a brute with a dagger could slash a first level npc’s finger and kill him(especially in glancing terms) and the person with average strength would do what you’d expect from real life with a hit like that. The actual physics of the weapon would be there as follows. The force of the dagger would be purely the speed it is traveling which muscles play a roll but more-so the placement of the attackers body. If there is no exchanging of power from the persons lower body than a weak 100 lb person will easily exceed the transferable force that a 300 body builder would do with just their arm strength. Placement of the body while taking actions is much less intuitive than it is repetitive motion to establish desired muscle memory. So the 100 and 300 lb person still only need to provide x amount of force to penetrate the tissue and any additional force just increases the speed at which this occurs. It is the trajectory of the blade that will determine depth at which it will penetrate the tissue. If someone swings dagger and manages to cut one it deep due to the path of the dagger and it doesn’t matter if they did it with 18 strength or 10. An argument could be made that a person doesn’t have the strength to hold the dagger to begin with or the strength to apply the minimum force which are issues entirely separate from even traditional 6 attribute systems. A person with a 3 str in D&D 3.5 still does the same damage with a dagger as the average person when they both roll a one for weapon damage, due to minimum damage applications. An example you gave was throwing a 5lb ball and having a measurable difference which could be attributed to strength. I don’t know how familiar you are with the sport of shot put, but the development over the years has been slightly strength improvements but largely form improvements. That is from people using reasoning or intelligence to determine that a particular path of momentum combined with a mechanically advantageous body position can produce significantly better results than force alone. A sling shot, used when you describe hitting with a rock, still can only use the force put into by a person and transfers that energy entirely depending on the composition of a resistance band and the pegs holding it. Someone with near animal intelligence (3) should probably not be allowed to even use it, but have been allowed to in previous games through weapon proficiency feats that were class based(not for an logical reason, but game balance). A person with 6 intelligence might reason how to use it, but if they use a high strength to pull with all their might can actually break it(not to mention how the mechanical setting of your arm and shoulder will directly influence a person’s strength in the draw). A person with average int (10) can use it and usually gets the correct pull for optimum force but might not have the insight to wait for the right moment to fire it and just let them fly. The person with the genius type intelligence(16) can get the correct pull every time and is fairly strategic enough to wait for those snap openings. All of these scenarios could be very well satisfied with the numerical values assigned to individual weapons. The reverse does cause its own set of issues but only because the person would need to have at least a bare minimum strength to even draw the weapon (I address this further on) Further, if you too forcefully apply elements of realism to abstract representation of hps and stamina then things such as dragons should have huge bonuses that could kill you in one bite or one claw attack based on their strength alone. You take a chimpanzee (str: 40 {based on the average person being 10 and them being 4x as strong as average person – 23 would be the 3.5 conversion using the lifting capacities} int: 3 {accounting for them having some training beyond higher end animal intellgience) and Andre the giant (str: 17 {based on D&D 3.5 lifting capacities having a 260 lb military press and 520 lb deadlift <though these rules account for movement which you don’t do with a maxed deadlift that you see in competitions> which is a generous score} int: 11, which is slightly above average) in a room both fully decked out with claymores and full plate armor – who would win(for ease of argument all other stats are the same)? In the abstract mathematical variables Andre could trip and fall on the chimps sword BUT I would say Andre would win the fight the other 95% of the time because he has an understanding of tool use, defense, and where the sharp sides of the weapon are. The chimp could very well not be even intelligent recognize the sword as a weapon or as a threat and stand there why he is killed. You place your average villager from a fantasy setting who has never used anything but a pitchfork to farm and the same average person who has knowledge of weapons and how they function in the same room with the same armor the more learned individual should win outside of the variable differences in hitting and weapon damage. You could argue that someone with a degenerative muscular disease that places their strength around 3 couldn’t use a sword or armor (or realistically hold up their own body weight) which I would agree and is where changing the term from strength could allow players to take away their assumptions and assume the lowest value PoE allows assigned is reasonable to still be battle effective( a strength (physique) of 3 no longer being associated with a large mosquito or tarantula as it is in the PHB D&D 3.5, but rather the strength of the feeble scholar who has never lifted more than a scroll his whole lifeand an intelligence (knowledge) of 3 not being that of magical animals that have slightly more than instinctual intelligence but a dumb oaf that speaks poorly and knows how to whack things). This interpretation better allows us to assume that no allowable stat makes anyone super-human or below reasonable ability to actually quest to begin with. Planescape used the same terms but didn’t use the same model and fallout even poked fun of exceptionally low stats (even though it is a 1-10 point system) but neither one could claim a great balance either. If we learn more about the existence of weapon proficiencies, base attack bonuses or misc class bonuses(not talent or skill based) that influence combat my opinion might shift, but I don’t see a problem with what I know of the current system.

This is tough as a yes or no decision. Would I like to see more companions? Probably, but I'd like to see the existing ones fully developed and flushed out before that would ever happen. In some of the games used to collect the original funding had characters with uneven back stories, goals and motivations. If we just want more people or classes to fill the party it seems we can do that with custom made henchmen so every companion is going to have to shine. I can take or leave wilderness areas if they exist solely to add time of me wondering around a mostly void map. Some of the artwork is impressive, but not a fun addition if I'm clicking out next to a blackened area only to discover more pine trees when it comes into view. I think most people's approval is based on the concept that cRPG supporters are willing to put money forth if the additional product would be worth it. Example companions and wilderness(including what role they serve in exploration) would definitely help grease the wheels.

It's not just a semantics problem. If you rename strength to "Potatoes", and it still actually represents strength, then everything's cool, except it's got a goofy name now. If it represents attack speed, then we have a problem, because... where did strength go? People possess physical might/capability. So, either the entire, lush game world completely ignores that altogether (no strength checks or feats of strength, ever, or effects of strength on the situation at all, including "you can carry more stuff"), or it acknowledges it, whatever you name the stat that makes this acknowledgement/measurement. The problem with this is that it ignores the organization of abstracted, math-based rules/mechanics. Guess what already represents your ability to stab someone in the jugular instead of slapping them on the back with it? Attack resolution... which is affected by... Accuracy! Dexterity being the only stat that directly affects that. So, at the very least, if the reality is that Intellect is allowing you to make jugular strikes, and therefore you're doing +5 damage because of your 20 INT, then that doesn't make much sense. I mean, should we add 5 damage to misses, because your INT somehow adds bonus damage to your base damage "multiplier" (in essence, because it's ALWAYS affected by attack resolution, whether it's X 1, or X .5, or X 2, or X 0) regardless of your attack result? See how little sense that makes? "I'm so smart, I know where to hit you to make the best use of my strikes, so even when I graze -- which already means I didn't hit you where/how I intended to -- I still do it WAY more effectively than anyone else. I fail to hit you properly in an EXTREMELY clever fashion! 8D!" It really doesn't make sense. And I don't mean "that's not realistic." I mean, even put into abstraction, it's contradictory. So, again, you'd think if Intellect was going to affect your damage output, it would do it via altering critical chance/critical damage, etc. That way, Feeble-Genius Gary always aims for better optimal spots on his enemy when swinging his pencil. So that, when he DOES hit them (critical -- the optimal strike), he produces a greater effect than even Dumb-But-Burly Bill does when HE criticals (because he doesn't hit you in as good of a spot, even when he's perfectly precise). Of course, I'm not even sure Strength should just grant you no-matter-what improved damage. Because, again, it depends on other things. As plenty have pointed out, if I hit you with the force of a freight train with my katana, on your plate armor, it's not really going to hurt you any worse. It's probably just going to break the katana, honestly. And maybe you'll fall down, from the sheer force, *shrug*. BUT, if I hit you in the unarmored shoulder joint with, say, my hand axe, if I'm super feeble, it might just hurt really badly. Whereas, If I'm Andre the Giant, your arm's most likely severed. Or, If I hit your plate armor with my mace, and I'm Andre the Giant, your armor's probably much more penetrated by that than if Sam the Sheperd Lad Who Just Happens To Have To Fight To Protect His Homeland hits you with the same weapon. We don't have to scientifically measure that and make sure it's realistic values that are implemented into the game. But, even in abstraction, that relationship exists. Sometimes, it matters how much force/power you're using. Not just that, but even in regard to non-combat stuff, I don't want to see Strength's effects be non-existent in this game. Sure, almost everyone has some form of soul "magic," but, magic or no magic, physics still at least applies, right? I mean, if you want to telekinetically move a sack of grain, that's surely easier than telekinetically moving a castle, right? So, who's to say someone who is non-physically quite powerful can just easily create invisible forces, maintain them, and dexterously/carefully move them about in a delicate fashion to accomplish what they want to accomplish? Anywho, that's getting into some other stuff. The whole "why can't the Wizard just blast the door open so the burly man isn't needed to break it with physical strength?" thing. There are a lot of things that don't just need blasting open. Like carrying heavy loads, or delicately lifting things, etc. What I’m trying to do is find potential solutions based on what was presented. I can throw out logic problems to developers all day long but it won’t help them find a solution. With what I have seen on the game mechanics, we’re trying to find problems/solutions from just a small fraction of the complete picture. So what I’m doing is trying to help solve a thousand piece jigsaw with ten of the pieces in a sense. With resolve, from my understanding, charisma and wisdom were folded together because charisma is associated with a dump stat and ‘resolve’ makes sense in a game where a soul power is utilized. So what I’m saying is in order to fit the game mechanics, as they’ve been laid out, that renaming the other stats all together could be a strong consideration. This would allow the more abstract approach that the developers are taking to the 6 attribute system to be both recognizable and personalized to the game mechanics they have decided on. As for strength being such a strong determinate for damage there are several arguments that could be said against it using physics. The scheme of realistic physical differences in strength between humans is miniscule. We have been fed the illusion through tv/movies that because actors look specific ways they can actually complete some of the stunts we see with cleaving people to pieces. The type of weapon and type of armor do make a big difference(which are represented by their own mechanics) that is for sure but placement of the weapon and path of the weapon makes all the difference. You can look up videos online of the world’s strongest men but you can also look up videos of tiny women breaking through layers of concrete blocks with their fists. Flip-flop the individuals of the groups and I don’t think they could do the same thing without training and dedication. Andre the Giant might be stronger in our perspective of strength but a one hundred pound chimpanzee(which is on the small size for them) is still estimated to be considerably stronger than him just because of muscle density and mechanical structuring of our bodies. A small person and a tall feeble elderly person can swing the exact same two handed sword through the exact same trajectory relative to their size and the tall feeble elderly person will project more force through the sword – not because of strength but simply from the mechanical advantage their longer arms offers them. The reason I fully support intellect (or a variation of the term) being applicable as the sole provider of damage instead of strength in this system is because there are too many ways it could be applied to weapon use(any kind of weapon), tactics, anatomical knowledge of enemies, prediction of enemies tactics, knowledge of armor, understanding. Outside of a nostalgic view of table top mechanics(which this games seems to use more as inspiration than guidelines) human and demi-human strength is rather insignificant. So once you start looking at how strength fits not only into the mechanics of humanoids but much larger creatures the level of believable mechanics continue to unravel. If a dragon has scales that are comparable to an alloy that a human’s force could not penetrate using traditional methods then a strength score of 3 or a strength score of 18 doesn’t matter period. However, the super strong fighter with a 6 intelligence might just keep beating away with his weapon, meanwhile, the semi-strong fighter with a 14 intelligence realizes he can slide his sword between the scales. Now neither of those fighters matter when it comes to real life physics because the dragon flicks them with one of his talons and the sheer force crushes their armor around their rib cage. In D&D 3.5 a barbarian that starts with 18 strength and takes only strength bonuses by leveling up can rage for somewhere around 32 strength by 20th level. That value is comparable to the strength of any standard D&D 3.5 dragon of that DC, which are all the sizes of a jet plane. Playing this way is fun, but the math behind it makes no sense. Do I think it is more realistic to say strength gives SOME advantage? Yes. In PoE strength could look like this: health, carrying capacity and a range of -0.5 to +0.5 bonus damage to melee weapons. It would be more accurate to real life than in traditional games but seems silly and impractical from a developing point of view. Further, I personally like the current attribute system as I’ve seen it presented. People can say it is unfair to dump all of your points into intellect and be amazing at damage but that is where the term ‘glass cannon’ comes from and is a perfectly legitimate way to play both table-top and video games; the beauty of it is keeping that character alive through use of the whole party's effort. What the attribute system is doing is forcing you to take the cursory steps towards flushing out the role of a particular character. The class and talent system is what will solidify your role. By playing that super strong dumb fighter you’re going to be great at meat shielding still but you’re going to be swinging wildly and hoping you hit something good and that it hurt real bad. By playing that weak smart fighter you’re going to go for that jugular or carotid. The dex and per type stats are what’re going to make either one of those philosophies count and your selection of either is going to have to count. No matter what choices you make it is going to make a difference when it comes time to playing out other aspects of the story than just battle.