Yosharian

What's deep about dropping a single line of text about a baby in one character's epilogue? Actually I believe you can have the baby with Aerie in-game if you wait long enough. It may be that you can then get married with her aswell, I couldn't get any precise info on it though and I don't have any saves with Aerie romanced (looks like yet another playthrough beckons). According to another forum source you end up with a baby in your inventory. Furthermore, it seems that all the other NPCs have reactions to you having the baby. (Again, can't confirm this right now). So yeah. You're wrong. Please feel free to post the many other games which have romances where you can have a baby in-game that are totally superior to BG2 and actually deep, though. Go ahead!

How else are we supposed to notice how Very Smart he is? It's funny how you accuse SonicMage of being unconstructive and adding nothing to the forums, when you constantly post passive-aggressive snipes at other forum members and generally contribute nothing to discussions. But yeah, SonicMage with his (admittedly sometimes bizarre) threads that consistently get tons of replies and attention, he's the troll, definitely. You aren't a troll, oh no. You're a fine, upstanding member of the community by comparison. Self-awareness approaching zero.

I actually am. Sort of. Slowly wrapping BG1 right now. I am appreciating PoE1 so much more now. Weren’t romances linear developments which you could do, or not do? Don’t take me wrong, BG2 has still my fav romances in all RPGs but wouldn’t say that they had much depth - they weren’t very interactive or responsive to you as a character. What was great in BG2 was how character interacted and were aware of each other. It something that was lost along the way. It always bothered me in later RPG than except some flavour banter companions seemed to live in their own pocket planes. In Dragon Age I would be a different character for every companion and there wasn’t much crossover. I hope for relationship system to restore (and expand?) those dynamics. Oh BG1 is nowhere near as good as BG2 in this regard. Romances in BG2 didn't have depth? What the hell are you talking about. You can have a ****ing baby with one of them. In any case romances aren't a focus for the Pillars series, never have been. Obsi has never been particularly interested in them. Here are some examples of the depth of romances in BG2, since I'm clearly bashing my head against a brick wall here. (WARNING: SPOILERS FOR BG2 ROMANCES FOLLOW) Reputation matters for some of the romances. If your actions (via the reputation system) aren't appealing to the NPC, they will cut off the romance. For example, clearly violent actions affect the way Jaheria feels about you, which can result in her cutting off the romance completely. Sometimes 'obvious' romance options aren't the ones that the NPC will truly love. For example, if you sleep with Aerie too early she will cut off the relationship. With Viconia, if you treat her the way she expects (i.e. sleep with her when she suggests it), she also cuts off the relationship, because she feels as though you're treating her like a slave, as she has been treated before. Certain in-game choices will have dramatic consequences for romances, and no consequences for others, dependent on the personality of the NPC. For example, sleeping with Phaere (story quest) results in Aerie cutting off the romance, whereas other NPCs react differently. Frequently the NPCs will 'test' the main character, for example Jaheria sometimes acts bitchy, Viconia... acts that way all the time but let's not go into too much detail. Point being, it's not all plain sailing, easy mode like it is nowadays with romances. There are actually challenging moments that you have to stop and think about before responding. I mean Viconia's romance in particular is filled with tricky twists. Whatever, I could go into more detail but I think I've proven my point. If you think all of this is not 'depth' then I'd love to see your recommendation on a better game. Yeah the romances are linear but all romances in games are linear, none of them are truly reactive, it's just too time-consuming to do such things. Also, they are only linear in the way that the romances can succeed - there's limited ways for the romances to proceed successfully, that's for sure, but they aren't linear when you consider all the different ways that a romance can progress. Romances can fail, sometimes in many different ways. So in that sense they aren't linear. To accuse them of being uninteractive is just plain obtuse, though. Not to mention that the romances are just extremely well-written, aside from the way they are structured, and contain absolutely insane amounts of voice-acting, some of the best voice-acting ever made for a videogame frankly. Every single one of these characters, even Aerie who I didn't even like that much, their voices and some of their more notable lines are burned into my memory forever. But yeah, clearly I need to replay BG2 some more, clearly I'm just remembering it wrong, and the game is totally overrated, that's definitely it.

Ermmm... doesn't the game literally tell you what each affliction does in the pop-up box?

BG2 companions actually spoke to you in proper conversations, and when they talked to each other it was the same, an actual conversation using the conversation UI as opposed to just being background noise. Also these conversations frequently had consequences, unlike PoE. BG2 companions also had extremely in-depth romances. Sometimes I think too many people downplay BG2's excellence. Maybe you need to replay it.

Totally disagree. Again, Baldurs gate is a great example. Minsc was the standout star of the companions and he had very littl added to his character other than exactly what we will get with the sidekicks. Minsc had a hamster. Maia has a parrot? Granted, that's probably why she's a companion. If Maia turns out to be even 1/10 as entertaining as Minsc then I'll be impressed. Although actually I never bothered using Minsc after my first playthrough because his stats are weak, haha

Her Chanter class is just the base class, no subclass

Totally disagree. Again, Baldurs gate is a great example. Minsc was the standout star of the companions and he had very littl added to his character other than exactly what we will get with the sidekicks. Minsc had a hamster.

You can, but you don't have total freedom. The way it was explained was something like this: Quality enchantments (fine, exceptional etc.) can only be upgraded once, so a fine weapon can only be upgraded to exceptional, never to superb or above. The more unique enchantments like flaming are restricted to weapons which start with them, however they can be upgraded, often in two different ways. So gone is the world where you find a weapon you like and keep upgrading it throughout the game. Instead you'll likely replace weapons as and when you find more powerful ones. > Quality enchantments (fine, exceptional etc.) can only be upgraded once, so a fine weapon can only be upgraded to exceptional, never to superb or above. Oh man...

I don't see any key... Edit: oh I see it now

Wait, you can't enchant armor/weapons?

Damn that character looks so interesting. I wish she was a proper companion.

As someone who has 288 hours in PoE, has completed the game on Path of the Damned once (without a Priest!) and is currently going through another PotD playthrough, has browsed many character guides on the forums, has created many, many different characters, including a full custom party... I have no clue what you're talking about.

Yearly on, when there was an outcry due to Yidwin now becoming a full companion, there was a mention that it is possible for current sidekick to br turned into a full companion and provide a new sidekick with an expansion. Expanding roster is always welcome, and I doubt they will be creating many companions considering how complex they are supposed to be. They are so complex and deep and rich and costly to implement, but remember, if you want to experience the multiclassing system to its fullest, just go get some hirelings! ????? If you are trying to make some kind of point you will have to elaborate further. I don’t think I have to point out that companions take a lot of work because of how defined they are. I was just expressing some frustration at the current multiclassing limits on companions, nothing personal to you; apologies.

Yearly on, when there was an outcry due to Yidwin now becoming a full companion, there was a mention that it is possible for current sidekick to br turned into a full companion and provide a new sidekick with an expansion. Expanding roster is always welcome, and I doubt they will be creating many companions considering how complex they are supposed to be. They are so complex and deep and rich and costly to implement, but remember, if you want to experience the multiclassing system to its fullest, just go get some hirelings!

Because the official companions have a unique backstory, unique questlines, they have relationsships and banter, some of them even have unique subclasses and abilites. The price for full customisation is that your hirelings have none of that. But hey: you can give them a custom portrait and name. Yeah I kind of wish in the first game there was set paths for all levelling up and that for each NPC so I could just let them do their own thing. BG2 would be a worse game if you could just let Anomen be a bard, or Edwin could be a fighter. *facepalm* I'm done.

By design she's a priest and/or monk. This is enough for me to know, that barbarian doesn't suit her. But, if there was a personal quest in which she desires to become one, than by finishing it she may be able to switch her class. This was done in NwN2 with Khelgar Ironfist. Note that the change has a story-wise grounds and isn't determined until the end of a story arc. It's ironic that you bring up that particular quest as it's infamous for being terrible game design. Khelgar had absolutely awful stats for a monk and went from being a very effective fighter to being a trash monk, you chose that route. So that's a great argument for more player control, not less. I'm sure you'll argue the opposite, though

> This is very good if you want to build up phrases a lot faster in order to use invocations. OHHHH of course I hadn't thought of that

It was in one of the links Blotter posted

Why shouldn't we have the option to customize the NPC's? The antagonists? The level design? The lore? Spoiler alert: because it's prederetmined by the developers, locked, a given thing. Deal with it. My what a lovely straw man. Are you going to give him a name?

Entirely depends on how that option is implemented and what impact it has on the rest of the game. It may. I don't know. Personally I am not a huge fan of being able to designate the class of characters that are, not strictly speaking, my characters but NPCs. But hey we can already choose what they take when they level up. Since we do have it, I actually kind of like the fact the choice is limited as it adds a strategic and RP consideration, I will think about how each one suits the character as I know him or her vs. what I need from a party composition perspective. I, on the other hand, am a huge fan of it, because I can choose characters based on whether I like their personality or not rather than whether they fit into my party mechanically.

Wait, what? Companions shouldn't be customizable too much. Do you customize people you meet in real life? No, they are people with minds of their own, just like companions in a game. Do whatever you want with their inventory, change their colours, pick out of 3 possible class options (this is a lot!)... what more do you want? Hirelings, this is what you want. Why shouldn't we have the option of customizing them if we want? How does me having the option ruin your game experience in any way? > Hirelings, this is what you want. Jesus wept.

It does seem that Josh is going to go back to Might/Resolve. I'm thinking: MIG 18, CON 08, DEX 10, PER 18, INT 15, RES 10 for the old system STR 10, CON 08, DEX 10, PER 18, INT 15, RES 18 for the new system or something similar anyway So I went from a relatively high CON tank concept to dumping it slightly... plus ca change.

??? what difficulty did you play on? It's not that potd isn't possible without a priest, but tons of fights get ridiculously annoying when you're charmed repeatedly or perma frightened in dragon fights. I can't imagine the game somehow being easier with no party wide means of removing crippling afflictions. Played on normal, but I suspect Veteran is similar considering I don't bother min/maxing/optimizing and only rest when health gets too low. My without Priest party deal with affliction by having a Chanter (support chant/invocation) and Paladin (Liberating Exhortation mostly). Healing was the druid and paladin, but I need more healing with the druid party (killed stuff faster in the first playthrough). I haven't tried Chanter support in 3.0 yet, but it has even more tools to deal with afflictions via chants and invocations and unlike a Priest, they aren't per-rest. How bad would it be if the Chanter was a Skald, and thus had to pay an extra +1 for each defensive Invocation he cast?

It's a crit system you cannot defend. With high deflection you can prevent enemy crit you, Res? No Prevent? Reduce, yes, but not prevent. As I said, as long as it's not too brutal when enemies do it...