Namutree

Flashy stuff to do? I prefer substance over style. Your idea certainly doesn't sound very IE like, or even very fun. I can get a AAA game and see much flashier stuff than poe could ever provide.

This is a great idea! Let's make the animal companions more interesting. It would also be cool if the ranger could get a talent where he does more damage to wildlife specifically; making him a kind of hunter.

BS. They are better than standard attacks and not using them every encounter is sub-optimal. Period. No thought needed. Fight starts; use them right away. There are only a few exceptions to that situation right now. If they worked as you suggest they do there wouldn't be a problem, but they don't. We aren't against the idea of per-encounter; only the implementation of them right now. As Sensuki said, the rogue ability is great because it has to be used correctly; you can't just haphazardly spam it every battle without a single thought. That's the way all the per-encounter abilities should be. Otherwise they're just a more tedious form of auto-attacking.

What are the functional equivalent of per-encounter abilities in BG1/BG2?

Per rest ToB abilities used after what level again? Where do you reference a level range again? I think it's safe to assume he was referring to lower level campaigns like BG1 since poe will have a similar level range.

ToB abilities used after what level again? Not to mention they weren't per-encounter. Edit: Scratch the second point.

The fighter could also dish out damage like a boss. That was cool. Not to mention the fighters focus wasn't tactics; it was strategy. Which kind of weapons do you focus on? Which special armor did you give him/her? Was the fighter a tank, or a sniper? It wasn't how you used the fighter in battle that made it interesting. It was how you decided to set up your fighter that was cool. There were other, more tactical classes if you wanted them, but not all of them have to be focused on tactics to be interesting.

As they are right now per-encounter abilities aren't any tactically deeper than just auto-attack; just more tedious. Making a battle that isn't engaging (Trash mob battles) more of a hassle is vastly more boring than any of the IE battles.

I certainly wouldn't. I also wouldn't have a party of just fighters though. Usually I have a party of four, and only 1 would be a fighter.

Yeah. That could work. EDIT: Not being sarcastic. It's a good idea.

Right now per-encounter abilities are simply boring. You use them every fight; because why not? They effectively make every fight more of a process without adding any tactical/strategic depth. You're not making a tactical or strategic decision when you use an ability that there is no reason not to use; you're just going through the motions. Per rest abilities are much more interesting. In every fight you need to consider IF the battle warrants them. Resting has financial consequences so it becomes a strategic decision. Making abilities more situational would make them more interesting.

It sucks too because I really wanna play a ranger. What do you find lacking with the ranger? The ranger is simply too weak. Doesn't do enough damage; dies to easily.

Puppets of global corporations? That's an interesting claim.

No it isn't. Socialism was made to push people around and tell them how to live. See, all the things socialist want is possible in a capitalist society. I don't live too far from a farming co-op where everything is shared, and everyone's needs are met. Anyone can join that co-op, or make their own. Yet it has only 14 members, and their aren't any others around that I'm aware of. Why? Because almost no one WANTS to live that way. Socialists need the government to put a gun to people's head; otherwise they won't do as the socialists want. They'll want to be in control of their own lives; not have to obey an oppressive majority.

Don't you know Sharp_one? They weren't REAL socialists. Just because they called themselves socialists, had no respect for property, thought on a collective basis rather than individual basis, and always talked smack about capitalism; doesn't mean they're socialists. Don't you know the rule? If it was bad; capitalists did it. Even if the culprits didn't follow capitalist ideology and never claimed to be capitalists. They were capitalists.

It sucks too because I really wanna play a ranger.

How anyone could have a problem with gay people after listening to queen is beyond me.

I'm well aware of our responsibilities to NATO. It's unfortunate that the US made the mistake of being involved in an alliance. We should get out of NATO. If you think intervention is making the world more peaceful; you are simply wrong. Not that world peace should even be an agenda of ours. Lucky for us Ukraine was not a full member of NATO and we are not obligated to get involved. I wish we would just stay out of it.

The Hitlers? Did some one make a bunch of Hitler clones? That's not good. I don't know what the expectations are for citizens in Canada, but here in the US a mugging is everyone's business. Not sure how that would apply to conflict between nations.

You did call it, you little prognosticator you I'm getting a second milkshake too.

I called it: Nostradamus: 0 Me: 2

Okay so you really feel that the most powerful and influential economic and military country in the world, that can intervene in a particular conflict to prevent something like a genocide, should just allow the genocide to happen? What if USA economic interests were threatened in a conflict, so for example American corporations like oil companies would be effected if a conflict was allowed to continue. Would you support military intervention then because you are concerned with the economic impact ? The US should not be determining who wins and who loses in the world. Nor should we even have the worlds largest military. Why do we need it? It's just a big waste of resources. Even if it were free; it's unseemly for a capitalist country to have such a military. I would prefer that our military reflect our best ideals. We should never partake in the offensive use of force. If they don't attack us; we shouldn't attack them. If the US's economic interest are in danger; oh well. Profit does not justify violence. I will not support any US action outside of our borders unless we have been attacked. I believe America can better influence the world by creating a good example to follow. Not that changing other countries is a concern of mine, but if we MUST do something; I'll take the peaceful route.

Good point raised about being "weak " rather than broke But here is a consideration and its more about the humanitarian imperative. If you go back to the Rwanda genocide and a way through intervention that the USA could have intervened militarily to prevent that would you say they should have ? And I don't mean boots on the ground, nowadays military intervention can be about airstrikes, drones and special forces like we have seen in Libya and the campaign against ISIS So in other words the financial cost for the USA to prevent that type of genocide is relatively negligible We live in a very flawed world, but it isn't our job to fix all the ills in the world; especially since our intervention tends to create new problems. I would not intervene in foreign affairs; even in cases of genocide. That would be beyond hypocritical considering our own history. We aren't the world's police. We don't have a right to dictate certain outcomes outside of our borders. Boycott is as far as we can ethically go in terms of shaping the world. I will not support anything beyond that.

That's not possible and its not something we actually want from a Western perspective because despite the fact that some countries criticize the USA for imperialism and "interfering in there sovereignty " the world expects the USA to get involved when it comes to perceived military action. Just look at how "weak " Obama has been accused of for not attacking Iran and Syria IMO its important that the USA continues to provide the military capability to intervene militarily in various conflicts because there are valid cases for it. The world expects us to intervene all the time because we do. If we didn't; that expectation would disappear. Some people have accused Obama of being weak, but they're fools. It's not true, and even if Obama was "weak" I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. I'd rather be weak than broke. The level of military spending we do isn't sustainable, and I'd rather we get out of this terrible business of intervention sooner rather than later.