Namutree

What definition? That's easy, they should see what was fun and if changing some part of it would make it unfun. I feel like PoE would be a better game if they followed that simple rule from the start, instead of changing unnecessary things. What is "fun" varies from person to person. Far as we know poe could be even farther from the IE games with that rule.

I bet Sensuki's feeling pretty awesome with everyone always saying how great he is. Well Sensuki, you deserve it.

Tell us more!

As is "objective-xp" among others. Some (including myself) felt they were cheated by Obsidian by how they interpreted those words. I realize now I was hearing more of what I wanted to hear rather than paying close attention to what was really being said. Obsidian used a lot of lines like, "The epic exploration of Baldurs Gate" that can be taken different ways. That makes it very easy to misunderstand what they mean. I don't really blame them anymore though, or rather; I don't blame them much. I feel the misunderstanding is: 70% our fault for not paying close enough attention to what was being said during development. 30% Obsidian's fault for how they stated their design goals.

Aaah... I think I'm starting to see the root of our disagreement. You appear to treat P:E as a direct mechanical continuation of the IE games. I.e., you believe that they do, or at least should, use if not exactly the same mechanics, at least mechanics that are close to identical. Whereas I have observed that this is not what P:E is: it is, instead, a game with different mechanics, inspired by the mechanics in the IE games. So, from this POV, you're still allowed to tinker with the rules, as long as the end result produces gameplay that is if not 100% identical to the original, at least a very close approximation, including things like grinding, rest-spamming, save-scumming, dump stats for different classes, and so on and so forth. Am I at all correct? 'Cuz if I am, then it's clear that this discussion has run its course. I believe very strongly that one of the primary goals of any redesign of the rules is to address the failings of the rules being redesigned. Like, to pick an example at random, the way D&D3 addressed the problems with dual/multiclassing in AD&D. This represents a fundamental difference in views, not something we can actually resolve and come to an agreement about. Put another way, I enthusiastically support Josh's goals even if I disagree with his solutions from time to time, whereas you will necessarily consider them a bad thing in and of themselves, since the intent is specifically to change the way the game plays. You're now getting it. Not only are his solutions opposed, but even his goals are. Many of us misunderstood him and were a bit shocked when we learned the truth; at least I was. The mind hears what it wants to hear to an extent.

He isn't coming back later. Poe is a new IP and he is in the process of making the rules; not changing them. I think you are making the mistake I did when you thought of poe as a "spiritual successor" or something.

The classes definitely feel very distinct in combat, but very similar outside of combat. You may be happy to know that wizards in poe are pretty similar to sorcerers in combat. The only issue I have is that all the classes seem to need micromanagement, but I hear certain builds will allow for a more classic feel. The impression I have is that the class system in poe will be good in new ways, but will have new flaws the IE games didn't.

That's a cool idea.

Well; you can't use save or die spells to cheese through the whole game. Some enemies are immune to death. Also the save reload idea sounds obscenely boring and inefficient way to play to me. I personally considered every reload a loss. I only save to quit, and only reload to pick up where I left off. If I reload for any other reason I feel that I lost. So if I used that death spell strategy on the dragon I would feel like a loser. That's just me though.

I don't know why Josh made poe the way it is, but I also don't care. It's strange to me that other people do.

I know that's a question for Stun, but I'll give my answer: A) If the degenerate strategy becomes a silver bullet that works against all enemies. It's out. B) If the degenerate strategy prevents the game from being challenging on any level. It's out. C) If the degenerate strategy is incredibly obvious AND has no risk or downside. Its out. That's my criteria for which degenerate strategies should be removed.

The arguments over the last 2 years have always had people arguing about whether something in real life is implemented or not in a video game. Similarly, you'll have people justifying why something is in the game due to something comparable in real life. Personally, I'll take fun over realism any day. For some people (not me), this is immersion breaking and they need the realism behind it to justify something. Disclaimer: I'm not in favour of the current xp system in PoE. I much prefer how it was implemented in the IE games. I am VERY unhappy with the current xp system as it is now. I just don't like the, "It's not real" argument in a game that requires more than a few doses of the suspension of disbelief. I'm not really the biggest fan of kill-xp, but almost anything is better than xp coming from quests exclusively.

The characters in BG1 were underdeveloped, but they had more personality than the generated generics of IWD.

Where are these arguments that it doesn't make sense coming from? A) It's a video game! Whether it makes sense or not doesn't matter. This isn't Sim Adventurer. B) Xp never made sense in the first place. Taking what was an unrealistic mechanic and making it unrealistic isn't a change. Let's discuss how the exclusion of kill-xp helps/hurts the game experience rather than discuss the realism of a fantasy video game.

You're insane! BG is fantastic. No, BG2 was. Vanilla BG is the worst parts of low-level D&D shoved into a vidya game. A vidya game? What are you, Hank Hill? I'll admit, without the tutu mod BG1 has some serious flaws. I still loved the exploration though. BG Enhanced Edition is pretty great since it introduces some needed improvements if you don't use mods. If you use mods though it hardly matters. Sadly, I think BG2 EE was barely improved at all. EDIT: I guess I've played with the tutu mod so much I forget about the vanilla game.

You're insane! BG is fantastic.

Very true and your suggestions are great.

The fights definitely aren't easy. Right now the trash mobs are at least 2x as difficult and 4x more dangerous than BG1/BG2.

As much as I would love to see any form of xp not tied to quests return or be introduced; xp never made sense to begin with. Leveling may be about combat, but that doesn't really mean anything. How does a lack of kill-xp affect how you play or experience the game? That is what I believe matters. Am I wrong?

I guess that could work.

He does. In the previous build all classes were getting the same amount of hit points. That was a bug which has now been corrected. Oh. That explains it.

I've said this before, but I'll say it again. The speed penalty on armor needs to be reduced by 20%. When I say 20% I mean that a 30% penalty becomes a 24% penalty. Right now I feel that being naked is too good; even if the ai gets better. I'm not trying to say that being naked shouldn't be viable; only that it is too good right now.

If the pet takes damage, your ranger takes damage, and vice versa. I know, but I'm saying in this new build my ranger seems to have lower hp altogether. Maybe I'm wrong.

I'm pretty sure my solution is solid. Give everyone 50% more health. When a character loses their stamina and goes down you are penalized by 25% of your total health. The Barbarian is exempt from the penalty. Also, MAYBE the barbarian might only gain a 25% boost to health since the barbarian is exempt from the penalty.

I was having trouble with my ranger. I think they lowered my hp or something.