Namutree

Good idea.

Not awarding Xp for combat is BAD FOR ROLE-PLAYING. Or nearly every other RPG. I could make that argument about nearly everything. What if PoE didn't let you talk to npcs? You want to talk to npcs? Might I suggest diablo. Like what? I've never played in an RPG where searching for every fight was needed or even efficient. Certainly this was not the case in the IE games (which all had combat xp), and that's what PoE is supposed to be based on. So? This isn't a case of choosing between quest and combat xp.

I just wanna forget Dark Alliance.

This is simply not true. If you're not wearing armor then DEX can be very helpful. Even in short fights. CON is one of the weaker attributes and many classes don't really benefit from it since it grants (if buffed) and punishes (if dumped) by percentage depending on your class. There is no relevant penalty for dumping CON on a mage for example.

"Ok I'll take note of that. I thought it would be nice on the rogue to have a bonus to Interrupt with PER, the class doesn't seem to have so many abilities that would benefit from maxed INT." Interrupt builds are underpowered. Also Blinding Strike & Wounding strike are the Rogue bread and butter. Both Benefit from INT.

Multiple people have asked him why he is so dedicated to this game. This video is for them.

A few tips: 1: Lower PER on your Rogue and use it to buff INT. 2: Lower CON on your wizard and buff PER. Your wizard doesn't need health. If your wizard gets attacked; you made a mistake.

Ability Scores are cool and should stay. You guys are nuts.

Would it still increase action speed? If so it'd absurdly OP. BTW: DEX doesn't need a boost compared to RES and PER, so before messing with attributes that are fine OE should focus on the weak attributes.

Con can be good with fighters too; if you're playing a tank, and even then CON won't be that great until you're high level. Still better than RES or PER though.

There's another problem with respec being available that I haven't seen anyone address yet. How easily it could be exploited. Player: The enemies in this dungeon all attack my WILL defense. Better respec my two tanks to focus more on their INT and RES. *Easily massacre's dungeon due to using the respec to hard counter the dungeon* Player: Why is this dungeon so EASY!? This game is boring!

Balance is likely why they chose not to provide Kill Xp. Doesn't mean that the game *shouldn't* provide Kill XP on principle though; which is what others have suggested.

It also speeds up actions like drinking a potion so it's not just about attacking.

You beat me to it.

It doesn't have to. THAT WAS MY POINT. It should reward overcoming challenges. My logic was argued against on the basis that if the given challenge didn't have "meaningful" purpose; then it shouldn't give xp. I then argued that any purpose is "meaningful" and "valid". Which is why using a "meaningful" metric for xp is utterly arbitrary as all motivations for action are equal. The issue isn't being elegantly dealt with at all. Say I kill the Ogre; if I didn't talk to some random farmer I'll never get any xp reward despite the fact I've solved the problem and engaged in a deadly battle. Or even worse, I just leave the Ogre's body alone because why would I take the Ogre's head? Well, that means no xp for me. How could the PC be expected to grow without gaining the approval of the random farmer? The system punishes you for being uninterested in doing tedious b*tch work for some random farmer that any decent mercenary would just as soon ignore. Unless your idea of a mercenary is some one who talks to everyone in a city to see if they have some small problem to solve. Sounds more like a freelance servant than a mercenary or warrior. The xp system in PoE is just dumb. The game would play better with kill-xp. It would allow for a greater variety of role-playing to be viable. It would also make it easier for discerning player to ignore uninteresting quests since there are other ways to gain xp.

Tsk, coward. No U

Combat is already in the game. So combat XP was a perfectly viable option that the developers had. It's too late change it now, but my character motivations were just as "meaningful" and just as "valid role-playing" as any other motivation.

Simply wearing heavy armor makes you slow as hell. At that point it wouldn't matter much how faster your attack speed is as the recovery time between attacks is huge and unaffected by DEX.

My character is a mercenary and his/her combat skills is a serious matter to him/her. How can I achieve my (likely) combat related goals if I'm too weak? I should take every worth while chance to improve I get. My character is a warrior who seeks to improve simply for the sake of improvement. Why would he/she pass up on a chance to grow as a warrior by fighting worthy foes? These are both perfectly valid role-playing motivations for seeking to improve via combat.

Anyone can wear armor and yes, DEX's value is directly tied to whether or not you're using armor. The less armor you have, the more often you attack. The more you attack the more you gain from the boost in attack speed. Doesn't DEX also affect accuracy? Nope.

...But using condoms doesn't prevent the child-that-would-have-been-born from the potential to live a fulfilling life? EDIT: My joke was a bit crass. Removing it.

You might be a bit confused. I didn't claim it was realistic; I know other pro-xp people have, and I know that's an absurd notion (There is no such thing as XP and "level ups"). I was arguing the merits of the "meaningfulness" of my actions. He raises his skills to for some non-combat related reason, and does so by helping people and talking his way through situations. That's fine and dandy. I raise my skills to kill things, and do so by killing things. That to me is just as valid.

What is the beginning of a human life? I don't know what "It's" refers to.

Killing for XP is not a motive in an RPG. That's what's wrong with it. If you kill for XP, then you're not role playing. XP is short for experience points; which is an abstraction for character growth. To kill things to get more experience at killing things IS role-playing. Why did my PC kill that Ogre? To get better at killing stuff. Should be pretty obvious. Not really. You can still kill. I simply wouldn't tie progression of a character in an RPG around killing. The inability for getting XP for killing something for the sole purpose of killing things or getting better at killing things is a 100% arbitrary limit on what counts as a meaningful purpose. Who said you need to kill creatures? I never said XP for quests are dumb. You do realize the issue of kill and quest xp isn'ta situation where there can only be one, don't you? I've not hinted even a bit that there is something wrong with quest xp. I've suggested there is something wrong with the lack of kill-xp. BTW: There is not a diplomacy skill, and all of the skills you raise by leveling have combat oriented uses. Figure that out all by yourself or did you get help?

Calling a fetus a child strikes me as an appeal to emotion to convince people to think as you do. It's a simple error at best, but intellectually dishonest at worst. Whether abortion is moral or not isn't what I'm scrutinizing by the way, but rather your seemingly manipulative approach to the issue.