Namutree

I like the idea of getting xp for finding new areas like a cave or dungeon. If that is what people mean then I like it. The example you provided sounds cool. If they do that then I approve. If they mean that clearing all the fog on the map gives xp or entering a house gives xp than I'm against it.

What's your beef with exploration-xp? Shouldn't adventurers get xp for exploring? EDIT: Actually, I guess it depends on what is meant by exploration-xp. Perhaps discovery-xp is more clear.

I like Elder Scrolls (Except Oblivian/Battle Spire), but I prefer the IE games. I've never really played PnP before. I tried it once, but our DM was horrible and made everything about his character. EDIT: Better make this more relevant to the main topic. I like the xp system of the Elder Scrolls games, but I don't think it's a great fit for poe.

Sounds waaay tougher than BG2 (Which is the difficulty Obsidian is aiming for) and would make grinding almost needed.

That reminds me of Elder Scrolls. Hit an enemy? Xp for that. Jump in place? Xp for that. Run around? Xp for that. Talk to people? Xp for that. Get hit? Xp for that. Buy stuff? Xp for that. It goes on for awhile. It's actually kind of silly. Back when I was playing Morrowind I would jump from rooftop to rooftop while thinking of what I should do next. I can never forget falling from a high distance, hear "KERSPLAT!", losing 70% of my hp, then hear "Haaah..." and see I got a Acrobatics up. It made even falling fun. Not in the spirit of the IE games though.

It has some advantages over kill-xp; assuming game balance is a major design goal. For example: With kill-xp one could grind on enemies until the player is a really high level; making most of the game super easy. With the beastiary system you can get some xp, but not enough to break the first half of the game.

You can only have so many spells memorized. Every spell that is a pre-buff spell means one of the others is unusable. Example: If I have only 1 level-3 spell slot I can choose to memorize haste for pre-buffing, but that means no fire-ball. It's a strategic choice. The only exception are spells like stoneskin which are cheesy.

So in the case of 6; why would it matter if 3 or 5 are done correctly? The Spider Queen is a special battle that has nothing to do with any quests.

I voted the same.

They'll have more attack spells. Also, yes the more powerful ones could use contingency spells. Not true. You have limited spells. Every time you use a pre-buff spell; you do so at the expense of an attack spell.

He's throwing out ideas and seeing what sticks. Just stick with exploration.

Not true if they have limited duration. Lets say you have six pre-buff spells. If you try to stack them all they'll run out of time so you can only really have three on at a time. Which ones do you choose? That's a strategic decision. Then there's the issue of pre-buffs vs attack spells. Do you want another pre-buff, or another fireball? That too is a strategic decision. Plenty of thought can go with pre-buffing.

I liked pre-buffing with one exception: Buffs that last for longer than a rest. An example would be stone skin. Normally, when you use pre-buffs you do so at the expense of a different spell. Want to pre-buff haste? Fine, but that means 1 less fireball or some other level-3 spell. If your spell caster focused on pre-buffs then the caster was more strategic and less tactical. Spells like stoneskin were broken though. One could cast it, memorize something in it's place, rest, and still have the stoneskin in place. That's dumb. As others have stated; the duration of buffs have effectively eliminated anything cheesy about pre-buffs.

As you can see, Crimea is just above Gallia.

That would be cool.

Reading about how little people understood viruses/bacteria back then helps me appreciate modern medicine. This was a good read.

I don't think that's true. I think Objectivists (Which is what they call themselves) simply want the world to be simple. Force = Bad Voluntarism = Good The real world isn't that simple though.

Exactly. The angle they've chosen is functionally inferior to the IE games. At least it's pretty.

That's waaay too long. If poe isn't released by March, I'll be pissed.

In BG1 when you first get attacked by an assassin in candlekeep some robed guy asked what happened. You get two options: 1: Be a whiny wuss and cry about how awful it was. 2: Lie and say nuthing happened. I hated this. I wanted to brag that some weakling tried to killed me but was to pathetic to pose a challenge. I was roleplaying a half-orc fighter who loved battle and hated weaklings. Anyway, I really wished there had been a brag option. In poe I really hope they use this extra time to add in more bragging dialog. I want to play as an obnoxious jerk.

Yeah I'm not really enjoying playing in the lower camera angle. It just doesn't work very well for combat. It seems like a bizarre decision to make the angle different. Did anyone ever complain that the very functional angle of the IE games was bad? Maybe it was for the art style or something. Not a big deal though.

Good idea.

I've been playing Divinity: Original Sin. I'm still very early in the game. Not really liking it so far, but it's too early to judge it. I'll give it more time.

I like the backgrounds. Although I wish the game had a more top-down perspective. Too late for that though.

Interesting idea.