JerekKruger

I'd say Valygar is more interesting. I say this because I can, at least, remember his story quest (ancestor who's a necromancer in the planar sphere) but have basically no idea what Cernd's schtick was other than it was related to the shadow druids. You take that back!

I think this would be a good option to add, and an obvious one to be rolled into Expert mode as well. Also agree about floating damage numbers: so often I can't read them even if I wanted to so they just add visual clutter. Not really. I can understand why it would be disabled by default if you are playing on Expert mode, but PotD buffs enemy stats but leaves the game otherwise unchanged (e.g. I still get AoE templates and information on enemy defences during combat).

I was under the impression that whilst their power comes from their own soul, it's their faith that shapes it and gives them priestly abilities. This Durance might need to stay devoted to keep his ability to cast priest spells.

To be fair, her quest was notoriously buggy so its quite possible for large portions of it to never fire. That said, it is indeed a good quest when it works (or is forced to through console commands).

Even better, a mode than makes time travel backwards!

Who'd have thought Durance was returning as a romance option exclusive to Orlan Eothasian Priests.

Personally I think we should be more disappointed with how Sunless Sea's city exploration stands up to Deadfires: a few text options with small art work vs. literally being able to walk around the city with my pals. Terrible! The problem with that is you seem to have an unhealthy addiction to thesauri, making your points painful to decipher. Using bigger, less common words doesn't help get your message across, indeed it has the opposite affect when you misuse many of those words.

Of course, but perhaps declaring that it will be absolutely epic is going a little far

Based on the beta content

I'm not a fan either. Apparently though a big complaint with PoE was that people could stick with the first decent weapon the found and keep upgrading it, hence they'd never really use later game loot or get excited about it. I suspect that most of those who complained about this never actually did so however, since to upgrade a weapon to Superb required a limited component only available in Act III and to upgrade armour to Superb required you to have beaten the Adra Dragon which, for most people, will happen in the late game. In both cases the player would have obtained most the loot the game had to offer. It holds up even less once the White March expansions are added in, since the loot in those is a lot more varied and interesting. However, like so many of the common complaints it was levelled early in Pillars' life and those who didn't like Pillars repeated it long after it no longer really applied (probably because they never replayed Pillars). Still, it won't be all that different to the only IE games in that regard, but I'd have preferred it remained more like Pillars' system.

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.

Both classless and turn based would be interesting.

I feel very much the same. Pillars was an excellent game and whilst its mechanics went perfect they didn't need completely redesigning. That said some of the more recent news about upcoming changes gives me hope, and I have to remind myself that Pillars at release was quite a different animal to Pillars 3.07, and also that Pillars' beta also had a rocky existence. At the very least I am confident I'll have one play through where I get to experience the story, writing and world, all of which I am sure will be excellent, so in no way do I regret backing. The question is whether I replay Deadfire multiple times like I did (and do) Pillars, it whether it ends up being and one and done affair. I also want Deadfire to be a commercial success because I want Obsidian to make a sequel, as well as more games set in Eora.

They already do it for other subsets of spells. Different direct damage spells have different casting times, presumably to balance higher damage, larger AoE, afflictions they cause etc., why wouldn't summoned weapons be the same? As for the balancing argument/imminent deadline, this is a form of balancing in of itself. Some summoned weapons are (in their current form) borderline broken and others are plain bad. Adjusting their summoning times and durations is one way Obsidian could balance them.

Had Josh said manual empowers will be weakened too?

There's a mod that fixes the issue here, though obviously this only works for the PC version of the game.

Isn't "summoning time" simply the time it takes to cast and recover from the spell that summons the weapon? If so these variables already exist, as they do for all spells. Nothing new has to be introduced.

Hah, I didn't spot the reference!

This is amazing and needs more than just a simply "like".

If Deadfire's anything like Pillars that's basically worthless. Money was never in short supply.

Cutting Resolve seems unlikely as it unbalanced the spread of non-Deflection Defences from Attributes: each of Fortitude and Reflex would have two attributes governing them, but Will would only have one.

I for one hope that if this Resolve suggestion makes it into the final release Obsidian forget to change this for at least the first patch. Having a base Resolve 3 character being able to hit 54% empower chance sounds like a fun bug

It was a conditional apology. Messier's post suggested he thought I was advocating for complete freedom with multiclassing companions (e.g. making Eder a Druid/Chanter) when that wasn't my intention, so I clarified it. However I preemptively apologised in case Messier already understood my position and didn't need the clarification. Yeah, perhaps that was confusing and not really necessary And I thought Germans were super strict about grammar I take a similar position on grammatical mistakes, but there is a significant minority of people in English speaking countries that take great satisfaction in correcting other peoples' grammar and using "were" rather than "was" in a conditional statement is one of their favourites, hence my footnote. Ironically most follow the rule that it should always be "were" in a conditional statement, which is wrong, hence some of the time they are making incorrect corrections.

I meant was*. I was apologising preemptively for the possibility that Messier already understood that as my position. *Perhaps I meant "were", I have never gotten to the bottom of when it's correct to use "if it were" and when it's not.

I never intended this. In my ideal version of companion multiclassing companions would still be forced to take as one of their two classes one of their "core" classes (Fighter or Rogue for Eder, Paladin for Pallegina, Wizard for Aloth etc.). I wouldn't want it to be possible to make Aloth a Barbarian/Monk for example. Not sure if that was clear, apologies if it was.