JerekKruger

I don't know. On the one hand, a harpoon is probably heavy enough that you'd want to use it with two hands. On the other, it's probably shorter than a typical spear (about 6-8ft) and far shorter than a pike (although pikes in Pillars are really not long enough to be considered pikes). I could see it go either way, but if they did make it a pike I'd encourage them to remove the reach property.

The only think that affects which background you can take is your culture. It doesn't matter what race, subrace or class you take. As Boeroer says, the only culture that can't be an aristocrat is the Living Lands.

I'd love to, but I think I've derailed the thread enough already.

Well harpoons are supposed to get stuck, you don't really want a spear to get stuck. Honestly though, the same could be said for most for a lot of the suggestions in this thread. What's the difference between an oar and a quarterstaff/club, or what's the difference between a cloak and a cloak made from an old sail etc. It's not so much coming up with completely new item types as coming up with weird versions of existing items (the larder door was, after all, just a large shield). So a harpoon would probably be a spear in game, but perhaps it would have a bonus versus sea monsters or something, and of course look like a harpoon rather than a spear.

Indeed. I wonder if anyone tried turning a big heavy wheel in an attempt to get Arnold's physique

That's even better, since it allows screenshots whilst paused to show the effect fully.

I'm not sure of his origins in the books, but in the Arnold movie he started off as a slave.

And I'm saying that I don't believe this is true. But you're right, it's off topic, so I'll leave it at that. Actually, I'll leave it at that after pointing out quickly that your exact words were '"pot lid" helmet', not "pot lid" buckler/shield. On topic: has anyone suggested a harpoon?

I really like that feature!

Indeed, but copper isn't a cheap metal. From what I read, copper cooking pots were things wealthier people owned and wealthier people would either avoid fighting, or be able to afford an actual helm. Also look at the design of the helmet you linked: it has a thick ridge along the brow which would have strengthened it against downwards blows. I can't say for certain, but I also suspect it's significantly thicker than a typical copper cooking pot from the middle ages. The fact remains that, whilst there are superficial similarities, cooking pots and helms are fundamentally different things and not very interchangeable. Indeed, but I didn't say improvised equipment wasn't a thing: I even mentioned the archaeological finds from the Battle of Visby which showed armour that had been modified from other objects. The important thing is that it was modified. Go into battle with an unmodified scythe and you'll be less effective that if you remove the blade altogether and use it as a sort of quarterstaff. Wear an actual pot (assuming for whatever reason you have an iron pot in the first place) on your head and it's going to prove ineffective against many weapons and is also likely to be surprisingly tiring.

I should note I'm not fundamentally against level scaling. As said above, if there's good in game justification for it that's great, and if that justification just so happens to coincide with the player's progression even better. Also it makes sense for some enemies e.g. bosses. Finally, even when it doesn't make sense from a lore perspective, so long as it isn't jarring (hello daedric armoured bandits in Oblivion) I can accept it from a game play perspective, although I'd always prefer alternative methods for dealing with the problem of outleveling content..

Obsidian already confirmed that there will be sea monsters. The goal was for more sea monsters. Given that we don't know how many sea monsters there would have been and what "more" means, it's quite possible they will indeed do exactly what you're asking.

If there's a good in game justification for it (for example increased bandit activity leads to traders hiring guards so bandits have to up their game) then that's fine, but there's really no reason they should scale in line with the player. It's not like every bandit started there career at the same time the player starts their adventure: some will already be veteran bandits who have reached the pinnacle of their trade whilst others will be new blood. As the game progresses some of those veterans are likely to die or retire and be replaced by rookies, whilst other rookies will become more skilled. Overall unless there's some obvious outside pressure, one would expect the average quality of a bandit to remain fairly static.

This certainly applies in some cases (particularly a recurring antagonist) I don't see any reason that your typical bandit say, who spends his time stealing from unprotected travellers, would have any in game reason to become more powerful over time. There is presumably a level of power necessary to work as a bandit and little reason for bandits to try to become more powerful than that. Of course a bandit leader might reasonably be more powerful, and they might have tough lieutenants to help them maintain control, but there's really no sensible explanation for your typical bandit encounter becoming harder as you level up. The player character is fundamentally different to the vast majority of people living in their world. This is someone who, for whatever reason, seeks out danger and who therefore always needs to improve themselves. As such they really should be outgrowing the vast majority of enemies they face.

Ah okay. I guess it would provide some protection against thrown stones, thought basically none against bullets. It's hard to tell whether it'd do much against a riot stick: a blunt metal weapon like a mace would stove it in with no problem but riot sticks don't work on quite the same principle. Of course if he's singled out by riot police his protection isn't going to count for much, since they'll just bypass it. I'll stand by a modified version of my claim, namely during the ancient and medieval period essentially no one would have worn an unmodified pot as an improvised helm. To add to what I said earlier, it turns out the majority of cooking pots used by poorer people were clay, and many metal pots would have been copper: neither would provide much protection.

I need to know the context of that picture

Oh sure, I was simply pointing out that there is a solution. As I said, (many) people thoroughly dislike it. Yeah it's odd. You'd think that one would simply keep a spreadsheet (or more sophisticated tool) of all xp sources in the game (far easier in a game without monster xp) and set the amount of xp needed for each level appropriately, yet even before the release of the White March DLCs it was relatively easy to reach the level cap a fair way before the end of the game. I suspect that doing the above is a rather boring job though, particularly if you don't do so meticulously from the start, and so perhaps the devs tried to estimate this sort of thing instead, hence the reason they got it wrong.

So no, Obsidian, please don't take all the time in the world. Taking all the time in the world and it being ready when it's ready aren't the same thing at all, and I think at this stage in development "it'll be ready when it's ready" is a perfectly reasonable response to firkraag888's post which doesn't imply that smjjames is happy for Obsidian to take as long as they want.

That would be funny - but I hope you don't imply that Black Flag is Heavy Metal. I used to know a guy who insisted Metallica wasn't metal...

Assuming by "pot lid" helmet you mean a kettle hat then no. Those were so called because they resembled kettles, not because they literally used to be kettles. This isn't to say that common items weren't used as improvised military equipment when needed. For example archaeological finds from mass graves at the Battle of Visby turn up all sorts of crude pieces of armour that appear to have be hurriedly modified pieces of metal rather than bespoke armour. We are given a false impression of armour from what remains, but of course only the best pieces were actually kept rather than being recycled. That said, it's important to note that even the crude armour of Visby was modified from its original source. I dare say someone, somewhere in history has tried wearing an actual pot as a helmet, but I doubt it was at all common since pots would make poor helmets due to being fundamentally different. The vast majority of men who couldn't afford to buy an actual metal helmet (or have something modified into one) would have settled for some sort of padded hood (think a mail coif made from multiple layers of linen), and by the age of bascinets those men were rare: almost all English longbowmen in the hundred years war would have had at least a metal skullcap, and those that didn't would have tried to loot one after a battle (many longbowmen who had served for a while wear surprisingly well armoured infact). As for using a door as a shield, even ignoring the weight problem (even cut down to the size of a shield it would be far too heavy) it would make a poor shield since shields consist of more than just wooden planks. They also have coverings of raw hide, linen etc. which were actually vital to their function. A door would have been effective against arrows but would have come apart very quickly against blows from melee weapons.

I think we all know how they're going to solve that problem

There is, but people don't like it: have the only source of experience in the game be the main quest line. This gives the developer complete control over the rate at which the player levels and removes the problem altogether. But every time I've suggested this people complain that the player should be rewarded for doing optional content. Putting aside for a moment that you can still be rewarded with loot, and the fact that the content itself can be enjoyable*, this complaint seems strange. After all, the very same people are often those who complain about feeling overpowered as a result of being completionists, even though the two complaints are essentially at odds with one another. I suspect that it's a matter of inertia. Role-playing games have always given experience for optional content and people don't like change, so whilst they can clearly see the problem of out levelling the critical path, they won't even consider the obvious solution. As an aside, the removal of experience for killing things is another example of this sort of inertia. *If the only reason you're doing optional content is for experience, I think you might be playing the wrong game.

It does indeed. Luckily you won't have to share your gear with anyone so shouldn't be lacking for good gear.

Durance is a typical ideologue. Most people, even those who purport to subscribe to a particular ideology, mostly rely on their gut emotions to make moral decisions. Find someone who is an vocal adherent to a strong religion, say, and you'll usually find something they believe which is in opposition to their religion, and if you raise this with them the vast majority will either become emotionally defensive or start doing mental gymnastics to try and justify their belief. It's rare to find someone who will respond by changing their belief to fit with their ideology, and Durance is an example of such a rare person. What makes Durance a well written character, in my opinion, is that, although he gives the outward appearance of being utterly convicted, we learn through his story arc that it is a struggle for him. This makes him deeper and more interesting than he otherwise might have been.

Agreed on both points. I'm not familiar with Eric's wider work, but I thought Edér was pretty good.