JerekKruger

I mean, it's sort of like that. It's certainly true that if you touch it correctly it discharges energetic projectiles. That's assuming it's already primed. Sometimes it needs a blow. And you gotta make sure the ramrod gets in nice and deep. Ow!

Fulvano pls.

I mean, it's sort of like that. It's certainly true that if you touch it correctly it discharges energetic projectiles.

I believe so. Something about handling sub-maps differently I think.

Maybe they're saving it for one of the stretch goals before 5 Million? I mean it's a no brainer to include.

All I really want is the opportunity to dance with the busty daughters of various colonial governors and, if I perform the dancing minigame well, to be rewarded with some useless piece of information.

Multiclassing to the rescue?

And Deadfire is being balanced towards five, so presumably you're in favour of five for Deadfire. That's a list of three. Your list was six long. Also no, these archetypes are not universal. They came to prominence with the rise of MMOs. Because hard more really isn't very hard. Once you understand all the mechanics of Pillars even PotD is pretty easy with a party. Casual is used to mean simplified, but it has negative undertones. When people say a game is casual they mean it's simplified in a bad way, and when they refer to other players as casuals it's obvious it's meant as a term of derision. That's why I don't like it. Heh, okay well I hope I gave you a chance to do so. I think it's partly because a lot of the companions in PoE were rather bland that Obsidian have decided to reduce the number in Deadfire. They want to make sure the ones they do have are deep and well written. Whether they manage remains to be seen I guess.

No, it was *very* definitely called an expansion. in fact, Obsidian was very upfront about their dislike of modern companies DLC habits during that process. My mistake. Still, I doubt the use of the term DLC signifies anything, but we'll see I guess.

Seconded. Great single target damage and it's still very robust.

And seven gives more options than six, and eight gives more options that seven, and so on. If you're going to argue specifically in favour of six you've got to explain why seven or more is worse. Your argument with regard to companion interactions does not do this. So why aren't you arguing in favour of eight? Your arbitrary list of roles isn't universal, and won't become so no matter how many times you repeat it. I really can't parse this sentence, other than the final part about things being generic because everyone is doing them. I agree that that's a fine use for the word generic, but it is not, in of itself, a criticism. It will only be hard if Obsidian don't also tweak encounters to take this into account. I don't have any reason to assume they won't though, do you? We don't know that it will be simpler, because we don't know what other changes Obsidian will be making. I play almost exclusively on PotD, I've never come across this list of roles that "everyone" knows about. Oh also, I spend almost all my time here on the Strategies and Character Builds subforum and haven't come across the list there either. Nerdcommando's builds are pretty bad: he's far too tied up in the idea of min-maxing attributes, but the way attributes work in PoE, together with the changes in patch 2.0, make this a suboptimal way to play PoE. Trust me, go use some of the builds Strategy subforum here and realise just how much better they are than any of his. A side benefit of not min-maxing attributes is that the enemy is much less likely to bypass your front line (this is due to how their targetting works), which in turn makes it much less necessary to have three frontliners. But no, your list of roles is not universal, and if you know what you're doing (rather than following Nercommando's bad advice) you absolutely don't need to follow it. We're talking about party size. If you bring up the chaos of Dragon Age's battlefield then you're implying that it's a result of the smaller party size (actually you said this outright). I am saying that there are many other differences between the two games that contribute to it's chaotic nature, and that therefore using it as an argument against smaller parties is flawed. Well we'll see I guess. All I can say is that with a higher level cap, and all spells and abilities becoming per encounter, I am guessing there will be more, not less, to do in combat even with smaller parties. Combine this with multiclassing and subclasses (giving a total of 1007 class combinations) and I am not at all worried about Deadfire becoming simplified (I refuse to use the term casual as it's such a stupid term).

Me too. My guess would be they simply used different wording by chance, not deliberately.

I doubt the difference is wording means anything.

I can't think of a game in the past five years (probably longer) that has called its extra content "expansions". DLC is just the term used for all additional content these days. The White March parts I and II were called DLC. What exactly Obsidian are planning I can't say (possibly neither can they yet), however I'd expect something similar to the White March i.e. a few fairly large DLCs.

Well, things have changed in the past seventeen years. One thing is that translation work has dried up due to machine translations and cheap translations done by teams in places like China and India. It's quite possible that Black Isle had more options, and those options were better. I don't know for certain, I'm just guessing here, although what I say about translation work having dried up is true (my dad used to do translations of technical manuals as an extra source of income, but eventually the company he got his work from closed down for the very reasons stated about).

This was already the case in PoE, it's just that all the companions were hidden away upstairs in Brighthollow, protected by two PoE loading screens, whilst the player could do everything they needed to in Caed Nua from anywhere outside.

It's not all bad, the Italian translation seems to get a lot of good press from Italian players. Unfortunately, Obsidian are somewhat at the mercy of what translators are available to them. In many cases they won't have native speakers on their staff to read over the translations to see if they are any good; even if they do those people are unlikely to have the time to do so; and even if they did it's likely to cost additional money to have the translators make changes.

I don't mind the steward returning, but I do hope out ship actually has a crew as well. Part of what makes a ship feel alive is the crew engaging in various naval activities like swabbing the main sail and hoisting the petard and other things like that...

As long as Obsidian are sufficiently vague about whether it is in fact Fulvano we're killing, and not some random dude dressed up in Fulvano's cast offs, they can do both.

This is a pretty terrible reason. Firstly, there are going to be seven companions, so even with a party of six (and even with your arbitrary assumption that people won't want to bring Pallegina) that's going to mean one companion is left out. This means one of two things: either you're still going to miss out on companion interactions even with a party of six, or your logic extends and, in fact, seven in the best number (or eight for those of us who plan to bring Pallegina). But the argument is flawed on a more fundamental level in that a player isn't locked into a single party setup. You can cycle through your companions throughout the game and, in doing so, experience all their interactions. I've been doing this since Baldur's Gate 2. "Simplistic" "generic" "weird" and "casual". None of these words really means anything in this context*, they're all just ways of saying "I don't like it". As for your perfect party: that's an awfully specific set of roles that you must have. It's almost like you've gone out of your way to come up with six roles in order to support your view that six is the best number. Here's another role: support/tank. Now I have come up with this role I am afraid that seven is the best number, not six. Also I find comparisons to Dragon Age (or other games) bizarre. You do realise that there were other differences between PoE and Dragon Age than the size of the party, and that these might have had an effect on their differences? I'd focus your attention of getting used to the idea of five person parties, as Josh seemed pretty clear in the Q&A stream that they are not going back to six. *Well, that's not true, I agree that five person parties is "weird" in that it's unusual, but unusual does not mean bad.

You do indeed. This leads to quite a lot of possible combinations (1007 to be exact).

I thought this was already known knowledge. I am sure Josh had already stated somewhere (perhaps in a SA post) that orders and deities were the subclasses for Paladins and Priests, and that there would be no vanilla Paladins or Priests i.e. you have to take an order or deity.

Actually it's neither. It's a prow

The same is arguably true of backing Deadfire at all though. I assume people will pay for the DLC for the same reasons they back Deadfire at all.

Ars Magica eh? I am intrigued.