gkathellar

Pretty much the same for me. I'm basically waiting for TB to get some further optimization before I try another playthrough.

I don't really understand why you'd think this. Turn-based games frequently have an overload of strategic decisions to make every action, and an AI script for such a game has to sort through all of those options, exactly as it would for a real-time game. Are Chess computers not AI? Obviously plenty of turn-based games have extremely rudimentary AI (Fire Emblem I am looking at you), but that's not a requirement by any means. Sorry, had to specify "companion AI". I guess you can add it (?) but what would be the point? I guess that's true. Personally, I always play RTwP games with companion AI off, so that would never occur to me. That said, it's worth noting that in most RTwP games in my experience, AI scripting isn't really any different for companions than it is for enemies. Speaking as someone who's done a bit of fencing and a bit of grappling, RTwP hardly seems any less abstract to me. It still involves a lot of standing around doing nothing while waiting for your next action to come up. A lot of gamers who prefer real-time combat find the RTwP format just as immersion-breaking as you do turn-based for exactly the reasons you've stated - but clearly immersion doesn't come from realism for them either, because I've never seen a game implement real-time combat in a way that wasn't on some level surreal. What matters for the purposes of immersion isn't realism, but engagement with mechanics in such a way that abstractions become indistinguishable from the reality they're meant to allude to. There is a difference: in RTwP you are only waiting for special attacks (well, depends of the system). And as early as BG1, game was able at least simulate continuous attack with animation. In TB character simply does not move a muscle out of turn. So, immersion-wise - RTwP beats TB. Speed-wise - it's not even a comparison Of course there's a difference, and my intent was not to imply there was none. Varying styles of gameplay employ varying types and levels of abstraction. But I take issue with the notion that anything is intrinsically better than anything else for immersion (or anything else, really), only different. Some things work for some people, and some things work for other people. Personally, when I see BG1 or PoE or PF:K "simulate continuous attack with animation," it looks like someone doing the monkey, not like someone fighting. Meanwhile, when I play a silly anime-esque turn-based game like Atelier Ayesha, I'm not bothered by the pauses in the action nearly so much as I'm engaged by the presence of actual visible footwork in the attack animations and the use of good cinematography to make the hits actually look like hits. It's not even the realism that does it for me - Ayesha's combat animations are visually satisfying but also deeply silly. One abstraction works for me and the other doesn't. I'm not right, and people who disagree with me are not wrong. And to be clear, I'm not trying to look askance at the notion of analysis. It's interesting and (for designers in particular) potentially valuable to examine why these preference might exist, and how one might cater to one or another or even multiple such (where that's possible). RTwP, as a format, is itself the product of such analysis: it was an attempt to synthesize some of the virtues of turn-based RPGs and RTS games. But the moment you start saying, "this is better, this is more immersive, this is more fun," you stop doing analysis and start acting out a pattern of behavior that is replicated by fans of every style of gameplay without exception (hell, there are TTRPG fans who attack video games in general for not being "immersive" enough for one contrived reason or another). It's useful to say, "this is why I like the thing I like," but it's maybe less useful to say, "this is why the thing I like is better than the thing other people like."

You know that P:K has a "slow mode", right? You use the "v" button for it... It has a slow mod, but Pathfinder's whole combat system was supposed to be played as turn based, all the classes, feats and such are designed around the idea of turn based combat. No matter how slow you make it, it won't change that. Deadfire on the other hand, is designed for a computer, as a real time game with pause. You could say the same about AD&D. There were both rtwp and turn based games made in this system, guess which of them were more popular? Totally agree about Deadfire tho. Turn based IS however much easier to implement on consoles, and I wouldn't be surprised if that's the direction the game - or POE3 - goes. The trouble with this comparison comes down to PF's very granular combat system, in which a character's turn is divided into one each of several types of action. PF:K is a functioning game, but because so many of its action mechanics happen "under the hood," so-to-speak, and outside of the player's sight or control, a lot of things don't work quite the way they probably should. The loss of 5-foot steps in particular becomes a huge deal, as it means any in-combat movement prevents you from making a full attack which is kind of important for a lot of classes. There's also some funkiness with swift action abilities and with switching abilities on and off. Mind, this all could have been avoided with a looser implementation of PF's rules in the vein of NWN, but that's not what was being sold. The relationship between RTwP and turn-based systems is complex, as many games of the former type have systems of the latter type hidden carefully from view. This was the case in the IE games, and in spite of appearances is the case in PoE, which with its recovery and action times is effectively an elaborate ATB system. But this doesn't mean the conversion is simple or even possible in all cases. Many turn-based games specifically invoke complex action and timing management schemes that are virtually impossible to translate to RTwP. You'd be hard-pressed to take D:OS's action point system and make it work in real time (with or without pause) short of fundamentally altering the underlying systems. Likewise, RTwP games (PoE included) frequently have movement rules that are ... stretchy, in order to accommodate the real-time conceit, and those would be hard to work into a turn-based system. PF:K is, again, a really good case study in all of this, because its attempt to work exactly like P&P and work exactly like a traditional RTwP game at the same time means it runs into some weird (but ultimately minor) issues with doing either. I don't really understand why you'd think this. Turn-based games frequently have an overload of strategic decisions to make every action, and an AI script for such a game has to sort through all of those options, exactly as it would for a real-time game. Are Chess computers not AI? Obviously plenty of turn-based games have extremely rudimentary AI (Fire Emblem I am looking at you), but that's not a requirement by any means. Speaking as someone who's done a bit of fencing and a bit of grappling, RTwP hardly seems any less abstract to me. It still involves a lot of standing around doing nothing while waiting for your next action to come up. A lot of gamers who prefer real-time combat find the RTwP format just as immersion-breaking as you do turn-based for exactly the reasons you've stated - but clearly immersion doesn't come from realism for them either, because I've never seen a game implement real-time combat in a way that wasn't on some level surreal. What matters for the purposes of immersion isn't realism, but engagement with mechanics in such a way that abstractions become indistinguishable from the reality they're meant to allude to.

They were talking about a tabletop version, right? Maybe it's implementing those mechanics.

WANT What’s the fun in not playing the game? I have everyone on autoattack (and occasional no AI if I want to time my recovery) and manage every ability use. It’s way more fun that way, than watching figurines smash it out with little imput from yours truly (what can I say - I am a control freak). It gets extremely tedious after a while. Most non-boss fights look exactly the same: I always use the same abilities in the same order, because it works best. Why wouldn't I want to automate it? In my opinion customizable scripts is the second greatest thing in Deadfire (after Eder). It's the same with stuff like pre-buffing in other games of this type. Like in Kingmaker you can have a party of 6, but I always run with 4 people just to cut down on tedious buffing between each rest. A lot of that is a function of having too many fights. Tbh, for all that I like both PoEs, they've given me a newfound respect for the pacing of tactics RPGs, where fights tend to be long and involved enough that they can also be relatively few in number and integrated more fully into the narrative. So you might have a "drake and boars fight," but you'd only have one, instead of three.

What are the chances of Microsoft embarking on a project such as this for anything other than profit? I'm not sure, but here's my guess: exactly 0%. They sometimes, occasionally, every once in a while, do things with longer-term profit in mind, though. Microsoft is many things, quite a few of them bad, but it's not EA.

Looks like Doctor Fate to me.

I do wish Priest of Woedica and Steel Garrote weren't attached to like ... Woedica. They both seem pretty awesome, but this is just one of those things where I can't get over the fluff.

I tend to be the same way (and like you, I always have been), and I agree that the whole recovery-time structure of Pillars makes the tendency even worse. So does the heal-over-time aspect of potions, come to think of it - I used healing potions when I needed to in BG, but much less in PoE where I click the button and then nothing happens. I'm much more into per-day and per-encounter consumables for this reason, but even there it takes an act of mental effort for me to remember to use them.

... it occurs to me that Tactician has party anti-synergy with Streetfighter. It'd be one thing if the two subclasses didn't function properly on the same character, but as it is they don't function properly on the same team. That seems wrong. Party members need not work well together, but I feel like their abilities shouldn't be mutually exclusive.

Loremaster works fine. Invocations are quite useful for helping you last the whole fight at earlier levels, and later on they can fill in some holes in the wizard's panoply (summons, notably). Skald will probably be okay if your MO is to buff and charge into melee, but it's worse than Troubadour both in general and specifically for a Loremaster, as crits with spells don't grant phrases. You are correct in thinking that Chill Fog is phenomenally good as an AoE debuff. Blinded is one of the best afflictions available. Last I checked Thrice She Was Wronged is nothing special, but if you're really committed to improving it, you'll want a suit of armor called Deltro's Cage. Weapons bonuses do not apply to spells (although some weapons provide general bonuses, such as PL increases, which will improve spells). A Chanter does indeed benefit from their own Phrases. Basically, your approach should work fine, although it's not necessarily the 100% most optimal route to take for the multiclass. You're a chanter, you'll do great.

You like D1 & 2 more than 3? That's not exactly an unusual opinion. A lot of the criticism of D3 revolved around how different it was from the Blizzard North entries. Tonally, it's a little less pervasively bleak. Artistically, it's somewhat more anime. It's no more or less of a huge cliche pile-up than it ever was, but some of the specific plot beats have worn a little thin in their repetition. Most importantly, the character growth system is entirely different. Given the lack of skill points or other permanent investment, D3 doesn't really have builds-as-character-progression, and by the postgame everything revolves around equipment sets (except for like, all both of the viable LoN builds). It's a pretty good game for, "ooh, maybe it'd be fun to try this out today, I have the stuff for it," and a pretty bad one for, "I'm going to find novel and interesting combinations capable of challenging the most difficult endgame grinds." Late stage D2 was, "oh man now that I'm level 80 everything is really coming together." Late stage D3 is, "ooh, I almost have all of Natalya's Vengeance, I wonder how high a rift level I can beat with that." And bear in mind that post-RoS, the game is vastly better than it was on release, so for people who only saw it in the 1.X development cycle, that's their impression of it. Paragon levels in particular add a bit more of that old leveling joy to the proceedings.

It would be cool if they just had a 6-character party to begin with.

D3's story is fine. It's not terrible, and is certainly more developed than D1 or D2 (not necessarily better, but more developed for sure), although it suffers like all games of its type from having a protagonist who is deeply disconnected from its narrative. But then, that's not really the point. The point is to mash buttons until the monsters are dead, and it performs admirably in that department for a while, even if it's way too short and the post-game is unbelievably vacuous (which, to be fair, is pretty standard in this genre - only Path of Exile manages to dodge it). Deadfire's story has problems, but it is undoubtedly better written, better structured, and better told overall. It has actual characters, too, so that's a plus. The biggest problem is pacing, which D3 does manage with aplomb, but I mean yeah, Diablo-alikes have pretty good pacing in general (TL2 and D2's second acts were a little slow, but that's all I can really complain about). ... I never noticed that, but jeez, it's everywhere, ain't it? Widowmaker in Overwatch, that Dark Templar matriarch, I swear there's one in SC2, there's the half-orc girl in WC2 ... hell, even in the backstory for WC3, Medivh's mother got infected with Sargeras (don't you judge me, I was 13 when I read that tie-in novel). Somebody should make a list. This is pathological.

This isn't quite true. Weapon proficiencies are also tied in to a few class abilities, especially on the fighter. That being said, the complaint definitely seems ridiculous to me. Level Eder up, gain new proficiencies. Complaining that Eder doesn't have the proficiencies you want at *level one*? Come on now. Every character (except a Devoted fighter) is going to wind up with more proficiencies than they will ever need. Pretty much this. Very few characters will use more than one or two modals (if any), and by level 8 you have something like 4 of them, two of which you've chosen. I could see it being frustrating on Eder or Xoti or Aloth for like the five minutes you're in Port Maje, but the level at which you recruit every other companion will give you the opportunity to choose whatever modal you need. a) Poe's Law applies. b) Satire is not immunity from criticism.

I don't like the relationship system that seems to define companion vs. sidekick, so that sounds fine to me. What I'd love to see are relationship tracks for the sidekicks that aren't integrated into a mechanic that strikes me as nothing but trouble. It's weird: influence systems are most often seen in CRPGs, but I think they're a lot more useful on the tabletop, where they can provide guidance. In computer games, where all they do is unlock certain dialogue options, it strikes me as more logical to just have a map of said options with whatever variables are relevant.

Does this also fix the problem where high resolve would increase power of DoTs affecting you?

... but you can. People get so hung up on how we need attrition in western CRPGs, but you can't have both attrition and the near-total freedom of movement that is a hallmark of the genre. At the very least, you need the mechanics of attrition to impair one's freedom of movement, either functionally (as in Wasteland 2, where leaving dungeons and coming back is going to cost you valuable water/ammunition, etc) or intrinsically (not allowing you to leave areas until they're completed). Many JRPGs factor in attrition by including random battles (and making those battles part of the expected leveling curve, punishing you for avoiding them). The Persona games had meaningful attrition by incentivizing the player, strongly, to save time by trying to do as much as you could all in one go. But barring some kind of opportunity cost to jaunting around willy-nilly, attrition is just not going to be meaningful.

I agree with every part of the opening post, but the lack of attribute values in the tooltips in particular is just weird.

Fighters were Tier 1, as mob stance attacked every enemy around you with a full attack, when you downed one previously. Unbeding had 50% health gain instead of 25%. B4 they buff the fighter, they should rather buff the druid / ranger trash tier. Neither of those classes is bad. Druid is very strong as a primary caster, and ranger, for all that its options prior to PL 7 or so are pretty uninteresting, is perfectly serviceable on account of account of its giant pile of accuracy buffs and pet. Ranger in particular could be more dynamic, and druid is sort of unfocused in the context of multiclassing (it made a lot more sense in PoE1 when it occupied a weird, unique sort of gishy-squishy role), but both are serviceable.

Nah, fighters are solid as-is. Maybe not as dynamic relative to other classes as they were in PoE, but power-wise? They're good.

I don't think it's any better or worse than Warden - both are solid 5-point nouned-verbs that are pleasing to the ear, easy to avoid in general dialog, and imply a sense of general mystery while fitting naturally as a pseudonym. But you've got to give "The Nameless One" credit for being both evocative and much more than just a nouned-verb title.

It’s an RPG. Your interactions with the world around you define who your Watcher is and if he/she is interesting to you. That's an awfully narrow definition of RPG, and not even one that necessarily holds up within PoE's subgenre - PS:T and KotOR 2, and to a lesser extent the Mass Effect trilogy, have aptly demonstrated that the standard western CRPG can work with a protagonist whose identity is more defined from the outset (this is to say nothing of JRPGs). While there's something to be said for games like Baldur's Gate or Skyrim or - hell, let's throw in a JRPG that adheres to the Western model - Etrian Odyssey, in which the story of the hero's internal life is not ever really touched upon, I don't think you can really take it as a truism RPGs cannot, do not, or should not do that. I tend to agree with misterjimmy in this case, and I think a better-defined Watcher with more actual character traits would make a better foil for PoE's narrative beats. YMMV.

She's perfectly serviceable as a Geomancer, yes. I don't think anyone has claimed otherwise - if they have, they're wrong. Hell, early after release, the grimoire system and the existence of blightheart were both widely put forth as reasons to go geomancer. The conventional thinking has changed - scout's debuffing and DoT options have been better-explored at this point, and people are actually paying attention to those PL 8-9 powers on single-class rangers - but I haven't seen any claims that geomancer doesn't work for her.

I completely agree. The entire sidekick/companion demarcation seems pointlessly overcomplicated to me.