gkathellar

Not only are they feasible, barbarians are arguably (arguably) better in back with a reach weapon than on the front. Especially if they have gimped Int scores, like she does for reasons.

inorite Nothing he was doing had any effect, nor did he have any reason to believe it would. That borders on the definition of a witch hunt. This is exactly the sort of thing a dirty animancer would say... Hey! I may be dirty, but I'm no animancer.

KDubya and MountainTiger explicate the matter excellently, so I'll give you the short version. tl;dr Monks are excellent mixed DPS/tanking, with room to sway towards either end of the spectrum. Don't be afraid to use heavy armor.

inorite Nothing he was doing had any effect, nor did he have any reason to believe it would. That borders on the definition of a witch hunt.

This is a pretty common Western misconception, because in Buddhism, gods (devas) are generally acknowledged to exist but not actually worshipped. You can't even get through the Buddha's backstory without bumping into Brahma, the Hindu creator. The crucial point is that gods are seen not as a wholly different class of being, but rather as having a better spot on the wheel of karma (see: death and rebirth) despite not having escaped it. Of course, Buddhists of many schools do pray to the Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, and Arhats more-or-less as if they were gods, so this is all a bit esoteric. In Chinese and Japanese Buddhism, the difference gets even more arcane, for complicated syncretic cultural reasons that I won't get into. Suffice it to say that not only does Buddhism have gods, it has lots of gods, who are unusual by Western standards mostly in that they had nothing to do with the world's creation. What's interesting is that this attribute is actually also the most unusual thing about Eora's gods (by Western, post-classical standards); what it shares with Buddhism is not a lack of gods - it's the principle of gods as created beings who are not themselves creators. This isn't a novel idea - to Buddhism or PoE - but most of us are used to the Platonic notion of "god as unmoving mover," so we interpret "created artificially" and "god" as mutually exclusive. It says even more about our own concepts of divinity than it does about the setting's that we imagine Thaos' secret as being such a big deal. A lot of cultures, historical and extent, would see no problems.

No, I dispute this on several points. Firstly, D&D's Law vs. Chaos is (at least on the mortal scale) about behavioral consistency and internal rules, not about obedience to external social strictures. The lawful good character believes to some degree that good upholds a set of rules and procedures, which likewise uphold good; what's crucial is not any particular strictures so much as it is the clear, embodied nature of those strictures. Chaos, on the other hand, is about freedom, spontaneity, and formlessness - it may help to bear in mind that planar chaos strives in its purest form towards the infinite possibility of nonexistence. Chaotic good characters react according to what they feel is right in the situation, rather than trying to force that situation into a set of principles that can be articulated. Second. It's important to bear in mind that concepts like vengeance and justice don't actually map to the aforementioned alignments. Certainly, organizations like the Mercykillers are lawful in being obsessed with a very clear and specific form of justice. But that's not because they're interested in law, it's because they're interested in justice, law being what we extrapolate their philosophy out to on examination. But a chaotic character is just as capable of vengeance or retribution or even resorting to the law of the land, it's just that they're going to do it when they feel like it. Likewise, a preoccupation with happiness is not a distinctly chaotic good characteristic, or even a distinctly good one. The alignment wheel cares a lot about means and intended ends, but not much about underlying emotional motives. What you're presenting with the happiness thing is a sort of consequentialist-deontological set of motives as driving LG characters. But while it might be fair to say that LG characters are more deontological by nature whilst CG characters are more utilitarian, a CG character could just as easily be portrayed as having an inclination towards virtue ethics, while a LG one might be seen as a rule utilitarian. Planescape-era alignment wheel stuff (the only time the wheel has been coherent) is grounded less in "x philosophy equals y alignment," and more, "alignment as a literal term for the relationship between an individual's worldview and cosmic forces sitting on either end of the fulcrum of existence." Thirdly, and I want to stress this, any judgment of Nonton and whatsherface ultimately depends on whether the Watcher believes anything they say, and on whether the Watcher believes themselves capable of making that judgment. Sure, the two claim that Parley was a bad dude and that they needed to kill him to escape his bad dude behavior, but we actually see zero evidence for this claim. In the language of PoE, a Benevolent Watcher is charitable not just for letting the two go, but also for believing them. In the language of alignment, either a Lawful or a Chaotic character might see this as an understandable reason for skepticism, and feel that it's better to let a magistrate or other qualified individual sort the whole mess out.

Yeah, but I'm enjoying it. Which is weird, right?

Benevolent doesn't mean "morally correct." It means "benevolent." Letting them go is charitable, but not necessarily right.

They're magic! Wait.

^ Yeah, basically. They did Lords of the Eastern Reach because once you have an IP with fans, you milk the damn thing. Honestly, Pillars' greatest weakness as a potential multimedia franchise is the lack of a distinctive "look" and artistic style. They'll ameliorate that with time, but it's hardly the most important thing for its type of game, so it'll be fine for now. PoE2 is happening, no question.

Priests in PoE almost certainly don't receive their powers from their deity. The power was inside you all along, yo. This has been adequately explained. You don't like the explanation, but that doesn't make it wrong, and your continued insistence that this is so and that the game's internals MUST CONFORM TO YOUR WILL is ... stupid? Insane? No no no, see, "roleplaying" consists of playing a role. If you are roleplaying in Eora, you take Soulbound weapons as a fact of life, because that's what you are. You, the person, may find it difficult to suspend your disbelief due to the inclusion of Soulbound weapons; you may not want to roleplay in a setting with Soulbound weapons. But that doesn't make them a "violation of roleplaying" - as if there were a magical list of rules compiled by Gary Gygax and agreed upon by all the wisest roleplayers in the land for what is and is not acceptable in fantasy roleplaying games.

Aloth's quest needs to be completed before the animancy hearings in act 2.

LOL no. this game has been out for a VERY long time... and the number of independent mods for it that have any significant game impacts are tiny. way fewer in number and scope than I would have even expected. I think this engine is a dead end myself; it's just too esoteric and too prone to odd little bugs. and that's too bad, because I don't really see anyone else even trying to replace the RPG infinity engine other than Obsidian. I think whoever coded this made a yuuuge mess of it. Yes well.

Kill 'em.

I think y'all may be reading more into the statement than is actually there - really, the most I can get out of it is "no more Pillars expansions." It mostly sounds like he's very intentionally avoiding confirmation on anything.

Nope, that's not it.......you are just rationalising like many others. Just finding a believable excuse to justify cheesiness Right, I forgot, things you don't like must necessarily be bad, and when others reject your criticism, they're just rationalizing. If the game or setting includes design choices you disagree with, they must necessarily be mistakes that can't be adequately explained. By no means is this attitude intellectually dishonest.

In essence, the Soulbound weapon intermediates for its wielder. Just think of it as the magical equivalent of a smartlink weapon - it plugs into the character's soul and provides them with knowledge that they wouldn't otherwise have. The character still does the heavy lifting, but the weapon supplies data with which to do it.

... this would make far more sense if the abilities you're talking about weren't totally asymmetric and so impossible to meaningfully compare along these lines.

Coming back to seriously playing the game for the first time in a while. Is there any reason I don't want to just take this as everyone's 1st-3rd talent?

Its not a magical property It's a property that only appears on a few, particular shields found in a few, particular places. In game terms, that borders on the definition of magic item. This is true of some larger shields, but is generally false due to things referred to as, "strength training," and, "transition stances." It is 100% false when it comes to the buckler, which was an excellent complement to the rapier in part because it could be used as an effective weapon at close ranges where the rapier became cumbersome. I've heard people swear by sword-and-dagger or case-of-rapiers as superior, but it's hard to get past the mix of grappling, striking, and parrying opportunities that a buckler presents. Of course, this doesn't matter, because PoE makes no attempt to be totally grounded in reality. If it were, given the technology of the time, everyone would be wearing plate with rapiers, polearms and longswords, and large shields would be entirely out of fashion. This game is good at looking like it's in keeping with RL technological history, but it's not, nor does it try to be. Setting aside the fact that Might is not muscle mass, can you explain why your choice of numbers isn't totally arbitrary? QFT. Yeah, the pavise doesn't really fit with PoE's adventure-y aesthetic, being mostly for large-scale formation combat, not the light skirmishing that dominates the game.

In a mechanical sense, maybe. Really, though, having people use bucklers and then not use them for punching is more than my little medieval combat nerd brain can handle.

I'm still kinda disappointed that the house wasn't the Watcher's winter home in Defiance Bay. Ah, well.

It might have escaped your notice, but Bethesda games are action games just as much, and possibly more, as they are RPGs. Naw, but see, the combat in an action game is typically good. Persona, yo.

Yeah, but what more would one desire from an isometric RPG in terms of graphics? In keeping with this, it is important to note that graphical quality isn't nearly so important as aesthetic quality. PoE doesn't have technically advanced graphics, but it does have a consistent aesthetic that works for it. They mostly learned from Skyrim, by all accounts. And also by observation, since Fallout 4 is Skyrim. They've taken them to a whole new level of being same-y graphics expos with lots to do but no reason to do any of it. But of course, sales = quality, right? It's telling that there are popular mods for the Elder Scrolls games which remove the plot and randomize your point of origin.

Knowledge of how to make black powder cane much earlier than its widesoread use in war, and even then it took centuries for it to prove superior to the alternatives. That, and also Tolkein was largely anti-industry and anti-technology.