Search the Community

I play on PS4 and I am new to pillars. I am playing the deadfire ultimate addition. I like to start with a good Paladin (single class), a shieldbearer. A tank with a shield and mace. I’ve deducted that the attributes most beneficial to me would be; might, constitution, resolve, intellect. Am I correct, and what are the best numbers for those stats?

Hi, I have been trying to make a Intelligence speech check. I have high Intelligence the check required very high intelligence. I have tried consuming different kinds of consumables that offered +1 to mind attributes like 2 Hour energy drink. For some reason the Intelligence and perception seem to be unaffected despite the use of consumables i. they don't move to very high from just high. Consumables that offer +1 always raise my strength to very high from high when I consume them so I don't see why the mind attributes are not being raised. Did someone else notice this? is its a bug or intentional?

Hey guys, Is there some kind of mod or save editor that allows you to edit your characters attributes, since they can't be changed through a respec? Is the best way to do this by using the Iroll20s command in the console? I ask because if at all possible I'd rather not disable achievements but I can live with it if that's the only way. Basically the reason I'm wondering is because I started a new playthru on turn based mode and I'm quite enjoying it...but I didn't quite realize that the builds wouldn't translate as well as they should between real time and turn based. So I'd like to lower dex/raise might on a number of characters (I'm doing a full party of my own this time with a bunch of different/fun builds). Thanks!

Does an item with +1 int stack with an item that has +2 int for a total bonus of +3 int for example? What about inspirations? Do they stack? How about weapon proficiency modals? What among these things do and don't stack with each other type? Is suppression still around in PoE2 or will all items' effects stack with each other?

Se each one of these grants +1 to an attribute, which you can simply adjust for in the previous screen of the character creation flow. E.G. I want my char to be from the White that Wends, which grants +1 perception, which I don't need, so I just press back, set my perception to 9 (which will be 10 after I select my culture), and move my attribute point to whichever attribute I happen to need. I never liked culture bonuses because they force me to make a decision between my stats and bonuses and the dialog I will get when playing the game. The system in deadfire solves this problem, but using the technique above seems like you could achieve exactly the same thing by simply not having culture bonuses at all. Why not just remove them? I think the benefit of having the flavor of "chars from XXX are more perceptive" is pretty weak given that most people will adjust for it anyways. Job bonuses seem more justified, IMHO.

Hello! i get frustrated every time i remember that physical and spiritual strength are inevitably related, The other characteristics included on the other attributed are more logically related, but physical and spiritual strength? Someone else bothers this? Hope this is changed. I had this idea:(sorry, cant avoid it :v) Might having two branches, one for physical strength and one for spiritual, if you have 16 might, you have 16 on physical and 16 on spiritual, you can relocate points from physical to spiritual and vise-versa, of course the bonuses on combat would be really small, but now there would be physical and spiritual strength attribute checks, so you can role a pure muscular with arcane dysfunction or a flimsy arcane genius wizard

The biggest issue I´ve always had with pillars 1 was the ammount of "obligatory" items required to pass at least most statchecks, wether they were in scripted actions or dialogs. You were punished by the game, if you chose different than an item with +3 or +4 attributebonus. Whats even worse, those items were rarely worth the effort, since they both exhibited useless or even downgrading second enchantments (speedpenality or spellbound) and occupy itemslots better used on other items/effects (bonus spells for example). However what makes these items so terrible is the fact that they have little to no alternatives. The player cannot enchant items with a +4 boost to any stat. They cannot anything except armor, weapons and shields to begin with (so no headgear, rings, etc.). I wish Obsidian would remove this issue in upcoming games (probably to late for POE2 now) or at least not make matters worse as with the white march dlcs (I HATE those rings +4) As I can see it they could: 1 Add a wider variety of items with the higest available attribute-bonus 2 Making all attribute-enchantments usable (as an option for crafting) to the players 3 Implementing bonus attributepoints as a part of characterdevelopement The last option could be done either by granting points upon level-up (easy way, but unpersonal) or by rewarding points for progressing the characters reputation. As for the last mentioned option, let me explain. Pillars 1 had 10 reputations/allignments, always in opposing pairs (benevolent/cruel, diplomatic/aggressiv, clever/stoic, passionate/rational and honest/deceptive) Each of them maxed out (to my knowledge) at 4. If each reputation grants boni to an attribute that seems logical for it (aggressive->might, benevolent->perception, clever->intelligence) based on its own progress and countered by its oposite, the players would be both rewarded and supported for their chosen playstyle. Example1: 4 Benevolent/ 0 Cruel -> +4 Perception/ 0 Might Example2: 4 Ben/ 1 Cr -> +3P/+1M Example3/4:2 Ben/ 2 Cr OR 3 Ben/ 3Cr OR 4 Ben/ 3Cr -> +2P/+2M for ambivalente personality etc. What is your opinion on the subject?

New to PoE and I'm having a hard time figuring out which attributes are important for a barbarian. It seems like there is a lot of conflicting information about stats on the forums because they all support different builds and play-styles. Back in the day I would have just restarted a thousand times to try out all kinds of creations but I don't have the time or patience for that anymore. So if you don't mind, a little help to get me started would be much appreciated. This looks like a great game and I can't wait to dive in. So far I think I'm set on a pale-elf two-handed offtank barbarian on hard difficulty. Good damage but not as squishy as a rogue or cipher and his AoE will help with the extra number of enemies. I get that INT is important, but how much is too much? I mean, I don't think putting another 1 or 2 points into INT is worth it just to catch that one extra enemy in carnage, right? But where is the cut-off point? What is better for survivability, CON or RES? I've seen builds that dump CON in favor of RES but that just doesn't make sense. Why go through all that trouble to negate the barbarian's weak deflection when you can just play to their strength and go more CON for a larger health and endurance pool? But maybe I'm wrong. MIG, DEX, or PER? I've seen builds that will dump two and max one of these but they never say what play-style they are going for to support their logic. Seems like MIG is the obvious answer but maybe landing hits with PER or hitting more with DEX is more advantageous. I'm not really one for min/maxing, but which attribute can safely be lowered a bit?

Hi all, I just started the White March DLC and really wanted to incorporate zahua into my party. I wanted him to take Eder's role as main tank. The thought of an ascetic tank was just too much for me to resist. The tank is gonna take a beating, so why not make him the guy who uses pain as a pathway to enlightenment! Furthermore, monk looks to have some pretty cool CC abilities that may be a bit more interesting to play than Eder's fighter class. Anyway, it's pretty obvious that using zahua with the attributes he comes programmed with wasn't going to cut it, as he was balanced around dps. So I used the console commands to change his attributes to better suit a tank. I also replaced mortification of the soul with defender. I'm currently using: lvl7 mgt 8 con 18 dex 13 per 11 int 10 res 17 for reference, here's his stats without the modification. unmodded lvl7 mgt 17 con 14 dex 13 per 11 int 10 res 12 Using a stiletto with life drain, a shield, and heavy armor, he still feels feels considerably squishier than eder was. This could just be the area I was in (russetwood has some pretty heavy hitting trolls and ogres), but regardless I'd like to get you guys opinions on how to create this custom monk main tank build. Seems really fun if I can get it working the way i want! Thanks for any input.

might 18 dex 15 Con 10 int 17 per and res is 9. Will this stats let you stand a chance during combat? So question is weapon choice? Should go for 2h or dual wield? Because of per and res, deflection is not that good. So comes the armor issue. Cloth or medium armor? comments, ideas, other build suggestions are welcome.

The new Druid spell Natures Bounty increases might and perception permanent by incredible high amounts.

Hi Dev team, Please help to fix the issues below: 1. Swamp slime is getting way more damage than it is supposed to. This essentially breaks the flow of the endless path exploration for me since these poor creatures fall like flies while the battles are supposed to be much more difficult: 2. When the attributes provide a negative modifier to a particular defense, the subtracted amount is X-1 instead of X. For example let's take a Dargul. By default it has 40 (Defl) 35(Fort) 35(Refl) 30(Will). Its attributes are: Per 12, Res 10 --> + 2 Defl Mig 10, Con 22 --> +24 Fort Dex 18, Per 12 --> +20 Refl Int 12, Res 10 --> + 4 Will This provides the following default defenses: 42 59 55 39 Let's apply the following afflictions: dazed, flanked, frightened, prone dazed: -2 Dex, -2Per, -2Int flanked: -10 Defl frightened: -2Res, -2Dex (suppressed) prone: -2Dex (suppressed), -10 Defl, -10 Refl Per 10, Res 8 --> - 2 Defl (bugged to -1) Mig 10, Con 22 --> +24 Fort Dex 16, Per 10 --> +12 Refl Int 10, Res 8 --> - 4 Will (bugged to -3) This provides the following defenses 19 59 37 32 instead of 18 59 37 31. And here is a picture as proof:

Greetings, I just ran in to a bug with the game, where my characters attributes are ruined, http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/716413223222274622/0580A9B8A6ACA01CC1E6A98C7B0234E058557F8A/ screenshot of my characters attributes after loading back in to the game. Basiclly how it happened and what is casuing it as far as I can tell, I had Wild Leech used with my character, so I had very high stats when I saved, then I left for a while and now that I got back to play some my characters attributes turn in to that after a few seconds after loading in, when I get in and instantly pause the game and then look at my stats, they are at what they are supposed to be normally, but then as soon as I unpause they decrease as the Wild Leech buff wears of me, and my stats decrease by a lot. Here is a link to my save if anyone at Obsidian wants to take a look at it, and hopefully it will help get this bug fixed http://www.filedropper.com/bc09940c-1399-449d-b82d-b74dac501781quicksave

Making a melee Wizard for hard + expert. I could really need some help not to make any terrible mistakes. The following post is my logical train of thought for making it maximum viable. Could you give me any advice or tell me if some of my decision making here is off? Race It seems that fire godlike and moon godlike are the only good choices here. Which one would you consider better? With moon godlike, you heal endurance 3 times per encounter at 75/50/25% hp. Seems to favor: Might (+Damage and benefit from the +Healing) With fire godlike, 4DR at 50% health and below. However: With low base health, might not actually be that good? Seems to favor: Con ... Endurance and constitution The difference between 3 - 10 - 20 constitution is for a lvl7 Wizard (choosing mid-range level here): -21% - 0% - +30% @30+10 endurance per level: 79HP or 100hp or 130hp. With vital essence our endurance will be (at its peak): 179 - 200 - 230 ... Spell durations for a Melee wizard Parasitic staff: 30 seconds Eldritch Aim (+15 ACC): 10 seconds Spirit shield: 60 seconds Bulwark against elements (elemental DT): 60 seconds Infuse with vital essence (100end bonus): 15 seconds Alacrity of motion (1.5 attack speed, minor endurance drain): 15 seconds Displaced image (+20 deflection +20 reflex): 15 seconds Iron skin (+8DT): Duration is 10 received attacks Martial power (+20 con, dex, deflection, +20 to hit roll): 20 seconds As we can see, the absolute highest peak we can reach in one fight is: +20 to hit +20 deflection +20 dex +20 con +20 reflex, will, fortitude +8DT 100 end bonus 1.5 attack speed In conclusion, int should definitely be your main boosted stat to improved durations, due to limited rest. Do you agree? ... Weapon of choice Spears for +acc /w light shield for deflection bonus. Light shield has no +acc penalty. Estoc for DR bypass, will be good /w the 1.5 attack speed buff. Quarterstaff for extended reach and parasitic staff spell. Hatchet for deflection bonus. These seems to be the best options, thoughts? ... Talents + chance to hit is VITAL for a melee wiz due to low starting value. Weapon focus: Peasant grants +6acc to hatchet, spear and quarterstaff. This would definitely be the best choice unless you go Estoc? Cautious attack: 0.8 speed modifier for +10 deflection. With alacrity (1.5 bonus) this becomes 1.3 bonus with +10 deflection. A good choice no? Lesser and greater spell heuristics: Increases the casting time for all our buff spells. Can't go wrong with these I think? Superior deflection: +5 deflection ... ATTRIBUTES Constitution: Leave at 10 imo, because Wizards get the LEAST from boosting health. A melee wizard should focus on DR and deflection. Alternatively - If you go fire godlike, max Con. Might: If moon godlike, max. If not, 10-14 Dexterity: 10-12 Perception: 10-12 Intelligence: 18+ Resolve: 10-12 ...

First, let me start off and note that there is most likely going to be some spoilers mentioned as I write this. The reason I'm still posting it in General Discussion is because this is a very general topic, but if someone is feeling particularly stingy today, a mod can feel free to move this thread to Character Builds, Strategies & the Unity Engine, despite the thread likely having nothing to do with any of that. Second, before I start, I expect to get some flak on at least some of the points, or possibly because of the entire thread, because I'm overly critical, and maybe some accusations of me hating the game. Nothing could be further from the truth; Pillars of Eternity is an amazing game in many regards. Much of the art is second to none, the areas are absolutely beautiful, many of the apparent design goals are great, the open-ended approach to characters is amazing, the writing is largely superb, and many of the characters are some of the best I've experienced (I especially love Edér and Durance) and even those I did not expect to like at all are quite good (Kana Rua, Hiravias). It feels unfair to many of the developers that we often end up focusing on the issues, but it is the fact of life that we rarely take time to discuss that which has no problems. If this was a speech, this is where I'd ask for a round of applause before I continue. It is an amazing effort and despite questionable decisions, whether along the road or more recently, it bears repeating; Pillars of Eternity is an amazing game in many regards, and even those of us that insist on finding issues, examining them, pick them apart, beating the system with a wrench and suggest solutions are - by and large - looking forward to where all of this will take us in the future, whether in expansions or sequels. It's all still a little bit up in the air. Now, as for those issues, written mostly straight from memory, these are some of the clearest issues as I see them, and some thoughts related to them. The Attributes. By now, I think that most people have acknowledged that the Attributes are.. lopsided, to say the least. When the current set of Attribute modifiers were introduced in BBv435, they were a considerable departure from the previous set of modifiers. What is notable here is that before BBv435, damage calculations were extremely off, with the result being that Accuracy was far more valuable than it is now, leading to Perception, which gave +2 Accuracy, was the undisputed king of everything. BBv435 thus did a "double-whammy" in that when fixing that issue, Accuracy was (rightfully) devalued, but the Attribute modifiers were still changed considerably to deal with an issue that may not even have been as pronounced any more. Also, with BBv435, many beta testers pointed out some obvious issues, but were unable to truly test the setup, because BBv435 was also broken in that the Dexterity bonus, +3% Action Speed, worked in reverse (so lower Dexterity was better) and Interrupt calculations were broken (meaning you could put enemies into stunlocks by having high Perception. Despite this, it was said that this setup was supposedly feeling like "the most balanced yet", a statement that in hindsight should be taken with a bowl of salt. Despite the issues being pointed out by sheer theorycrafting alone, the Attributes did not change with BBv480, which was released very shortly before release, and then finally, the Attributes were still not changed on release. For references: Really Old Modifiers (Removed after BBv392): MGT: +3% Damage & Healing, +2 Fortitude. CON: +2% Endurance & Health, +2 Fortitude. DEX: +3% Action Spd, +2 Reflex. PER: +2 Accuracy, +5% Range, +2 Reflex. INT: +6% AoE, +2 Deflection, +2 Will. RES: +3% Concentration, +5% Duration, +2 Will. Current Modifiers (BBv435 to 1.03): MGT: ±3% Damage & Healing, ±2 Fortitude. CON: ±3 Endurance & Health, ±2 Fortitude. DEX: ±3% Action Speed, ±2 Reflex. PER: ±3 Interrupt, ±1 Deflection, ±2 Reflex. INT: ±6% Area of Effect, ±5% Duration, ±2 Will. RES: ±3 Concentration, ±1 Deflection, ±2 Will.This current setup favours heavy specialization, which I find somewhat infuriating. Min/maxing is greatly encouraged, not even by class like in the Infinity Engine games (which also had pronounced issues with this, but at least the min/maxing was different for each class) but by build itself - boiling it down to two, DPS and Tank. Tanks want PER/RES, while DPS wants DEX/MGT. This ties into somewhat with the issues of the armour system, with Dexterity being virtually useless for anyone in armour, because the DPS/Tank dichotomy carries over into that, but that's another point. INT is useful for almost everyone, and is a completely consolidated caster attribute, increasing both Duration% and Area of Effect% at the same time. CON is largely useless, because it adds much more for High-Endurance Classes than for Low-Endurance Classes. The Low-Endurance Classes are very unlikely to serve as tanks, and if they can be considered needing of an Endurance boost, they will actually receive very little, and certainly not to the point where it will make a real difference; if they get caught taking damage consistently, they will die consistently whether they have a relatively small +% boost or not. The opposite is true for High-Endurance Classes; if they are serving as tanks, they will be good or bad tanks based on factors far beyond their Endurance pool, and while they get more Endurance than a Low-Endurance Class, they also need the boost far less. So CON doesn't help those that need it, and it's not necessary for those that it could help. For ranged DPS, the situation is slightly worse, because they can even get away with dumping CON; not only are they likely to already have very low Endurance, meaning that they don't take as big of an impact as a High-Endurance class reducing their CON, but they are also out of harms way, meaning that they should never be consistently hit outside of fringe cases (Shadows, etc). The goal of the Attribute System as a whole is truly admirable. The goal that each of the Attributes should affect everyone equally, and be reasonably viable to some degree, allowing different builds to be different yet competative - a high-Perception Wizard being comparable to a high-Dexterity wizard, just with relatively different play-styles. But it falls woefully short of that mark. Furthermore, the modifiers are largely unintuitive. For example, all of the best barbarian builds all use Intellect, which I definitely think should be doable, but it should not be the default, intuitive assumption. Likewise, any Paladin that isn't specifically a tank should never taken Resolve, despite Resolve being what you'd expect to be a primary Attribute for Paladins. Gruff and violent fighters clad in heavy armour are not the first ones you think of when you think Perception and Resolve, yet it is exactly the thing you'd want. All casters will want Might as at least a secondary Attribute, and although it was conceptualized as a general Attribute signifying inner strength, it tends to revolve more around physical prowess in play, which is the opposite of every wizardly archetype ever. What is more worrysome is that Obsidian has already acknowledge this as an issue. In 1.03, the CNPC Attributes were overhauled, likely in the response to overwhelming commentary regarding the truly gimp Attribute Spreads that CNPC:s had. For example, Aloth had major scores in Intellect and Perception, the latter which is completely dead weight for him. The Attributes were moved around for most of the CNPC:s to give them objectively better Attributes. Instead of using the realization that the Attributes were bad for the CNPC:s to change the Attribute system, they instead acknowledged the issue and decided to change the CNPC:s to make them better, compromising the Attribute/Character Concept foundation that shaped those decisions to begin with. Pallegina, the literally bird-eyed Avianlike lost Perception for Resolve. Hiravias, the wood-born tough-as-nails had-eye-gouged-out-and-ear-ripped-off Wild Orlan lost two points of Constiution and Dexterity in favour of Intellect. Durance, the crazy old firebrand of a soldier that is burned and battered to the bone and hates hesitation or needless discussion lost Constitution and gained Intellect. Edér, the contemplative and clever ex-soldier that questions whether his god even exists, lost all his Intellect and instead gained Perception and Resolve. All of these changes were clearly specifically to make the CNPC:s better within the confines of an Attribute system that can only be described as broken, and it clearly acknowledges that Obsidian knows this, or the change wouldn't even have been considered necessary. Doubly so since it clearly compromises who these characters are supposed to be on a personal level. Instead of doing that, the Attribute Modifiers need to be changed. And while doing so, the characters' Attribute-Concept consistencies restored. Now, I am by no means an expert, but as many know, this has been one of my biggest pet-peeves since BBv435, and I've tried to repeatedly suggest an alternate set. Whether it is perfect or not is extremely debatable - I certainly think it isn't, myself - but it is certainly better. Suggested Modifiers: MGT: ±3% Damage & Healing, ±2 Interrupt, ±2 Fortitude. CON: ±1 Endurance, ±3% Endurance, ±2% Armour Recovery Penalty, ±2 Concentration, ±2 Fortitude. DEX: +3% Action Speed, +2 Deflection +2 Reflex. PER: +1 Accuracy, +4 Interrupt, +2 Reflex. INT: +6% Duration, +2 Deflection, +2 Will. RES: +6% AoE, +6 Concentration, +2 Will.This has several advantages to the current system. There would be a greater synergy between some of the Attributes, for focused builds, such as an interrupter (Interrupt) that hits hard (MGT) and precise (PER) with every blow, the intelligent (INT) and nimble (DEX) warrior playing on his defensive strengths (Deflection), or a focused (RES) and athletic (CON) man that pushes through no matter how hard he's hit (Concentration. Intellect would no longer be a consolidated caster attribute and a one-stop-shop for spell/ability modifiers, and Intellect would be an option for the intelligent defensive warrior. Resolve reaffirms it's position as the Attribute that represents a character's power (or wish) to influence the world and not be influenced by it, affecting a character's ability to direct his soul or the powers associated with it. Constitution is no longer largely meaningless, and slightly less of a dump stat. A small but significant boost, but mostly conceptually. Assuming a Constitution of 20 ("fully maxed") the flat modifier to Health & Endurance is equal to over one extra level's worth for Wizards (10/level) but not nearly as much for Barbarians (16/level). Furthermore, given that Endurance by itself is of questionable value, it also affects the effects of wearing armour, reducing the Armour Recovery Penalty by percentage. For example, let's say a base Plate Armour has a penalty of -50%, with a fully pumped, 20 Constitution (10*3%) it would be reduced by 20%, to -35%. These changes makes Constitution more desirable to both low-Endurance characters with little armour and tanks that do not need the endurance but are woefully gimped by their superheavy armour. Do note that the examples given are extremes. It might not even be a bad idea to scrap the percentage modifier to Endurance completely, although I'm hesitant to suggest it myself. Perception may appear overvalued again, but do note that the bonus to Interrupt have been cut in half. Accuracy is not nearly as valuable anymore, and even if you fully min/max to get Perception, it still only provides a maximum of +10 Accuracy. The fact that this is a blanket bonus makes Perception a good choice for casters, but would still be a choice made at the expense of not taking other Attributes that are now of equal or greater worth. The Lack of Individual Stealth & No Stealthing in Combat. This is a big one to me. In the game, everyone Stealths or no-one Stealths, by going into "Scouting Mode". Once combat starts, Stealth is broken for everyone at the same time, regardless of individual Stealth skill, Class, Abilities, Attributes or Talents. Nothing matters; Combat is flagged, everyone is bumped out, no ifs, buts or maybes. This completely neuters the idea of tactical deployment of troops. You can't sneak around the enemy and tie them up with your main group and then run in and surprise them with a string of backstabs. You can't Disengage, run away, and then come back from around a corner somewhere else, and surprise the enemy. You can't keep your rogue in the shadows and then wait until they move past you, and then attack. And forget about lining up a backstab to initiate combat - if you do, you will be immediately Engaged, and because of the Engagement system and the targeting AI, utterly destroyed by the enemy before you can even think of getting your tank in there. The way you could backstab someone and then run away in the IE games simply isn't viable in PoE because of Engagement. You want to hold off and attack at an opportune time, but with the current Scouting Mode, you can't. Interestingly, it seems that in some way - although I may be wrong how this works under the hood of the engine - this restriction doesn't apply to enemies. I've seen phantoms or shadows show up en masse only after an encounter have begun. This is likely done in-engine by means of some invisibility effect, rather than "real" Stealth, or maybe they are simply summoned, and didn't exist before the fact. Maybe it's a bug. But never once have I seen this happen to me like it sometimes happened in the Infinity Engine games, with stealthed rogues showing up behind my lines - aside from the aforementioned phantoms/shadows that can teleport all over the place, which is not what I'm talking about. Characters need to be able to stealth individually and engage individually, based on their own skills, so that they can be held back or deployed when prudent. I would be fine if it became progressively harder to Stealth as a battle goes on, to represent the enemy looking for you or being alert, and I think that characters definitely should have directional detection (something I do not think is in the game right now at all) and if everyone else is dead, turn around in the area for a while to try to find "the one that got away"; or things to that effect. But the whole "all or nothing"-idea of Stealth needs to go. Combat shouldn't automatically break Stealth, and characters should be measured by their skill individually, and choosing when to do what should be a tactical or strategic decision. Experience is ubiquitous & inconsistent. Experience is currently so broken it's not even funny. The game is capped at level 12, something I think is perfectly fine - I honestly would probably have preferred an even lower level cap, but done is done, and level 12 is fine. What isn't fine, however, is that you basically skyrocket through the levels. There are many people that have reached the level cap of 12 before even reaching Twin Elms. Experience is awarded right, left and centre. I get the feeling that Obsidian never really understood the fundamental argument in favour of Goal-Oriented Experience. The reason people wanted Goal-Oriented Experience was because it would give the developers the freedom to build encounters and situations that can be solved in a range of ways that rewarded the player independent of solution. Deus Ex is a great example of how this was done, and should be compulsory playing for any games developer. Yet we still have Lockpicking Experience, which makes it more beneficial to actually lockpick doors than to find the key. We have Trap-Disarm Experience, which means that you'll never want to solve traps in any other way than to manually disarm all of them. The traps in the prologue temple? Yep, I went back there; it was a ton of experience, just sitting there on the floor, why would I possibly pass those by? And we still.. actually.. have murder-experience. We call it Bestiary Experience, but it's practically the same thing, with the exception that it's capped, which doesn't actually mean anything, because as far as I know, no enemies respawn anyway, so you'd be limited in the amount of experience either way. The question is why. It is as if Obsidian never saw the argument, only that a lot of people didn't want Murderhobo Experience "for some reason", and decided to implemented based on argumentum ad populum alone. And then they started to compromise, leaving the basis of the original argument altogether. As a side note, bounties have insane experience doleouts. They're optional content, but in my opinion, if you want to reach the level cap, you should have to do almost all optional content. Even a single bounty can reward upwards 11k of experience, completely throwing off any general indication of experience values or measurements. At this point, I honestly think that the reason for not having Murderhobo Experience in the game is completely gone, because the original argument simply isn't applicable to the actual state of the game anymore. This is not to say that I support adding Murderhobo Experience back in. Quite the opposite. Getting experience from Lockpicking, Trap Disarming and killing enemies needs to be removed. Experience should be rewarded for finding secrets, solving problems, being inventive, doing the unexpected, and finishing quests. And to reconnect to the original issue of experience being ubiquitous, the experience needed for each subsequent level needs to be increased, my proposal being by 3-5% per additional level, starting at level 1. This would mean that at lower levels, the difference will be very small, but rise exponentially at higher levels, hopefully resulting in more difficulty to actually cap out, as well as slowing level-up pacing as characters increase in level. It should be really hard to reach the level cap in the base game. Right now you take a casual stroll down the peripheries of the main questline and you drown in experience, doled out at every turn and promoting contrived, degenerate, gameplay. Murderhoboing for fun and profit / Inventory & Stash Issues. This very much ties into the previous issue. Because PoE has a lot of mechanics in how the inventory and game economy works, and it has some far-reaching implications. There is no Encumbrance, there is an Infinite Stash that can be accessed from anywhere, merchants have infinite gold, and every enemy drops something that is either gold by any other name, or of incalculable value due to enchanting. By themselves, each of these mechanics are not necessarily bad. But taken together, the result is... less than stellar. First of all, it promotes the aforementioned Murderhoboing, whether it awards experience or not. In many other games, the Infinity Engine games included, the acquisition of resources are restricted - if not directly, then at least by means of "hassle". Yes, I could loot all those individual soldiers in the Oasis in Throne of Bhaal, but why would I go through that hassle? Yes, I could throw every last piece of equipment into my Bag of Holding, but why would it be worth my time? These are hassles, but those hassles by themselves are enough to discourage the situation. The situation being that I will never pass on loot. Never ever. Why would I? I have a Area-Loot Mechanic that saves me from the hassle of even having to individually click the corpses, and I have an infinite stash that can carry all of it, and I don't have to worry about how much I can carry, because there is no encumbrance, and I have merchants with an infinite amount of gold that will happily buy all of it at once. And every last opponent contributes to this. If they don't contribute to my wealth directly, they give me Enchanting supplies. Even without experience rewards, why would I pass on enemies, ever, under those circumstances? I won't, obviously, why would I, that's just crazy-talk. All of this taken together undermines the previous point of avoiding Murderhobo Experience and removes the choices as to what you will take with you, what is worth your time, and how you choose to approach the game. Some can argue that they don't want the "hassle" of X, Y or Z, and that such things interfere with the "gameplay", but I would argue that such things add to the gameplay by being reasonable choices you would have to make, and incentivizes finding alternate solutions to approaches, because you don't *want* to be saddled with carting off someone's armour and pawn off their sword at the merchant. This is not a cry for simulationism, but a real issue of choice and incentives. With the current setup, we might as well convert non-essential loot to gold on the spot and auto-pickup everything, with a little clink-clink wound and a floating "+5 gold" over the heads of killed opponents. It would mechanically serve the same purpose. Exactly how restrictive vs. hassle-free things should be is entirely debatable, but I would personally not be opposed to restricting the Stash to merchants, Inns and the Stronghold, adding Encumbrance, and adding gold caps to the vendors. But I realize that some of that may be overboard - but something needs to be done and the situation reconsidered. Because the current system incentivizes the exact form of gameplay that Murderhobo Experience does, and turns virtually all loot straight into gold coins, with no trade-offs whatsoever, and every non-humanoid is a loot-pinata of bodyparts for the mortar and pestle of enchanting. "Combat Only" needs to die in a fire. This is related to the entire conversation on pre-buffing, but I actually consider the issue largely separate. "Combat Only" feels utterly contrived and out of place, like an artificial limiter that jerks me out of the gameplay, and it is entirely inconsistent. For example, the Zealous Charge aura of the Paladin is "Combat Only". But Zealous Focus aura isn't. Why? There are plenty of examples of this throughout the game and the various classes. One of the earlier explanations we have been given on this issue was that Sawyer focused on eliminating things that felt like really repetative actions that didn't necessarily make the game more fun. Reading that comment, it somewhat stands out as largely being.. non-applicable to the state of PoE. The "opportunity cost" is already built into the game. Using any spell costs you a valuable and finite amount of time (the very short duration of the spell), effort (the fact that you are expending time to do this is in itself a limiter, you may simply not think it's worth your time, most of the time) and multiple limited resources (the limited number of spells themselves, as well as the camping supplies that will need to be expended to keep excessive spellcasting up). That's the costs. Time, effort and resources. He also mentions tactical decisions and choices. However, any choice you make before the start of a battle could be just as strategically important as any made during the course of a battle. By expending your limited resources beforehand, you are unable to change it later, which to me is the very definition of a meaningful choice - the choice of how to approach a given scenario. Combat in PoE is already largely free of reactivity, and depend on pre-encounter positioning and the general approach to combat. The "Combat Only" state leads to contrived situations where the player has to almost literally fight the system in order to do things anyone would consider reasonable. Not only does the presented argument fall rather flat in practice, but one also have to ask oneself if that even if it would have some very limited merit to it, would that small amount of merit warrant such a hard cap on doing what anyone would consider rather reasonable? Would it warrant the limitation of choice on part of the player, his choice on how to approach combat, because "Pre-Buffing is boring"? It just makes me think of badwrongfun-logic. There are many ways I would consider boring ways to play the game, yet I would not restrict those ways to play the game based on my own idea of how to play it "right". And add to that the point that largely, "arguments" in favour of the "Combat Only" restrictions are based on how specifically buffing worked in the Infinity Engine games, suggesting that there is a strong dichotomy between "Long-term no-brained buffs with no tradeoffs" and "No pre-buffing whatsoever achtung", whilst nothing could be further from the truth. Buffs in PoE already have reasonable limiters on them, not just in regards to effort (which is minor) and resources, but primarily in time. The vast majority of buffs in PoE does not even last longer than 60 seconds, even if you min/max your caster into high Intellect. The idea of standing several minutes and have several casters juggle several buffs around is completely alien, even if we disregard the fact that it would be a reasonable decision on part of the player to make if this was not true. And even if they would be able to buff themselves, these short durations would mean that the buffs would disappear before the battle is over, and that every second spent before initiating confrontation would essentially be "wasted" from a buffing perspective - in a game where positioning is so important, to boot. I often spend more time working out positioning in PoE, and getting the initiation of an encounter right, than I ever spent on pre-buffing in the IE games, save large, important encounters, where, indeed, pre-buffing was a boring, tedious process - but that is again beside the point, because there are other, reasonable, clear limitations that possible to have in play before you go to such draconian lengths as to completely restrict the usage of abilities, spells and powers outside of combat. The second, latter argument we have seen, was that the balance reasons are minor compared to the save issues. That the game has had troubles restoring saves because buffs were not retained properly. In the context of the finished game, this must be considered poppy****. This may have been true at some point, and I do not think that Brennecke is lying, and it may not even be that long ago that it could have been true, but there are many, many different forms of buffs in the game, and there have been no major trouble with saves and loads with them that I know of. Food items are technically buffs. They have no issues in this regard. Resting bonuses are technically buffs, they have no issues in this regard. Paladin auras are technically buffs, yet Zealous Focus is not restricted, but Zealous Charge is; is that because Zealous Focus works fine with saves and loads, but Zealous Charge is somehow broken? I find that very, very hard to believe. Instead of moving away from this restriction, we've seen them adding it to previously free abilities that, again, had no issue with saving or loading. The only possible issue with it's removal would arguably be related to the Per-Encounter Spellcasting of high-level Casters, but that is a separate point, because that needs to be addressed too, if they intend to keep using this system and iterate on it. There is a treasure trove of problems with the "Combat Only" restriction on abilities, and the entire mechanic needs to die in a fire; be punted off the cliffs of Mt. Doom and subjected to orbital bombardment. Not only would it's removal be largely beneficial to the game, and promote strategic and tactical gameplay, but the original issues for which it was implemented are not even present. The Armour System is missing the mark completely. This is a hairy one. The fundamentals of the armour system is good. Really good. The idea has concrete merits and is fundamentally good, in my opinion. The fact that armour scales "naturally", has different values vs. different forms of damage, and applies equally to all characters independent of class and so on is really, really good. But it completely misses the mark. In fact, all it does is reinforce - although I would say truly cement - the Tank vs. DPS dichotomy that was mentioned earlier. This is a problem Attributes already contributes to, but it is the current Armour system that really cements it, aided in party by the Engagement system. If you have any idea what you are doing in the game, there is no point in wearing anything between Cloth (No Armour) and Full Plate (Heavy Armour). Common criticism levied against the D&D system in the Infinity Engine games was that "you always wear the highest and that's it". Which was a fair point. But at least the highest armour you used depended on your class, in fact, you were restricted to do so. But in Pillars of Eternity, everyone, no matter what class, will invariably be best off wearing either no armour, or heavy armour. It has largely replaced one "no-brainer" choice with two "no-brainer" choices, not based on class, but on the two different builds possible. Why is that? Well, first of all, tanking is a very strong role in PoE, that you will likely commit to entirely or not at all, because of how the combat resolution system works (you want High Deflection, or it will not really matter if you have a little) and how divided the Attribute system is between the two roles. There is not really such a thing as a middle road. And added to that is the Engagement system and the combat AI, which when all is taken together means that the Tank will soak up damage (or rather, avoid taking damage at all), while the others are unlikely to take any damage. In fact, if they know what they're doing, they'll take no damage at all, or at least not take damage consistently. All armour comes with a penalty to Recovery Speed. This means that even wearing Robes (which do not count as Cloth, for some indecipherable reason) comes at a -15% Recovery Speed Penalty. This reduces the speed at which a non-Tank can do damage, and killing opponents is the most efficient way to not take damage; when an opponent has been killed, they will no longer deal any damage, obviously. And since non-Tank characters will not be tanking or taking damage consistently, any reduction of killing speed is increasing the time it takes to end the encounter and make the nasty people stop hurting your tank (or the rest of your people, even if at a severely limited rate compared to the Tank). But then, someone says, what about the various modifiers? The Damage Resistance of all armour is not equal! Fair point. The issue is that it doesn't matter. While for example Mail armour has higher Slash DT than Crush DT (Mail is DT 9, but has 14 DT vs. Slash and 5 DT vs. Crush) it is not nearly enough to matter. No-one is going to change their armour when facing a certain enemy, as long as the difference is not enough to warrant it, nevermind the fact that most people are unlikely to even want to juggle their armours around. This ties into the issue of weapons simply not having a large enough of an impact, and although you will do less damage with a Sabre against an enemy dressed in Mail, you will still be doing "close enough" for it to not matter enough to actually have a Warhammer on hand. There is no accounting for personal preference. You might want to wear Mail simply because you like how it looks. That's fine. But that's completely beside the point, and hardly an argument in favour of the armours being balanced. If the best arguments you can come up with are "I can still finish the game" or "I still use it because I like how it look", you're not only understanding the issue, but also have basically conceded that there's a problem, it's just that you chose not to care about it. And that's alright. You can choose not to care. But then why get involved at all? You'd do that whether the armour system was rebalanced or not anyway, and the issue being solved would likely do nothing to dissuade you from playing that way anyway. Either way, my suggestions are the following: First of all, all the effects of armours should be "upped", so there'd be more meaningful and clear differentiation between them, instead of just No/Robe/Light/Medium/Heavy armour (as it is now, despite the obvious attempt to get away from it). This could be done by drastically upping the effects of armours vs. different weapons. As an interesting side-effect, this would also mean that there'd be a meaningful differentiation between the various weapons used against humanoid opponents, and you'd probably want to switch weapons more often. Second, I'd like to see Talents to support the use of various armours, with interesting effects, to discourage the constant swapping of armours between that the previous addition might encourage, and encourage specialization on a per-character basis. This would mean that it wouldn't be a bust to use Medium Armours, if, for example, a medium armour filled that niche that was good against crushing weapons, and had a talent that made you move faster, and Plate Mail would be good against Slashing, with a Talent that turns a percentage of incoming Hits into Grazes. The benefit of these two is that the game is already structured largely in this manner; the dial just need to be turned up to 11 to make it matter. Thirdly, I maintain that the game has a rather simplistic system (albeit needlessly obtuse) and could stand to have more modifiers in terms of defences. I think it was a mistake to remove the percentage-based Damage Resistance system (for those that did not know, during much of the Backer Beta, Armour had both Damage Resistance (%) and Damage Threshold (Integer-based Soak; this is what we have now) modifiers), and should play up the penalties (or bonuses) of armours, whether it's reducing Reflex Defence or even adding Deflection with on heavier armour, or introducing a Dodge mechanic to complement Deflection. I still find it odd as hell that a Monk Tank will be running around in Full Plate, focusing on Deflection and Damage Resistance, rather than being all about the Dodging. But either way, the most important is point 1 and 2; the third point may not even be necessary at that point, and would no doubt take a lot more to introduce, even if it would be preferable. The Stronghold / Resting. The Stronghold is really cool. It is. But.. there's just.. something lacking. Yes, part of this will be about "muh immurshun". I cannot wrap my head around how the Stronghold is supposed to work. I can accept a great many things that aren't painted on my nose, chalk it up to things the party did while travelling, or laughing around the campfire, and such things. But the Stronghold feels... empty. The Steward is an odd creature, and it is never settled how that's even supposed to work. Is she tuned into some form of adra-based internet and is running the longest con through a network of contacts and repeat identity thefts? I have no idea. You keep building, but there are never any workers, days pass, and the place is empty, there was supposedly a drunk visiting, but he's nowhere to be seen, and Kana Rua was escorting him off the premises but.. it takes days, what the hell, can't I just throw him in the dungeon or lop his head off? Hell, throw him off the Eastern Barbican. Speaking of which, is repaired instantly, and for free. Which was really the first clue I had that this would probably be pretty shallow. Still, I love the idea of the Stronghold, and as you repair it, it starts to feel more and more like yours, and it's noticeable that a great deal of effort has gone into it. But at the end of the day, despite me liking it, it feels soulless and devoid of emotion, reactive like a sack of rocks. I built the Dungeon, a warden shows up out of nowhere that treats me with due respect. How did he even get hired? Have we met before? What? Finally, resting at the Stronghold. My great Caed Nua, my sweet Brighthollow, why do you treat me so? A loading screen to get to Caed Nua, a loading screen to get into Brighthollow, a third one to get to the second floor, sleep, and then repeat the process in the other direction - more if you were just popping in before continuing down the Endless Paths. Just. No. This ties into both the issues of the Stronghold often not making sense and feeling devoid of life; why are there no people working in the kitchen for me? Why isn't there a caretaker at Brighthollow? Honestly, just skipping that one loading screen to get to the second floor would be a game changer, if I could talk to the caretaker and take a nap. Someone else suggested simply having a "resting button" while you are in the courtyard of Caed Nua, in the Keep, or inside of Brighthollow. I think that's a great idea, even if it does nothing to alleviate the other issues, it would go a long way to make it worth to actually use Brighthollow to sleep, giving you a sense of "home". There's a lack of CNPC:s. Oh yes. I'm covering this too. First of all, let's get this straight: The CNPC:s in the game are amazing. At least most of them. Edér is magnificent. Durance is nothing short of amazing. Grieving Mother is crazy. Hiravias is hilarious and Kana Rua isn't nearly as annoying as I thought his melon-swigging face led me to believe he would be. But it very much has the "gotta catch them all"-syndrome of post-IE Bioware games. An issue that actually started somewhat already in BG2, but at least BG2 didn't seem to operate under the assumption that you'd collect all of them and take them with you like a travelling adventurer troupe of which only 6 people go to town for.. reasons. There's a valid argument in here somewhere about the quality vs. quantity of CNPC:s. Less CNPC:s but with more depth. This is a fair point. But quantity has a quality all of it's own. It is impossible to have anything even resembling themed parties in Pillars of Eternity. You can't be a group of marauders, or a troupe of clever opportunists, or a party of humans only, or a group of people centred around arcane studies. This is just examples, of course, but something as simple as having more than one of the same class is practically out of the question, because the CNPC:s that are in the game right now do not even cover all of the classes that are available. This is not to say that I want some principal "checklist"; quite far from it, I want interesting characters rather than someone that is specifically a Monk, just to compensate for the fact that there's currently no monk. But at the same time, I loved playing BG1 as a Bard, picking up Eldoth and Garrick, for the hilarity of it. Or play as an elf with Kivan, Xan, Viconia and Coran. Or BG2 as a noble-esque party of a Charname Paladin, Anomen, Keldorn, Edwin, Nalia and Imoen. Because lol poor people. Pillars of Eternity has an abysmal 8 CNPC:s, for a party of 6. Accounting for the player, that's less than one full different party's worth of CNPC:s for subsequent playthroughs. Don't get me wrong, I think "muh replayability" is potentially as bad of an argument as the aforementioned "muh immurshun", but it bears mentioning to put it in perspective. Meanwhile, BG2 has 17, more than twice as many, and I still wouldn't consider that nearly enough. But it would still be infinitely better. Even a single, well-integrated, seamlessly introduced CNPC would be a tremendous improvement, but nothing short of approaching 26-ish would come near satisfying the needs. Scaling CNPC:s / Availability. Another CNPC issue. Why the hell does CNPC:s scale? I would be fine with CNPC:s being set to join at level 2, and I believe level 2 would be a good number for the CNPC:s to be properly "fleshed out". But they absolutely shouldn't scale. Why? Because it makes me rush to get them. It makes me wish I could simply spawn them in the second I reach Gilded Vale, only so that they won't be "ruined" beforehand. The fact that I will go through missions that they may have commentary on is enough of a problem; don't make me also fight the game systems themselves. I would really, really, really prefer it if they were stuck at level 2 and then allowed me to level them up once I get them. I'm even willing to accept them not having an equal amount of experience to myself, especially with the very liberal sprinkling of experience throughout the game. Which brings me to another issue; availability. All of the CNPC:s can be had before Act 2 starts... except Pallegina. All of the CNPC:s can be had without going through a side-quest... except Pallegina. I also have the feeling that this ties into the fact that Pallegina is also the only CNPC that cannot be replicated in any way, being an Avianlike Paladin of an Order Paladins cannot even pick. Why is Pallegina not following the format of the other CNPC:s? It almost feels like she's one of those cheesy CNPC:s added by a mod, out of place, and I'm surprised she doesn't have an inordinate amount of dialogue (or, going by how ME2 introduced DLC/Mod-like CNPC:s, any dialogue at all). It feels contrived and inconsistent, from her placement to her introduction, compared to all other CNPC:s currently available. Weapon Focus Groups are.. eh.. Weapon Focus Groups was a good idea. A really good idea. I love the concept. You get a range of weapons that is thematically appropriate, instead of having to specialize in a single weapon that you may or may never get. Kudos. At the same time, though... I think that the balancing went too far. Not only because it meant placing some weapons in groups where it doesn't feel like it belongs, but also because it means you'll really never pick more than one specific Weapon Focus Group, there'd simply be no merit to doing so; each group seems to have been consciously molded as to cover all weapon damage types, whether it makes sense or not. My proposal would be to allow Weapon Focus Groups to break the mould. For example, one thing I feel strongly for would be to switch Stiletto from Ruffian to Noble, and Dagger from Noble to Ruffian. This would leave Noble without a Slashing Type and Ruffian without a Slashing Type. So what? Work with what you have, there are other options, or train further. Perfect balance is a lie, and thinking that the Weapon Focus Groups being so strictly and rigidly broken into weapons of each type on principle will somehow balance the weapons themselves against eachother is a delusion. I say that it is better to aim for specialization, and have Talents that allow you to specialize, while also being more thematically fitting. There is no doubt more examples, but that one is enough for the point. Also, with the aforementioned in mind, I want to see more Weapon Focus Groups. Groups should not stack with eachother, obviously, but it would be nice to have a group that includes all of the firearms, if you want to make a character centred around the use of firearms, rather than having a wide spread of usable weapons. For example: Grenadier; Spear, Pike, Pistol, Blunderbuss, Arquebus. Mystic; Dagger, Stiletto, Scepter, Rod, Wand. Like I said, these shouldn't stack with other Weapon Focus Groups that already have the same type of weapons. So if you have Grenadier and Ruffian, you still only get +6 to Pistol. An interesting choice is better than a "balanced" choice. If the priority is to have a balanced setup so you can change between the weapon types, there are still groups for that; it does not make the specialized or more thematically focused groups any less valid of an option. I miss the Sabre DoT. I just do. I realize why it was changed, and the stacking mechanics can be hard to work out, and balancing it even harder, but changing the DoT effect into a flat +Damage was a really boring move. I liked the idea of cutting up large gashing wounds and stack DoT:s on my enemies with sabres. As has been mentioned before the game also simply does not do enough to encourage the usage of different damage types, making the flat +Damage a "no-brainer" choice from a min/max perspective. The extra flat damage is enough to punch through most (or much) of the DT you'd avoid by using a more "appropriate" weapon anyway. The DoT effect was at least interesting and unique. Now it feels like Sabres are just.. something something plus. Scouting Mode and Mechanics. Detecting Secrets. Mechanics. These two terms should have nothing to do with eachother. In Pillars of Eternity, though, Mechanics is used for both the detection of Secrets and for the Detection of Traps, as well as the disarming of Traps, and Lockpicking, and the setting of traps. Mechanics as the basis for detecting secrets make no sense whatsoever. And since we're on this topic, let's discuss the Scouting Mode as necessary for detecting secrets. As has been pointed out many times on the board by now, this has lead to the situation where the norm to many is to simply enter Scout Mode everywhere and activate Fast Mode to alleviate the painfully slow movement. To detect secrets, you need to have high Mechanics, and Scout everywhere. Some would argue that you don't need to find all secrets. Fair point, but it is akin to the argument that you don't need to do all quests, either, and you don't need to loot all boxes, and you don't need to talk to all named NPC:s, and you don't need to recruit all CNPC:s. But we know you will, anyway, because that's more or less the name of the game. Skulking about in Fast Mode everywhere not only breaks immersion, but is almost textbook degenerate gameplay and about as nofun as possible, yet it seems like it's exactly what the game was built for, in some ways. My suggestions are simple. Mechanics should not be used to detect Secrets, Stealth should be the governing Skill, aided to a small degree by the Perception Attribute, and all Secrets should be detectable outside of Scouting Mode. Detecting Traps should still only be possible while in Scout Mode, and their detection should be possible with either Mechanics or Stealth (whichever is highest). The disarming of traps should still be Mechanics, obviously. The Per-Encounter Spell System of High-Level casters needs to be re-evaluated. This ties into the aforementioned "Combat Only" issues, because the issues of the Per-Encounter Spell System that High-Level casters gain could arguably be exacerbated by the removal of the "Combat Only" flags. That is not the main issue, however. The issue is that if this system is intended to scale towards higher levels as the game expands, let alone the franchise with sequels and so on, the current system of Per-Rest Spells being turned into Per-Encounter Spells once Spellcasters reach a high enough level will completely wreck any semblance of balance whatsoever. Currently, the issue is rather benign, at least if we consider the future: At Level 9, a spellcaster can use his Rank 1 Spells 4 times Per Encounter, instead of Per Rest. At level 11, he can use his Rank 2 Spells 4 times Per Encounter, instead of Per Rest. That's where it stops, because the game has a Level Cap of 12. This is still tremendously powerful. Also consider that if you have the "Bonus #th Level Spell" Talent, that also gets turned into a Per Encounter, for a maximum of 5 Per Encounter Spells Per Spell Rank. That is utterly crazy. Consider all other classes that get "regular" abilities that are Per-Encounter Say, Paladins, who get 2 uses of Flames of Devotion or 1 use of Lay on Hands Per Encounter. Yes, he can get more Abilities as he rises in level, one here, one there, some Per Rest, some Per Encounter, some completely Passive. A Wizard gets to pick 4 1st-rank spells at Level 9 that he gets a minimum of 4 uses of Per Encounter. At level 11, he gets another 4 2nd-rank spells that he can use a minimum of 4 times Per Encounter. Conceivably, conceptually, he should be getting 3rd-rank spells 4 times per encounter at level 13. That is an unprecedented and incomparable jump in power and utility compared to anyone else that is not a caster, and utterly terrifying to even fathom from a balance perspective. And that's still just Wizards - the gimp of the spellcasters, who only can pick 4 spells at a time to enter into his Grimoire. Priests? They get their full 1st-rank of spells to use, 4 times per Encounter, at level 9; it's the same progression. The same goes for Druids. Suck on that for a while. The entire Druid rank 1 spellbook, pick anything in it, 4 times Per Encounter. I'm not sure how this should be balanced. I do think that high-level casters should be able to use a limited number of spells as Per-Encounter abilities at high levels, but the current implementation is completely untenable in the long run, nevermind the issues that could arise if you remove the "Combat Only" flag (since spells would no longer be a limited resource outside of combat; Per Encounter Abilities regenerate instantly if there is no combat going on). And you'd be equally crazy to not remove the Combat Only restrictions in the long run. My basic suggestion would be to allow the Spellcasters to choose one spell at these brackets and that they get that one spell as a Per-Encounter Ability. At level 9, they get a slot that can be filled with a 1st-rank Spell, that can then be used as a Per-Encounter Ability. At level 11, they get another slot that can be filled with a 1st- or 2nd-rank spell, that will from then on be used as a Per-Encounter Ability. And so on. But I'm not sure that's enough. But it desperately needs to be looked over; if not as a necessary precursor to getting rid of the "Combat Only" flags, then for the sanity of players and balance once we start climbing in level. There are two expansions planned, and anyone that thinks that each of them won't increase the level cap by at least 1-2 levels is delusional, which could make the cap anywhere from 14 to 16; potentially unlocking two whole new levels of unmitigated, overpowered and absolute crazy for spellcasters. The +AoE added from Attribute Bonuses (currently Intellect) needs to be fixed. Currently, the +AoE added from Attribute Bonuses does not take the "friendly" area of Friendly-Fire AoE:s into account, which makes Intellect even crazier for spellcasters than it deserves to be, and even if the Attributes are reworked to something more sensible (such as +AoE on Resolve) it would just move the issue around. It really needs to be fixed, so that +AoE actually increases the risk as well as the reward. If the AoE radius is bigger, it should be harder to aim it, simply because it's.. well.. bigger. Maxing +AoE currently gives you an inordinate amount of mobility when it comes to the placement of AoE:s with no tradeoff whatsoever. I realize not everyone likes Friendly Fire, but I consider it an integral part of tactical gameplay, and I would have opposed the "Friendly" zone of AoE:s to begin with, had I been here for those discussions, but it is what it is. Either fix the +AoE issue with the friendly zone, or remove the friendly zone entirely. Alright, I guess that's it for now. I probably have more things that I can't think of right now - Critique of the the Engagement System, the Recovery Movement Penalty, and the war on mobility comes to mind - but I think that this is enough for now, and brings up some of the far bigger issues I'm seeing right now. If you've made it this far, I want to thank you for reading and I hope there was some merit to this because it took a long time to write and put together.

These are what the current ability score bonuses are: Might: + all damage (spell/melee/ranged), +fortitude Constitution: + Endurance, + Health, + Fortitude Dexterity: + Action speed, + Reflex Perception: + Interrupt, + Deflection, +Reflex Intelligence: + Area of effect (all abilities), + Duration (all abilities regardless of physical, mental, or magical), + Will Resolve: + Concentration, + Deflection, + Will As a result most characters focus on might and int, except for a couple of builds. Why should all potent mages, priests, ciphers, archers, all damage dealers look like arnold schwartzenhager? They shouldn't, its absurd. Why should any character who wants to maximize their abilities durations, regardless of physical or magical orientation have to max out intelligence? Why do all potent barbarians, priests, etc... have Einstien like intelligence? They shouldn't, its absurd. That doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to make that kind of character if you want (at the expense of other areas), but it should definitely NOT be the norm for those classes. The current allocation of bonuses are unintuitive, lack common sense, and go against most RPG mechanic norms. Deflection is a measurement of not being hit and DR is a measurement of shrugging off some of the damage after being hit. Why then does resolve affect deflection, but not dexterity? This current system fails on so many levels. I'd never play a table top pnp rpg with this at the core of its character creation. In my humble opinion (30+ years of running table top rpgs), I would have done something more along the lines of this: Might: + melee damage, + fortitude, + might requirement for equiping various weapons and armor Constitution: + Endurance (not a %, but actual integer per level bonus), + Health, + Fortitude Dexterity: + Action speed, + Reflex, + Deflection Perception: + Interrupt, + Defelction, + Ranged physical damage (guns/bows, basically your aim), +Reflex Intelligence: + Area of effect, + Will, + Damage (spells) Resove: + Concentration, + Will, + Duration The current system creates a lot of dump stats for most character builds. It should give each stat considerable weight so people don't want to dump them without taking a big hit, but still allow for unique builds that are not mainstream. To be honest, I was really disappointed with the basic ability score mechanics in the game. I've been looking forward to this game for 2 years. And I know the developers are big time pnp gamers. So why then did they utilize mechanics from the worst version of D&D ever made (4th ed), and why did the ability score mechanics fall so flat? Seems crazy to me.

Hi, I was just wondering - and my question is aimed at those of you who have already played PoE (backer beta or press release) - about good/bad choices of Attributes for making survivable characters. Let's discuss two characters - firstly a close combat character, then a character who is mostly out of CC but close enough to the fray to be hit by enemy AoEs and similar. How important is CON (with bonuses to health and Endurance) for you survival in both cases? Is it a small factor or a big factor? The attributes can be divided into three groups depending on what they give defense bonuses for: MIG and CON gives more Fortitude, DEX and PER gives more Reflexes, and INT and RES gives more Will. How important is it to balance these three groups? Are different defenses more important for different characters (close combat, support, ...)? PER and RES gives boni to Deflection. How important is this for defense?

Hello Fellas, I have a problem about PoE character creation. This problem could be my particular problem but still may help you when my problem is solved. I opened the game with great enthusiasm it was a good feeling I like the graphics and etc. The nice sweet memories of Baldur's Gate appeared in my mind. I always play with wizard so I watched videos how they created their characters, what they choose etc. Then I created a character it was Coastal Aumaua Wizard. I thought 2 Might would be good for damage. Then I proceed to Attributes section. This is where my problem starts. Which One is the best combination? Here is my thoughts about creating a wizard. Sex: Here I choose male. I like to think that the main character is me and as if I'm living in the game. But I may have choosen female and name her as my girlfriend who broke up with me. Then walk every trap and die numerous times. What ever I choose male :D Race: Race was very hard for me to choose I thought best options might be: Coastal Aumaua (for +2 Might and Towering Physique), Pale Elf (for +1 intellect and Elemental Endurance) and Death Godlike (For +1 intellect / +1 Dexterity and Death's Usher). As a result I had chosen Coastal Aumaua because wizards stays back so I dont need Elemental Endurance, Also +2 Might is nice and always in effect so I dont prefer Death's Usher instead I prefer to damage every time not only under %25. Spells: Spirit Shield: Covers my weak points. Thrust of Tattered Veils: It's a nice spell fast, ranged, Damaging and Interrupting. Fleet Feet: Also this is for defence since my character is squishy I need to evade when someone reaches me. Ghost Blades: Well I need a ranged AoE Damage spell. Attributes: First I took back every point; I have 57 points... Might: Obvious that might is a must for wizards. I have +2 Racial Bonus here so I WILL USE IT. This will be 20 I'm sure this is a nice choice. +30% more damage and healing also +20 Fortitute. In addtion fits my role and race. Intellect: Also this is obvious that intelligence is a must for wizards. I pump this stat to 18. So I get +48% AoE, +40% Duration and +16 Will. Which are all nice for a wizard. Dexterity: Not much important as the first two but this attribute is also very important. To deal the damage and area that I obtained from first two stats I need to be fast. As I could remeber from DnD 3rd and 2nd Editions 15 Dexterity was considered high for opening more powerful feats and accomplishing quests that requires dexterity. However in DnD you should have an even number in order to get an bonus. So in this situation I will leave it as 15 because every penny counts in this system and I got: +15% Action Speed, +10 Reflex. I still have doubts but this is optimum I suppose. Put a mark here 16 may be better? Resolve: Like dexterity, resolve have the second class importance. Because we have to complete the spells and cast them without interrupted. Also resolve seems supportive for completing quests by talking. I wish I can give more but again I will give 15 points here. Which is considered high and gives me: +15 Concentration, +5 Deflection and +10 Will. Perception: This one have third degree importance. I just need this for questy talks and interrupt with my spells. How ever I have already spent many points so I can give only 6 here and get: -12 Interrupt, -4 Deflection and -8 Reflex. I feel sorry for negative interrupt but at least deflection and reflex values are compensated from other areas. Constitution: This is bad but I have to do this... 3 Points left here. However This one is the least required attribute for wizards. It gives me: -21% Endurance and Health, -14 Fortitude. I dont care about fortitute I already obtained enough from might. But I'm really sorry being so squishy... Culture: Of course "The Living Lands" I need more might. After every sacrifice to obtain this much might I will only buff it more. Living Lands gives me +1 Might. So my final Might Score Hits 21 Points and gives me +33% Damage and Healing, and +22 Fortitude. Background: I choose explorer because it gives +1 Lore which is very logical for a wizard and +1 Survival which is a futile effort after leaving my character with 3 points of Constitution. Well this is a "consolation prize" for my character yay... Appearance: Colors: I know it wont help but I prefer dark colors for camouflage. Also brown colors fits my armor. Skin: Gold one because it fits portrait picture. Hair: I'm a bald guy. At least in the portrait picture. Head Appearance: Facial Hair: None by default. Head: 1/3 Hair: 1/19 Portrait: They gave me no choice 2/66 is the only picture that I could choose. I had prepared appearange in accordant with this picture. Voice: I think noble or mystic are equally right for this character. I prefer noble. Name: Find something suitable. Please tell me about your opinions.

For those (myself primarily) that wanted to try it out and see if our theory was correct, I have modded in our proposed attribute system. Might: +% Damage and +% Healing Constitution: +% Endurance and +% Health Dexterity: +% Action Speed Perception: + Accuracy and +% Interrupt Intellect: +% Durations and +% AoEs Resolve: + Deflection and +% Concentration This one I've actually thoroughly tested and it is working properly . It required a bit of troubleshooting to get everything correct. Download Link: http://www.upload.ee/files/4278808/sensukimatt516.rar.html Instructions (also included in the rar file): BACKUP THESE TWO FILES X:\Steam\steamapps\common\Pillars of Eternity - Public Beta\PillarsOfEternity_Data\Managed\Assembly-CSharp.dll X:\Steam\steamapps\common\Pillars of Eternity - Public Beta\PillarsOfEternity_Data\data\localized\en\text\game\gui.stringtable COPY THE CONTENTS OF the rar into your "X:\Steam\steamapps\common\Pillars of Eternity - Public Beta\PillarsOfEternity_Data" directory DO NOT submit bug reports with this installed, revert to default when testing Let me know if you like it in comparison to the PE v301 Attribute system

Here's a link to a (non Beta-specific) post I made about a new system for utilizing INT bonuses for AoE abilities. Would love some feedback. http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/67742-how-to-solve-the-aoe-problem-while-making-the-int-stat-more-compelling-and-int-characters-smarter/

Greetings, all. Today we’re going to talk about the Attribute system in Pillars of Eternity. Traditionally, CRPGs have suffered from certain issues with character attributes that PoE’s Lead Designer, Josh Sawyer, believes detract from the character creation and gameplay experience – namely, the problem of certain classes being pigeonholed into pumping certain attributes to function properly, and the existence of dump stats. To that end, the attribute system in Pillars of Eternity is designed with a few fundamental design goals in mind: All attributes should be useful (in some way) for every class. No dump stats – that is, no stat should be overwhelmingly better or worse than the others. These design goals aim to fix some systemic problems with the traditional D&D-based attribute systems. These design goals are admirable and worthwhile, and we believe that if realized, they will make Pillars of Eternity a richer and more rewarding experience. Unfortunately, the current attribute system fails to meet these goals. In particular, Perception and Resolve are simultaneously not useful for all classes/character archetypes, and are also very widely considered to be dump stats in most cases. However, this can be fixed. I (Sensuki) came up with a solution about two weeks ago and after many days consulting with Matt516 on the mathematical, logical, and balance issues with this solution, we have produced this paper. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/29325716/Pillars%20of%20Eternity/Sensuki_Matt516_Attribute_Rework.pdf It contains an introduction (which the text above is an excerpt of) that outlines our proposed changes to the attribute system and three sections. The first section deals with the inherent issues with Perception and Resolve and examines why they are widely considered dump stats by many, and too confusing to bother with by others. The second and third section outline our proposed changes for improving the attribute system, backed by mathematical and logical arguments to declare their balance, in support of their implementation. We also include detailed suggestions for how the game can be rebalanced if these changes are implemented. Matt516 and I co-wrote this paper, and it represents 10 straight days of work on various calculations, logical and balance issues, and argument structuring. It has been an absolute pleasure to work with Matt516 on this, and it would not have been possible without his help. The original idea was mine - but his math and Excel skills, combined with his adept academic writing talent, were paramount in producing the quality of work we have been able to produce here. I'd like to ask you all, backers and developers alike, to carefully read our paper - not to make any pre-judgements about our solution before you have seen our arguments. We have striven to anticipate issues people may have with this design, and to provide our answers to them in advance. After you have finished reading through the paper, I'd like to ask you these three questions: Would you enjoy creating and playing characters under our proposed attribute system? Do you think our solution succeeds in meeting the primary design goals of the attribute system? Do you think this solution is an improvement over the current attribute system? Best Regards Sensuki (and Matt516)

Hello all. As you probably know, there is currently a problem with area-of-effect abilities and INT - namely that the inability to adjust the AoE of certain abilities can actually be a disadvantage instead of an advantage. With really high INT, you sometimes end up in situations where you are hitting yourself with a negative AoE spell. This disincentivizes INT as an attribute - and disincentivizing an attribute is never a good idea when building RPG systems. Some have proposed a system in which AoE is adjustable. This is a great idea. And it seems obvious that they'll have to implement it at some point if they don't want to completely gimp certain INT builds (fireball that kills the entire party? anyone? ). But I'd like to go further. What's the point of an INT-based character, anyway? From both a thematic and a mechanical perspective, an INT focused character should be able to tactically control the battlefield through intelligent use of abilities. An adjustable AoE would support this goal from both a thematic and mechanical perspective - but why not give the character (and player) even more choice? I propose a system in which the AoE of abilities is adjustable... but when you increase the AoE, the duration decreases (boo!).... and when you decrease the AoE, the duration increases (what? ). Basically, there would be a discrete number of distributions (equal to your INT) that you could adjust on the fly (with mouse wheel while targeting, for example). At one end of the spectrum, you are applying your entire INT bonus to increasing the duration, and at the other end of the spectrum you are applying your entire INT bonus to increasing the AoE. Obviously if the ability has no AoE, the duration is just maximum and if the ability has no duration the AoE is still adjustable. This would take the tactics of AoE control abilities to an entirely new level. With a merely adjustable AoE, you're just adjusting the AoE to get the maximum ability coverage without hitting your own people. But with a sliding scale of applying your INT bonus to either AoE OR duration, we've achieved the ultimate in INT character decision-making - a system in which the intelligent character is able to masterfully adjust their abilities to fit the tactical situation, weighing the pros and cons of a battlefield-blanketing minor stun vs an incredibly powerful small area stun (for example). I've attached a link to a spreadsheet with some more information and the ability to try out some different curves for bonus values (since obviously the numerical values of the bonuses would have to be adjusted if this were implemented). Unfortunately the forum wouldn't let me upload it. :/ Link here: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/29325716/Pillars%20of%20Eternity%20INT%20fix.xlsx Older versions of Excel: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/29325716/Pillars%20of%20Eternity%20INT%20fix.xls Thanks for reading! It would make my day to get a dev response on this (even if it's just "that would be cool but we don't want to do it").

GOD DAMMIT. I had this really lengthy post and then I accidentally closed the window. Okay, second try. It's time to accept that Might is not accepted by many players. I love the idea of an attribute system where every attribute is useful for every class, but many people just don't like the idea that mental and physical power are based on the same attribute. And I can understand why. We want our fragile old wizards who deal tons of damage. We don't want "muscle wizards", no matter how wacky and fun that sounds. There is a disconnect between the Might attribute and our understanding of what attributes are supposed to represent in a character. Also, some of the attributes are somewhat unintuitive right now. And unbalanced. Resolve and Perception are dump stats right now. Resolve is a lot like Willpower, a mental intensity and presence. But nothing meaningful is tied to it. Perception is your awareness of surroundings, but same problem, it's only used for a mechanic that, while sounding interesting, is not very intuitive. Dexterity on the other hand seems bloated with all the things it governs. I want to change that, but I realize it won't be completely balanced. This is also something we'll just have to accept. Either we have a balanced system, or we have a slightly unbalanced system that makes people happy. My goal here is to make it just a tiny bit unbalanced while still making different builds possible and fun to play. What I'm NOT going to do is try and balance the system perfectly. Many people go ahead and say "okay so my system is Might gives 2% weapon damage, +1% to crits, blabla..." Going into detail like that won't solve anything. I want to propose a system where a fighter has reasons for different builds, and where a spellcaster has reasons for different builds. If there's a general reason for each class to put points into all attributes, then the system is balanceable. And that's all I'm aiming for right now. (By the way - the current system IS balanceable. It's just a question of making Interrupts and Concentration more important and Damage less important. The problem with the current system is not that it's unbalanced, it's that it's at its core not well-liked.) Even if the system turns out a bit unbalanced, the gameplay outside of combat takes care of that. Because seriously. The non-combat gameplay sounds awesome. There's lots of attribute checks etc and it sounds like roleplaying will be a blast. So even if combat isn't exactly balanced, I believe every character build will be interesting enough simply because of its non-combat possibilities that it warrants at least one playthrough. This is my main argument for why it's not so bad to have a slightly unbalanced system. If someone ignores all that content and only goes for min-maxing... well that really is his problem. With all that said... here's my proposal. Turn Might into Strength. Take out the Magic/Ability Damage. This instantly makes the attribute less interesting for many classes. Add Magic/Ability Damage to Resolve. As said, Resolve is basically Willpower. It's a perfect fit for Magic/Ability Damage and instantly makes this attribute important to a lot of classes - mostly to spellcasters however, for whom this will be the main attribute along with Intellect. Keep Intellect as AoE and Duration modifier. Resolve is a character's intensity, but intellect is his cleverness and allows them to shape their powers to their will. Makes perfect sense and is intuitive. Split Accuracy into Melee Accuracy and Ranged Accuracy. Leave Melee Accuracy in DEX, put Ranged Accuracy into PER. Perception is the attribute for keen sight and aiming. Ranged combat should benefit hugely from it, and this way it does. DEX was never a good fit for ranged accuracy. Add Ranged Reload Speed to DEX and Melee Crits to PER. DEX is however a perfect fit for reload speed, and we can use that to keep it interesting for ranged combatants. PER on the other hand allows melee combatants to see openings and use them. This makes it interesting for them without overpowering it for ranged combat. That's it. Now you might think "but now Strength is useless for spellcasters". But that's not true. First of all, there's the Healing which they can still benefit from. Then: Druids need it in their animal shape. Ciphers, Chanters and Monks need it anyway because part of their class is based upon attacking first and using powers later. And Wizards and Priests actually have spells at their disposal that are only useful when they have decent Strength. It's totally possible to play a Battlemage this way. But yeah, if you want to play a glass-cannon wizard, you can dump Strength now while still dealing tons of damage. (You won't be able to intimidate anyone anymore though.) And all in all, Strength might be a bit too unimportant for spellcasters now. But that's the price you have to pay to make the players happy, and I believe this solution is still pretty good. Hope some of the devs read and consider this. P.S. And no I don't want a discussion about whether the current system is intuitive or not. This is a proposal under the premise that the majority of players don't like the current system. If that's not true in your opinion, great, you can ignore this. If it is true, then this is the closest I can think of to keeping the current system while making the majority of players happy at the same time.

Pillars of Eternity is a Role-Playing Game. One would think that role-playing would be important in a game like PoE, and that it's systems would be designed around it. That is however just not the case with the attribute system. This thread will be about the attribute system and it's effectiveness in making a character from a role-playing perspective. It will not be about attribute balance. It is also aimed at PoE's lead designer, Josh Sawyer. I'm going to compare Obsidian's Neverwinter Nights 2 attribute system(d&d) to Pillars of Eternity. I'm not saying the former has a perfect system, it does't. It is flawed, but it works for role-playing. First let's take a look at NwN2 attribute system and ask ourselves what every attribute does for our character, purely role-playing. -Strength How strong is my character? Physical strength. -Dexterity How agile is my character? Motor skills. -Constitution How tough is my character? Healthiness. -Intelligence How intelligent is my character? Smarts. -Wisdom How wise is my character? Knowledge, common sense, good judgement, perception, enlightenment, faith and religion. -Charisma How charismatic is my character? Attractiveness, force of personality, ability to lead. All of these attributes make sense and it is easy to build and describe a character with them, because they are intuitive. You can tell what each of them does just by looking at them. Wisdom and Charisma are however "flawed", but that doesn't mean that they don't work. Let me explain. Wisdom and Charisma encompass a very wide set of characteristics(for lack of a better word), and a lot of times you have to choose between these characteristics when building a character. Let's say you want to make a wise character but you don't want him to have strong faith. So you pump Wisdom and you just turn a blind eye. Let's say you want to make a fearsome orc character that has a very strong personality. So you pump Charisma and you turn a blind eye, because he's really ugly. You choose between these characteristics. Now let's look PoE's attribute system and do the same. Dexterity, Constitution and Intelligence remain the same. Strength, Wisdom and Charisma are either missing or replaced. -Might How mighty is my character? How powerful is my character? Physical strength? The ability to be effective at something? No idea. Apparently it's the strength of a character's soul and physical strength. -Perception How perceptive is my character? Insight? Sherlock Holmes? The ability to perceive something through your senses. -Resolve How determined is my character? Stubbornness? Devotion? Faith? The determination to solve a problem. Perception is just a subtype of Wisdom and a poor replacement for it. Resolve is interesting, because it's kind of missing in d&d, but I guess one could put it under Wisdom, but not really. Perception and Resolve don't work in a 6 attribute system, mainly because charisma is sacrificed to make room. Might could work as a replacement for strength, if it actually effectively replaced it. Currently it's confusing and it doesn't work because it describes a character's physical strength and the strength of a character's soul. Might has the same problem as Wisdom and Charisma do in d&d, but to a much greater extent. Basically you have to turn a blind eye to make a character who is physically weak, but has a strong soul. The current attribute system does not work for role-playing. You can't describe a character with it, and it is unnecessarily confusing and unintuitive. I understand that Obsidian wanted to do a unique attribute system that is different from d&d, but this just doesn't work. It is a flawed design.

Here's a link to a (non Beta-specific) post I made about a new system for utilizing INT bonuses for AoE abilities. Would love some feedback. http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/67742-how-to-solve-the-aoe-problem-while-making-the-int-stat-more-compelling-and-int-characters-smarter/