Shouldn't all spells be per combat encounter? Not per rest?

[Ohioastro]

I guess that I prefer that the designers focus on interesting puzzles, and that the trash encounters between bosses are rarely interesting. The very fact that people argue so much about "rest abuse" or the like is actually a pretty powerful indication that the D&D per rest system has some structural flaws.

 

Basically, I can win every single trash encounter by throwing everything at it.  The cost is that I rest between, which is entirely permitted by the rule set.  Perhaps if I conserve resources I can rest every few times, or even occasionally; the cost of the latter is that I basically don't use the core abilties of my caster classes, which makes for repetitive and dull game play.  So I personally go for the middle option: basically, I use spells at a rate that matches how banged up my health bars get, so that both run out at about the same time.

 

But I'd actually prefer a structure where the trash encounters didn't play such a role at all.  You do want a couple of "training wheel" encounters where you see new mechanics for the first time.  But do you really, really need to do very similar encounters many times?  I'd much rather see the trash encounters lowered in number and ramped up in difficulty - so that it didn't matter whether you rested or not.  If you want to test resource conservation, for example, do it by having to deal with waves of enemies, or ones who come in from different directions.   Do it directly, rather than spoon feeding me a handful of opponents over and over again.  Don't go the IWD route:  Here is a battle with hook horrors.  It's so much fun that let's have another one.  And another one.  And another one.  Fight a dragon outside of a cave?  Cool, now walk inside the cave and do exactly the same thing again...

 

This can also tie into role-playing: you can either sneak through or bring the entire fortress down on you.  Not as in "they become hostile": as in "they swarm you from all sides until either you die or all of them do."  It could also work to tie these things to difficulty setting, to make the games doable for non-vets.

[Crucis]

I guess that I prefer that the designers focus on interesting puzzles, and that the trash encounters between bosses are rarely interesting. The very fact that people argue so much about "rest abuse" or the like is actually a pretty powerful indication that the D&D per rest system has some structural flaws.

 

Basically, I can win every single trash encounter by throwing everything at it.  The cost is that I rest between, which is entirely permitted by the rule set.  Perhaps if I conserve resources I can rest every few times, or even occasionally; the cost of the latter is that I basically don't use the core abilties of my caster classes, which makes for repetitive and dull game play.  So I personally go for the middle option: basically, I use spells at a rate that matches how banged up my health bars get, so that both run out at about the same time.

 

But I'd actually prefer a structure where the trash encounters didn't play such a role at all.  You do want a couple of "training wheel" encounters where you see new mechanics for the first time.  But do you really, really need to do very similar encounters many times?  I'd much rather see the trash encounters lowered in number and ramped up in difficulty - so that it didn't matter whether you rested or not.  If you want to test resource conservation, for example, do it by having to deal with waves of enemies, or ones who come in from different directions.   Do it directly, rather than spoon feeding me a handful of opponents over and over again.  Don't go the IWD route:  Here is a battle with hook horrors.  It's so much fun that let's have another one.  And another one.  And another one.  Fight a dragon outside of a cave?  Cool, now walk inside the cave and do exactly the same thing again...

 

This can also tie into role-playing: you can either sneak through or bring the entire fortress down on you.  Not as in "they become hostile": as in "they swarm you from all sides until either you die or all of them do."  It could also work to tie these things to difficulty setting, to make the games doable for non-vets.

 

 

I disagree that the per-rest system is flawed and that arguments about rest abuse are an indication of this.  The thing is that in normal p&p DnD a dungeon master can stop rest abuse rather simply by having the players' rests get interrupted increasingly often and y increasingly difficult ambushers.  But in PoE where your rests are NEVER ONCE interrupted, the only penalty is the cost in terms of camping supplies.  And in the old IE games, there was no limiter of camping supplies so you could rest as often as you wanted.

 

Now I have to say that the idea of resting quite often in BG2 when you were adventuring in the city didn't bother me much from a pseudo-realism PoV.  You go down to the docks and get in a hard fight with whatever, and go back to the inn for the night.  No big deal.  Seems rather reasonable, as long as there's no actual time pressure.  OTOH, it does seem a bit unseemly to rest after every battle when you're in a dungeon and you really should be at risk of having said rest interrupted.  It's one of the flaws that are sort of the nature of these games that the monsters are pinned to a specific location and rarely seem to roam around.  I mean, seriously, you shouldn't be able to rest safely when you KNOW that there's a group of Ogres just around the corner.  It'd be great if on some levels of a dungeon like the EP dungeon if a given level is 100% controlled by a certain group of monsters, those monsters should be patrolling that level and interrupting rests.  Or done another way, perhaps you shouldn't be allowed to rest on a dungeon level that hasn't been cleared, with the possible exception of a room with a door that you can close and have it be deemed resting safe.

 

So anyways, the problem IMO isn't the per-rest system of magic, but the way that rests are allowed and handled in these games, without a greater effort towards preventing rest abuse.  Or at least creating a serious risk of interruption in areas deemed unsafe.

 

 

 

EDIT:  Speaking of Hook Horrors (I'd forgotten that name), I actually liked those waves after waves after waves of Hook Horrors.  I also liked how they would attack you from both the front  and rear at the same time, meaning that you had to adjust your formation to put your squishy spellcasters in the 3-4 slots rather than the 5-6 slots, and you needed a decent tank to cover your rear as well as your front.  I really enjoyed those Hook Horror battles in IWD2!  And wish that there were battles like them in PoE!

 

 

Edited May 5, 2015 by Crucis

[luzarius]

I just started playing a druid on POTD, my god, I'm constantly running to the inn to rest lol. 

[nipsen]

Ah, you fall into the "cant control self" camp. That makes sense now.

 

If you're not going to read what people write, maybe you shouldn't randomly throw out things you make up.

 

The whole of the problem is that the tweaks that have been suggested and inserted, based on a bit short-sighted opinion and "design adjustment", has limited the ways you can play the game. It wasn't simply enough that people who game the system could continue to do so - the rules had to be simplified and streamlined along the way, by people who have no interest in role-playing mechanics. The engagement system changes, the character attribute wreck to the point where the attributes have little to do with the narrative explanation, simplified character creation - not doing that would not have stopped players from being able to play like you describe you do. And making the changes would also not limit your style of play. A successful rpg ruleset is dynamic and allows role-playing, it doesn't specify details from top to bottom.

 

But making those changes removed the depth of the ruleset and the game. Which removed things that matter to a part of the audience Obsidian has at least had. That you don't see this, and apparently have no interest in that type of gameplay(or even see that it exists), that isn't going to change much about that.

[Gfted1]

Cool story, bro. I sincerely hope you find the strength to move on, over a game you didn't back.

[Volourn]

" like is actually a pretty powerful indication that the D&D per rest system has some structural flaws."

 

The DnD per rest system is perfect the way it is. The issue is the way video gamers/video gamers use/abuse it. You should not be resting after every battle. PERIOD. Games should not be designed with that in mind. There are so many ways to fix this it's not even funny.

 

1.  Limit resting to logical places - you shouldn't be able to rest in a palce with intelligent potetnial enemies - like that Lor'ds stronghold. If you try to rest you shoudl quickly find yourself sorrounded by almost the entire's keep's force. If resting in random dungeons like  the Endless Paths random encounters may occur.

 

2. Only allow players to rest once per 24 hours (or 12 if being genorous or DnD elf).  The body isn't meant t rest/sleep  every 2 minutes.

 

3.  Camping supplies if youa re gonna rest in wild  and limited benefits to do so.

 

4. Time limits for quests so the player is motivated not to rest every second.

 

5. If time passes the dungeon/area should change and update brining more surprises.  You cna leave various dungeons and its exactly as you left it.  New traps, new enemies. Maybe what you seek has been moved/lost making you fail your quest. ie.  A kidnap victim is moved location, killed, etc., etc.

 

 

It's not ahrd. Dnd rest system is perfect. game developers are not.

[Crucis]

" like is actually a pretty powerful indication that the D&D per rest system has some structural flaws."

 

The DnD per rest system is perfect the way it is. The issue is the way video gamers/video gamers use/abuse it. You should not be resting after every battle. PERIOD. Games should not be designed with that in mind. There are so many ways to fix this it's not even funny.

 

1.  Limit resting to logical places - you shouldn't be able to rest in a palce with intelligent potetnial enemies - like that Lor'ds stronghold. If you try to rest you shoudl quickly find yourself sorrounded by almost the entire's keep's force. If resting in random dungeons like  the Endless Paths random encounters may occur.

 

2. Only allow players to rest once per 24 hours (or 12 if being genorous or DnD elf).  The body isn't meant t rest/sleep  every 2 minutes.

 

3.  Camping supplies if youa re gonna rest in wild  and limited benefits to do so.

 

4. Time limits for quests so the player is motivated not to rest every second.

 

5. If time passes the dungeon/area should change and update brining more surprises.  You cna leave various dungeons and its exactly as you left it.  New traps, new enemies. Maybe what you seek has been moved/lost making you fail your quest. ie.  A kidnap victim is moved location, killed, etc., etc.

 

 

It's not ahrd. Dnd rest system is perfect. game developers are not.

 

I can't agree with #4, but I agree with the general sentiment of the post.  Resting shouldn't be abused.  As I said above, I wrote that p&p  DM's would find inventive ways to deal with players who tried to abuse resting.  But cRPG's aren't capable of being as adaptable in the same way that a human GM can be.  So all the devs can do is try to deal with the potential methods of abuse they can foresee.

[Ohioastro]

I've certainly enjoyed games with the traditional D&D format.  Missing from that list, however, is a sense of what the per rest design achieves.  Basically, am I enjoying them because of the per rest system or despite it?    What am I gaining, other than people being used to it, from the x spells a day system? 

 

The basic fault is that you "hold back" because you might need your spells, potions, scrolls etc. for a rainy day, and end up not using them at all (because the tank got  beat up and you ran out of healing before you ran out of damage spells.)  It's both too few at low level and far too many at high level.

 

If someone mis-times spell use, do you force them to reload and repeat a half-dozen trash fights until they get them all right?  Do you save after each one?  Because that's the practical consequence of trying to meter out resting.  If your system forces people to repeat long sequences without saving they will hate it.  If it rewards do a bit - save - do a bit - save etc. play then, again, it's not optimal. 

 

As a counterexample, I genuinely like the health-endurance system.  It's such a nuisance to raise dead low level characters that losing one is usually a reload in IE games.  But if you can bounce back then you can see if you can recover - and I can do that in the PoE system, which is great.  I end up with a lot fewer reloads and a lot more experimentation.

 

Ironically, a cooldown system actually ends up being more organic - you are limited in your casting rate (e.g. magic is slow), so that you're not tossing around a dozen fireballs a minute, but the individual spells can be powerful ones.  The defect with the WoW style stuff is that you have way too many buttons to push, turning gameplay into a set of macros. 

 

I'd prefer a system of powerful, slow magic, but without per rest restrictions because it makes for a more dynamic game.  There aren't many examples, unfortunately.

[nipsen]

I'd prefer a system of powerful, slow magic, but without per rest restrictions because it makes for a more dynamic game.  There aren't many examples, unfortunately.

Mm. Have wondered about whether that could work in some way in pnp - let the spell pool recharge up to a point when time passes. A bit like the fatigue rules in PoE, just the other way around. That you'd get one level 3 spell back toward the end of the dungeon, after an hour, that sort of thing, instead of adding per-encounter abilities. Maybe add perks to decrease the time it takes..? Could put that together with resilience and constitution, to get a governing ability it could scale over, so you could make a weaker but more resilient caster..

 

Cool story, bro. I sincerely hope you find the strength to move on, over a game you didn't back.

No, I was a backer, until I was so unhappy with the changes Obsidian made towards autumn last year after the beta launched, that I requested them to simply cancel the "order", and take my money for free, or donate it away.

 

Brandon didn't want to do that, so he returned me the money. Which I donated away on Obsidian's behalf, to the nearest autism foundation. With concerned respect for Obsidian's new exclusive core target audience.

 

And that you end an argument by abusing your moderator privileges, and dumping a childish quip on someone isn't new, and isn't going to shock anyone. Try harder.

[Volourn]

"to the nearest autism foundation. With concerned respect for Obsidian's new exclusive core target audience."

 

Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

[Captain Shrek]

" like is actually a pretty powerful indication that the D&D per rest system has some structural flaws."

 

The DnD per rest system is perfect the way it is. The issue is the way video gamers/video gamers use/abuse it. You should not be resting after every battle. PERIOD. Games should not be designed with that in mind. There are so many ways to fix this it's not even funny.

 

1.  Limit resting to logical places - you shouldn't be able to rest in a palce with intelligent potetnial enemies - like that Lor'ds stronghold. If you try to rest you shoudl quickly find yourself sorrounded by almost the entire's keep's force. If resting in random dungeons like  the Endless Paths random encounters may occur.

 

2. Only allow players to rest once per 24 hours (or 12 if being genorous or DnD elf).  The body isn't meant t rest/sleep  every 2 minutes.

 

3.  Camping supplies if youa re gonna rest in wild  and limited benefits to do so.

 

4. Time limits for quests so the player is motivated not to rest every second.

 

5. If time passes the dungeon/area should change and update brining more surprises.  You cna leave various dungeons and its exactly as you left it.  New traps, new enemies. Maybe what you seek has been moved/lost making you fail your quest. ie.  A kidnap victim is moved location, killed, etc., etc.

 

 

It's not ahrd. Dnd rest system is perfect. game developers are not.

 

 

Volourn, my dove, been arguing for this since ages. I bet no one cares. 

[nipsen]

"to the nearest autism foundation. With concerned respect for Obsidian's new exclusive core target audience."

 

Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

And I really don't mean that sarcastically. The entire "ooh, but this guy loves the chaotic message scroll, the fifteen extra clicks for micromanagement in battles to hit the right moments between the preset pause options - and writes pages on pages about the beauty of the mathematical linearity in PoE - so it's obviously really great and doesn't need a tweak" thing in the beta was a bit painful to watch..

Edited May 5, 2015 by nipsen

[Crucis]

I've certainly enjoyed games with the traditional D&D format.  Missing from that list, however, is a sense of what the per rest design achieves.  Basically, am I enjoying them because of the per rest system or despite it?    What am I gaining, other than people being used to it, from the x spells a day system? 

 

The basic fault is that you "hold back" because you might need your spells, potions, scrolls etc. for a rainy day, and end up not using them at all (because the tank got  beat up and you ran out of healing before you ran out of damage spells.)  It's both too few at low level and far too many at high level.

 

If someone mis-times spell use, do you force them to reload and repeat a half-dozen trash fights until they get them all right?  Do you save after each one?  Because that's the practical consequence of trying to meter out resting.  If your system forces people to repeat long sequences without saving they will hate it.  If it rewards do a bit - save - do a bit - save etc. play then, again, it's not optimal. 

 

As a counterexample, I genuinely like the health-endurance system.  It's such a nuisance to raise dead low level characters that losing one is usually a reload in IE games.  But if you can bounce back then you can see if you can recover - and I can do that in the PoE system, which is great.  I end up with a lot fewer reloads and a lot more experimentation.

 

Ironically, a cooldown system actually ends up being more organic - you are limited in your casting rate (e.g. magic is slow), so that you're not tossing around a dozen fireballs a minute, but the individual spells can be powerful ones.  The defect with the WoW style stuff is that you have way too many buttons to push, turning gameplay into a set of macros. 

 

I'd prefer a system of powerful, slow magic, but without per rest restrictions because it makes for a more dynamic game.  There aren't many examples, unfortunately.

 

OMG!  OMG!  Gods forbid that there's a class of spellcasters that has to learn to pace themselves and not throw everything AND the kitchen sink into every battle!  OMG! The world is ending because one can't cast every spell in one's grimoire or memory or whatever in every single battle without resting!

 

 

 

 

 

 

/sarcasm

[Jimmysdabestcop]

I dont know why Obisidian just didn't give unlimited rest and random encounters based upon Exp points or based upon area character party is at.

 

IWD HoF mode restign without save scumming when low on spells or hp was dangerous.

 

Limiting camping supplies in PoE actually does absolutely nothing. Makes no sense. Serves no point. Honestly is just more annoying then anything. There is no danger from running out of supplies just fast travel to town, rest get bonus and buy supplies.

 

So why have this "feature" in the game? If it doesn't increase role playing, doesn't increase fun. doesn't increase enjoyment, doesn't increase challenge;  as a developer you have to ask then "why is this in the game?????"

 

Perhaps what they should have done was remove it and come up with a "hardcord" PoE mode and add it as a small DLC or something. At least hardcore mode in Fallout LV changed enough of the game to make it worthwhile to have a playthroguh with it turned on.

[Crucis]

I dont know why Obisidian just didn't give unlimited rest and random encounters based upon Exp points or based upon area character party is at.

 

IWD HoF mode restign without save scumming when low on spells or hp was dangerous.

 

Limiting camping supplies in PoE actually does absolutely nothing. Makes no sense. Serves no point. Honestly is just more annoying then anything. There is no danger from running out of supplies just fast travel to town, rest get bonus and buy supplies.

 

So why have this "feature" in the game? If it doesn't increase role playing, doesn't increase fun. doesn't increase enjoyment, doesn't increase challenge;  as a developer you have to ask then "why is this in the game?????"

 

Perhaps what they should have done was remove it and come up with a "hardcord" PoE mode and add it as a small DLC or something. At least hardcore mode in Fallout LV changed enough of the game to make it worthwhile to have a playthroguh with it turned on.

 

Personally, I like the camping supplies thing.  What I don't like is how it's 100% safe to rest.  Nor do I like how it's 100% safe to travel from place to place outside of a city.  There should be random encounters when you're on the road, and there should be a risk of having your rest interrupted when you rest away from an inn.  And there should be camping supplies.

 

As for whether it increases the challenge or not, I personally think that it does.  Some of us don't actually run back to an inn after every battle just so that we can abuse the game.  If this was a p&p game and someone tried to run back to town after every battle in a dungeon, that party would find themselves running into an awful lot of encounters on the road.  And if there were no limits (no camping supplies) and a party tried resting after every encounter IN the dungeon, I'd have the party get attacked while they rested with increasing frequency.  If you play to the spirit of the rules, camping supplies are a bit of a limiting factor.  It's only when players go against the spirit of the rules and stick within the letter of the rules (i.e. that the game program allows because that's how it was programmed) that abuses occur and the limiting factors start to no longer matter.  So if you want camping supplies to be a limiting factor, play to the spirit of the rules, not the letter of the rules.

[scrotiemcb]

As for whether it increases the challenge or not, I personally think that it does. Some of us don't actually run back to an inn after every battle just so that we can abuse the game. If this was a p&p game and someone tried to run back to town after every battle in a dungeon, that party would find themselves running into an awful lot of encounters on the road.

But this isn't a p&p game.

 

As implemented, camping supplies can't even properly be called a mechanic. Partial mechanic is more like it. It suggests a mechanic, but it doesn't close the deal, instead expecting the player to do it.

 

I consider such an implementation bad design. If you want it to be an optional mechanic, then you set a toggle in the options menu. Something like "can camp without supplies." And/or "no random encounters." That way if players want to opt out, they can skip the tedium of backtracking, or have risk-free camping/retreats. But as it is now it's just half-done and half-baked.

[Crucis]

 

As for whether it increases the challenge or not, I personally think that it does. Some of us don't actually run back to an inn after every battle just so that we can abuse the game. If this was a p&p game and someone tried to run back to town after every battle in a dungeon, that party would find themselves running into an awful lot of encounters on the road.

But this isn't a p&p game.

 

As implemented, camping supplies can't even properly be called a mechanic. Partial mechanic is more like it. It suggests a mechanic, but it doesn't close the deal, instead expecting the player to do it.

 

I consider such an implementation bad design. If you want it to be an optional mechanic, then you set a toggle in the options menu. Something like "can camp without supplies." And/or "no random encounters." That way if players want to opt out, they can skip the tedium of backtracking, or have risk-free camping/retreats. But as it is now it's just half-done and half-baked.

 

 

And you missed the point I was making in pointing out the p&p thing.  The point was that GM's are human and can be adaptable.  The program isn't and adaptability is difficult.

 

I notice that you completed skipped over my discussion of playing according to the spirit of the rules vs the letter of the rules.  If you play to the spirit of the rules, camping supplies work just fine.   And I don't think that it's either half-baked or half-done.  I think that there are just a bunch of players who don't understand the idea of playing according to the spirit of the rules rather than the letter of the rules, and will push every rule to its limit and beyond if they can, and then complain about it.

 

[scrotiemcb]

I was not skipping over a discussion on the spirit of the rules, I was disagreeing with you as to what it entails.

 

You apparently think the spirit of the rules is "do not retreat back to town to get rests before every encounter." Very benefit of the doubt of you.

 

I think the spirit of the rules is "if you want to rest spam, or if you don't, we as developers do not want to take a firm stand on the issue, so house-rule yourself."

 

To reiterate, I consider such an implementation bad design. If the intent is an optional mechanic, then you set a toggle in the options menu. Something like "can camp without supplies." And/or "no random encounters." That way if players want to opt out, they can skip the tedium of backtracking, or have risk-free camping/retreats.

Edited May 6, 2015 by scrotiemcb

[Namutree]

Camping supplies mattered to me once. Don't want to spoil that part of the game, but suffice to say I was in a dungeon, I took a nasty fall and had to fight my way back (since I couldn't go back the way I came). I only had two camping supplies (I was playing on hard), and I didn't know how many fights would be in my way back or how dangerous those fights would be. So yes, camping supplies matter a little.

 

To help make them matter more though I suggest the expansion have a dangerous dungeon that you can't leave until you finish it. Meaning you CAN'T go back to an inn. You'd have to manage your resources carefully. As long as the player was made aware that the dungeon couldn't be exited until completion it wouldn't be a problem.

[Jimmysdabestcop]

I agree that it isn't a full implemenation. Right now you really only have to rest for 3 conditions. Out of spells, maimed or low hp or several party members have received special conditions after the choose your own adventure type of story inserts . (sorry no idea what they are called).

 

What the IE games also had was level drain and abiltity point drain. If you caster lost 2 levels you have to rest because you be missing tons of spells. Now not saying PoE needs drain mechanic.

 

But I do like camping, maiming, and special conditions aka buasted rib/consussion/etc as (again) part of some hardcore mode. Right not you are maimed (or dead) if you lost all your HP. Could add bad conditions when character gets knockouts and looses endurance. Consucsison, broken ribs, broken arm etc.

Maybe not only let consumables buff you but have them requiered or you start to starve/dehydrate.

 

I don't really know I'm just snowballing here. It just seems camping and fast travel with no encounters exists then why even both limiting camping.

 

My hard campaign you get 2 camps and that didn't boterh me at all. Of course my last playthrough was only with 1 caster a cipher so I almost never had to rest. Most of the time that I had to  rest was after  side quests where you have to fast travel all over your map  to complete and like 6 days pass.

 

I will say after "taking that nasty fall" that is spoken of I had 1 or 2 characters receive bad conditions from low dexterity/athletics and I didn't even bother resting to remove them. It wasn't on my PC so it didn't matter.

[luzarius]

I ditched the Druid and switched back to my ranger build so I wouldn't have to go back and rest so much.  The spellcasters have to rest a lot on POTD.  I guess I'm just lazy, especially after a few beers... *CHEERS*

[b0rsuk]

Was that a solo or party playthrough with druid ?

[Gfted1]

And that you end an argument by abusing your moderator privileges, and dumping a childish quip on someone isn't new, and isn't going to shock anyone. Try harder.

I think you've lost the capacity for rational conversation.

 

But what isn't going to shock anyone is your repeated sad tale of woe. All you want to do is whine about a ship that sailed long ago, and badmouth people that aren't here to defend themselves. Perhaps you should take the enormous chip on your shoulder over to the Codex and debate those people directly instead of cowardly sniping from afar? Oh, and don't forget to namedrop your shadowy co-conspirator within Obs.

[nipsen]

Btw, anyone have an opinion on how having one defensive support-caster (instead of an offensive damage dealer), along with a priest and a cipher, or something like that, affects how long you can go without resting? Or, do situational spells encourage you to save spells in a somewhat natural way?

 

And that maybe the offensive spells might last longer if they were possible to cast against characters with specific weaknesses against the spells, that sort of thing? I mean, if you imagine a pnp setting - would that make sense, to be able to switch out basic spells to learn more specialized spells that gain double bonuses or severe status chances (and do less damage against defensive strengths) - would that be enough to encourage saving the spells for special occasions?

 

Instead of just making the spells do more flat damage to compensate, which kind of encourages you to use them as much as possible anyway..?

 

 

 

 

 

I think you've lost the capacity for rational conversation.

 

...So to disprove my point about how you seem to prefer insulting people randomly when they disagree with you to discussing anything - you again randomly insult me and throw a childish quip about how I'm imagining a "co-conspirator" inside Obsidian with inside information, etc.

 

When what I referred to was a producer guy who processed the refund. The source of the other information is none of your business, but you can obviously confirm it's correct. And frankly, so can everyone else based on when the craziest "fixes" stopped happening, as well as that this coincided with when Paradox Q&A "thanked" the community for all it's invaluable feedback. Before things belatedly started moving on to picking up that endless backlog of actually needed fixes from the beta reports, that some of us provided Obs. for free.

 

Other than that I made a few fairly obvious observations about how Obsidian Q&A seems to operate, based on how very strange and badly thought through suggestions, on this forum, turned into equally strange and badly thought through implemented updates. And how the weirdness of that was not helped by for example how the moderator team is hostile to discussing views and explaining where opinions actually come from. Even to the point where they insult people with opinions they don't like. If you wanted to meet any of that criticism in some way, you could obviously do that.

 

But in the meantime, you're not adding anything to the topic, you're harassing people, and derailing the thread by flatly lying people up in their face. So why are you here? Really, why are you a mod?

[MunoValente]

All spells shouldn't be per encounter, but there should some that are per encounter earlier than level 9.  I don't know if it would be possible but making lower level spells 1 per encounter, with additional uses per rest might be a good balance. If not changing how spells work, more Arcane Assault, Grimoire Slam type abilities might be useful or perhaps upgrade talents for Arcane Assault.