Jump to content

Welcome to Obsidian Forum Community
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

[Class Build] Ranged Rogue PC Discussion (min/max)

Rogue Marksman Ranged Character Build Min/Max Player Character 1.05 POTD Buffs Discussion

  • Please log in to reply
68 replies to this topic

#61
Tigranes

Tigranes

    Obsidian VIP

  • Members
  • 10168 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

Sorry we weren't around for that, guys. Rather unpleasant. All the brains and guts on the floor have now been cleaned up!


  • rheingold, Crucis and MoxyWoo like this

#62
Kilrach

Kilrach

    (1) Prestidigitator

  • Members
  • 48 posts

This really seems to make "Marking" a LOT weaker and less valuable than one might think from reading its in-game description.

 

 

How so? It's pretty easy to set a formation to ensure that the Marker is always besides the rogue. The other members would be in front or to the OTHER side of the rogue. The Marking buff is always given to my rogue with this formation.



#63
Crucis

Crucis

    (9) Sorcerer

  • Members
  • 1210 posts

 


This really seems to make "Marking" a LOT weaker and less valuable than one might think from reading its in-game description.

 

 

How so? It's pretty easy to set a formation to ensure that the Marker is always besides the rogue. The other members would be in front or to the OTHER side of the rogue. The Marking buff is always given to my rogue with this formation.

 

 

How so?  You really have to ask?  It's patently obvious.  The in-game description says nothing about having to be close to the Marker.  It implies that any and all of your allies will benefit from the marking without any requirement to be near the marker.  That by itself represents a significant degradation of the power of Marking.
 



#64
Kilrach

Kilrach

    (1) Prestidigitator

  • Members
  • 48 posts

It says "+10 Accuracy granted to an ally attacking the same target": where does it imply 'any and all alies' when it clearly states an ally? Then, it can be inferred that you probably have to be close or else how would it pick the ally to give the buff to?

 

If you want to complain about a flexible (and perpetual if done right) +10 accuracy buff (that's worth around two accuracy talents), I don't know what would satisfy you.


Edited by Kilrach, 05 May 2015 - 08:20 AM.


#65
Crucis

Crucis

    (9) Sorcerer

  • Members
  • 1210 posts

It says "+10 Accuracy granted to an ally attacking the same target": where does it imply 'any and all alies' when it clearly states an ally? Then, it can be inferred that you probably have to be close or else how would it pick the ally to give the buff to?

 

If you want to complain about a flexible (and perpetual if done right) +10 accuracy buff (that's worth around two accuracy talents), I don't know what would satisfy you.

 

Where?  Every other member of your party is an ally.  I could have all 6 members of the party attacking the same target, but if only one is close to the Marker, only that one could get the bonus, if I understand you properly.

 

 



#66
Kilrach

Kilrach

    (1) Prestidigitator

  • Members
  • 48 posts

I don't get what's so confusing? It's not the only ability description that mentions "an ally". Look at Priest buffs and Paladin spells etc. - if it's a friendly single target spell, it would say "an ally". AoE buffs would be "allies" with the word in plural. It's consistent like that throughout the game - why would you think anything different?



#67
Crucis

Crucis

    (9) Sorcerer

  • Members
  • 1210 posts

I don't get what's so confusing? It's not the only ability description that mentions "an ally". Look at Priest buffs and Paladin spells etc. - if it's a friendly single target spell, it would say "an ally". AoE buffs would be "allies" with the word in plural. It's consistent like that throughout the game - why would you think anything different?

 

Because I parse those sentences differently from you.



#68
peddroelm

peddroelm

    (6) Magician

  • Members
  • 603 posts
  • Deadfire Backer

 

I don't get what's so confusing? It's not the only ability description that mentions "an ally". Look at Priest buffs and Paladin spells etc. - if it's a friendly single target spell, it would say "an ally". AoE buffs would be "allies" with the word in plural. It's consistent like that throughout the game - why would you think anything different?

 

Because I parse those sentences differently from you.

 

check the item description again  an is bolded


Edited by peddroelm, 05 May 2015 - 09:38 AM.


#69
Kilrach

Kilrach

    (1) Prestidigitator

  • Members
  • 48 posts

Just thought I'd post my stats after just completing the game

 

yLGFuWe.jpg







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Rogue, Marksman, Ranged, Character Build, Min/Max, Player Character, 1.05, POTD, Buffs, Discussion

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users