Jump to content

Recommended Posts

 

 

 

Again, how is this not just nostalgia? You prefer the old ways, for some reason that cannot be articulated. 

 

 

Well, i articulated them quite well, in my own opinion, granted that english is not my first language. The fact that it can't be understood by some people is another matter. Whether it is because they have a complete opposite way of thinking (which is fine by me), or because they would just try to ridicule what i explain using worn out and warped arguments.

 

Your example is like if i said "hey, why is there a washing machine in this scene of this historic reconstitution of the 100 years war?" And then you would answer me: "Why bother? It's a film, this castle don't even exists! it's some cardboards!"

 

It's not even a big exaggeration lol. This is how i see it, at least, even if it wasn't your intent.

 

In short, while a game needs mechanics, what i don't like is when mechanics takes the upper hand. When you see a play, you see the stage props. But all of them are done in order to set the stage of some drama. They are not fancy things that would break the whole stage. I can't tell if i'm clear though.

 

other points: i misread you, i thought all were useless spells :D. Actually i quite liked minor drain, even in BG2. was some fun. But not very usefull, you're right. I kind of miss all the magic protection/antimagic spells, too. I loved the magic battles between wizards. But it was really hard to grasp all this crap. Would need a simpler system.

 

I used a lot of healing spells and healing potions in BG. I said it just before. But it's true i barely ever used them in combat.

 

Don't know if the need of a priest in a party is a good or bad thing. Maybe some kind of mutliclassing options would limit the problem. But it's pretty rare in RPGs.

 

EDIT: i just browsed a bit in BG wizards and priests spells, and i found plenty more single targeted one. Anyway, my point was that BG allowed both options: AoE and single target. I never spoke of "many many".

Edited by Abel
Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, that would be even worse than the BG system. You'd have the wonderful tedium of having to waste spells on healing all the time, but now there is also a maximum on how much you can actually heal per rest because of the separate health pool. If anything, this will just lead to people healing more often, because your priest is continuously running out of spells. 

 

​I'd have to play it to get a feel for it, I guess.  I often tend to think that fixed pools of resources you have to manage over a long time (a whole dungeon, say) leads to more fun play than being able to recharge resources after each fight.

​For example, some of the WM areas did not permit resting or leaving the area. You had to make it through on a fixed amount of health and spells, which I found more fun than the areas where resting was allowed.  (So like Abel was talking about above, I sometimes also played that way even when it wasn't enforced).  Endurance would recharge after fights, except when you got low on health, your max endurance started to decline too, so there was some coupling between them.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, that would be even worse than the BG system. You'd have the wonderful tedium of having to waste spells on healing all the time, but now there is also a maximum on how much you can actually heal per rest because of the separate health pool. If anything, this will just lead to people healing more often, because your priest is continuously running out of spells. 

 

​I'd have to play it to get a feel for it, I guess.  I often tend to think that fixed pools of resources you have to manage over a long time (a whole dungeon, say) leads to more fun play than being able to recharge resources after each fight.

​For example, some of the WM areas did not permit resting or leaving the area. You had to make it through on a fixed amount of health and spells, which I found more fun than the areas where resting was allowed.  (So like Abel was talking about above, I sometimes also played that way even when it wasn't enforced).  Endurance would recharge after fights, except when you got low on health, your max endurance started to decline too, so there was some coupling between them.

 

Glad you see my point lol. I think, too, that it's more fun that way. But i did not even knew that there were such areas where you could not rest or go back in WM... Well, it's no difference for me lol. When one character is low on health and only has 30% endurance left and you still have the last big fight to beat... it's pretty tense. In such occasions, i would have liked to use a few of my remaining priests spells to heal some health. This need to manage your pool of health and spells very carefully all along the dungeon crawl. And thus, this means that even "trash encounters" like people say, have a huge impact on the gameplay. I never found any encounter to be trash actually. All of them had a huge importance to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You may try defensive Druid. That is more active character Chanter... some people dont like it, and companion chanter is good enought.

Unless you want to prove something 1st walkthough on hard is fine, and provide good experience for seasoned player.

Dont read soulstories from golden characters, it is just kickstarter tribute.

 

Maybe game is not just for You. Witcher, or Divinity Original Sin or Shadowrun Dragonfall could be another bet. Or something completly on action side like Mass Effect 2 or Warframe.

Link to post
Share on other sites

​​I'd have to play it to get a feel for it, I guess.  I often tend to think that fixed pools of resources you have to manage over a long time (a whole dungeon, say) leads to more fun play than being able to recharge resources after each fight.

​For example, some of the WM areas did not permit resting or leaving the area. You had to make it through on a fixed amount of health and spells, which I found more fun than the areas where resting was allowed.  (So like Abel was talking about above, I sometimes also played that way even when it wasn't enforced).  Endurance would recharge after fights, except when you got low on health, your max endurance started to decline too, so there was some coupling between them.​

 

I quite agree in that respect. I think making resting more "expensive" would probably a good thing (also in relation to the per rest spells and abilities), because it forces you be a bit more strategic with your resources. But my point is that not having endurance regenerate after combat doesn't really do that. It would essentially revert back to the BG-style hitpoint system (Endurance become hitpoints, Health becomes essentially meaningless). There would then need to be some mechanic to restore Endurance between fights. If this is a function primarily filled by priests this essentially means that a) you know essentially *have* to have a priest, which I think would be a Bad Thing, b) it presumably takes away from other things priest would do (eg. it takes up spell slots/uses) and c) it just moves you from having to rest to restore Endurance (assuming it doesn't restore on rest either, like BG etc.) to having to rest to restore priest spells.

 

On top of that, it doesn't really add much. Having to cast a whole bunch of healing spells isn't an interesting gameplay mechanic; it's just bookkeeping, a nuisance. This was always a problem in the BG games as well. Healing wasn't a finite resource because for the most part you could rest essentially whenever. There was no real cost other than perhaps having to slog back to a location where you can rest, and the chore of having to cast all the healing spells all the time (and having to weigh the usefulness of memorizing non-healing spells against this nuisance factor). It didn't really add challenge, it was just something you had to get through to get to the next fun bit. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, i articulated them quite well, in my own opinion, granted that english is not my first language. The fact that it can't be understood by some people is another matter. Whether it is because they have a complete opposite way of thinking (which is fine by me), or because they would just try to ridicule what i explain using worn out and warped arguments.

 

Your example is like if i said "hey, why is there a washing machine in this scene of this historic reconstitution of the 100 years war?" And then you would answer me: "Why bother? It's a film, this castle don't even exists! it's some cardboards!"

 

It's not even a big exaggeration lol. This is how i see it, at least, even if it wasn't your intent.

 

In short, while a game needs mechanics, what i don't like is when mechanics takes the upper hand. When you see a play, you see the stage props. But all of them are done in order to set the stage of some drama. They are not fancy things that would break the whole stage. I can't tell if i'm clear though.

 

The problem isn't your English (who said English is *my* first language, anyway), it's that you don't clearly articulate your reasons or arguments. You do realize that my statement there follows your observation that you prefer Dispel Magic over Suppress Affliction, and I quote: "for some reason" (followed by your unspecificed declaration of love for Chromatic Orb over Slicken; not sure why you're even comparing those two). In what universe does that qualify as well-articulated? 

 

As for nonsensical arguments, seriously...? Washing machines and film sets, that's what you're bringing? In this game (and in many games), we have characters getting repeatedly stabbed, cut, bludgeoned, shot, blown up and otherwise mutilated with no ill effects; they are not hindered in the slightest by someone just having been roasted by a Dragon's fiery breath. Health is just like gasoline, the engine just keeps on running until the tank is empty. This, apparently you're fine with. But the notion that resting will fill up this magical gas/health tank, *that's* suddenly not believable? What's your criterium for 'believable' here? Having (something like) hit points is a completely artificial gameplay mechanic, it has nothing to do with any (real or fictional) reality. And you're essentially demanding that this utterly unrealistic quantity is somehow replenished in a realistic way. 

 

 

With regard to single-target vs AOE: what percentage of (wizard) spells in BG2 would you say are single-target disabling/control spells? Single-target damage/kill spells? Because it's really not that many, especially at the higher levels. There's a lot of summoning spells, a lot of AOE, a lot of (self-)buffing (most of it borderline useless). This notion that the BG2 wizard repertoire has a much stronger single-target focus simply doesn't hold up. PoE actually has more targeted damage spells than BG2, certainly proportionally (and probably in absolute numbers as well).

Link to post
Share on other sites

You want me to be really specific, hu? I just did not want to write a novella. Writting english is a bit time consuming for me, and a novella like this is probably boring to read anyway. But let's say this post is just for you.

 

I guess the first cRPG i played was Fallout 1. This great game featured a dark post apocalyptic universe. Because of the music, the graphics, the lore and all these things, it felt creepy and enthralling. Afterwards i played Fallout 2, BG1 and 2, and the best cRPG ever to me, Planescape Torment. Why do i say that? Probably because all these cRPGs had several things in common. The fact that the character would be stabbed, burned and so, without suffering much downsides aside from death when health reached 0. And the fact, too, that most of the other gameplay mechanics, in my opinion, set the stage for the immersion (at least, way more than Pillars, though you will certainly find some excellent reason why it's not a problem to start the game with the stash, which is fine by me). Actually, i was a bit uneasy since the start with this "be stabbed and not bother much about it" thing. But probably, i'm used to it by now, and it became "acceptable". Though, i would like to see a system where there is consequences to injuries. I wonder if there is a way to craft a system that could reinforce immersion based on this, without it being a total hindrance. There is a Skyrim mod called Frostfall that could actuallly integrate some "hindering" mechanics in the game, but that made it really more immersion friendly without it being a chore... It was a great success, and one of the only reason why Skyrim can become interesting with something like 60 mods installed. And it never occured to me to play New Vegas without the hardcore mod, which was nothing more than obvious basic feeatures to me. One of the basic thing needed to have fun. it was not in Fallout 1 and 2, but maybe beause New Vegas was 1st person 3D, using it only made sense since the way to immerse oneself in the game is not the same. It's not to prompt a debate, it's my own personal way to look at it.

 

But considering healing, it's quite the same idea as what Frostfall did. I had examples in the past (as i said) that told me that cheesy mechanics like "take a nap, you will recover your cut limb" are unecessary to me, because a system like the one in BG was not an hindrance to me. Please, understand that while YOU felt like managing healing spells in BG was a bother, all people don't feel the same way. I beg you not to be this categoric You felt it was a bother. Not me. You basically say "since there is already the fact that you can be stabbed without much hindrance in IE games, then why bother when Pillars adds some more mechanics in the same trend?" Which is why i brought this ridicule example about the film and the prop. Believe it or not, it makes sense to me. And maybe we will have the luck to have a PoE 3 crafted with the same convenient mechanics as the overly praised Fallout 4, or Dragon Age 2. \o/. It is a slippery steep to me.

 

The reason why i prefer "Dispel Magic" to "Suppress Affliction" is easy to understand. I suppose at least. Suppress Affliction just delay the application of afflictions for 5 seconds or so, and it's automatic. Dispel magic needed to roll against active spell effects to dispel them, if i remember correctly. This would not be efficient all the time, but once it is, the effect is properly dispeled. That is why. I can't be more specific than that. As for chromatic orb, it's true that slicken was a bad comparison. I should have compared slicken to grease, obviously. But the reason i used this bad comparison is because these two spells are polar opposites. Browse once again lvl 1 BG spells. There are more than one or two single target CC or damaging spell. I don't know the english name for all of them, but i guess you will see for yourself.

 

Pillars do some things right. As an example, a spell like slicken depends on the wizard accuracy, which is not lame just because he is a wizard. While, in BG, most first lvl spell became lame in BG2. like the "touch" spells.... which need to roll in melee... with a TAC0 lame enough to miss a gobelin. Chromatic Orb was a very fun spell. There was the damage part, and the sub effect part, which changed with level. But the bad part was it was lame in BG2 nonetheless, because of the +6 to save throw for the target. In Pillars, accuracy evolve, and lvl 1 spells will probably never be this useless. But my point was not there. My point was... when i first played Pillars, i felt like these very limited in time effects were not even worth the chore to cast the spell. When you're used to effects in BG or IWD lasting for 1 minute, the first level Arkemyr spell feel... useless. And you need experience to learn it's actually useful. In the end, it's the same as Grom said. I felt my wizard was a lame dumb****. But i understand why low level AoE spells had to have lower durations than spells in BG. It's a question of balancing the game.

 

My point was not I LOVE single target spells and i HATE AoE spells. This was not it. I just thought, that for balacing reasons, if i want a lvl 1 spell that lasts for 1 minute... i can't have it be an AoE spell. This would be way too powerful. And i throwed the idea that maybe it was because they chose to design many AoE spells in Pillars that i have not my 1st lvl spell lasting 1 minute (i did not check all spells durations in BG. It's just a rough number, don't go and tell me "actually it's 50 or 30 sec" please. You should have the gist of what i say, and it's enough). Hum... Am i clear? I'm not even sure. And in the end, i concluded saying "maybe, if there have been more one target spells in Pillars, i could have the same kind of sense than in Baldur's Gate, which was a sense i prefered." And probably that switching from single target to AoE more often in Pillars would not be a bad thing for me. I tend to use too much AoE in my own taste. It lacks variation, and some pinpoint strategy sometimes. But maybe it's just that i play poorly. And by the way, i spoke about priests spells too, not only wizards'. Which is one reason why i miss the self buff priests spells and the protection/anti magic battles between wizards.

 

There are some things you could do with magic in BG that you can't in Pillars. And these are things i liked quite a lot actually: the summon familiar spell was cool. You "pet" had some purpose at least. There were divinations spells, to explore areas, and to explore people hearts. There were all the "stacking" spells too, which allowed you to cast 2 or 3 of them at the same time once prepared. There were the self transformation spells, the spell to unlock things, and so on. This too, added some variations in the wizards' gameplay that Pillars lacks imho.

 

Baldur's Gate, Fallout 1, or Planescape Torment had their own flaws. There are still things i don't like about them. The uselesness of low lvl spells in BG2 is one of them. The lack of pieces of equipement and character classes is one in Planescape. The balancing issues that made the game trivial in Fallout 1 and 2 is another one thing i really dislike. Pillars do some things better than BG. But is saying that BG did some things better than Pillars (at least to me and to some others) is just bland nostalgia? Isn't saying this just an easy way to just dismiss whatever people taking BG as a comparison point say? It looks like it sometimes.

 

I don't know if i answered everything, but i tried my best. If you bring once more the same things saying you don't see the point, i'm afraid i will have to let things here. I don't see how i could explain it better and how i can be more specific than that. If you don't see my point, maybe it's just because your way of thinking is the exact opposite of mine. And as such, it's probably normal for you to fail to see my point. No hard feelings, of course.

Edited by Abel
Link to post
Share on other sites

Having inflicted damage do more than just reduce HP, having it reduce your performance in some way, that certainly could be an interesting mechanic if done right (though it also has the potential to work out horribly). But even a system with "hindrances" of some kind does not change the fundamental fact that this is an inherently unrealistic system. You'd still have characters taking hit after hit and still keep going. Real combat is and always has been more about not getting hit in the first place, because it works more on a "one (good) hit and you're done" kind of principle. And that's just with your basic melee weapons. Throw in a Fireball in someone's face, there's really no getting back from that (it would be equivalent to, say, a hand grenade going off next to you). But since that's just no fun in a computer game, we accept the unrealistic gameplay mechanic to have an enjoyable game. Yet having accepted unrealistic amounts of damage, you are now complaining about unrealistic amounts of healing to get rid of that damage. You have yet to explain why unrealistic damage is fine, but unrealistic healing is not. Because although there are certainly good arguments you might make against it from a gameplay perspective, it seems deeply inconsistent to reject one but not the other on grounds of it being unrealistic.

 

Considering the Dispel Magic vs Suppress Affliction, that doesn't really clarify it much. Dispel Magic is permanent (if successful) whereas Suppress Affliction is only a temporary measure. This is indeed the defining difference, but that doesn't really tell me why (according to you) it being permanent or not is a better mechanic. Obviously D&D style games were much more all-or-nothing in this regard, whereas PoE allows more for a continuous range. Suppress Affliction and its ilk fits well into that philosophy. And if anything, from a perspective of believability it seems better: if regular weapon attacks can be more or less successful, then why not magical (non-damaging) attacks as well? 

 

And yeah, there are a couple of offensive single target level 1 wizard spells in BG2. It's 8 out of 22 by my count, that's 36%. In PoE it's 4 out of 14, so 29%. That's not that big a gap. And as I said, that number drops off rather quickly for BG2 as you go up some levels, particularly in the CC category it's mostly AOE except for the charm-type spells. And this is even moreso if you limit it to spells that could reasonably be considered useful (ie. not gunk like Chill Touch or Minor Drain). So again, I just don't see where this notion that PoE is much more focused on AOE than BG2 is based on. Especially since, again, PoE is treating it much more like a continuous scale, going from single-target spells to very small AOE spells to very large AOE spells. For example Blindness has a very small AOE, it's just a small step above true single-target. And for that matter, it hardly suffers from the problem you mention of having the effect being watered down to account for it being AOE; it has a long duration and Blindness is a strong debuff. 

 

And sure, there are things you can't do with magic in PoE, or which are much more confined to certain classes (summoning for Chanters, charming for Ciphers). Wizards don't have familiars; then again, rangers do have an animal, which is much more useful and integral to gameplay than familiars ever were. On the other hand, many of the spells you mention (self-transformation, priest self-buffing) do have equivalents in PoE or where never very useful in the first place (Knock, Detect Traps, divination), and PoE offers possibilities and lore of its own that BG2 didn't have (and frankly, many of the changes in PoE relative to BG2 result in a far more balanced game).

 

So again, the overall impression I get is that you dislike things in PoE because that's not how they were in BG and their ilk. You're mostly just pointing out differences, things you liked in BG that were in your view changed for the worse in PoE. So far that's just stating your preference. Which is fine by me, but it hardly makes it a very compelling argument against PoE. What is lacking is some clear articulation of *why* the one approach or mechanic or whatever is better or worse. You can say that in BG2 you had wizard familiars, divination spells and spell stacking... sure, so what? You don't give clear reasons for why this matters, why having those is a good thing. It offers no opening for any kind of discussion or exchange of views. There's nothing wrong with comparing games with BG2 as such, but if that comparison doesn't transcend the level of mere personal preference there is little point to it (and frankly, those comparisons often do have a strong smell of nostalgia to them). 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably because, like you said, unrealistic damage is a given for the simple reason that there would be no game otherwise. Some FPS do it quite properly actually. You're hit once, you're dead. But, i agreee with you that it would be no fun in a RPG with strategic combat. But the thing is... There is an acceptable way to me to limit the unbelievability of the healing part, and it's divine magic. My whole point is: "It's not because one thing is unbelievable in a RPG that it's fine to make everything else wacky". Granted that when i use "believable" and "unbelievable" i use the standpoint of the related fantasy universe, where magic do exists.

 

I don't talk about "better mechanics", but about "mechanics that suit better my idea of a Roleplaying Game (RPG in short)". That's a whole lot different. As for the dispel vs suppress affliction. It's a matter of taste. It's the same thing as the healing. I like when i cast a dispel magic that "dispel" and not "postpone". like i like healing spells that "heal". There is no absolute reason to say my own preference is more legitimate. And in the case of Dispel vs Suppress affliction, it's even only a matter of taste. I have a better sense of satisfaction when i "dispel" a spell than when i "postpone" its effects, and i doubt i'm the only one in the world, which doesn't make my point of view any worse than another. There is nothing more to it. I will agree that even if it seems that the "grazes" thing is here more to limit the frustration of "oh, **** i missed 10 times in a row!", i quite like the idea. Sometimes you land a great hit, sometimes, you graze the tight of your opponent. I think this is one of the thing Pillars did better than BG. And indeed, it only makes sense that spells use the same mechanic too.

 

I did not check the spell list. But i guess there is minoletta missile, the staff and 2 defensive spells. But maybe the fact there were actually more spells in BG adds to my feeling. Because if you look at it as a percentage, it's not this obvious. But it's still twice as much (4 vs 8 ). The problem is that i barely ever use any of the 4 in pillars. Since i can only have 4 spells in my grimoire, i use to have slicken, Chill Fog, Eldritch Aim and either Fan of Flames or the one with arrows that hobble (forgot the name). Once more, it may be that i play poorly. But in BG, at first, magic missile was lame and i tended not to use it at all until i leveled up 4 times: i did have the leisure to play with the others before they become outdated. I played BG for several tens of thousand of hours through more than 15 years. I can say that i have a deep feeling that i use way more AoE in Pillars. Like in way, way more. Actually, i barely have any single target spell in Aloth's grimoire. Either it's because i can't grasp the usefulness of some single target ones (like thrust of tattered veil), either because i can't use them wisely, or because there are really less of them. And if i have to speak about the tiny AoE spells, for some stupid reason, since there is an Aoe, i tend to try to hit more than just one target with them. I can't consider them other than pure AoE.

 

You asks about the why. I answered this already. Because i feel it's more fun. Because it's more diversified. When i say that i really prefer the familiar you had in BG2 than the useless pets you can have in Pillars, i stated the reason. You're all about "effectiveness". "This is a more effective mechanic". "This sort of spell i never used in BG, so it's fine it's not in PoE", and so on. It's fine by me. But what i want you to understand is that it's not all about optimization. As an example, i spent countless time petting my familiar in BG2. It's useless. But i felt it was fun. I liked to take it into my bag when it was dangerous, and free him once in town, all through dialogue. I liked to use these useless divination spells, partly because after 80 playthroughs, i liked how they could limit the metagaming knowledge i had for my character.

 

You ask why, you seek "objective" reasons. The only one i have is "i had way more fun with them". i could use this invisibility spell to sneak around these guys. I could see what this dark room was hidding with the eye of the magician, even though i already knew it thanks to my countless playthroughs. I used all these "useless" spells because there were different, be it for roleplay purpose or just for fun. At time i decided that this wizard will definitely use all the touch spells in one single combat... just because. Is there any need for a logical reason for anything? Is fun always dependent of mathematical recipes about "what is usefull or not" or "what has to be or not"? Is wanting to limit as much as possible the "wacky" mechanics while trying to roleplay a playthrough less legitimate than wanting the health to replenish easily?

 

I said it in another thread, but while i barely went though half the game, i'm already at 200H in my playthrough. One of the reason is that i write the diary of my character in the notes, and i have a ****ing whole lot of fun doing so, since everything in the game, each detail become something whith somewhat a deep purpose. Her feelings, her fears, her hopes, what she plans to do, what she thinks about one character or one faction, or one city. There is moral questions, some religious questions. She will detail how she is terrified after she saw what happened to Maerwald. She will detail how Sagani got badly injured in this last fight. And... She will detail that Sagani is completely healed after just a nap beneath a damn tree! And pray Eothas or whoever for this unbelievable miracle! (grrr). This kind of thing really spoil my game and get on my nerves.

 

I have a problem with this. Definitely. And i don't think that one's own preference is a weaker argument than another's. And one last thing "i'm not "against" PoE, like you suggest. As i said several times already, i agree that Pillars did some things better than BG. And i still don't understand why thinking that BG did some things better than PoE is an invalid argument since BG is older and it has to do with some so-called nostalgia. It's the same kind of thing than saying: "You feel this better only because it's new and trendy, are you a fashion victim?"

 

If this disccussion is about "how should PoE 2 mechanics be designed in order to craft the best game possible?", then, i would say... There are times when balance of a game is not this important, unless it breaks it like in Fallout 2. Mathematical formulae are useful but should not take the first place before fun. And a RPG should still be a RPG. Reactivity and non linearity are means, not goals, like character sheets are a reference for the player, not something which only existence suffice to classify any game as a RPG. They are means to allow the player to craft his own story, his own adventure, and the deep identity of the character he plays. This is the purpose of a RolePlaying Game.

Edited by Abel
Link to post
Share on other sites

"Didn't check the spell list..." Sure, typical. Note that I said "offensive single target spells", neither the Staff nor defensive spells qualify. Minoletta's Missiles, Shocking Grasp, Kalakoth's Sunless Grasp and Thrust of Tattered Veils. And now you can't grasp the usefulness of single-target spells you were previously complaining there weren't enough of in the first place? 

 

But apparently you live in a kind of alternate reality where actually verifying the claims you make or coherently expounding and substantiating your views (which your claim to the contrary does not require "objective" reasons; just reasons, and the ability to articulate them) are a fanciful irrelevance; and apparently, where getting cut to shreds is eminently survivable and not even slightly debilitating, but recovering from such an ordeal must be entirely believable. 

 

Anyway, I'm done with this nonsense. Talking to you is about as meaningful as conversing with a brick wall, and I can no longer be bothered. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Didn't check the spell list..." Sure, typical. Note that I said "offensive single target spells", neither the Staff nor defensive spells qualify. Minoletta's Missiles, Shocking Grasp, Kalakoth's Sunless Grasp and Thrust of Tattered Veils. And now you can't grasp the usefulness of single-target spells you were previously complaining there weren't enough of in the first place?

 

What i meant is that i can't find a good way to use them. Like in "i tried but i'm not able to get good results using them". Which is why i said "maybe i play poorly" oO. I thought of shocking grasp, but since there are two jumps, i'm not sure if i should call it a single target spell. For some reason, i thought thrust was a lvl 2 one, and i completely forgot about the kalakoth's grasp.

 

Why have i the impression that the "you can't grasp the usefulness of single-target spells you were previously complaining there weren't enough of in the first place?" relate to something i never said? I have the impression you're implying that i don't see the point of one targeted spells? Is it that? Where did that come from? If you understand what i say in a way that have nothing to do with what i actually want to say, it's either that i can't express myself correctly with english (and my apologies for that), or i'm not the only wall here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the use of Chanters? They don't seem very good tbh...

 

I guess that their good point is that they can fight normally while chanting, thus giving buffs and debuffs passively. Which may be quite strong. But i must admit i still haven't been able to figure a good way to use their potential strenght yet. Not played chanter much. I suppose there are threads somewhere in these forums that could give you some tips.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 She will detail how Sagani got badly injured in this last fight. And... She will detail that Sagani is completely healed after just a nap beneath a damn tree! And pray Eothas or whoever for this unbelievable miracle! (grrr). This kind of thing really spoil my game and get on my nerves.

Eothas has nothing to do with it, It's actually covered in the lore:

 

 Through a variety of techniques (e.g. martial training, meditation, ritualistic evocation, mortification of the flesh), some individuals are able to draw upon the energy of their soul to accomplish extraordinary feats. These abilities range from the mundanely superhuman to the explosively magical. Having a strong soul seems to make this easier, but sometimes even people with fragmented souls are able to accomplish the extraordinary. The individual's body seems to act as a conduit and battery for this power, drawing in replenishment from seemingly omnipresent "fields" of unbound spiritual energy in the world around them.

 

So basically your companions and your character are superhuman filled to the brim with arcane power, their bodies fueled by their powerful souls. That's how they repair almost any damage to body by simply resting (or meditating, etc.), and that's how they have access to all of those unnatural abilities, and that's why you don't see every dirty peasant running around slaying dragons (most of the common folk have lesser souls with just enough power in them to sustain quiet and ordinary life).

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the use of Chanters? They don't seem very good tbh...

 

​I used one for both of my first two plays (Hard and PoTD respectively) and really liked the class.  I hadn't really expected to, but I did.  I built him up as an secondary tank.  He had almost as much deflection as my fighter, but also brought all this other stuff to the table, such as impressive summons which in long battles he could cast several times, highly useful stuns and CC (and unlike the squishy casters, he didn't mind getting up close to nasty groups of bad guys to cast them), and full time buffs for the rest of the party and/or debuffs for the enemies.

​I'd say he more than pulled his own weight.  He wasn't ​quite  as sturdy as the straight-up fighter when getting slammed by something really big and nasty, but not too far off, and his other abilities more than compensated in the majority of fights.

​I'm starting a new Trial of Iron + PoTD run, and am using one again for that game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically your companions and your character are superhuman filled to the brim with arcane power, their bodies fueled by their powerful souls. That's how they repair almost any damage to body by simply resting (or meditating, etc.), and that's how they have access to all of those unnatural abilities, and that's why you don't see every dirty peasant running around slaying dragons (most of the common folk have lesser souls with just enough power in them to sustain quiet and ordinary life).

There is also the possibility that during rest our characters... I dunno, treat their wounds before sleeping? I mean, why is this do unthinkable? IRL people had to learn how to survive without magic potions, and since magic healing in Eora is a provisory measure more often than not, I believe they had as well.

 

Medicine may not be very advanced on Eora but many, if not all, of our story companions have backgrounds that justify some first-aid training:

 

Aloth was trained as a battlemage (or was it arcane knight?)

 

Edèr was a soldier.

 

Durance... can cauterize wounds with his staff?

 

Kana... read a book about it?

 

Sagani is a hunter who has been travelling the world for years. She can handle herself.

 

Pallegina is a soldier.

 

Grieving Mother is a midwife, and may have training as a nurse.

 

Never used Hiravias, so can't speak about him.

 

Zahua didn't die from infection in his wounds for a reason.

 

Manahea is a mercenary.

 

The Devil... learned how to repair herself in case she decided to kill Galvino?

Edited by DreamWayfarer
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought for a while and i finally reached the conclusion that i should roleplay it with my priestess using magic to help Sagani with her first aids along the nighttime. Though it should only be first aid. I gave Sagani and Eder Field Triage for the exact reasons you noted :). I would want to give it to my character too. Though, it is half satisfying, because it implies i have to explain things i can't explain without having to come up with some far fetched explanation. In this particular case, what what far fetched was that it should have needed more than basic medecine knowledge to solve Sagani's pedicament (very few hp left). Anyway let's leave the debate as it is. Not that it's not interesting, but because i'm the kind to have some instinvtive way to feel things, and i have never been good with rational matters. While some people will understand my reasons for saying things right away, others won't. And it's not because either is dumb. Just because people are different.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So I finished the game. While I did miss enemy scaling or attuned xp so you can do the MQ + some other interesting quests(mostly other major quests), the game was still very fun and involving. And there is a lot of "saving the world"(should you choose to do it so-which is a fantastic way because you aren't the savior, no, you CHOSE to BECOME one and you BECAME one)...

 

...man what a fantastic game! Will have to replay it with a bit more completionism(and WM probably). I doubt my dispos will change(Honest / Benevolent / Stoic-Rational), but the gameplay will.

 

I haven't played a game of this calibre ever since I played KoTOR II some 2 years ago. Still, the actual gameplay could've better and the writing could've used an editor(imo). Mostly minor complaints how good everything else is. Also the balance is fascinating-I haven't seen one useless or weak class.

 

Edit: The last fight is cheese sent straight from cheese maker's heaven lol.

Edited by hrwd
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...