List of things to improve upon in PoE II

[drithius]

Once upon a time, I pledged towards PoE (1).  Eagerly awaiting its release, my experience was completely soured by bugs - especially the notorious stat-stacking bug that saw my Eder w/ 100+ in all defenses at level 5.  And so I shelved the game for two years.

 

Nevertheless, I recently returned to it and am glad I did; PoE (with a multitude of patches) was a lovely game overflowing with content.  However, some things were especially irritating and I felt I should jot these down as I played through the game.

 

A request: Things to improve upon in PoE 2

1. Long duration consumables usable from inventory please.  Doesn't affect combat balance but eliminates the absolute tedium of juggling food into and out of quickslots.
2. Please include zooming for map screens; the Caed Nua minimap was unnecessarily cumbersome to use.
3. Please include map annotations.  Why was this basic feature left out of PoE 1?
4. Make UI icons clearly readable; ie., don't shrink buff and debuff icons down to the point that they're no longer functional.
5. Implement additional selection circle customization.  Why do party members in PoE always have a selection circle even when not selected?  This doesn't help clarity in battle whatsoever.
6. I have not been following PoE 2 too closely (see comment about soured PoE 1 experience due to bugs), so this may be getting addressed... but please for the love of God improve upon pathfinding.  The Infinity Engine "pushed" people out of the way if those people weren't set to 'guard'; the PoE 1 equivalent seems to have the characters simply run around continuously at the perimeter of battle.  Cue exasperated sigh.
7. Better difficulty progression.  It's no secret that the latter half of PoE is far easier than the beginning.  I think a large part of this is because the enemy types never evolve after a certain point.  I was still fighting spectres and trolls in my last hour!
8. Tying stronghold turns to quests completed was a mistake in my opinion.
9. Please, less RNG tied to loot.  Whether it be Azzuro that took 147 game days to show up in my playthrough or the Gloves of Manipulation that I only found (very late) in White March after consulting the wikipedia, please don't randomize sources of unique or otherwise important items.
10. Do not list limited crafting ingredients within enchantment recipes until they've been attained (or through some other mechanism of discovery).  Who thought that having the player know most of the antagonists five minutes into the game would be a good thing?  
11. Don't lock spells  behind late game enemies.  Having fought Llengrath near the end of my playthrough (as most other people would I assume), finding four completely new spells was a bit of a letdown.  For instance, I wound up using Llengrath's Blunting Wisdom all of one time.  Disappointing.

 

In conclusion, while I hope some of these are addressed in the sequel, I would, above all, implore Obsidian to release a more bug-free game for a change.  That was my #1 gripe with PoE 1: just how broken it was at release and how it completely turned me off from not just the game but the studio as well.

Edited July 30, 2017 by drithius

[smjjames]

2. Zooming in and out sounds like it'd be a needed feature for the worldmap in PoE2, so, I'm pretty sure it'll have different zoom levels.

 

6. I've had that with those going around the peremiter of battle trying to get to an inaccessable target while there is an accessable target, so, I know what you mean. As for PoE2, I've read and heard that the pathfinding is supposed to be better and/or looks better. You can look at the E3 vid to see if it looks better, combat stuff starts at 3:45.

 

8. The stronghold base concept has been completely redone. Instead of having a static base, we'll have a ship as our base of operations, complete with everything you'd expect a ship to have. The E3 vid deep dive I linked shows some of the ship stuff and fig update 16 talks about it in some detail. As for your specific concern, no idea, but considering how it's changed, that stronghold turn thing might not exist anymore. edit: Actually, since they're doing CYOAs for ship related events, it's highly likely it doesn't exist anymore.

Edited July 30, 2017 by smjjames

[injurai]

I agree  with everything here.

 

Although the selection circles just mark your party, selecting them bolds and brightens the circle.

[AndreaColombo]

... and cyan circles for neutral characters. Let us not forget cyan circles for neutral characters

[Baltic]

11. Is rather problematic due to choice. Whilst Llengrath will always be fought late in the game, there could still potentially be a fair amount of other late game content left to do.

[Insidous]

1. You can Drag and Drop consumables from your inventory to the character portray. Only found out about that recently, but it makes things a lot easier. I don't know if it works in combat though

[daven]

Minor things-

 

Option to walk. This has been mentioned before and I know Josh said it's pretty low on their priorities. Or at least make a better running animation, not sure what it is with Obsidian and running animations.

 

Actually see doors open when you click it like in BG.

 

Combat not to be over in 5 seconds.

[the_dog_days]

Was there RNG loot in Pillars 1?

[AndreaColombo]

Was there RNG loot in Pillars 1?

 

Unfortunately, yes.

 

Josh confirmed in one of the Q&A sessions that there won't be unique items walled behind the RNG in Deadfire, so there's hope.

[rjshae]

In PoE, it seemed like once you were past first level, there was little to distinguish between the different races. I mean, sure, they had altered attributes and a talent, but after that there was nothing specific to each race; the spells, skills, talents, equipment, deities, and classes all worked the same (as far as I know). At least in D&D-based games you had race-specific prestige classes and magic items. Drakensang, for example, had some significant differences in spells and classes. I'd like to see some of that unique flavor and depth brought to PoE2.

 

Okay, so probably the developers don't want to have items, spells, or talents that only work for specific races. But what about a racial bonus or penalty? A dwarven-made magical battle axe could have some special attribute bonus that only works for mountain dwarves, for example, or an boreal bow could have a hindrance when used by fire godlikes. If just 10% of items, talents, and spells had some racial modifier, wouldn't it add a lot of distinctiveness?

Edited August 4, 2017 by rjshae

[Lampros]

For God's sake improve area loading times. SSD and a fast machine, and I still need a smoke after every load screen.

[algroth]

11. Is rather problematic due to choice. Whilst Llengrath will always be fought late in the game, there could still potentially be a fair amount of other late game content left to do.

 

Also it's worth considering how much earlier you'd like powerful late-game items and abilities to be made accessible to the player. Give the players spells and items too late in the game and they won't have a chance to savour them, but give them too early and it'll stunt item and spell progression by making the remaining content lackluster in comparison (this, incidentally, is a problem I have with Baldur's Gate II for example, where my paladin never needs to touch another weapon all the way to the end of Throne of Bhaal once he gets Carsomyr 3 chapters into Shadows of Amn).

[Gromnir]

 

1. Please, less RNG tied to loot.  Whether it be Azzuro that took 147 game days to show up in my playthrough or the Gloves of Manipulation that I only found (very late) in White March after consulting the wikipedia, please don't randomize sources of unique or otherwise important items.

 

have seen this complaint many times, and unfortunate it misidentifies the problem.  

 

actual problem: skill bonuses tied to classes.

 

any sorta skill bonus tied to classes is stoopid.  is not only anachronistic, but it limits the kinda player customization the developers claimed to wanna maximize.  am not a huge fan o' poe trap implementation to begin with, but if Gromnir wanted to have a party member who were +90% likely to be able to disable any encountered trap, we would be compelled to include a rogue in the party.  even with background bonus, the rogue were a necessary addition to the party if trap/lock events were to be a forgone conclusion.  OR we could make certain we discovered the gloves o' manipulation. gloves of manipulation prevented the need for a party rogue. could have a priest with a background which included a mechanics boost, and equipping the gloves o' manipulation would more than suffice to be making the priest as good as any rogue o' similar level.

 

...

 

traps is mostly in the game 'cause they is expected.  obsidian developers has, more than once, commented 'bout the rather anemic reasons for including traps and lockpicking in poe/poe2.  fine.  there is gonna be traps and lockpicking in poe2 as there were in poe regardless o' arguments 'gainst such stuff. moot.  the thing is, there is no reason to tie success o' such skill checks to a specific class.

 

do the classes lack unique qualities such that class-based skill bonuses need make 'em differentiated?  no.  am admitted surprised by how well the poe developers handled their classes.  create 11 genuine unique classes is much more difficult than it might sound.  sure, there were some slippage during the beta and with the release o' the expansions as class roles began to blur a bit, but for the most part, each class played unique, and the skills were almost a complete non-factor in promoting diversity. 

 

do the class-based skill bonuses promote character customization?  'course not.  class limits is, axiomatic, limits on customization.  am not a fan o' classes to begin with, but as noted already, the developers o' poe did, in our estimation, a fantastic job o' creating their unique classes.  however, the more customization options you link to a class, the greater is the Decrease in player customization.  why can't your rogue be having the best possible lore score?  why can't your wizard be the best mechanic? is no good reason for such limits. let the player be unique.

 

remove the class-based skill bonuses. make player backgrounds more significant and diverse to account for the missing bonuses. do as we suggest and gloves problem is solved while simultaneous increasing the freedom o' a player to customize their character. win-win.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited August 31, 2017 by Gromnir

[injurai]

Skills lacked much across the board in PoE1. Definately a mechanic I spent in inordinate amount of time thinking about which didn't pay it's dividends in terms of outcome. But Deadfire already seems much better, specifically the improved text adventures.

[algroth]

 

 

1. Please, less RNG tied to loot.  Whether it be Azzuro that took 147 game days to show up in my playthrough or the Gloves of Manipulation that I only found (very late) in White March after consulting the wikipedia, please don't randomize sources of unique or otherwise important items.

 

have seen this complaint many times, and unfortunate it misidentifies the problem.  

 

actual problem: skill bonuses tied to classes.

 

any sorta skill bonus tied to classes is stoopid.  is not only anachronistic, but it limits the kinda player customization the developers claimed to wanna maximize.  am not a huge fan o' poe trap implementation to begin with, but if Gromnir wanted to have a party member who were +90% likely to be able to disable any encountered trap, we would be compelled to include a rogue in the party.  even with background bonus, the rogue were a necessary addition to the party if trap/lock events were to be a forgone conclusion.  OR we could make certain we discovered the gloves o' manipulation. gloves of manipulation prevented the need for a party rogue. could have a priest with a background which included a mechanics boost, and equipping the gloves o' manipulation would more than suffice to be making the priest as good as any rogue o' similar level.

 

...

 

traps is mostly in the game 'cause they is expected.  obsidian developers has, more than once, commented 'bout the rather anemic reasons for including traps and lockpicking in poe/poe2.  fine.  there is gonna be traps and lockpicking in poe2 as there were in poe regardless o' arguments 'gainst such stuff. moot.  the thing is, there is no reason to tie success o' such skill checks to a specific class.

 

do the classes lack unique qualities such that class-based skill bonuses need make 'em differentiated?  no.  am admitted surprised by how well the poe developers handled their classes.  create 11 genuine unique classes is much more difficult than it might sound.  sure, there were some slippage during the beta and with the release o' the expansions as class roles began to blur a bit, but for the most part, each class played unique, and the skills were almost a complete non-factor in promoting diversity. 

 

do the class-based skill bonuses promote character customization?  'course not.  class limits is, axiomatic, limits on customization.  am not a fan o' classes to begin with, but as noted already, the developers o' poe did, in our estimation, a fantastic job o' creating their unique classes.  however, the more customization options you link to a class, the greater is the Decrease in player customization.  why can't your rogue be having the best possible lore score?  why can't your wizard be the best mechanic? is no good reason for such limits. let the player be unique.

 

remove the class-based skill bonuses. make player backgrounds more significant and diverse to account for the missing bonuses. do as we suggest and gloves problem is solved while simultaneous increasing the freedom o' a player to customize their character. win-win.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

I'm not sure I agree here... I think class-based skill bonuses make sense because they would normally result from the character's experience in a certain discipline or other. It would make sense that wizards, priests and chanters are universally more studied and learned than the average fighter or barbarian, thus receiving a skill bonus in lore, while fighters and barbarians would likely possess better athletics because more exercise is required in their specific disciplines. There can be exceptions to the rule, of course, but normally I would suspect those dedicated to a particular profession to be better at certain things than those that aren't.

 

On top of this I never really required a rogue in my party outside disarming some White March traps, and thus Durance was a more than effective trap disarmer/lockpicker for the greater bulk of the game.

Edited September 1, 2017 by algroth

[Gromnir]

 

 

 

1. Please, less RNG tied to loot.  Whether it be Azzuro that took 147 game days to show up in my playthrough or the Gloves of Manipulation that I only found (very late) in White March after consulting the wikipedia, please don't randomize sources of unique or otherwise important items.
2.  

 

have seen this complaint many times, and unfortunate it misidentifies the problem.  

 

actual problem: skill bonuses tied to classes.

 

any sorta skill bonus tied to classes is stoopid.  is not only anachronistic, but it limits the kinda player customization the developers claimed to wanna maximize.  am not a huge fan o' poe trap implementation to begin with, but if Gromnir wanted to have a party member who were +90% likely to be able to disable any encountered trap, we would be compelled to include a rogue in the party.  even with background bonus, the rogue were a necessary addition to the party if trap/lock events were to be a forgone conclusion.  OR we could make certain we discovered the gloves o' manipulation. gloves of manipulation prevented the need for a party rogue. could have a priest with a background which included a mechanics boost, and equipping the gloves o' manipulation would more than suffice to be making the priest as good as any rogue o' similar level.

 

...

 

traps is mostly in the game 'cause they is expected.  obsidian developers has, more than once, commented 'bout the rather anemic reasons for including traps and lockpicking in poe/poe2.  fine.  there is gonna be traps and lockpicking in poe2 as there were in poe regardless o' arguments 'gainst such stuff. moot.  the thing is, there is no reason to tie success o' such skill checks to a specific class.

 

do the classes lack unique qualities such that class-based skill bonuses need make 'em differentiated?  no.  am admitted surprised by how well the poe developers handled their classes.  create 11 genuine unique classes is much more difficult than it might sound.  sure, there were some slippage during the beta and with the release o' the expansions as class roles began to blur a bit, but for the most part, each class played unique, and the skills were almost a complete non-factor in promoting diversity. 

 

do the class-based skill bonuses promote character customization?  'course not.  class limits is, axiomatic, limits on customization.  am not a fan o' classes to begin with, but as noted already, the developers o' poe did, in our estimation, a fantastic job o' creating their unique classes.  however, the more customization options you link to a class, the greater is the Decrease in player customization.  why can't your rogue be having the best possible lore score?  why can't your wizard be the best mechanic? is no good reason for such limits. let the player be unique.

 

remove the class-based skill bonuses. make player backgrounds more significant and diverse to account for the missing bonuses. do as we suggest and gloves problem is solved while simultaneous increasing the freedom o' a player to customize their character. win-win.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

I'm not sure I agree here... I think class-based skill bonuses make sense because they would normally result from the character's experience in a certain discipline or other. 

 

*sigh*

 

see this so often and is so limited... and mostly wrong.  who is to say your priest weren't a clockmaker or locksmith before, or as part o', his religious observances?

 

stewart the grimm, as part of his adoration for hylea, created cuckoo clocks of extraordinary beauty and sophistication. unfortunately, hylea turned her back on stewart when she learned her favored craftsman were killing beautiful little songbirds for his clocks.  stewart, to all outward appearances, continued his veneration of hylea as well as the crafting of his marvelous clocks, but in secret, skaen had won for himself a grimm and determined new disciple.  etc.

 

tell us what "makes sense" as regards a limit on player customization is no more than an admission o' lack o' imagination.

 

rationalize the existing scheme is not the best way to approach such issues.  question what is purpose o' the limit.  ask how the mechanic advances the purpose.  ok.  but tell us the mechanic, which w/o question limits character customization, "makes sense" is complete absent any compelling quality.  lacks imagination and ignores fact we are talking 'bout a game.

 

"it makes sense reticulated plate amour should be almost 10x superior to hide armour and such plate isn't actually as cumbersome as people suppose."

 

"it makes sense a fireball the size of a mastodon should be doing more damage than a rogue with a glorified steak knife."

 

etc.

 

makes sense would have our characters dying horribly w/I the first 30 minutes of gameplay.  is best to not go to such a place.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[injurai]

I think I'd actually want more freedom with skill allocation, you can always distribute things normally if your heart contents.

[algroth]

 

 

 

 

1. Please, less RNG tied to loot.  Whether it be Azzuro that took 147 game days to show up in my playthrough or the Gloves of Manipulation that I only found (very late) in White March after consulting the wikipedia, please don't randomize sources of unique or otherwise important items.
2.  

 

have seen this complaint many times, and unfortunate it misidentifies the problem.  

 

actual problem: skill bonuses tied to classes.

 

any sorta skill bonus tied to classes is stoopid.  is not only anachronistic, but it limits the kinda player customization the developers claimed to wanna maximize.  am not a huge fan o' poe trap implementation to begin with, but if Gromnir wanted to have a party member who were +90% likely to be able to disable any encountered trap, we would be compelled to include a rogue in the party.  even with background bonus, the rogue were a necessary addition to the party if trap/lock events were to be a forgone conclusion.  OR we could make certain we discovered the gloves o' manipulation. gloves of manipulation prevented the need for a party rogue. could have a priest with a background which included a mechanics boost, and equipping the gloves o' manipulation would more than suffice to be making the priest as good as any rogue o' similar level.

 

...

 

traps is mostly in the game 'cause they is expected.  obsidian developers has, more than once, commented 'bout the rather anemic reasons for including traps and lockpicking in poe/poe2.  fine.  there is gonna be traps and lockpicking in poe2 as there were in poe regardless o' arguments 'gainst such stuff. moot.  the thing is, there is no reason to tie success o' such skill checks to a specific class.

 

do the classes lack unique qualities such that class-based skill bonuses need make 'em differentiated?  no.  am admitted surprised by how well the poe developers handled their classes.  create 11 genuine unique classes is much more difficult than it might sound.  sure, there were some slippage during the beta and with the release o' the expansions as class roles began to blur a bit, but for the most part, each class played unique, and the skills were almost a complete non-factor in promoting diversity. 

 

do the class-based skill bonuses promote character customization?  'course not.  class limits is, axiomatic, limits on customization.  am not a fan o' classes to begin with, but as noted already, the developers o' poe did, in our estimation, a fantastic job o' creating their unique classes.  however, the more customization options you link to a class, the greater is the Decrease in player customization.  why can't your rogue be having the best possible lore score?  why can't your wizard be the best mechanic? is no good reason for such limits. let the player be unique.

 

remove the class-based skill bonuses. make player backgrounds more significant and diverse to account for the missing bonuses. do as we suggest and gloves problem is solved while simultaneous increasing the freedom o' a player to customize their character. win-win.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

I'm not sure I agree here... I think class-based skill bonuses make sense because they would normally result from the character's experience in a certain discipline or other. 

 

*sigh*

 

see this so often and is so limited... and mostly wrong.  who is to say your priest weren't a clockmaker or locksmith before, or as part o', his religious observances?

 

stewart the grimm, as part of his adoration for hylea, created cuckoo clocks of extraordinary beauty and sophistication. unfortunately, hylea turned her back on stewart when she learned her favored craftsman were killing beautiful little songbirds for his clocks.  stewart, to all outward appearances, continued his veneration of hylea as well as the crafting of his marvelous clocks, but in secret, skaen had won for himself a grimm and determined new disciple.  etc.

 

tell us what "makes sense" as regards a limit on player customization is no more than an admission o' lack o' imagination.

 

rationalize the existing scheme is not the best way to approach such issues.  question what is purpose o' the limit.  ask how the mechanic advances the purpose.  ok.  but tell us the mechanic, which w/o question limits character customization, "makes sense" is complete absent any compelling quality.  lacks imagination and ignores fact we are talking 'bout a game.

 

"it makes sense reticulated plate amour should be almost 10x superior to hide armour and such plate isn't actually as cumbersome as people suppose."

 

"it makes sense a fireball the size of a mastodon should be doing more damage than a rogue with a glorified steak knife."

 

etc.

 

makes sense would have our characters dying horribly w/I the first 30 minutes of gameplay.  is best to not go to such a place.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

As I said on the rest of the post you quoted, there can be exceptions to the rule and you can certainly choose to give greater predominance to mechanics in a priest if you wish (again, this is what I did with Durance myself). However, this hardly represents a general or universal norm, and these skill bonuses are given according to the general case for each class or profession. Can we really argue that most fighter-type classes won't on average be more athletic than other types of classes? Can we not agree that rogues will generally be sneakier than the average example of other metieres? It only makes sense (yes, this is a perfectly reasonable thing to say, because 'making sense' doesn't in this case act against gameplay viability and balancing, as it would in the examples you cite) that if you follow the path of a warrior or a rogue or a wizard you're likely to have a formation that innately involves or favours training in athletics, stealth or lore respectively.

 

Now, having said that, is making a rogue mandatory because they are the only ones able of picking a certain type of trap or lock a bad thing? Yes. But I think that responds to a different problem, which, kind of quoting from Josh himself, relates to turning a game requirement into a 'false option'. You can solve this more by balancing around the capacity of any character maxing mechanics instead of a level that can only be acquired by a specific class. Or, for that matter, make mechanics specifically a skill that does not recieve specific class-related bonuses. However, when it comes to other skills I do not see why a fighter would not get an athletics boost, or a mage a lore boost, or else.

 

I also disagree with the proposition of moving these aspects over to history, as it further incentivates the players to choose their background according to min-maxing instead of what they wish to roleplay as. Class will always be tied to gameplay experience so at least by tying these bonuses to it you are not incentivating players to choose background aspects to their character out of sheer practical convenience over the ability to make their character as closest they can to their imagination.

Edited September 1, 2017 by algroth

[Gromnir]

 

 

As I said on the rest of the post you quoted, there can be exceptions to the rule and you can certainly choose to give greater predominance to mechanics in a priest if you wish (again, this is what I did with Durance myself). However, this hardly represents a general or universal norm,

 

for chrissakes, we hope you ain't playing a norm or a general rule of application. you play a character.  hopefully is Your character. why limit the possibilities more than necessary?  sure, we already got the fundamental and unavoidable limits o' a class-based system, so why further handicap character customization by establishing arbitrary norms.  you wanna actual play your perceived norm? fine, is your game so you should be able to play the norm, but why should the norm limit Gromnir's character concept? 

 

but again, is bass ackwards.  is there a reason for the limit? algroth personal sense o' verisimilitude aside, what is the game purpose o' such a limit? if you cannot provide a worthy goal for such a limit, and explain how the actual mechanic advances such a goal, then how can one possibly rationalize a limit on character customization? 

 

as for how a change to backgrounds "incentivates" *chuckle* some players to choose based on pragmatic numerical concerns as 'posed to more elusive and personal reasons, why do you care? you do realize this is a numbers based crpg, yes?  some folks will always consider the numerical advantages.  the developers will work to balance the backgrounds as they balance everything else in the game, but make backgrounds more important does not in anyway change the motivation for the developers to keep the backgrounds balanced. Gromnir will likely choose backgrounds which match whatever thematic origin we dream up... but why on earth would we begrudge the player who chooses a background 'cause the numbers work best for his scroll-monkey build?  as long as the developers keep all such backgrounds balanced and there is no win or lose button with such choices, why should Gromnir, or you, or the developers lose sleep if somebody down in the character builds section o' the board is coming up with The Best background choice for a _______ character? 

 

not making sense.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps cleaned up the thread a bit. unwieldy.

Edited September 1, 2017 by Gromnir

[algroth]

 

 

 

As I said on the rest of the post you quoted, there can be exceptions to the rule and you can certainly choose to give greater predominance to mechanics in a priest if you wish (again, this is what I did with Durance myself). However, this hardly represents a general or universal norm,

 

for chrissakes, we hope you ain't playing a norm or a general rule of application. you play a character.  hopefully is Your character. why limit the possibilities more than necessary?  sure, we already got the fundamental and unavoidable limits o' a class-based system, so why further handicap character customization by establishing arbitrary norms.  you wanna actual play your perceived norm? fine, is your game so you should be able to play the norm, but why should the norm limit Gromnir's character concept?

 

Limit how exactly? You aren't limiting the possibilities by offering a class-based bonus to skill. It would be limiting if you were only able to increase a determined skill or were forced to spend resources on that skill, but you are under no obligation to do so. How would moving this skill bonus to any other background detail not lead to the same "limitations" it would as it is right now? If you would wish to discuss the fringe possibility of a priest having been an expert clockmaker before his current position, why not discuss how a hunter could have taken the role of a scholar in his time outside his village before returning and fulfilling this function instead for their hometown? Whatever bonuses you would get from one or the other would be with regards to the general traits a particular career, profession or lifestyle would develop. Getting a small bonus to athletics for choosing a fighter class hardly conditions you to create an *athletic* character, but all the same accounts for the fact that, in wielding weapons and dedicating to combat you are more than likely bound to exercise a bit; as for what you choose to work on and max out, you can easily max out anything else and have that be their predominant skill and reflect on an unconventional quality to them.

 

 

as for how a change to backgrounds "incentivates" *chuckle* some players to choose based on pragmatic numerical concerns as 'posed to more elusive and personal reasons, why do you care? you do realize this is a numbers based crpg, yes?  some folks will always consider the numerical advantages.  the developers will work to balance the backgrounds as they balance everything else in the game, but make backgrounds more important does not in anyway change the motivation for the developers to keep the backgrounds balanced. Gromnir will likely choose backgrounds which match whatever thematic origin we dream up... but why on earth would we begrudge the player who chooses a background 'cause the numbers work best for his scroll-monkey build?  as long as the developers keep all such backgrounds balanced and there is no win or lose button with such choices, why should Gromnir, or you, or the developers lose sleep if somebody down in the character builds section o' the board is coming up with The Best background choice for a _______ character?

 

 

Well, I won't speak for Obsidian's approach in this matter as I am not them, but I usually assume that what most RPGs want is for the player to take on a role and play as a given character, and as such I would try my best to make that the point of my game. If I see a gameplay aspect that is deliberately distracting or detracting from choices that should have a larger effect on the background and identity of a character instead, then I would try to change that so that it favours attention placed on the latter instead. As a writer who would write many possible interactions for each choice of background and make these aspects as reactive to the player's choices and interesting as I can make them, I wouldn't want these to be glossed over in favour of numerical convenience. As with all other mediums, as an author I would attempt to direct the player's attention as best I can to what I want them to give greater relevance to. That is why I would not link these choices to stat bonuses, or more bonuses than the ones given out right now.

 

This is beside the point, though. Returning to my previous statement, I argue here that I don't think that class-based skill bonuses are a problem, or the problem with regards to the mechanics skill for that matter. As I said before, this is an issue that is likely more to do with that skill itself and the way traps and locks are balanced than the fact that classes provide skill bonuses.

[FlintlockJazz]

I always found the "The rogue is the lockpicker!" thinking annoying at best myself.  It meant the rogue was being forced on you not because he had awesome skills but because he ring-fenced off essential skills.  It's not as bad in Pillars as it has been in other systems, where the rogue claims exclusivity over what I would consider basic adventuring skills all adventurers should have such as stealth.  In D&D 3rd if you wanted to actually find the traps you needed the rogue, as he was the only one with the Find Traps talent.  He is like the snotty little **** who sits there hoard all the basic stuff and whines whenever anyone tries to share it out.  Its one reason why I have often argued for getting rid of the class full stop, and spreading his abilities amongst the rest of the party.

Edited September 1, 2017 by FlintlockJazz

[rjshae]

Rogues are an excellent class because they provide a different path to success than just pure hack-n-slay munchkinism. When implemented properly, they should require you to use your head to think your way through (or around) a problem.

[draego]

I always found the "The rogue is the lockpicker!" thinking annoying at best myself.  It meant the rogue was being forced on you not because he had awesome skills but because he ring-fenced off essential skills.  It's not as bad in Pillars as it has been in other systems, where the rogue claims exclusivity over what I would consider basic adventuring skills all adventurers should have such as stealth.  In D&D 3rd if you wanted to actually find the traps you needed the rogue, as he was the only one with the Find Traps talent.  He is like the snotty little **** who sits there hoard all the basic stuff and whines whenever anyone tries to share it out.  Its one reason why I have often argued for getting rid of the class full stop, and spreading his abilities amongst the rest of the party.

 

Ye rogue is the only class i have never had in my party for Pillars on any playthrough. Well i did complete Devil of Caroc questline so maybe 10 minutes. I guess i was getting back at all those old games for 'forcing' my to have a rogue. 

Edited September 1, 2017 by draego

[smjjames]

For God's sake improve area loading times. SSD and a fast machine, and I still need a smoke after every load screen.

 

Loading times are supposed to be vastly improved.

[Osvir]

#1: I still want to see something like this (in a more serious execution/take):

 

Potion overdose! xD