scrotiemcb

Absolutely not. You cannot hybridize discrete turns with continuous "turns," it's like saying "let's hybridize rational numbers with integers," the result is just one or the other, each of which has totally different design needs.

You might want to check out Malcolm Gladwell on engineering hits:

To even put turn-based and RTwP in the same genre feels like an error to me. From a gameplay perspective, Pillars has more in common with ARPGs like Diablo 2 and Path of Exile than it does with Divinity: OS. There are differences, "with pause" does matter, I'm just saying you don't genre by lore, you genre by gameplay. Hopefully this helps highlight just how poor gameplay in Pillars really is. Story is the only sane reason to keep slogging through. Turn-based is a completely different animal. A huge element of such games is strategizing strong defense for beginnings and ends of turns, while it is okay to be vulnerable mid-turn. This is why feats like Spring Attack and Shot on the Run are so powerful in D&D, but it is a core part of what players are always trying to do, creating footsies battles among combatants (you know, enemy is 50 feet away, both you and enemy have 30 movement, so you only advance 10), from the very beginning. Everything is radically different because of the very nature of condensed, mostly uninterruptable turns.

Au contraire, mon frere. That's not the problem. The reason given was that he was laughably "too short." Also furries. So what we are simulating then is a world where everyone treats women like pieces of meat to be fought over as prizes rather than individuals?

Now that is uncalled for!So when a male wanders in and says female romance options need to be large-breasted supermodels, that's bad... but when a woman wanders in and says male romance options need to look like Eder or they're just too "ewww," that's okay? Sorry. Not doing the double standard thing. Durance is the only gimme "ewww," because I'll grant he doesn't take care of himself.

I dub thee luzaria.

ITT: luzarius unironically suggests incorporating the plot of Shallow Hal into Pillars of Eternity as a romance option.

I think that changing all auras to 3m (like Zealous Charge, currently the other two are 2.5m) would do the trick. 20% more area for those two abilities. I am emphatically against an area doubling, because I do not believe Auras should be full-party buffs at all, but instead more like "subteam" or "splinter group" buffs.

Definitely not that much. I definitely feel that Paladin auras should apply to your back line or your front line, but not both... unless you get two Paladins.

So in conclusion my suggestion earlier is awesome? :3

Which is why it shouldn't be imagined as "Fortitude." It isn't hard to imagine a Might-based saving throw. For example, if something is trying to knock you Prone, it actually makes more sense that a kind of strength would prevent it from happening, as opposed to simply having a lot of health. As I edited my post, Stability is a better word. We'd be going more for the concept of immovability and/or unstoppability than having a good immune system. Health is ALREADY a numeric representation of resistance to damage, to include damage-over-time. So Stability or whatever would apply to avoiding Prone, slogging through Stuck or Hobbled, fighting through Paralysis, or conquering Weakness. It wouldn't make much sense against Sickened, but that's about it. In essense, a Might-based saving throw would be opposite of Reflex. Reflex is about quickly getting out of the way when the enemy wants you to stay still; Stability would be about staying the corse when the enemy wants you out of the way.

Scro, honestly, FORT should be linked to CON. Constitution and Fortitude seem very interrelated to me, and much the same thing. I agree that there is a bit of a "realism" issue with such a system. A lot of this could be fixed with renaming...Fortitude becomes Stability Constitution becomes Vigor Will becomes Logic But as I said earlier in the thread, a game isn't supposed to be a reality simulator. At the end of the day it is the gameplay that matters, and although it feels wonky my system offers more meaningful choice than the present attribute system.

I could make a dump-free system for tanks easily. MIG: +3% damage, +2 fortitude (no healing) CON: +4% health, +5% duration (no endurance, no fortitude) DEX: +3% action speed, +2 reflex PER: +5% range*, +2 deflection (no reflex) INT: +5% area of effect, +2 will (no duration) RES: +4% endurance, +3% healing (no will, no deflection) *12m range on weapons to 10m base (6.5m@3per,15m@20per), 10m range on weapons to 5m base (3.25m@3per,7.5m@20per) The issue is squishies. You can reduce dump by separating duration and AoE, and by penalizing a lack of perception with reduced range, but you can't force squishies to use duration, AoE, and/or ranged abilities.

Is it weird if I'd actually want to see this?No. My favorite thing about this post was that I was able to combine something I sincerely felt with bitter irony.

Why aren't more people simply agreeing with the OP?