Pillars of Eternity Beta Discussion [GAME RELEASED, GO TO NEW THREAD]

[Sensuki]

I don't think I need that disclaimer

 

[Athelas]

You're right, stalking rarely comes from a place of love.

 

[Sensuki]

Apparently Chris Avellone has finished his narrative work for PE. This definitely implies a December release date, as they have ~ 3 months for final editing, localization, VO and stuff like that.

 

[SCO]

Terrible wasteland apologism.

 

[Sensuki]

I don't know how you get apologism from "I can see how they made that mistake"

 

[Sensuki]

On pistol braces

I understand the desire, as I once played a pirate from the Nelanther Isles with Thug, Blooded, Improved Initiative, Quick Draw, Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Pistol, and four pistols at the ready. However, it is tricky to implement without adding new stand-alone weapons (i.e., two matching weapons as a combined single item). For murderous multishots, the blunderbuss is pretty good even if it isn't as cool-looking.

 

[Sensuki]

Some Adventurer Hall information correction

For purposes of clarity, when I use the term "companion", I mean the OEI-written characters. When I use the term "adventurer", I mean the player-made characters.

1. You can stockpile companions and adventurers at your stronghold, but you can only have eight active (i.e., in existence) adventurers at any given time.

2. All companions and all adventurers can be at the stronghold at the same time. Their limits are independent of each otther.

3. Because none of the early game content is designed for six characters. You would roll over things extremely easily. We restrict it for the same reason we restrict the amount of money you have access to, the amount of XP you gain, the amount of points you can spend on attributes, etc. It's still our responsibility to design a game that has some aspects of challenge to it.

4. The more characters you have in your party, the less XP you gain, but it's a marginal difference (5% per character).

The limit is on eight active adventurers in a game.

 

[HiddenX]

I did something VERY anti-codexian ...

Muscle Mages in perfect harmony and balance...

​

 

[Sensuki]

I do have long hair but I don't wear slippers and I don't like banalce in all RPGs.

 

[HiddenX]

... and I don't like balance in all RPGs.

Then please tell him

 

[Sensuki]

I did that very video! "It's not the only way to design"

 

[Grunker]

HiddenX defines "one-track mind" at this stage.

 

[HiddenX]

Unlike you fanboys I'm not blind and I can see if a system is broken.

PS:
Elminage Gothic is released on Steam right now...

 

[Cnaiur]

I googled that and my - still recovering - eyes now hurt.

 

[HiddenX]

Gfx are not important - gameplay is important. I waited a long time for Elminage Gothic to come to the PC. A cool challenging Wizardry game.
(And it features STR, PIETY, INT, VIT, AGI and LUCK in an intuitive way -> perfect for my "one-track mind" )

 

[Johannes]

I do have long hair but I don't wear slippers and I don't like banalce in all RPGs.

What does that even mean, I don't see what there is to not like in balance? As long as it doesn't come at the expense of interesting base mechanics, of course.

Or is banalce a different thing altogether

 

[Clockwork Knight]

I googled that and my - still recovering - eyes now hurt.

it's called custom portraits, welcome to 1980

 

[Cnaiur]

1980 was a splendid year.

 

[Sensuki]

Or is banalce a different thing altogether

I can't remember who created the term, but it was near the start of this thread - it's a mock name for Sawyer style design.

 

[Arkeus]

Remmirath, on 15 Sept 2014 - 07:33 AM, said:

Is the hard limit of eight total adventurers per game a true limit on the number created, or can one somehow delete previously created adventurers in that game after they have died in order to hire more? I am guessing the former from the phrasing, but would appreciate clarification nonetheless.



A:The limit is on eight active adventurers in a game.

There are class-specific items that grant bonus spells and Talents that grant bonus spells. There are also class-specific items that grant bonus uses of class abilities for non-casters.



Also consider that the majority of non-caster classes in most editions of A/D&D don't receive bonus ability uses for high stats (e.g. more Rage for barbarians, more Smites for paladins). In most cases, the stat in question is also one that's already key to the power of the class. More Smites for high Charisma when high Charisma already adds bonus to attack, more Rage for high Constitution when Constitution affects the duration of Rage, but you still get more spells for high Int or Wis when high Int and Wis already affect the DCs for those spells (in 3.X, anyway).



The most difficult classes to arrange stats for in core 3.x are often monks and paladins, specifically because more than half of the six are important to them. These classes aren't fundamentally more powerful, but their powers/functionality are dependent on more stats. Monks benefit heavily from Str, Dex, Con, and Wis (and somewhat from Int). Paladins benefit heavily from Str, Dex (sometimes), Con, Wis, and Cha. You can get away with being an idiot paladin in 3.x, but you kind of need to spread the points around the other four or five or the character is going to be worse off at something they do regularly to semi-regularly. This isn't really the case with A/D&D wizards at all. When there's no logical reason to do anything but put your highest score in the same stat for any character of that class, there's really not much of a choice there.

 

[ZagorTeNej]

That Sawyer idea of INT added bonus AOE not doing friendly fire is one of his better ones IMO. Why are (some) people against it exactly? Investing in a stat should (only) yield benefit to make it an attractive choice, not result in increased chance to blow your own party with a fireball.

 

[Lhynn]

That Sawyer idea of INT added bonus AOE not doing friendly fire is one of his better ones IMO. Why are (some) people against it exactly? Investing in a stat should (only) yield benefit to make it an attractive choice, not result in increased chance to blow your own party with a fireball.

Besides your skill to manipulate the area covered by the AoE depends on your int, they could even add a roll for it to avoid friendly fire every time you cast it, thatd be fun (sawyer would probably hate that tho).

 

[SCO]

I'd prefer using mouse button rolling to adjust AOE to be honest. It sounds dumb. I may not be a simulationist but everything has limits.

 

[Niektory]

That Sawyer idea of INT added bonus AOE not doing friendly fire is one of his better ones IMO. Why are (some) people against it exactly? Investing in a stat should (only) yield benefit to make it an attractive choice, not result in increased chance to blow your own party with a fireball.

It's bad bacause it's exploitable. Simply aim the AoE a bit to the side, and your fighters are safe even if they're clumped together with the enemies. Not doable in all situations, but I'm sure it would become a common tactic.

 

[ZagorTeNej]

Besides your skill to manipulate the area covered by the AoE depends on your int, they could even add a roll for it to avoid friendly fire every time you cast it, thatd be fun (sawyer would probably hate that tho).

I'm not sure Sawyer is that much against randomness, a lot of the hard counter IE spells have been replaced with a % (and/or roll) based similar spell. With POE's spell turning for example, wizard will make a roll to determine whether it will be succesful or not (from what I understand).