I actually think a low-Might wizard would be an excellent build in PoE. It would let you invest more heavily in Perception for more reliable disablers, Intellect for longer spell durations and wider areas of effect, and Resolve for stronger defenses.
I think it's better to think of Might in PoE as a kind of "force of spirit" rather than a synonym for muscle. In a magical setting, that would justify a tiny Orlan being able to hit just as hard with a sword, bow, or Fireball.
Once you have a really good handle on the magic, you'll just immobilize and fry mobs of dudes in that game. I actually like that people don't just go down with one hit, though. For me, the fact that it was a mostly human setting felt refreshing.
I know, I absolutely can't stand how PoE handled attributes. Every single build is max might and the other stat your class uses. No variability. At least Kingmaker the rogues can do damage based off dex and casters depend on wis/int/cha with maybe dex to hit sometimes. It means not everyone has the same attribute spread.
I think that it makes your attacks spells fell powerful and enemies a treat. An Iron golem on NWN1 have only 99hp, one fighter well equipped can take it in few rounds.i hate high HP mobs on Oblivion for eg, thanks to how the level scaling works, a Xivilai needed 42 slashes with my enchanted claymore at max STR and max skill to be killed at high level and hated DDO exactly by it.
About min maxing, D&D games allow some broken combinations even without it. For example, on IWD combining Black Blade of Disaster + Tenser's tranformation, i can have 3 attacks at -10 THAC0 with 15-37 damage totalizing 45-111 damage per round(more than a lot of spells) and the enemy must make 3 save vs death or be insta killed / round. This combination can kill probably 4/5 of mobs in the game in one round
I strongly agree about attributes on PoE, are not good in therms of consistency since dumb wizards are viable(goes completely against the class fantasy) and is not good in therms of gameplay itself since most builds are min-max. My cipher being more deadly with guns, axes and mind"powers" by boosting his might makes no sense on both perspectives.
In fact, i can just pump might and it will increase my arquebus damage, my dagger damage and my Mind Blades damage. I don't need to choose between have high weapon damage and use more CC spells or less weapon damage than a barbarian on my party but more deadly mind powers. It is really awful.
Same with accuracy, instead of one attribute dictating how accurate you are(PER), why not one attribute who increase accuracy vs deflection, one who increases accuracy vs will and etc? That way, a tough warrior using accuracy VS fortitude will have more chances of bypassing the enemy fortitude, an very intelligent cipher will have more chances of getting control over target's mind, etc
i'm in the minority here but i preferred obsidian more AAA crpg [ kotor 2 to new vegas] to their poe stuff. the spark just was not there they wanted to be bg and pst again but it just was not there.
Agreed. Despite there being so many good things on the surface to PoE, I have never finished it or could stand it for any length of time. I still can't point my finger on any exact reason. The magic just isn't there to draw me in once, let alone again and again like BG did.
lack of urgency... main quest mystery felt like it was suppose to be canon and not something you were to solve... enemies having no purpose or story behind their placement, or their story being told later in the game (such as the wicht)… very few dungeon crawls... overly verbose dialog...
Do most enemies in the overwhelming majority of Baldur's Gate have purposeful enemy placement?? Baldur's Gate is certainly great at many things, but as far as enemy placement goes, Dark Souls it is not. I guess there is story behind alot of the encounters, but most of it is only given weight because of the long-standing lore of D&D. For every Durlag's Tower, you get the Mage and Werewolf Island, which are essentially nothing but excuses to have encounters with mages and werewolves.
It's also worth noting that 4 out of the 5 Infinity engine games were working with the most exhaustive backlog of fantasy source material imaginable to craft their worlds, which was 2nd Edition Advanced D&D. Obsidian, for better or worse, crafted a totally new world that isn't remotely like generic fantasy. It is deep and dense. There is no way you can skim dialogue in PoE, and you often have to read extra carefully to understand what is taking place. It's probably too out in left field and buried underneath the surface for it's own good, but at least they didn't just trot out some paint by numbers world.
Do most enemies in the overwhelming majority of Baldur's Gate have purposeful enemy placement??
Without going further into detail as it would take an extremely long time and be considered off-topic. The answer to this question is "yes." Short explanation: a lot are placed and designed around quests, or enemy types are usually found around their "home base," usually a map or two off. There are some exceptions and other subconscious considerations.
It's also worth noting that 4 out of the 5 Infinity engine games were working with the most exhaustive backlog of fantasy source material imaginable to craft their worlds, which was 2nd Edition Advanced D&D. Obsidian, for better or worse, crafted a totally new world that isn't remotely like generic fantasy. It is deep and dense. There is no way you can skim dialogue in PoE, and you often have to read extra carefully to understand what is taking place. It's probably too out in left field and buried underneath the surface for it's own good, but at least they didn't just trot out some paint by numbers world.
Yes, but that is part of the problem. With all the verbose discussions going on, they could have introduced these enemies, and certain topics much better with an emotional attachment.
Lets go back to the wicht example:
They are scattered through out the first few maps. IMO, I regarded them simply as this world's gibblering because that is how they acted. They were small creatures living in grassland areas that attacked you with your fists and died after one or two hits.
IIRC it wasn't until you reached Defiance Bay that you actually found out what they were: a creation from animancy from hollowborn children. Like blood magic in DA:O, PoE does a horrible job of showing why animancy is vilified. This could of easily be fixed by having a small quest happen in Gilded Vale as you enter a house and a trepid peasant is there protecting a closet, where once it is opened, the player sees the very first wicht in the game and the peasant explains that it is his child who was hollowborn who was fixed with animancy. Once the child went "wild" he couldn't discard it in the wild like others did, even after it killed his wife and decided to chain it up in the closet instead, and hope that a cure could eventually be found. Then the player can have all his moral choices laid out for him, while the peasant explains two vital concepts of the entire game.
There would be more meaning and immersion every time a player encountered one in the wild with that type of introduction. It would also introduce The Waidwen's Legacy better than just the heresy that they get now giving it an emotional connection that the player actually experiences instead of being told.
The wicht is the easiest one I can think of, but just offering some connection to the other creatures instead of "they have a red circle, therefore I must kill them" would have made the immersion aspect of the game so much better.
I take your point, but the game DOES have a rather extensive beastiary that fills in as you kill creatures, and alot of this is explained inside of it. I admit this might not be the best may to handle certain aspects of the lore, but this specific example of wichts is something I remember learning about because I read about it in my journal after I killed them. Everything about Eora has to be contained in these two games. It can't rely on outside sources or prior knowledge. The PDF guidebooks that come with the games go into even greater detail about the world, but even I haven't set foot in that particular web of lore.
I also seem to remember having conversations in Gilded Vale about the children, and combined with the supplemental info, it certainly didn't seem random to me.
(...) Like blood magic in DA:O, PoE does a horrible job of showing why animancy is vilified. This could of easily be fixed by having a small quest happen in Gilded Vale as you enter a house and a trepid peasant is there protecting a closet, where once it is opened, the player sees the very first wicht in the game and the peasant explains that it is his child who was hollowborn who was fixed with animancy. Once the child went "wild" he couldn't discard it in the wild like others did, even after it killed his wife and decided to chain it up in the closet instead, and hope that a cure could eventually be found. Then the player can have all his moral choices laid out for him, while the peasant explains two vital concepts of the entire game.(...)
I agree that are best way to deal with this questions, but disagree that blood magic in DA:O is not shown as a taboo by good reasons. In a world where even normal magic is vilified to the point of mages being locked away, an magic :
- Taught by demons - That can ENSLAVE people - Damages the user - Allow killing without any evidence(not like a lighting bolt) (...)
I actually think a low-Might wizard would be an excellent build in PoE. It would let you invest more heavily in Perception for more reliable disablers, Intellect for longer spell durations and wider areas of effect, and Resolve for stronger defenses.
I think it's better to think of Might in PoE as a kind of "force of spirit" rather than a synonym for muscle. In a magical setting, that would justify a tiny Orlan being able to hit just as hard with a sword, bow, or Fireball.
The problem is that the lore established that wizards spells are very complex, an Wiz with low INT goes against it despite being viable... About perception, it boosts your chance to hit with everything and is silly IMO, i don't have an character who is accurate with his specialty, i have an character who is accurate with everything.
PoE is probably my favorite RPG story right now. There isn't a lot of urgency addmittedly (this is a good thing for me, I like to take my time exploring the world).The main mystery was incredibly compelling, I just HAD to figure out what was going on. Its also the first game that let me roleplaya naturalist, using the in game besitary as my filed guide as I catalgoued the different creatures of Eora. I LOVE THAT BESTIARY.
I actually think a low-Might wizard would be an excellent build in PoE. It would let you invest more heavily in Perception for more reliable disablers, Intellect for longer spell durations and wider areas of effect, and Resolve for stronger defenses.
I think it's better to think of Might in PoE as a kind of "force of spirit" rather than a synonym for muscle. In a magical setting, that would justify a tiny Orlan being able to hit just as hard with a sword, bow, or Fireball.
One issue is a lot of the strength of the debuffs is based off of how high your might is.
I also don't buy the force of spirit thing, because in every dialog option involving might, it's physical. You pick someone up and lift them off the ground with your hands (really not sure how that could work for an Orlan), not lift them into the air with magic. Plus they already have an attribute that's supposed to be force of will, Resolve. It makes no sense that ciphers and mages don't use that instead of might. Why does Resolve make you harder to hit? Because, they needed to make the attribute do something else or it'd be worthless. Originally Dex made you harder to hit, but they switched it to Resolve in an update, because everyone was using it as a dump stat.
Ugh, the bestiary mechanic replacing getting XP for kills annoyed me too. Why bother fighting anything after a certain point? At least a gibberling gave you like 15xp.
On Pathfinder kingmaker, i wanna create an caster, if i wanna a sorc, i need high CHA, if i wanna a wizard, high INT and both acess arcane magic in completely different way. DEX is vital to ranged touch attacks, CON is useful to boost your survivability, STR if useful if you wanna be a polymorth melee sorc the main problem of PoE is that by homogenizing stats, every class that wanna high DPS needs to bumb Might regardless of the "damage source", and only one stat "regulate" accuracy.
The correct is : Might increases your accuracy VS fortitude, PER vs deflection, INT vs will, etc, for damage the correct is might increasing your melee and bow damage(bows require a lot of strength to fully draw), crossbows/firearms i don't know what stat should bost the damage. DEX should reduce the "reloading time"
Not mention, INT should be a requirement to cast spells that the lore established that are complicated
@DrHappyAngry Well, you can only learn so much from killing the same thing over and over. Having it tied to the bestiary (actually learning something!) was pretty brillaint IMO. Most exp should come from completing quests and challenges (roleplaying is possible) more than kills anyway. Its not like you are losing anything in PoE by not getting infinite kill exp. You hit the level cap WAY too early. Its remains PoE's and (2's) biggest flaws. Your character just stops progressing a little over half way through the game.
PoE is probably my favorite RPG story right now. There isn't a lot of urgency addmittedly (this is a good thing for me, I like to take my time exploring the world).The main mystery was incredibly compelling, I just HAD to figure out what was going on. Its also the first game that let me roleplaya naturalist, using the in game besitary as my filed guide as I catalgoued the different creatures of Eora. I LOVE THAT BESTIARY.
I like bestiaries in general. The one in The Witcher 3 is excellent, as is the one in Final Fantasy XII. The Pillars beastiary is linked the character progression. You get exp til you attain maximum knowledge, and then that's that. I agree, it was a great feature.
@DrHappyAngry Well, you can only learn so much from killing the same thing over and over. Having it tied to the bestiary (actually learning something!) was pretty brillaint IMO. Most exp should come from completing quests and challenges (roleplaying is possible) more than kills anyway. Its not like you are losing anything in PoE by not getting infinite kill exp. You hit the level cap WAY too early. Its remains PoE's and (2's) biggest flaws. Your character just stops progressing a little over half way through the game.
It was annoying with fighting humans, though. Shouldn't you get XP from fighting more skilled people? When you get XP for killing something small in a game like BG, it's worth becomes a lot less at higher levels, since it's negligible to the amount of xp you need to level, but if you kill a horde of small things, you still get bump.
As for progression, that's one thing I like about kingmaker, you're not hitting that level cap, and get to feel like fights still add to your progression. I know we talked about this in the kingmaker thread, and you weren't for it, but I start to lose motivation without progress.
I did like PoE2 quite a lot, though. Moving the setting made it feel a lot less generic fantasy, the companions had better interactions and stories and were actually good at what they did. The multi-classing system was interesting, and provided a ton of customizability. Also pirates are cool. But, jebus, the ship to ship combat was awful. I still didn't care for the way attributes worked, but the game was interesting enough to keep me going. They also dumped that annoying endurance system, which was the first game's Thac0, and by that I mean a needlessly complicated system that doesn't really add anything to the game. No offense meant to your name @ThacoBell.
@DrHappyAngry If the level cap wasn't so easy to hit, I'd agree with your point about fighting humans. But there is so much extra exp (a little too much) in PoE as it is, its not really a problem. As for Kingmaker, I don't like that it looks like you can't hit the level cap with a full party. I think a cap should be reacheable without grinding if you go completionist, I just don't think the cap should be hit until the last fifth or so of the game.
Part of the reason I don't like Pathfinder as much as the Pillars series is specifically because, for all the praise it gets, I don't really like how 3rd Edition translates to CRPGs. And Pathfinder is like 3rd Edition on steroids. I don't really care for feats, and they remain my least favorite part of Kotor as well (which is simply a modified 3e). Pillars may not feel like the 2e rules of BG and IWD, put it also doesn't feel like 3e. It's it's own thing.
Ya, this goes back to progression again, and we definitely have different feelings about level caps. I hate them, since it makes you feel like you're not going to progress anymore. In any of my PoE2 games, as soon as I hit the level cap, it's like "OK, I'm done, time to finish off the main quest." no matter how much is left unexplored, since I lose motivation.
Speaking of progression. One thing I like about kingmaker, is that the progression feels a lot more even across the game. Most games you get those first 5-10 levels (depending on the scope of the game) fast, and then level up a lot more slowly through the rest of the game. You still level a bit quicker early in kingmaker, but it's overall more even than games like NWN(2).
I actually really loved the introduction of feats, but I do love the extra level of customization they give you. They also make it so warriors have more to do than just click on the next enemy. I never played any of the d20 systems in table top, though. In a table top game you can get away with all sorts of crazy stuff, since the human DM can respond to it, plus there were supplemental books for additional combat options in 2nd ed, but video games never really incorporated much of the extra stuff. It's nice to see stuff like knockdown and other maneuvers.
i'm in the minority here but i preferred obsidian more AAA crpg [ kotor 2 to new vegas] to their poe stuff. the spark just was not there they wanted to be bg and pst again but it just was not there.
Agreed. Despite there being so many good things on the surface to PoE, I have never finished it or could stand it for any length of time. I still can't point my finger on any exact reason. The magic just isn't there to draw me in once, let alone again and again like BG did.
lack of urgency... main quest mystery felt like it was suppose to be canon and not something you were to solve... enemies having no purpose or story behind their placement, or their story being told later in the game (such as the wicht)… very few dungeon crawls... overly verbose dialog...
All things I would say about BG. Too many people view BG, especially BG2 through rose-tinted glasses.
Ya, this goes back to progression again, and we definitely have different feelings about level caps. I hate them, since it makes you feel like you're not going to progress anymore. In any of my PoE2 games, as soon as I hit the level cap, it's like "OK, I'm done, time to finish off the main quest." no matter how much is left unexplored, since I lose motivation.
Speaking of progression. One thing I like about kingmaker, is that the progression feels a lot more even across the game. Most games you get those first 5-10 levels (depending on the scope of the game) fast, and then level up a lot more slowly through the rest of the game. You still level a bit quicker early in kingmaker, but it's overall more even than games like NWN(2).
I actually really loved the introduction of feats, but I do love the extra level of customization they give you. They also make it so warriors have more to do than just click on the next enemy. I never played any of the d20 systems in table top, though. In a table top game you can get away with all sorts of crazy stuff, since the human DM can respond to it, plus there were supplemental books for additional combat options in 2nd ed, but video games never really incorporated much of the extra stuff. It's nice to see stuff like knockdown and other maneuvers.
This is one reason that i like much more casters on video games, than melee.
While your high level caster is shaping the reality towards Wish spell, stopping time, summoning an wall of monsters, bringing a rain of meteors, your warrior is .... Swinging an piece of metal. P:K at least bough manuvers and etc
The unique game who i become inclined to not play as a caster was Arcanum, because is a fireball VS a steampunk grenade launcher.
--------------------------
As for the bestiary on PoE, i believe that after you defeated enough drakes for eg, you should get less XP by fighting drakes since is not something new, but don't like the idea of "no xp"
Part of the reason I don't like Pathfinder as much as the Pillars series is specifically because, for all the praise it gets, I don't really like how 3rd Edition translates to CRPGs. And Pathfinder is like 3rd Edition on steroids. I don't really care for feats, and they remain my least favorite part of Kotor as well (which is simply a modified 3e). Pillars may not feel like the 2e rules of BG and IWD, put it also doesn't feel like 3e. It's it's own thing.
Pathfinder is far more balanced than 3.0 or 3.5e, mainly because "lv 1 bonuses" was divided between lv 1 to 20. So, no more any classe/lv 1 other class eg, but keep in mind that this rules was made from PnP. An DM will not allow you to pick one level of cleric and not follow his dogma only because you wanna an specific feat like Divine shield
AD&D only have less problem with it mainly because offers less freedom, on NWN i can pick sorc then dragon disciple then fighter, on iwd/bg1/bg2, i can't multi-class in this way.
A part of me actually misses the 2nd ed multi-classing. I do like choosing what to level, but I also liked the progression 2nd ed offered, since you were generally just 1 level behind a single class character. You also had to get to a prestige class like Eldritch Knight to really be a fighter/mage in 3rd ed. I do kind of miss the old school rules that restricted classes to certain races. Like in 2nd ed, dwarves were supposed to be inherently non-magical, so that's why they got a bonus to resist spells, but could never use arcane magic. Letting everyone be anything has been interesting too, like the first character I finished NWN with was a half orc monk. The Magus class in pathfinder helps with letting you basically be a fighter/mage from the get-go. I'm not saying I completely prefer those 2nd ed rules over 3rd ed, but they did have their charm.
A part of me actually misses the 2nd ed multi-classing. I do like choosing what to level, but I also liked the progression 2nd ed offered, since you were generally just 1 level behind a single class character. You also had to get to a prestige class like Eldritch Knight to really be a fighter/mage in 3rd ed. I do kind of miss the old school rules that restricted classes to certain races. Like in 2nd ed, dwarves were supposed to be inherently non-magical, so that's why they got a bonus to resist spells, but could never use arcane magic. Letting everyone be anything has been interesting too, like the first character I finished NWN with was a half orc monk. The Magus class in pathfinder helps with letting you basically be a fighter/mage from the get-go. I'm not saying I completely prefer those 2nd ed rules over 3rd ed, but they did have their charm.
The problem is that classes who give +caster level on PnP don't give on NWN and that feats who can increase your casting level up to your total level(like Improved Caster Level) aren't in the game too, is much more a problem with NWN (lack) of implementation of those rules than a problem with the rules.
Other problem is that for example Arcane Archer on PnP can imbue a lot of spells, on NWN can only imbue fire, so "imbue arrow" on pnp is pretty decent, mainly when you know your enemy, on nwn you can't use against fire immune creatures(a lot of then), not mention the "you can only have one summon" problem who destroys the necromancer fantasy of pale master prestige class.
Not mention, some classes like Dragon Disciple are ridiculous nerfed on NWN. Can only be a red dragon disciple(most chaotic and evil human hating dragon), the hit dice is much slower than pnp - d12, don't give half dragon template at lv 10, etc; if was like on PnP, an sorcerer who casts buffs like haste then shapeshift or not can be insanely deadly on melee, but on NWN unless you pick fighter levels, is useless.
Side note, I know Obsidian was in financial trouble before they crowd funded PoE 1, what was the situation like AFTER Pillars 2? Were they in a position where they didn't have a tremendous amount of room to maneuver financially? Or are they just keen on being able to worry less about the financial side and focus more on development? ( If there is such a thing ) :P
Honestly, i believe that if they crowdfund an "game inspired on new vegas" in a steampunk universe, they will get some millions easily. I don't know how hard is his financial trouble....
Honestly, i believe that if they crowdfund an "game inspired on new vegas" in a steampunk universe, they will get some millions easily. I don't know how hard is his financial trouble....
I'd have gone with space cowboy, like more in the vein of cowboy bebop, firefly and the expanse, but steam punk could be interesting.
Side note, I know Obsidian was in financial trouble before they crowd funded PoE 1, what was the situation like AFTER Pillars 2? Were they in a position where they didn't have a tremendous amount of room to maneuver financially? Or are they just keen on being able to worry less about the financial side and focus more on development? ( If there is such a thing ) :P
There's a whole thread on this on their forums. It now appears that PoE2 sold rather poorly, and as such it is possible OE was feeling a financial pinch again. It is my take that whereas both small and large studios can survive being indy, it is mid-sized studios like OE and inXile that have a very difficult time surviving as indy studios.
@kanisatha Where exactly did the data come from that it was selling poorly? It was #1 on Steam for awhile, and stayed in the top 50 for quite some time. It was #1 on GoG for even longer. The general consesus in that thread (yes I followed it) was that the fame sold competently AT WORST.
@kanisatha Where exactly did the data come from that it was selling poorly? It was #1 on Steam for awhile, and stayed in the top 50 for quite some time. It was #1 on GoG for even longer. The general consesus in that thread (yes I followed it) was that the fame sold competently AT WORST.
I think these numbers take into account claimed keys from the Kickstarter and not just first day purchases.
@kanisatha Where exactly did the data come from that it was selling poorly? It was #1 on Steam for awhile, and stayed in the top 50 for quite some time. It was #1 on GoG for even longer. The general consesus in that thread (yes I followed it) was that the fame sold competently AT WORST.
I think these numbers take into account claimed keys from the Kickstarter and not just first day purchases.
The kickstarter that was not only fully funded, but went so far as to make several stretch goals? Again, where is the indication that this game did not sell well?
Looks pretty poor to me, compared to PoE1's 1M-2M Steam owners.
Wow that's sad, especially since I consider the 2nd far superior to the first. Then again, maybe there were people who like me didn't care for the first, but unlike me didn't give the second a shot.
Comments
I think it's better to think of Might in PoE as a kind of "force of spirit" rather than a synonym for muscle. In a magical setting, that would justify a tiny Orlan being able to hit just as hard with a sword, bow, or Fireball.
About min maxing, D&D games allow some broken combinations even without it. For example, on IWD combining Black Blade of Disaster + Tenser's tranformation, i can have 3 attacks at -10 THAC0 with 15-37 damage totalizing 45-111 damage per round(more than a lot of spells) and the enemy must make 3 save vs death or be insta killed / round. This combination can kill probably 4/5 of mobs in the game in one round
I strongly agree about attributes on PoE, are not good in therms of consistency since dumb wizards are viable(goes completely against the class fantasy) and is not good in therms of gameplay itself since most builds are min-max. My cipher being more deadly with guns, axes and mind"powers" by boosting his might makes no sense on both perspectives.
In fact, i can just pump might and it will increase my arquebus damage, my dagger damage and my Mind Blades damage. I don't need to choose between have high weapon damage and use more CC spells or less weapon damage than a barbarian on my party but more deadly mind powers. It is really awful.
Same with accuracy, instead of one attribute dictating how accurate you are(PER), why not one attribute who increase accuracy vs deflection, one who increases accuracy vs will and etc? That way, a tough warrior using accuracy VS fortitude will have more chances of bypassing the enemy fortitude, an very intelligent cipher will have more chances of getting control over target's mind, etc
Do most enemies in the overwhelming majority of Baldur's Gate have purposeful enemy placement?? Baldur's Gate is certainly great at many things, but as far as enemy placement goes, Dark Souls it is not. I guess there is story behind alot of the encounters, but most of it is only given weight because of the long-standing lore of D&D. For every Durlag's Tower, you get the Mage and Werewolf Island, which are essentially nothing but excuses to have encounters with mages and werewolves.
It's also worth noting that 4 out of the 5 Infinity engine games were working with the most exhaustive backlog of fantasy source material imaginable to craft their worlds, which was 2nd Edition Advanced D&D. Obsidian, for better or worse, crafted a totally new world that isn't remotely like generic fantasy. It is deep and dense. There is no way you can skim dialogue in PoE, and you often have to read extra carefully to understand what is taking place. It's probably too out in left field and buried underneath the surface for it's own good, but at least they didn't just trot out some paint by numbers world.
Yes, but that is part of the problem. With all the verbose discussions going on, they could have introduced these enemies, and certain topics much better with an emotional attachment.
Lets go back to the wicht example:
They are scattered through out the first few maps. IMO, I regarded them simply as this world's gibblering because that is how they acted. They were small creatures living in grassland areas that attacked you with your fists and died after one or two hits.
IIRC it wasn't until you reached Defiance Bay that you actually found out what they were: a creation from animancy from hollowborn children. Like blood magic in DA:O, PoE does a horrible job of showing why animancy is vilified. This could of easily be fixed by having a small quest happen in Gilded Vale as you enter a house and a trepid peasant is there protecting a closet, where once it is opened, the player sees the very first wicht in the game and the peasant explains that it is his child who was hollowborn who was fixed with animancy. Once the child went "wild" he couldn't discard it in the wild like others did, even after it killed his wife and decided to chain it up in the closet instead, and hope that a cure could eventually be found. Then the player can have all his moral choices laid out for him, while the peasant explains two vital concepts of the entire game.
There would be more meaning and immersion every time a player encountered one in the wild with that type of introduction. It would also introduce The Waidwen's Legacy better than just the heresy that they get now giving it an emotional connection that the player actually experiences instead of being told.
The wicht is the easiest one I can think of, but just offering some connection to the other creatures instead of "they have a red circle, therefore I must kill them" would have made the immersion aspect of the game so much better.
I also seem to remember having conversations in Gilded Vale about the children, and combined with the supplemental info, it certainly didn't seem random to me.
- Taught by demons
- That can ENSLAVE people
- Damages the user
- Allow killing without any evidence(not like a lighting bolt)
(...)
Is clearly much more dangerous. The problem is that the lore established that wizards spells are very complex, an Wiz with low INT goes against it despite being viable... About perception, it boosts your chance to hit with everything and is silly IMO, i don't have an character who is accurate with his specialty, i have an character who is accurate with everything.
I also don't buy the force of spirit thing, because in every dialog option involving might, it's physical. You pick someone up and lift them off the ground with your hands (really not sure how that could work for an Orlan), not lift them into the air with magic. Plus they already have an attribute that's supposed to be force of will, Resolve. It makes no sense that ciphers and mages don't use that instead of might. Why does Resolve make you harder to hit? Because, they needed to make the attribute do something else or it'd be worthless. Originally Dex made you harder to hit, but they switched it to Resolve in an update, because everyone was using it as a dump stat.
Ugh, the bestiary mechanic replacing getting XP for kills annoyed me too. Why bother fighting anything after a certain point? At least a gibberling gave you like 15xp.
The correct is : Might increases your accuracy VS fortitude, PER vs deflection, INT vs will, etc, for damage the correct is might increasing your melee and bow damage(bows require a lot of strength to fully draw), crossbows/firearms i don't know what stat should bost the damage. DEX should reduce the "reloading time"
Not mention, INT should be a requirement to cast spells that the lore established that are complicated
As for progression, that's one thing I like about kingmaker, you're not hitting that level cap, and get to feel like fights still add to your progression. I know we talked about this in the kingmaker thread, and you weren't for it, but I start to lose motivation without progress.
I did like PoE2 quite a lot, though. Moving the setting made it feel a lot less generic fantasy, the companions had better interactions and stories and were actually good at what they did. The multi-classing system was interesting, and provided a ton of customizability. Also pirates are cool. But, jebus, the ship to ship combat was awful. I still didn't care for the way attributes worked, but the game was interesting enough to keep me going. They also dumped that annoying endurance system, which was the first game's Thac0, and by that I mean a needlessly complicated system that doesn't really add anything to the game. No offense meant to your name @ThacoBell.
Speaking of progression. One thing I like about kingmaker, is that the progression feels a lot more even across the game. Most games you get those first 5-10 levels (depending on the scope of the game) fast, and then level up a lot more slowly through the rest of the game. You still level a bit quicker early in kingmaker, but it's overall more even than games like NWN(2).
I actually really loved the introduction of feats, but I do love the extra level of customization they give you. They also make it so warriors have more to do than just click on the next enemy. I never played any of the d20 systems in table top, though. In a table top game you can get away with all sorts of crazy stuff, since the human DM can respond to it, plus there were supplemental books for additional combat options in 2nd ed, but video games never really incorporated much of the extra stuff. It's nice to see stuff like knockdown and other maneuvers.
While your high level caster is shaping the reality towards Wish spell, stopping time, summoning an wall of monsters, bringing a rain of meteors, your warrior is .... Swinging an piece of metal. P:K at least bough manuvers and etc
The unique game who i become inclined to not play as a caster was Arcanum, because is a fireball VS a steampunk grenade launcher.
--------------------------
As for the bestiary on PoE, i believe that after you defeated enough drakes for eg, you should get less XP by fighting drakes since is not something new, but don't like the idea of "no xp" Pathfinder is far more balanced than 3.0 or 3.5e, mainly because "lv 1 bonuses" was divided between lv 1 to 20. So, no more any classe/lv 1 other class eg, but keep in mind that this rules was made from PnP. An DM will not allow you to pick one level of cleric and not follow his dogma only because you wanna an specific feat like Divine shield
AD&D only have less problem with it mainly because offers less freedom, on NWN i can pick sorc then dragon disciple then fighter, on iwd/bg1/bg2, i can't multi-class in this way.
Other problem is that for example Arcane Archer on PnP can imbue a lot of spells, on NWN can only imbue fire, so "imbue arrow" on pnp is pretty decent, mainly when you know your enemy, on nwn you can't use against fire immune creatures(a lot of then), not mention the "you can only have one summon" problem who destroys the necromancer fantasy of pale master prestige class.
Not mention, some classes like Dragon Disciple are ridiculous nerfed on NWN. Can only be a red dragon disciple(most chaotic and evil human hating dragon), the hit dice is much slower than pnp - d12, don't give half dragon template at lv 10, etc; if was like on PnP, an sorcerer who casts buffs like haste then shapeshift or not can be insanely deadly on melee, but on NWN unless you pick fighter levels, is useless.