Pillars of Eternity, Obsidian's new CRPG in the vein of Baldur's Gate

radditsu · May 11, 2015

Denaut_sl said:
I've played the game a good 50 hours now, I quite like it but I actually feel its cRPG roots are mostly what is holding it back. They should cast off those outdated core systems and just make a really good pausable real-time tactics game with exploration, story, and progression systems.

To explain what I mean, I think they did they best they could have with old school RPG mechanics, but if anything Pillars showed just how uninteresting those really are. The core combat, the tactics of a battle, is basic to the point of totally uninteresting and relies utterly on "decisions" (I use the term loosely here) made outside of combat. The difficulty slider's only actual effect on the game is how much you need to min-max characters, which is also supremely basic.

Might & Dex for damage dealers/healers, tank stats for the rest, combat is nothing but tank & spank. There is a little play in there depending on the difficulty setting, but really your only decision is "how much do I want to gimp my party?"

The game does a good job in other areas, but I keep finding myself wondering how much better it could be if they built a tactics game with behaviors and AI first, then constructed the other elements around it. There is nothing preventing a tactics game from having content structured like a cRPG with exploration, recruitment, quests, and dialogue interaction other than tradition. I say we do away with traditions that don't work in favor of better games.

It definitely is held back by using its own system. Some of the design choices I was not happy with due to how much I love D&D and how that system works with expansion. Might being the most primary stat for most damage casters/classes, Int for barbarians, the feat selection and lack of a multiclass system made the game feel like AD&D when 3.5 has been put in a computer game and is MUCH richer than 2nd edition. I also could have cared less about most of the NPC's. I liked the one eyed druid. The maps seem ...claustrophobic? Compared to BG 1 where the maps were huge and there were random encounters and bandit traps and all that jazz. I hope there is a more ambitious sequel..but I am not expecting one. I think big budget crpgs are going to be a niche...dwindling market. Are the even going to be modding tools? BG1 and BG2 has some fantastic mods.

The best race seems to be the halfling cat eared dudes really bothers me too.

Denaut · May 11, 2015

radditsu_sl said:
It definitely is held back by using its own system. Some of the design choices I was not happy with due to how much I love D&D and how that system works with expansion. Might being the most primary stat for most damage casters/classes, Int for barbarians, the feat selection and lack of a multiclass system made the game feel like AD&D when 3.5 has been put in a computer game and is MUCH richer than 2nd edition. I also could have cared less about most of the NPC's. I liked the one eyed druid. The maps seem ...claustrophobic? Compared to BG 1 where the maps were huge and there were random encounters and bandit traps and all that jazz. I hope there is a more ambitious sequel..but I am not expecting one. I think big budget crpgs are going to be a niche...dwindling market. Are the even going to be modding tools? BG1 and BG2 has some fantastic mods.

The best race seems to be the halfling cat eared dudes really bothers me too.

I am going to disagree because I think D&D style systems are fantastic for P&P but terrible for video games, and I think Pillars is an improvement but still suffers from the same fundamental flaws D&D does. I am not dismissing your preference though! I can explain

A D&D style system is purposefully generalized because in P&P essentially anything an happen. Many, many interactions are dynamic in nature because a human is interacting with the players directly with a brain wired pretty hardcore for social interactions among other humans. Thus the stat system needs to reflect the "basic elements of being human-like" so that they can be easily applied to any conceivable situation, then those primary stats are derived into secondary combat stats for a much more formal and rule-based system, but one that still reflects the nature of the character overall. This is an excellent compromise.

Video games are utterly different, since every interaction is prescribed ahead of time. Here the primary stat system isn't useful because the entire system is formal rather than informal, they only serve to obfuscate what you are decisions the player is trying to make. You only need secondary stats.

The pillars system is pretty much exactly the same as the D&D system only streamlined for video games. In D&D different primary stats mean different things to different classes, even though you are still essentially making the same decision in every one; Tank or Damage? The same was true for Baldur's gate, it was just a more convoluted setup for selecting which you want a character to be. By streamlining it Pillars improved the system, but they also laid bare how simplistic it always was. Multi-classing mostly served to complicate things without really adding to the system. You basically selecting who tanks and who spanks, and that is just about it. Details of the system do add some elements, such as crowd control, but that is still very basic.

The rest is mostly due to budget. Bigger budget means more content, and they didn't have a very big budget. Modern tech and tools help, but they don't add much in the way of production efficieny to a classic cRPG style game because of its reliance on lots of hand-made content.

shabushabu · May 11, 2015

Denaut_sl said:
I am going to disagree because I think D&D style systems are fantastic for P&P but terrible for video games, and I think Pillars is an improvement but still suffers from the same fundamental flaws D&D does. I am not dismissing your preference though! I can explain

A D&D style system is purposefully generalized because in P&P essentially anything an happen. Many, many interactions are dynamic in nature because a human is interacting with the players directly with a brain wired pretty hardcore for social interactions among other humans. Thus the stat system needs to reflect the "basic elements of being human-like" so that they can be easily applied to any conceivable situation, then those primary stats are derived into secondary combat stats for a much more formal and rule-based system, but one that still reflects the nature of the character overall. This is an excellent compromise.

Video games are utterly different, since every interaction is prescribed ahead of time. Here the primary stat system isn't useful because the entire system is formal rather than informal, they only serve to obfuscate what you are decisions the player is trying to make. You only need secondary stats.

The pillars system is pretty much exactly the same as the D&D system only streamlined for video games. In D&D different primary stats mean different things to different classes, even though you are still essentially making the same decision in every one; Tank or Damage? The same was true for Baldur's gate, it was just a more convoluted setup for selecting which you want a character to be. By streamlining it Pillars improved the system, but they also laid bare how simplistic it always was. Multi-classing mostly served to complicate things without really adding to the system. You basically selecting who tanks and who spanks, and that is just about it. Details of the system do add some elements, such as crowd control, but that is still very basic.

The rest is mostly due to budget. Bigger budget means more content, and they didn't have a very big budget. Modern tech and tools help, but they don't add much in the way of production efficieny to a classic cRPG style game because of its reliance on lots of hand-made content.

You may have a case here with AD&D that BG ( and the level range ) was based on but the complexity increases incredibly when you get into BG2 or even better D&D 3.x.

Pillars of Eternity combat got very repetitive, baldurs gate 2 not even close. Countless encounters in bg2 that took different tactics and strategies, its mind blowing really how much depth is there. PoE not deep in my opinion. Also, non combat parts of the RPG game were glazed over in PoE, i didn't see things like spot, listen, alignment, etc.

D&D has the benefit of countless hours of playtime, deep lore, flushed out systems and most importantly a robust monster "database". Combinations of mobs in D&D present the challenge, when everything is damage, tank or CC as in PoE shit gets boring.

In D&D you have types of CC, types of damage that are way more impactful. undead vs living, elemental, pierce, crush, slash etc... all this was glazed over in PoE and it made the combat repetitive.

Comletely disagree that D&D is not suited for video games, that is a pretty absurd statement from where i sit considering BG1, BG2, NwN, PlaneScape torment are 4 of the best RPGs ever... and they stand up against anything after all these years.

So what systems are better than D&D for a party based tactical combat game ? I have not seen it.

Urlithani · May 11, 2015

Currently playing BG2 again as a Fighter/Mage/Thief.

BG2 had so many ways to win and lose fights. Lots of fights where tank and spank wasn't happening. Buffs and debuffs alone was a game. Globe of invulnerability, stoneskin, spell deflection, spell turning, protection from energy, spell immunity, improved invisibility, spell trap, shield of the archons, blade barrier, mirror image, etc.

And how did you get rid of those? With debuffs! Breach, secret word, spell thrust, True seeing, pierce magic, ruby ray of reversal, and khelben's warding whip to name a few.

Illithids? Chaotic commands, free action, and high intelligence before they suck out your brain!

Beholders? Well their anti magic eye can debuff you, so hope you have good saves if you don't have the shield of balduran.

Doesn't even count all the groups of monsters that are undead, dragons, demons, elementals, humanoids, giants, etc.

Not to mention all the goodness with chain contingency, dropping 3x Abi Dalzim's horrid wilting or 3x lower resistance on first enemy sighted.

Killing asshole monsters off screen with ice storm and cloudkill. Playing fighter/thief with boots of speed, backstabbing and running to reapply stealth. Skull trap/glyph of warding bombs, Rogue trap bombs, or bounty hunter kit with traps that Maze or cast Otilukes Resilient Sphere. Two best tank classes in the game are fighter/druid and fighter/mage. Pick and pop with mage/thief, blowing up and separating enemies. Get a 25 str as a ranger/cleric dual wielding Crom Faeyr and the flail of the ages (bonus: while tanking and healing yourself by standing in lava at the fire giants stronghold with fire protection spells). Use summoned monsters(especially animate dead) to wear down enemies and be immune to their special attacks.

I haven't played Pillars yet so it would be unfair for me to bash it; I will play it someday. Anyone that thinks the infinity engine games were all vanilla encounters might want to consider playing them again.

Edit: I'm hoping that PoE2 will build on the first, just like BG2 was waaaay superior to BG1.

radditsu · May 11, 2015

As stated earlier NWN2 was the best class system ever invented but had to be attached to the worst engines ever made. The game was saved by its depth...and only if you never touch the main campaign. Pillars is a good first try. Pillars I compare to a non modded BG1.

I think I am going to give Tomb of elemental evil a try again....its just so clunky and ugly.

shabushabu · May 11, 2015

Currently playing BG2 again as a Fighter/Mage/Thief.

BG2 had so many ways to win and lose fights. Lots of fights where tank and spank wasn't happening. Buffs and debuffs alone was a game. Globe of invulnerability, stoneskin, spell deflection, spell turning, protection from energy, spell immunity, improved invisibility, spell trap, shield of the archons, blade barrier, mirror image, etc.

And how did you get rid of those? With debuffs! Breach, secret word, spell thrust, True seeing, pierce magic, ruby ray of reversal, and khelben's warding whip to name a few.

Illithids? Chaotic commands, free action, and high intelligence before they suck out your brain!

Beholders? Well their anti magic eye can debuff you, so hope you have good saves if you don't have the shield of balduran.

Doesn't even count all the groups of monsters that are undead, dragons, demons, elementals, humanoids, giants, etc.

Not to mention all the goodness with chain contingency, dropping 3x Abi Dalzim's horrid wilting or 3x lower resistance on first enemy sighted.

Killing asshole monsters off screen with ice storm and cloudkill. Playing fighter/thief with boots of speed, backstabbing and running to reapply stealth. Skull trap/glyph of warding bombs, Rogue trap bombs, or bounty hunter kit with traps that Maze or cast Otilukes Resilient Sphere. Two best tank classes in the game are fighter/druid and fighter/mage. Pick and pop with mage/thief, blowing up and separating enemies. Get a 25 str as a ranger/cleric dual wielding Crom Faeyr and the flail of the ages (bonus: while tanking and healing yourself by standing in lava at the fire giants stronghold with fire protection spells). Use summoned monsters(especially animate dead) to wear down enemies and be immune to their special attacks.

Thank you sir. I couldn't have said it better... i am playing BG2 right now and this is spot on, +tuconets.

Denaut · May 11, 2015

shabushabu_sl said:
You may have a case here with AD&D that BG ( and the level range ) was based on but the complexity increases incredibly when you get into BG2 or even better D&D 3.x.

Pillars of Eternity combat got very repetitive, baldurs gate 2 not even close. Countless encounters in bg2 that took different tactics and strategies, its mind blowing really how much depth is there. PoE not deep in my opinion. Also, non combat parts of the RPG game were glazed over in PoE, i didn't see things like spot, listen, alignment, etc.

That is the benefit of a large budget and an enormous amount of custom content. It doesn't reflect how good, or crappy, the underlying game systems are. PoE has stealth, detection, and alignment. There is no reason to have both spot and listen, you only need 1 "detect stuff" stat, any more are redundant unless it is heavily supported by the content, which it hasn't been in any D&D video game. The alignment system is extremely important if you play a paladin or priest in PoE.

D&D has the benefit of countless hours of playtime, deep lore, flushed out systems and most importantly a robust monster "database". Combinations of mobs in D&D present the challenge, when everything is damage, tank or CC as in PoE shit gets boring.

In D&D you have types of CC, types of damage that are way more impactful. undead vs living, elemental, pierce, crush, slash etc... all this was glazed over in PoE and it made the combat repetitive.

D&D has the benefit of more content, not better systems. The systems are still crap for a video game, extremely complex for the few decisions you actually get to make. PoE also had damage types and on the 2 higher difficulty setting they were easily as important as they are in D&D. PoE also has all the damage types you listed and those damage types are again even more important on the higher difficulty settings due to the way the game abuses damage reduction (which is another problem with the game I won't get into here).

Comletely disagree that D&D is not suited for video games, that is a pretty absurd statement from where i sit considering BG1, BG2, NwN, PlaneScape torment are 4 of the best RPGs ever... and they stand up against anything after all these years.

So what systems are better than D&D for a party based tactical combat game ? I have not seen it.

All of those games are goodin spite ofthe systems, not because of them. There are also tons of great RPGs that aren't D&D based. It was the well amount of well constructed non-combat content that made those games work, even in the places where the combat system worked it was still in spite of the underlying systems. As for better systems nearly any squad tactics game has better "squad tactics" systems than D&D does. Just off the top of my head XCom, Valkyria Chronicles, the Men at War games, the new Shadowrun (better but not great ), the Fire Emblem games, FFT, and so on.

Denaut · May 11, 2015

Urlithani_sl said:
Currently playing BG2 again as a Fighter/Mage/Thief.

BG2 had so many ways to win and lose fights. Lots of fights where tank and spank wasn't happening. Buffs and debuffs alone was a game. Globe of invulnerability, stoneskin, spell deflection, spell turning, protection from energy, spell immunity, improved invisibility, spell trap, shield of the archons, blade barrier, mirror image, etc.

And how did you get rid of those? With debuffs! Breach, secret word, spell thrust, True seeing, pierce magic, ruby ray of reversal, and khelben's warding whip to name a few.

Illithids? Chaotic commands, free action, and high intelligence before they suck out your brain!

Beholders? Well their anti magic eye can debuff you, so hope you have good saves if you don't have the shield of balduran.

Doesn't even count all the groups of monsters that are undead, dragons, demons, elementals, humanoids, giants, etc.

Not to mention all the goodness with chain contingency, dropping 3x Abi Dalzim's horrid wilting or 3x lower resistance on first enemy sighted.

Killing asshole monsters off screen with ice storm and cloudkill. Playing fighter/thief with boots of speed, backstabbing and running to reapply stealth. Skull trap/glyph of warding bombs, Rogue trap bombs, or bounty hunter kit with traps that Maze or cast Otilukes Resilient Sphere. Two best tank classes in the game are fighter/druid and fighter/mage. Pick and pop with mage/thief, blowing up and separating enemies. Get a 25 str as a ranger/cleric dual wielding Crom Faeyr and the flail of the ages (bonus: while tanking and healing yourself by standing in lava at the fire giants stronghold with fire protection spells). Use summoned monsters(especially animate dead) to wear down enemies and be immune to their special attacks.

I haven't played Pillars yet so it would be unfair for me to bash it; I will play it someday. Anyone that thinks the infinity engine games were all vanilla encounters might want to consider playing them again.

Edit: I'm hoping that PoE2 will build on the first, just like BG2 was waaaay superior to BG1.

I said this above, but it holds true here as well, the systems underlying the math behind everything you do is terrible, as is the progression system where you pretty much just click more buttons with the occasional cross-road that actually matters. Dual wielding for example, there are 5? 6? (I lose track) feats for dual wielding in NWN2. You take all of them or none of them, making every feat but the first one utterly redundant and pointless, only there as filler for the system.

Most of your post isn't really describing good game systems, mostly just different ways to stack stats for tank & spank, not think about and execute interesting battles. Stacking +strength via buffs rather than equipment or whatever doesn't actually change the decisions you make or the way you approach an encounter, it just makes you click more. The same is true for debuffs, which are mostly just simple stats modifiers that only affect the tank & spank.

Eventually there is a more interesting sub-game in spell-caster dueling emerges towards the end. This, once again, is in spite of the systems, not because of them. By 7th or so spell level (don't remember exactly which) content has piled up enough where you can actually make a few in-combat decisions that are interesting and matter. Of course those decisions still depend heavily on whether or not you gimped your Mage in the first place where your biggest decision is which spell school you are going to stack spell pen on, which like dual wielding is deciding once which school and then stacking a whole mess of feats that are utterly redundant.

Those Wizard duels can be interesting, but they also aren't the majority of encounters by a long shot and mostly occur later on. They also require a specific class out of dozen or so. A good system would be challenging and interesting from the beginning, and not rely on the weight of high level content to finally push over that edge. It sounds to me like BG would have better combat if it were almost purely a spell combat game.

shabushabu · May 12, 2015

Denaut_sl said:
I said this above, but it holds true here as well, the systems underlying the math behind everything you do is terrible, as is the progression system where you pretty much just click more buttons with the occasional cross-road that actually matters. Dual wielding for example, there are 5? 6? (I lose track) feats for dual wielding in NWN2. You take all of them or none of them, making every feat but the first one utterly redundant and pointless, only there as filler for the system.

Most of your post isn't really describing good game systems, mostly just different ways to stack stats for tank & spank, not think about and execute interesting battles. Stacking +strength via buffs rather than equipment or whatever doesn't actually change the decisions you make or the way you approach an encounter, it just makes you click more. The same is true for debuffs, which are mostly just simple stats modifiers that only affect the tank & spank.

Eventually there is a more interesting sub-game in spell-caster dueling emerges towards the end. This, once again, is in spite of the systems, not because of them. By 7th or so spell level (don't remember exactly which) content has piled up enough where you can actually make a few in-combat decisions that are interesting and matter. Of course those decisions still depend heavily on whether or not you gimped your Mage in the first place where your biggest decision is which spell school you are going to stack spell pen on, which like dual wielding is deciding once which school and then stacking a whole mess of feats that are utterly redundant.

Those Wizard duels can be interesting, but they also aren't the majority of encounters by a long shot and mostly occur later on. They also require a specific class out of dozen or so. A good system would be challenging and interesting from the beginning, and not rely on the weight of high level content to finally push over that edge. It sounds to me like BG would have better combat if it were almost purely a spell combat game.

I think i would better understand your points if you described the system you like, is there something out there you are thinking about or ?

Denaut · May 12, 2015

radditsu_sl said:
As stated earlier NWN2 was the best class system ever invented but had to be attached to the worst engines ever made. The game was saved by its depth...and only if you never touch the main campaign. Pillars is a good first try. Pillars I compare to a non modded BG1.

I think I am going to give Tomb of elemental evil a try again....its just so clunky and ugly.

I would say NWN2 is the best implementation of D&D systems in a video game, but that is sort of damning with faint praise. I'm pretty much a straight up J.E. Sawyer fanboi, but my conclusion about the game is the same as it is for pillars of eternity, it is probably the best possible version but is held back primarily from its PnP roots. It has interesting stuff in it, but the system is still bogged down by the layers of D&D bloat the obfuscates the few interesting choices you actually get to make.

You can see it just by looking at builds on NWN2db. Here is a popular "Necromancer" build,A Necromancer Build | NWN2DB. In 30 levels of feats, stats, and multi-classing only maybe 2 decisions have been made the entire time. You chose to be a spellcaster at the start, and you then choose to specialize in necromatic magic; the rest is just a very convoluted way of stacking damage. This is not a good system.

The DnD system further complicates things because the order in which you choose feats or multi-classing can make or break a build. What you do at level 2 can drastically affect what happens at level 30, which sounds great on the surface except that you know nothing about the level 30 game at level 2. For some builds you have to know everything about the build before even clicking create character. That is not a good system, especially for an RPG where you should grow into a build through playing the game and the decisions you make while doing so.

I am not saying there is nothing to like about this or any of the DnD systems or games, after all I've dumped what must be thousands of hours into them, but for me it has become plain as day how much better they could be executed if we just let go to this attachment to how we think an RPG must "look" on the surface and really focused in on the core game-play. A game system could easily contain all the meaningful depth found in NWN2 character building, and it could do it at a fraction of the complexity while letting players grow into their chosen roles organically instead of needing to pour over a calculator on some website.

Denaut · May 12, 2015

shabushabu_sl said:
I think i would better understand your points if you described the system you like, is there something out there you are thinking about or ?

Sure, that makes sense. Although a turn-based Sci-Fi game with guns (and not perfect), I think the new XCom is a good example of what Fantasy RPGs can do in the core combat department. The new Shadowrun sort of went in that direction but didn't really execute like it could have, and I couldn't help but think the entire time that I'd rather be playing XCom. So, if you want an example of where I think these games could go I could probably distill it down to ShadowCom

I have actually designed (but not built) a tactics game. We haven't made it because 1. We don't really have any free resources right now and 2. We aren't sure it would sell. The basic ideas behind the system would work for an RPG as well, but that entails even more risk since those kinds of games are content heavy and expensive.

Perhaps that is why I am so critical of them, because I have a better working version in my head. This makes the flaws stand out all the more.

Urlithani · May 12, 2015

Denaut, I don't disagree that the system is bad. Infinity engine games are the only thing involving 2nd ed D&D that I would still touch. I think I was mostly having an argument with myself comparing the variety of fights that take place since that came up at some point a number of posts ago.

I do like NWN2 and played the hell out of 3.5 and now Pathfinder. I can't really say much more since I haven't put much thought into game systems other than how they overcame those flaws to make a great game.

shabushabu · May 12, 2015

Denaut_sl said:
Sure, that makes sense. Although a turn-based Sci-Fi game with guns (and not perfect), I think the new XCom is a good example of what Fantasy RPGs can do in the core combat department. The new Shadowrun sort of went in that direction but didn't really execute like it could have, and I couldn't help but think the entire time that I'd rather be playing XCom. So, if you want an example of where I think these games could go I could probably distill it down to ShadowCom

I have actually designed (but not built) a tactics game. We haven't made it because 1. We don't really have any free resources right now and 2. We aren't sure it would sell. The basic ideas behind the system would work for an RPG as well, but that entails even more risk since those kinds of games are content heavy and expensive.

Perhaps that is why I am so critical of them, because I have a better working version in my head. This makes the flaws stand out all the more.

What do you think of Divinity Original sin, seems that is more around what you are talking about.

Frenzied Wombat · May 12, 2015

Divinity Original Sin was held back by:

1) Pixel hunt puzzles. Tiny triggers hidden in an already graphically noisy environment =lame frustration
2) Overdone weather effect interactions. It was just too much, and was very difficult to tell the actual borders of water/oil on the ground causing you to frequently walk into them
3) Crappy end-game spells
4) Shitty inventory system with even worse item icons. Also, since everything could be picked up, the game was just flooded with useless junk.
5) Boring, mostly PG-13 storyline and writing

#4 was probably the most significant. Quality writing/story makes a game for me. It's what made Planescape amazing, and Wasteland II GOTY material for me. Divinity's writing/story simply didn't draw me in..

shabushabu · May 12, 2015

Frenzied Wombat_sl said:
Divinity Original Sin was held back by:

1) Pixel hunt puzzles. Tiny triggers hidden in an already graphically noisy environment =lame frustration
2) Overdone weather effect interactions. It was just too much, and was very difficult to tell the actual borders of water/oil on the ground causing you to frequently walk into them
3) Crappy end-game spells
4) Shitty inventory system with even worse item icons. Also, since everything could be picked up, the game was just flooded with useless junk.
5) Boring, mostly PG-13 storyline and writing

#4 was probably the most significant. Quality writing/story makes a game for me. It's what made Planescape amazing, and Wasteland II GOTY material for me. Divinity's writing/story simply didn't draw me in..

Divinity from 1-6 was pretty damn good ( in that first town ) it then seemed to drop off from there and again, combat got very repetitive compared to a BG2.

Denaut · May 13, 2015

Thanks for the great discussion. I haven't played Divinity, but I have heard about it. A colleague played it, enjoyed it, but lamented how easy it was to build overpowered/unkillable characters. I'll probably still give it a try when it goes on sale.

I want to stress that I still love all of these games despite my complaints.

Believe it or not I am currently working with someone that was a designer on Baldur's Gate. We chatted about this very subject and agreed with me

Just though that was a fun cool story bro.

shabushabu · May 13, 2015

Denaut_sl said:
Thanks for the great discussion. I haven't played Divinity, but I have heard about it. A colleague played it, enjoyed it, but lamented how easy it was to build overpowered/unkillable characters. I'll probably still give it a try when it goes on sale.

I want to stress that I still love all of these games despite my complaints.

Believe it or not I am currently working with someone that was a designer on Baldur's Gate. We chatted about this very subject and agreed with me

Just though that was a fun cool story bro.

Cool. The key from my perspective is whatever the system, you have to have encounters that cause you to have to USE everything in the system. And one thing that PoE did well that D&D does well is abilities you get a level 1 are useful throughout the game.. complexity keeps getting added but you can still use web effectively for example and sleep etc.

You are correct about Divinity there was too much of "every character can do everything" there, but i thought they were pretty close. I definitely recommend it. Divinity was better looking than PoE too.

Frenzied Wombat · Jun 22, 2015

So, finally getting around to sinking my teeth into this game, and boy do I feel lost. A lot of things feel counterintuitive, particularly when it comes to character builds and mechanics. For instance, a guide I'm reading is telling me that my Tank Pally should have 4 CON/DEX and to max out might, int, and resolve? Huh?

1) Anybody have a good resource that explains the mechanics? Like why I would want to give my Pally 4 CON? (something about deflect being better than endurance)
2) What's the deal with Armor? When is it better to be nekkid vs wearing plate?
3) What's the story with guns vs bows?
4) Are all dialogue interactions forced against my main character or can you choose someone else?

Liking it so far, but I just feel kinda lost and feel I'm making bad choices when levelling up.

Lemmiwinks_sl · Jun 22, 2015

Short answers:

1) I think people go over board with min-maxing the stats, its not necessary to beat/dominate the game. On the Path of the Damned setting, youll need to min max more. IIRC pumping CON doesnt really give you that much more HP, so its better to sacrifice a tad bit of HP in the name of reducing the number of crits you may receive through pumping deflection. Its the whole idea of "better not to be hit, than to be hit and have high HP" type of thing.

2) Only put heavy armors on your front liners who will/should be tanking. Heavy armor makes you attack slower, so a lot of people make their ranged characters naked or have very light armor, so they attack quickly. Armor not only reduces incoming damage, but slows you down as well.

3) Guns are better at piercing high-armor targets, but are much slower. Bows are weaker but attack quicker. Theres some armor threshold where its better to use guns than bows. Guns are thought to be OP.

4) Main character

Balroc · Jun 23, 2015

The game was a lot more fun playing solo (without a party) for some reason.

Pillars of Eternity, Obsidian's new CRPG in the vein of Baldur's Gate

Silver Knight of the Realm

Trump's Staff

Molten Core Raider

Vyemm Raider

Silver Knight of the Realm

Molten Core Raider

Trump's Staff

Trump's Staff

Molten Core Raider

Trump's Staff

Trump's Staff

Vyemm Raider

Molten Core Raider

Potato del Grande

Molten Core Raider

Trump's Staff

Molten Core Raider

Potato del Grande

shitlord

Molten Core Raider