Eternity Pillars of Eternity + The White March Expansion Thread

I think in this case, as it's more a "promotion for PoE II" pack, this may even be Paradox's wish.

 

'tis a meme, newbie

 

Paradox isn't involved in Deadfire.

 

That's how much I pay attention.

 

I think I've figured out the problem here. Lacrymas, have you ever played a Gold Box game like Pool of Radiance? Where you actually have to roll your characters? I believe that your experience with Baldur's Gate: EE and Baldur's Gate 2:EE has tainted your perception of AD&D rules. Afterall, in Baldur's Gate:EE, you're just rolling for the highest bonus total, dump CHA and max everything else. But play the ruleset with the gold box games where you can't choose to dump a stat, and you'll see that there is a huge difference between a character with 2-3 extremely high stats but also with some bad low rolls, and a character with only 1 extreme stat but no large weaknesses.

And instead of judging 2.5/3E on NWN, try ToEE instead. You'll definitely roll characters you like to keep but if you do they wont be able to get Expertise since their 4th highest roll is an 11.

But the point is, flawed as AD&D and 2.5/3E rule set are compared to a well-designed rule set like AoD, at least attributes matter, quite a lot.

They don't really matter in Pillars.

Imagine were Pillars a rolled system instead of a point-buy system. Would you really care about the difference between 16 and 17 MIGHT, or would you care about rolling characters with the highest total? Would you keep a 16/16/16/15/12/10 (85 points total) or a 18/17/14/12/8/5 (70 points total)? In Pillars, it doesn't matter, the first character will always be better than the second. But in ToEE, the first character is junk while the 2nd character has some potential. That's what I mean by Pillars is a stupid rule system where attribute (distribution) doesn't make a significant tactical difference.

AoD is also a point-buy system, but AoD has thresholds. 10, 9, 8, 7 and 4 (dump) are each significant thresholds in the game. Even a linearly scaling attribute like Strength each point makes a huge difference due to how the weapon and armor system works.

 

BG has a weird mix of rolling and point-buy system in general, not only the EEs, no idea where that is coming from. We aren't comparing rolling stats to a point-buy system, both the IE games and PoE are point-buys (in a sense) so it's irrelevant. Yes, if PoE had rolling stats then a lot of combinations would be viable, that means all the attributes are valuable. Of course an 18/18/18/3/3/3 fighter, even with its meager total roll is going to be better than a 16/15/17/10/14/18 rolled one, there is no contest here and that's what me and Parabalus are arguing. There is no choice here, you pick the objectively better one, which is always obvious and the same. If your argument is that in PoE a higher roll is always preferable to a lower one, yes, because all stats do something valuable. So what? There's a lot of tactical difference between a 18 MIG damage dealer Wizard and a 18 INT controller Wizard in PoE. There is no difference between mages in the BG series, in terms of attributes, let alone sorcerers.

 

Am I crazy or do load times feel faster now with the definitive edition?

 

The load times get worse the more you progress through the game.

 

The tactical difference between a damage Wizard and a "controller" (lol) Wizard in Pillars is their spellbooks, not their stats. The difference between an 18 INT controller Wizard and a 10 INT controller Wizard is tactically insignificant. That's the problem.

Try playing Pillars with a Wizard that dumps both Might and Int. You'll find that it isn't significantly more difficult and not very different from a Wizard with maxed Might and Int. That's the point I've been trying to make. Yes, a Wizard with 18 INT deals about twice as much damage as a Wizard with 3 INT on paper, but when you factor in the damage cap, how OP spells are and how retarded the AI is in the first place it really wont matter. Neither a Min/ Maxed Wizard PC nor a dumped Wizard PC is going to be significantly different than Aloth. Any "significant" difference you feel is illusory, like a placebo effect.

 

To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Pillars of Eternity. The balance is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of systems design most of the development decisions will go over a typical player’s head. There’s also game’s nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into its characterisation- game's philosophy draws heavily from Narodnaya Volya literature, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these attributes, to realise that they’re not just well-tuned- they say something deep about CHARACTER PROGRESSION. As a consequence people who dislike Pillars of Eternity truly AREidiots- of course they wouldn’t appreciate, for instance, the impact in Pillar’s linear curve “Incremental Increase,” which itself is a cryptic reference to Turgenev’s Russian epic Fathers and Sons. I’m smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Josh Sawyer’s genius wit unfolds itself on their computer screens. What fools.. how I pity them.

 

This is a ridiculous argument, as the system is clearly designed as a point-buy system.

 

I just had an epiphany about Pillars' rule set.

It tries to be like BG2:EE by having 6 attributes, but Diablo only uses 3.

 

Diablo only uses 2. Main and Vitality. There are 3 different main, but they do the same shit.
Get your facts straight.

 

When was this ever in doubt, JS said so himself on numerous occasions.

Also, I'm confused as to why you felt the need to put EE as your example

 

I was going to comment, but I see no one is capable of taking PoE's base stats seriously.

Long story short - when one guy says attributes don't matter and another says they do, make sure you are talking about the same difficulty level of the game.

 

Another confounding factor could be wildly different expectations of what "attributes mattering" actually constitutes, both in magnitude and weighting of the different areas that they effect.

 

Should i go for full party creation if it's first time i'm playing with WM?

 

I suggest you create your own party indeed. It'll be way more effective as your guys will have nice synergies and you'll avoid potential disapointment due to the new companions.

 

It's a matter of taste. I personally wouldn't suggest going without companions on first playthrough

 

The standard companions are perfectly suited for the job. They have some weaknesses, but are more then capable of holding their own. And they do add some flavor as well. Go with the standard companions IMO.

 

I mean - i want wizard and cleric, but not Aloth or Durance. First bored me to death and second not that boring, but still talks too damn much.
Also Aloth is elf. Male elf. i will not suffer such abomination in my party twice.

So if i get two adventurers, maybe i should go all the way.

 

Use companions, they cover all classes nicely with some of them having unique abilities. If you make 6 optimised chars the game will be a cakewalk.

 

Why would i do this? In my party no one have less than 10 in any stat. It's rpg game and i roll playing it.

 

Use Zahua, he's got good dialogue and his stats aren't hideous. I like Devil Of Caroc but she's not much use in combat, and Maneha is fine in combat but her dialogue and voice acting are grating.