Eternity Pillars of Eternity + The White March Expansion Thread

[mediocrepoet]

It's amusing that the most common advice to enjoy the game is to discourage someone from interacting too deeply with most of the systems or aspects of the game. As in this thread, don't obsess about building a character, don't talk to npcs, don't read text, don't bother with the stats, don't bother with the companions, don't bother with the stronghold, don't bother with the reputation system, absolutely don't talk to any backer npcs and so on. It really stands as a monument to Josh Sawyers failed design decisions that you're encouraged to interact with his systems in onley the most superficial ways possible.

Just eat the slop. Don't ask any questions.

POE is basically a game with a few interesting thematic ideas buried underneath mediocre writing and an abortion of a system made by someone trying to make a better D&D without understanding why D&D was great in the first place. Sawyer's understanding of "fun" seems to be "something that humans enjoy".

 

[TedNugent]

Yeah, ok, I got it. Anyone else care to explain to me why PoE's combat (system) is bad?

It relies too much on outmuscling of enemy stats in a "gear check" type of grind and not enough on more finer rock-paper-scissor type of tactical decisions. It's a system designed and tuned around attrition. Particularly it doesn't mesh well with layers and layers of dogmatic streamlining that exists at every level from character creation to level up to combat itself, one or two of those layers would already make the system too much about gradients and not enough about outlines but all of it just makes it a vague mess. There is just too much of what one can call "hack&slash" type of stacking of % modifiers to cross thresholds and less fundamental building blocks to navigate.

I wouldn't call it bad personally but I think it gets carried by itemization which is excellent and probably the best in entire cRPG genre along with PoE2. It's also vastly improved by better encounter design, which is very good in white march and PoE2. However PoE2 has other problems with combat (particularly the overused "inspirations & afflictions" system) but that's another topic.

I think this was mostly lucid and spot on with the comments about gearchecks, but seriously, rock-paper-scissors is a dumb game.

Those types of mechanics are usually awful. Their only value is in facilitating where to employ your resources tactically for maximal effect. Mechanically they are shallow.

PoE does have that issue with breakpoints, but one of the ways to get there is to target Squishies and get your Squishies behind the meatwall. There is still a lot to be done in terms of positioning and target prioritization, it's just not based on something basic like swords beat axes, axes beat spears. Even though that still technically does exist, e.g. lightning attacks are more effective against plate, and lightning enchantments exist for weapons....but it's not a zero sum, and you can optionally counterbalance your weaknesses to an extent with talents or resistances.

Positioning is also definitely a factor in this game.

I would also say the single most effective spell in my toolkit is usually not "buff/malus X", but usually something like confusion, especially in dragon fights where there are a lot of adds that can be MCd or controlled to split the incoming damage and aggro load. I've had a lot of fights flip depending on my usage of confusion/domination.

 

[Roguey]

For instance, when i met Aloth i was able to prevent the peasants getting slaugheted by picking the options I thought were the bests. Out of curiosity i reloaded that save to see what the checks were and if i had to follow my disposition it would have led to violence, and then further play out of character by making a clever quip about slaughtering them.

So what you're saying is that you'd rather choose options that get you the outcome you want rather than role play a specific character.

I'd like to look into options to disable messages of that sort (skill checks, attribute checks, reputation gain and loss), but in practice I think many people will either a) not use them or b) use them only for immersion purposes and metagame around their absence.

One of the few things Josh was correct about.

 

[Lacrymas]

The most broken spells are the Cipher ones that change the allegiance of the enemies. That is just too powerful, not only do you get rid of an enemy but that enemy also starts fighting for you. Charm was broken in D:OS1 too.

 

[TedNugent]

The most broken spells are the Cipher ones that change the allegiance of the enemies. That is just too powerful, not only do you get rid of an enemy but that enemy also starts fighting for you. Charm was broken in D:OS1 too.

Wizards can pretty regularly petrify/stun/confuse an entire mob or even an entire room at decent levels.

But I have no qualms about using it given the number of immunities to such effects that many mobs that can also dole them out with reckless abandon have. I did most of Od Nua at level 9-10 and had low will/fort saves and didn't have the immunity spells needed.

I was really just pointing out the idea that everything is about buff/debuff stacking until a breakpoint. When my wizard gets offed by an errant mob, that option goes away.

Usually the breakpoint for me is casting confusion or mass petrify and then focusing enemies one at a time to thin the herd. Surrounding them so that they get flanked debuff and focused ranged fire is pretty effective.

 

[FreeKaner]

I think this was mostly lucid and spot on with the comments about gearchecks, but seriously, rock-paper-scissors is a dumb game.

Those types of mechanics are usually awful. Their only value is in facilitating where to employ your resources tactically for maximal effect. Mechanically they are shallow.

PoE does have that issue with breakpoints, but one of the ways to get there is to target Squishies and get your Squishies behind the meatwall. There is still a lot to be done in terms of positioning and target prioritization, it's just not based on something basic like swords beat axes, axes beat spears. Even though that still technically does exist, e.g. lightning attacks are more effective against plate, and lightning enchantments exist for weapons....but it's not a zero sum, and you can optionally counterbalance your weaknesses to an extent with talents or resistances.

Positioning is also definitely a factor in this game.

I would also say the single most effective spell in my toolkit is usually not "buff/malus X", but usually something like confusion, especially in dragon fights where there are a lot of adds that can be MCd or controlled to split the incoming damage and aggro load. I've had a lot of fights flip depending on my usage of confusion/domination.

You don't want just a single type of modal approach, you want to set up fundamentals of both numeric and asymmetric relations then let the game have its natural and interconnected interactions take place. In effect, one should design the overlapping frameworks and let the interactions happen within that.

Sawyer is obsessed with result-oriented streamlining, not even for sake of developing gameplay but rather as a sort of dogmatic principle. You can see this most clearly in PoE2 in regards with "inspirations and afflictions" where abilities like Barbarian's "savage defiance" and Druid's "nature's balm" and cipher's "pain block" are all literally just the same buff, not even in practice it is the literal and exact "robust" buff. A clear overuse of the system.

I have said this before and I don't want to write an essay here but in short good balance isn't streamlining (indeed if you are streamlining then you are removing the need for balance in the first place) but rather asymmetry. Asymmetry is best achieved by adding unique interactions. Of course it shouldn't be just "rock-paper-scissors" but it shouldn't just be aggregate collection of addition and subtraction either.

 

[Orud]

It wouldn't surprise me if Sawyer is a big fan of D&D 4.0.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

What exactly is bad about PoE's combat?

It really depends on which class you picked. For most of them:
Too many abilities that just do damage, not enough abilities that can be used strategically, very little if any team support abilities.

Then compare them to cipher and chanter which are much more fleshed out and interesting.

 

[Lyric Suite]

For instance, when i met Aloth i was able to prevent the peasants getting slaugheted by picking the options I thought were the bests. Out of curiosity i reloaded that save to see what the checks were and if i had to follow my disposition it would have led to violence, and then further play out of character by making a clever quip about slaughtering them.

So what you're saying is that you'd rather choose options that get you the outcome you want rather than role play a specific character.

Just because the Darcozzi are supposed to be passionate and clever doesn't mean i have to invariably pick those options every single time like an automaton. In that encounter, there were two passionate checks. I picked the first one, but the second one was obviously a trap. I may be passionate, but i'm not supposed to be stupid. The text made it clear Aloth was egging the peasants to have an excuse to kill them and my character was smart enough to see that, literally as i had to pass an intelligence check to get to the correct option.

 

[Grunker]

It wouldn't surprise me if Sawyer is a big fan of D&D 4.0.

That's no secret. He's said so many times and affirmed that it was a big inspiration for PoE's system.

 

[Lacrymas]

I think this was mostly lucid and spot on with the comments about gearchecks, but seriously, rock-paper-scissors is a dumb game.

Those types of mechanics are usually awful. Their only value is in facilitating where to employ your resources tactically for maximal effect. Mechanically they are shallow.

PoE does have that issue with breakpoints, but one of the ways to get there is to target Squishies and get your Squishies behind the meatwall. There is still a lot to be done in terms of positioning and target prioritization, it's just not based on something basic like swords beat axes, axes beat spears. Even though that still technically does exist, e.g. lightning attacks are more effective against plate, and lightning enchantments exist for weapons....but it's not a zero sum, and you can optionally counterbalance your weaknesses to an extent with talents or resistances.

Positioning is also definitely a factor in this game.

I would also say the single most effective spell in my toolkit is usually not "buff/malus X", but usually something like confusion, especially in dragon fights where there are a lot of adds that can be MCd or controlled to split the incoming damage and aggro load. I've had a lot of fights flip depending on my usage of confusion/domination.

You don't want just a single type of modal approach, you want to set up fundamentals of both numeric and asymmetric relations then let the game have its natural and interconnected interactions take place. In effect, one should design the overlapping frameworks and let the interactions happen within that.

Sawyer is obsessed with result-oriented streamlining, not even for sake of developing gameplay but rather as a sort of dogmatic principle. You can see this most clearly in PoE2 in regards with "inspirations and afflictions" where abilities like Barbarian's "savage defiance" and Druid's "nature's balm" and cipher's "pain block" are all literally just the same buff, not even in practice it is the literal and exact "robust" buff. A clear overuse of the system.

I have said this before and I don't want to write an essay here but in short good balance isn't streamlining (indeed if you are streamlining then you are removing the need for balance in the first place) but rather asymmetry. Asymmetry is best achieved by adding unique interactions. Of course it shouldn't be just "rock-paper-scissors" but it shouldn't just be aggregate collection of addition and subtraction either.

I've said in the past that this "every class has to be able to fill every role" thing PoE has going on is the catalyst for all of its other systemic problems. It creates symmetrical balance between classes (and weapons as we've come to know), which is the last thing you want in a class-based ruleset. It's obvious Sawyer wanted to make a classless system and felt constricted by the premise. There is a reason why cross-class talents are one of the best things you can pick up and everyone goes for sneak attack-lite and barbaric rage-lite. However, this still isn't the combat system, it's just the window dressing. If I were put at gun point and forced to explain PoE's combat problems, I'd say the first and most problematic thing is the chaotic distribution of actions through time -

People are too fixated on the 6 seconds, while how long the round is is unimportant, as long as it's something humanly manageable and perceptible when dealing with 5 or 6 PCs. The important part is that it's manageable and consistent throughout the game. The combat is then structured for the developers as well, when they know you can't cast more than 1 spell every 3 seconds (f.e.) they have a much more workable time-frame around which to balance everything. The only gimmick mobs in P1 had was trying to frontload their entire repertoire in the first second of combat and then spam stuns (Lagufaeth, Banshees, Adragans) to try to control how many actions you perform because they can't keep up otherwise. That's why Prayers were so overpowered, they nullified the mobs' only gimmick. That was the entire game, no mob in the entirety of the game tried to whittle you down with well-placed abilities, with maybe the possible exception of Concelhault with his Crushing Doom.

Like AwesomeButton said, it feels and is all improvised on the spot, it's disjointed and unclear, even for the devs themselves (who can't play the game on PotD). It needs strict rules on how to manage combat through time, so you have a strong foundation on which to build up, otherwise you get P1's clusterfuck.

A second aspect I can name is indeed the over-dependence on the interactions between abilities and defenses, the whole combat is you trying to manipulate your opponents' defenses in some way. Which means that you can comfortably find a tactic that manipulates and exploits one defense and use that over and over. If you find a mob that has a super high value in your chosen defense, it would barely register throughout the whole game even if it was 25% of mobs (which it isn't). Don't get me started on Penetration in PoE2, the worst idea Josh has ever had.

 

[Lyric Suite]

Ok where's that mod that removes the backer NPCs lmao.

I read about an half a dozen and this is beyond pointless. I can't even provide any entertainment in this thread by recounting how horrifying they are the ones i read were just boring and i'm not going waste time reading tons of pointless text every few inches i walk. The game is already text heavy as it is.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

Ok where's that mod that removes the backer NPCs lmao.

I read about an half a dozen and this is beyond pointless. I can't even provide any entertainment in this thread by recounting how horrifying they ones they are just boring.

Just ignore them paisan

 

[Lacrymas]

the ones i read were just boring

Base game's writing is aggressively boring and trivial.

 

[Nano]

The most broken spells are the Cipher ones that change the allegiance of the enemies. That is just too powerful, not only do you get rid of an enemy but that enemy also starts fighting for you. Charm was broken in D:OS1 too.

What the fuck is it with people having a hate boner for Charm spells in games? For combat purposes they're really not that different from summoning spells, yet you don't see anyone arguing that Conjuration spells should be nerfed to uselessness. So what gives?

 

[Lacrymas]

What the fuck is it with people having a hate boner for Charm spells in games? For combat purposes they're really not that different from summoning spells, yet you don't see anyone arguing that Conjuration spells should be nerfed to uselessness. So what gives?

Except they are different than summoning spells. It's as if the summoning spell incapacitated one enemy for the entire duration of the summon. Not only that, but if the enemies attack the summon, their incapacitated ally dies instead.

 

[NJClaw]

The most broken spells are the Cipher ones that change the allegiance of the enemies. That is just too powerful, not only do you get rid of an enemy but that enemy also starts fighting for you. Charm was broken in D:OS1 too.

What the fuck is it with people having a hate boner for Charm spells in games? For combat purposes they're really not that different from summoning spells, yet you don't see anyone arguing that Conjuration spells should be nerfed to uselessness. So what gives?

Personally, I hate domination effects in PoE not because they're too strong or anything, but because they mark enemies as allies and then you risk affecting them with your buffs and can't hit them with the yellow area of your spells. Seeing an enemy benefit from my Radiance or Moonwell drives me crazy.

 

[pomenitul]

I'll take this over the conspicuous lack of post-level 5 enchantment spells for mages in BG2. Charm is supposed to be a powerful ability.

 

[Lacrymas]

There is a fine line between powerful and overpowered. Charm has two legs firmly in the latter category.

 

[pomenitul]

So you're saying PoE's mechanics would benefit from being more balanced? I can get behind that.

 

[dacencora]

“Fellas, in chess, the queen is grossly overpowered. Seriously? She can move diagonally and laterally? This just ruins the balance of the game entirely. The queen is so much more powerful than any other piece. Chess would be better if the queen was less powerful and if each piece was more equal in power.”

 

[Lacrymas]

So you're saying PoE's mechanics would benefit from being more balanced? I can get behind that.

I wasn't talking specifically about PoE, but yes. PoE is far from balanced in the first place.

 

[Lyric Suite]

The most broken spells are the Cipher ones that change the allegiance of the enemies. That is just too powerful, not only do you get rid of an enemy but that enemy also starts fighting for you. Charm was broken in D:OS1 too.

What the fuck is it with people having a hate boner for Charm spells in games? For combat purposes they're really not that different from summoning spells, yet you don't see anyone arguing that Conjuration spells should be nerfed to uselessness. So what gives?

Personally, I hate domination effects in PoE not because they're too strong or anything, but because they mark enemies as allies and then you risk affecting them with your buffs and can't hit them with the yellow area of your spells. Seeing an enemy benefit from my Radiance or Moonwell drives me crazy.

I don't know, that seems kinda cool to me. After all, it makes sense.

To me, the biggest problem of D&D was always in the implementation. There are lot of situational possibilities inherent in the various spells that were never and in many cases could not have been implemented in the various cRPGs we got through out the years.

With Pillars it seems that they didn't even try bothering. What would have been an improvement over the IE games is not "balance" but actually allow some of the roleplay possibilities inherent in those spells. It doesn't always have to be about combat. Hell, some of the quality of life stuff they added in the game could have been tied to spells.

To me, that would have really been the "next" big step, not this MMO balance shit. Try to implement some of the unique possibilites found in PnP that were never implemented in computer RPGs before.

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

Charm is just boring to use.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

With Pillars it seems that they didn't even try bothering. What would have been an improvement over the IE games is not "balance" but actually allow some of the roleplay possibilities inherent in those spells. It doesn't always have to be about combat. Hell, some of the quality of life stuff they added in the game could have been tied to spells.

One of pillows biggest issues for me is how boring and uninspired the magic is. It really damages the setting.
Rather than trying to improve an area where cRPGs failed, Sawyer just went in the complete opposite direction.

I hate how boring magic is in these games. It's barely above "at least you tried" level, restricted entirely to hindering enemies and helping allies.
It's only fair to directly compare it to AD&D as the entire purpose was to create a ruleset designed for cRPGs instead of tabletop, yet Sawyer completely failed. Sawyer is good at identifying problems, but pretty shit at fixing them.

Pull up a list of AD&D 2E spells including splatbooks, there's hundreds of different spells.
In a way, AD&D spells were created the same way a theoretical world with actual magical studies would be created. There are many, many authors and not every spell is meant to be -- on some level -- equivalent to others of the same tier. Many spells are completely situational, which makes sense as wizards would create spells for their specific purposes and perhaps teach them to wizards who study under them.

This is, I assume, a mostly complete list of spells for AD&D 2E: https://regalgoblins.com/spells.php
It includes PHB, splatbooks, UA, and his own homebrew spells -- sources for which are on the card itself.
There are probably more level 1 spells listed than there are spells in pillows entirely.

Picking a random level 1 spell

Patternweave

Patternweave allows the caster to make sense of apparent chaos. The caster can see such things as pottery shards reformed into a whole pot, shreds of paper formed into a page, scattered parts as a working machine, or specific trails appearing out of overlapping footprints.

After casting the spell, the mage studies seemingly random elements-broken bits of glass, shreds of paper, intermingled trails, etc. The items to be studied must be tangible-coded flashing lights, garbled speech, or thoughts of any kind cannot be studied.
The wizard must study the random elements for one round, after which the DM secretly makes a saving throw vs. spell for the wizard. If the saving throw is failed, the spell fails. However, if the saving throw is successful, the caster sees in his mind the pattern these objects form. If the items studied are truly random, no information is gained.

After the caster has visualized the pattern, he can attempt to reassemble the parts into their original form. This requires another saving throw vs. spell to determine whether the mage remembers sufficient details to accomplish the task. The amount of time required and the quality of restoration vary according to the complexity of the pattern. Reassembling a shredded map may be easy; reassembling a broken clock is significantly more difficult; rebuilding a shattered mosaic is extremely difficult. In any case, the wizard can make only a reasonable copy of the item. He can use this spell to restore works of art, but they will be worth only a small percentage of their original value.

This is an interesting spell. It is incredibly situational, yet could easily have many uses throughout basically any campaign you can think of.
PoE has nothing like this because magic is focused entirely -- and only -- on combat. How silly, do wizards do nothing but fight? They don't research, travel, cook food, grow plants, etc?

Ironically, one of the major issues with pillows is that it has no soul.

--
To be entirely fair, white march saw some usage of spells(and magical items) in dialogue/text encounters. I remember being able to use Eder's shield to put out flames because it was enchanted to be able to cast some frost spell.