Bug while being stunned?

[Turtle]

Oh, and 20 Concentration. I haven't raised that attribute a single point since I started the game.

Concentration is awesome for archers. Besides boosting your To-Hit and Damage, it raises your carrying capacity, so you don't have to bother with Strength.

[Evnissyen]

In my experience, though, Dex has seemed to give more benefit per 2/3 points, whereas Concentration requires 5 points to make a difference.

(Admittedly, though, while Concentration+3 does nothing, Concentration+5 adds +3 to both your To Hit score and your Max Damage score. (I'm currently wearing an amulet to give me 5 extra Con, so that's easy to check.) More difficult to check on the equivalent for Dexterity (maybe the new wiki will say something), since every time I level up I raise not only Dex but also Bows.)

Can someone give me/us the comparison between Dex benefits per point and Concentration benefits per 5 points?)

(I'm looking at you, Kreador, Jedi, Randomizer and Dragonlady... probably others I haven't identified. )

(O.... I wish I were a Tester, hurray, hurray . . . too late, now.)

(Admittedly, I wanted to do the PC testing . . . I wanted (selfishly, I guess, but also because, like I've said before, Eschalon means so much to me) to have a greater say in the mechanics and quest functions, and to be what everybody derogatorily calls a "grammar troll")

(We have a function, dammit! We demand respect!)

[IJBall]

Can someone give me/us the comparison between Dex benefits per point and Concentration benefits per 5 points?)

(I'm looking at you, Kreador, Jedi, Randomizer and Dragonlady... probably others I haven't identified. )

The closest thing you'll get is probably this.

[KillingMoon]

I don't know how a melee fighter fairs against a borehead once unstunned, but I can tell you that for a Ranger with Skill Focus and combat mode set to Power, it's not very difficult at all, it only takes two shots . . . and this is easy to accomplish since they move so slowly.

Nothing compares to the Ranger's focus feat in terms of pure damage.
Even if you're focusing your character build completely on wielding steel, if at some moment in the game you decide it's probably nicer to use that Warmoth and you've got the money to pay Hunter for 7 levels bow (7 + 3 = 10 = Focus Feat), you'll immediately find that those bow shots will become your highest damage shots.

A melee fighter will have an easier job against boreheads with some protective clothing to wear. I've until now used Divination Magick as support, and if you have armour plus Cats Eyes and Leather Skin, then the odds for the boreheads are going down very, very rapidly.
I guess a Ranger can take them on earlier, though, but just has to be careful to keep enough distance.

[Kreador Freeaxe]

A careful ranger can use the terrain to be able to fire on the boreheads from a position where they can't attack back. Then, even when you're stunned you can't get hurt. Despite the fact that they've clearly destroyed walls and large swaths of forest, they can't get past a couple barrels while you're fighting them.

[Evnissyen]

Kreador:
At this point, having just reached level 12, I'm getting pretty damn powerful with the bow. It's almost unfair. It only takes a few steps to regain my Focus.

But, of course, I've invested heavily in Bows.

Probably time to shed some armor, methinks, to lower my encumbrance.

[Kreador Freeaxe]

Beyond level 35 in any of the weapons skills you're at a point of diminishing returns. You won't get the feat back any faster than once every 4 or 5 turns, so you're better off moving onto raising some other skills. At least, that's my feeling. You may want to get yourself a bit of elemental magic, because the Dense Nimbus spell will come in handy as a ranger when you get to the final regions in the game.

[Evnissyen]

Right now I'm at level 34 with Bows, but only because of my current amulet which adds +2 to bows.

Thanks for letting me know.

You know, Kreador... I asked this question some time ago about the point at which skill points started to give diminishing returns, and nobody answered me. Nobody. Was it you? Was it you? Damn you, Kreador!

Well... you've let me know in the knick of time, so to speak.

Now I can go raising other things.

I'm also wondering about diminishing returns with stats... Dexterity most of all.

If you don't answer me I'm going to hate you forever.

[Kreador Freeaxe]

Well, I don't do the hard math most of the time, but Dex provides three basic things to your character: Armor Rating, To-Hit, and Pick Locks. It also adds to damage done with bows. The To-hit benefit can pretty much be ignored if you're using the Focus Feat every time, and raising Dex is a lousy way to improve your lock-picking, all told, so the big benefit is in Armor Rating. Someone calculated that you need an AR of 89, I believe, to reduce every enemy's to-hit to 1%. That would take a WHOLE LOTTA Dex, so there's really no point at which you would get diminishing returns for that aspect. It's more a question of whether you need other things more. End game, there is a whole lot of heavy loot to lug around, so if you don't want to keep walking back and forth over and over, you'd want to increase Concentration and/or Strength at some point as well.

[Evnissyen]

Yeah, Strength is a thought. +3 Strength raises my carrying capacity 14 points, while +3 Dex (to 48) plus +3 Bows (to 42) gives me 0 on-paper benefits, with my bow in perfect condition.

However, I've chosen to raise my Wisdom, this level. That means I only need a +1 Wisdom hat to give me the ability to read my Lore scroll. Then all I need to do is add Divination points. My unidentifiable equipment, with 2 Lore, is piling up to an annoying degree. So... this seems much more valuable, at this point, than merely raising my carrying capacity by 14 points (which is not all that much, especially now that I've divested my character of her chest armor, belt and pants.

So, Medb is pantsless, now! Whee!

Good thing she's a girl.

Not that she actually looks like one. Actually, apart from the ponytail, she looks precisely like a man. Something for BW to fix in Book 3, hopefully?

[Rowanas]

So, Medb is pantsless, now! Whee!

Good thing she's a girl.

Not that she actually looks like one. Actually, apart from the ponytail, she looks precisely like a man. Something for BW to fix in Book 3, hopefully?

Over here pants are underwear, so your sentence about being pantsless and that it is a good thing she's a girl makes you sound like a raging pervert.

You'll be receiving your invitation to the Pervert Pride Parade in the post. Assuming you get post in the New World.

[Turtle]

Assuming you get post in the New World.

No, we get mail here.

Post is a maker of breakfast cereal.

Or something you stick a sign on.

Or this.

[Evnissyen]

You'll be receiving your invitation to the Pervert Pride Parade in the post. Assuming you get post in the New World.

Man . . . I don't know what nation you're posting from, but if it's not the U.S.A.or Europe: here in America there's very much a double-standard (and in western/northern Europe as well, to the limited degree that I've been able to observe) in regard to what's permissible for men's dress vs. what's permissible for women's dress. Dresses and skirts aside: it's highly normal for girls to walk around their home wearing only a shirt . . . underwear or not.


Okay, I know you're only joking. I just thought I'd defend myself on the 'pervert' thing. I'm sensitive.


I had a girlfriend once (she was the only girlfriend who was like this) who hated underwear. She wouldn't wear it even when she was wearing a skirt, and this was not for my benefit (she had other means of provoking me) because this was the case with her before we got together. Other girls I've known (friends only) occasionally would greet me at their door wearing only a shirt (although granted these were unannounced visits, ahem). So... this is normal, man.

But for a guy, this is viewed as not only unaccceptable but even perverse, which I personally feel is not right, but... that's our culture and we're forced to follow it.

So screw you, man!


I guess I only wanted to express where I'm coming from since I've posted stuff before that for the longest time I've had the feeling gave people the impression that EVNISSYEN IS A BIG RAGING PERVERT. I don't feel that I am.

More to the point: I think I'm only a pervert in the eyes of 'most Americans'. To explain: Once I went to college I quickly got completely over those hang-ups that most people have in regard to their own bodies. A decent number of people do this (though briefly), but I think it helps if you go to art school: it's always seemed to me that artists tend to get over body-consciousnesss far more easily than others; they quickly begin to see, as I did, that the human body is natural and that to fret over keeping it covered is simply ludicrous, and that nudity is simply the natural state of the human being . . . and unlike non-artists we tend much more often to stick to that perspective and attitude.

There are a number of reasons, after all, that painters and sculptors prefer depicting the nude body over the clothed body.

Myself, I painted clothed people as well as nude, because I felt that clothes were just as important in defining individuality as nudity was in expressing anonymity as well as -- more importantly -- the natural demonstration of humanity in general. In any particular painting or sculpture: it always depended on the subject matter and intention.


But the bottom line is: 'no pants' is 'normal' for girls in Western society, while it's not 'normal' for guys.


Girls? Back me up, here?


(But still, I admit I made that statement mostly for male-biased reasons. Of course, I don't think anyone would tease one of our female members for making the same statement regarding a male character she was playing.)

[Rowanas]

Wow, Evnissyen.

Sorry for any possible offence, but here in Britain, everyone wears underwear all the time (unless it's a special occasion or their wearing a dressing gown or naked).

Also, while I understand that you are NOT a raging pervert, I certainly am . If anyone that knows me had to put down three lines of text describing me, the last two and half of those would be to emphasise my licentious nature, while the first half a line would be to state it in the first place.

I don't see why people think that perversion is something to be defensive about. It's like being called a freak by a normal person; the very fact that they think you're unusual means that you're not normal, and normal people are very dull. If someone calls me a pervert, it just means that they think I devote more time to enjoying people, so to speak

P.S. Until a couple of days ago I thought you were a female. It's hard to tell and males don't often use avatars of ladies. Gender and the internet have nothing to do with each other. Words aren't typed differently if you're a bloke or a lady.

[Evnissyen]

Sorry for any possible offence

No, I knew you were joking, I thought it was funny and would've gone along with it except that, like I said, I have a feeling some people think I'm somewhat of a pervert, or at least a weirdo, and this tends to translate into something bad in most cases.

Therefore I had this irresistible desire to set straight any misconceptions about me.

Also, while I understand that you are NOT a raging pervert, I certainly am . If anyone that knows me had to put down three lines of text describing me, the last two and half of those would be to emphasize my licentious nature, while the first half a line would be to state it in the first place.

Awesome. I wholeheartedly approve, since I like 'perverts'.

(Especially girl perverts -- I've known a couple -- of which I suspect you're not one, however.)

I don't see why people think that perversion is something to be defensive about. It's like being called a freak by a normal person; the very fact that they think you're unusual means that you're not normal, and normal people are very dull.

#1 is true; #2 is true!

P.S. Until a couple of days ago I thought you were a female. It's hard to tell and males don't often use avatars of ladies. Gender and the internet have nothing to do with each other. Words aren't typed differently if you're a bloke or a lady.

Strange, I thought my avatar was pretty obviously male-looking. The reason I always use it and never change it is because it sort of looks like me, in a way, kind of, mostly I guess because of the long, black hair . . . but without the bloody bulls-eye on the forehead, which is sort of symbolic. It comes from a watercolor by Leonor Fini (who did not draw the bulls-eye); unfortunately I can't find the image any longer, oh well.



:That's me.


Admittedly I do usually play girls in RPG's -- when I'm offered a choice -- just because I like girls better than guys (girls're just simply more fun), and also prefer looking at a girl character, throughout the duration of a game, than a guy character, and also because I like the idea of cute girls kicking butt.

...But in Eschalon Book 2's case: the game sort of forced me to play a female. I wasn't going to, I started off with a male. But the game essentially, unofficially argues that Rangers should be female (one of the arguments I have with the game, but that argument goes back 2 years and I don't intend to get back into it), so... that's how it went.

I suppose it's a compliment, in a way, if I don't seem obviously male, but then again you're right: online it's often hard to tell a person's gender if there's nothing concrete to indicate otherwise (although I believe my profile says I'm male).